1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civ 6 AI Battle Royal

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by bite, Oct 14, 2016.

  1. zeroRPGmaker

    zeroRPGmaker Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    Mostly Macomb, IL
    You Be You.

    I'm just happy that real countries don't follow this policy lol! Otherwise places like Ireland would be walking around with equipment from the 50s and 60s.
     
    sanchopanda likes this.
  2. Vaclac

    Vaclac Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    58
    I agree... I've been harsh on the AI in this thread because I believe there are some obvious issues that ought to have been addressed by now, and could be addressed with fairly crude adjustments, not asking the AI to make optimal decisions. Some of them are design decisions, like giving upgrade paths even when lacking strategic resources, or decreasing warmonger penalties, or at least making the AI less sensitive to warmonger penalties when making decisions to go to war.
    That said, I think this game has far more interesting, engaging features than Civ V had at the start. I don't think I will be bored early on, with the districts and eurekas/inspirations and policy slots it looks like there will always be interesting choices to be made throughout the early game at least. I remember vanilla civ V was very empty... even at the beginning there was not much to do, not many competing priorities, and a lot of clicking end-turn.
     
  3. GhostSalsa

    GhostSalsa Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    1,010
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I'm so tired of seeing them sit with their arms on the table they should put on some costumes like two giant banana costumes or do puppets I don't care be creative it will keep the banter and play more intelligent if half of them aren't being self conscious anyway
     
  4. ExemplarVoss

    ExemplarVoss Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Messages:
    349
    Try that when anyone can attack you for little or no reason at all. I'm going to assume you're going to also keep 2k gold in your bank at all times to upgrade those units?
     
  5. Zenstrive

    Zenstrive Ocean King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    900
    Gender:
    Male
    God. The game is being released TOMORROW and the AI is still this...peaceful?
    Are they trying to withhold the true AI capabilities until everyone knows how to play then unleashing the true AI?
     
  6. Acken

    Acken Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    5,635
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    QC, Canada
    I personally just hope we'll quickly have the tools to mod that mess.
     
    c4c6 likes this.
  7. grant2004

    grant2004 Citizen

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    America
    That's actually a terrible idea for the AI. When a human declares war on you, you need to be ready on turn 1. If you aren't your army dies and you're starting out in a hole, you need to have a substantially better combat AI and strategic AI in order to compete in a war if your upgrade logic means that you're always going to be massively outclassed on turn 1. Keeping units upgraded gives a little more slack to the rest of the AI. I'm ok with AI bonuses, there are places where they make sense, where humans won't see them affecting the game, but where it will create a much more challenging AI. If maintenance prevents AIs from upgrading, give them a reduction on maintenance. An AI with a modern army should be a much higher priority than avoiding giving the AI bonuses.
     
  8. igorsrs

    igorsrs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2016
    Messages:
    25
    Location:
    Brazilian Empire
    I kinda expect AI to look much better with sick Deity bonuses.... and a lot of patches.
    Civ BE also launched with weak AI's that got A LOT better with patches (even though BE is kinda cheesy with academy spam strategies).
    But it is also good to see a "motivated" Acken.
    His mod for BNW is almost an expansion.
     
  9. ExemplarVoss

    ExemplarVoss Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Messages:
    349
    Maybe with a lot of patches. But it won't be better at Deity. Ed said during the Gorgo v. Rome Emperor difficulty stream that the AI is the same regardless of difficulty (actually specifically Chieftain AI), they just get more bonuses.
     
  10. GhostSalsa

    GhostSalsa Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    1,010
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    unthinkabel
     
  11. Cuneiform

    Cuneiform Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2016
    Messages:
    150
    I think there's a lot of over reaction to todays video regarding the AI. What we basically saw was AI Civs reacting to other AI Civs with no random disruption from a human player. The lack of a human player to create extra tension between Civs shouldn't be under estimated.

    But on the wider point, what the programmers are also trying to do is better reflect the Civ Leaders agendas within the AI. This sort of thing is a complex process that obviously will take time to improve, but given the program of DLC that's set to be rolled out then its time that they have.
     
