Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by bite, Oct 14, 2016.
Maybe there'll be an "Aggressive AI" option in the final game. That would be nice.
Aztec wonder spam, followed by an passive aggressive midgame and 200 turns of the AIs collectively hitting spacebar while tourists accrued.
Well, no. The release AI for both HoI4 and Stellaris were also really terrible. My first game of HoI I ended up giving up and invading Japan as Romania in 1950, because Russia wasn't capable of doing it, and it had been 8 years since we wiped out the Axis everywhere else.
HoI's got a cool dynamic map, and that is essentially it. Stellaris is just another bland-as-cardboard entry to the ever expanding list of indifferent space 4x games.
In the end they where just making fun of their own game. good luck russia defending with catapults. or making fun of weak cities the Ai settled
Looks like the game will need a few patches to fix some balance issues and to improve the AI.
I'm not too worried, but we'll see.
At least the vanilla game is solid in terms of features and mechanics.
..... and still, tons of people have played CIV5 for thousands of hours and loved it. That cannot be it.
Exploring different strategies with different civilizations, optimizing different paths to maximizing yields, finding effective beelines in the tech tree and many similar things are all fun and don't have anything to do with the AI.
As long as the AI is there and forces me to adept my strategy every now and then, I can live with it.
I still think it's silly to think CIV6 won't be enjoyable because the AI is still as incapable as it was in other CIV games.
The only challenging thing about CIV4 AIs were the obscene stacks of doom. It wasn't smarter or anything like that. Just sayin'
Sorry for OffTopic, but is that Tamar of Georgia in your profile pic?
I think they replaced him on purpose because all the comments he was making only worsened the situation lol.
This is true, but dumb AI that can threaten me with an enormous doom stack >>> dumb AI that is almost completely incapable of taking any of my cities, no matter its numerical or technological superiority.
i don't upgrade units either so that doesn't bother me much
But you replace them? The AI didn't even do that very well.
cIV AI was much smarter. It never sent out an unguarded settler. It was almost impossible to capture its workers, it upgraded its troops, it didn't passively skip 400 turns without trying to expand etc etc.
Also if stacks of doom were what made it so challenging why did they change it ?
When did people complain by saying "these stacks of doom are too challenging, I want 1UPT which the AI is completely incapable of using" ?
I'd take dumb AI with good mechanic any time of day because, well, I can play with other people.
Sadly, no. Both he and Ed were planned departures (they had mentioned it near the beginning, and they were timed when they had to 'pause' the stream to not break whatever bizarre limitations facebook streaming has.
You're right. The stacks of doom weren't too challenging... just too boring. 1UPT was the right answer, as BNW and all the mods have shown, but it sure wasn't on Day One.
Oh god here comes the 1upt vs stacks of doom battle
Stacks for life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously though, lets not go down that road. We all have valid opinions on why one is better than the other, and they are both right. Let's just agree that it changes the feel of the game and move on.
That is a totally reasonable stance if you like Civ multiplayer. I don't, so I much prefer AI-friendly combat mechanics.
(Although I would also question whether 1UPT is the superior mechanic even with competent opposition. There are still serious congestion problems, with way too much rough terrain and too many chokepoints on a typical map. I don't think it fits the scale of Civ very well.)
Couldn't agree more. I was just starting to get a little tired of the Civ 4 references as fixes for Civ 6 issues. The fixes for everything we saw wrong are already in BNW and/or related mods. No need to go back to 4, or 3, or even 5. What's wrong is so obvious that I have no doubt the devs know it... and for some reason, decided to move ahead as is.
Yeah. The reason why people always reference Civ IV or 3, etc is because it is way easier to program an AI using stacks vs AI using 1upt. So the AI is typically stronger in Civ IV than Civ V when it comes to battle. However, I agree that the developer could have made a decent AI for 1upt (look at some of the mods), but are choosing not to. From their perspective, it makes sense, look at how many copies of Civ V that were sold. It was the the highest selling Civ game to date. If Civ VI comes close to V in sales, it will just push the developers to ignore the AI. Why do they need to worry as long as they are making their sale records.
The best we can do as fans is to not buy Civ VI. Unless of course your cool with dumb AI and you want to support further civ games with dumb AI.
If you are at peace, and you believe there is a very small chance to go to war, you don't replace or upgrade your units. That would be a waste of resources. Not saying that was always the case, but some of the time, the AI was smart NOT replacing or upgrading their units.
But I understand the thing to do in this thread is to bash the AI. Not going to join in, not going to respond to the flames I get from this post. Just going to enjoy playing what looks like a very promising release that will only get better with time.
Separate names with a comma.