  12. ExemplarVoss

    ExemplarVoss Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Messages:
    349
    Uh... that won't be the effect of adding a player to the mix. The primary effect of that is someone (the player) will likely be earning that warmonger penalty, and making LESS tension between the AIs, because they will have someone to hate.

    And it did horribly at that. Did Rome pick on Spain for being small? Heck, Rome didn't even expand properly themselves. Did Gorgo go after people for not going to war? She could have, and should have, eaten Spain really early- they were overrun with barbs for about 50 turns. Did the Aztecs go full aggro? It took the Aztecs nearly 400 turns to gobble up cities that had been handed to them on a platter. Did Victoria launch invasion of AzBrazssia? Agendas functionally had zero effect on that game.

    Or... they'll spend the next 3 months working on those DLCs (and the ones after that, and the months after that, the first expansion) rather than these problems.
     
    Krajzen likes this.
  13. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,570
    Rome was just as small as Spain, so they should not have complained.

    Gorgo's agenda is she hates people who surrender. Every peace was status quo.

    Aztec agenda is to attack people with different luxuries. There were like no luxuries at all. Edit: Correction. Watching more carefully, I think we just couldn't see the Luxuries? Not sure if the AI knew what to do with them in that case.

    Victoria just wants to settle other continents. There was another continent on her continent.

    This stream proved nothing. We still do not know if the AI is good or bad, because they gave it no elements to react to.
     
  14. Cuneiform

    Cuneiform Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2016
    Messages:
    150
    So negative...I suggest you don't buy the game if you feel that way.
     
  15. ExemplarVoss

    ExemplarVoss Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Messages:
    349
    Optimus Princeps (Trajan): Tries to include as much territory as possible in his empire. Does not like civilizations who control little territory

    With Your Shield or On It (Gorgo): Never gives up items in a peace deal. Likes civilizations who haven't yielded in a peace deal and dislikes civilizations who have surrendered in a peace deal or who have never been at war.

    There were, they just weren't visible on the map. They showed up on tooltips for example, and they talk about it near the beginning of the game.

    Sun Never Sets (Victoria): Victoria wants to settle on every continent, and will dislike civilizations on other continents.

    The AI should be capable of making moves other AIs react to. And in fact, they do make moves other AIs should react to- there was a hell of a lot of forward settling, even in the early game when there is no warmonger penalty for declaring wars.
    They certainly should be reacting to their own agendas.

    But this stream proved a lot:
    It proved why they don't upgrade units.
    It proved that the settlement patterns are sometimes absurdly nonsensical (Russia's second City (and honestly, every city that followed, when they could have had at least two very good cities immediately to the north), Brazil's snow city).
    It proved that the warmonger penalty is so heavily weighted, the mid and late game is virtually static.
    It proved that, despite the AI programmer believing that civs only produce settlers when they have a spot to settle, the AIs still produce settlers (and leave them idle in their cities for 100s of turns).
    It proved the AI has a bizarrely strong reluctance to repair things, even (as was the case with the Aztecs), there were a dozen builders sitting idle.
    It proved (well the AI programmer admitted) that domination victory is NOT ACHIEVABLE by the AI.
    It proved the AI programmers prediction that when the AIs declare a joint war, neither will actually attack. He'd seen it so many times, he could state unequivocally what would happen as soon as the war declaration occurred.
    It proved this was also sometimes the case in single civ wars, as when Rome declared war on Japan, and did nothing (Twice. Really galling the second time, since despite having a huge pile of units around the nearest Roman city, virtually no Japanese defenders, and adjacent borders, they did nothing).
    It proved the AI would start on victory conditions, but fail to follow up (Russia had a very early space port... but opted not to repair their industrial district and then never followed up. Vicky built a space port... then spammed mech infantry). The Aztecs pretty much stumbled into multiple victory conditions simultaneously, which demonstrates poor prioritization.

    I could go on, but I learned a lot from this stream. I can't say the same for the dev team, who seemed perfectly satisfied with and often expected these outcomes.
     
    Krajzen, PhroX, c4c6 and 3 others like this.
  16. Battlehelm043

    Battlehelm043 Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    227
    Location:
    California
    Hopefully they patch some of this Day 1 or 2...
     
  17. nokmirt

    nokmirt Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,087
    Location:
    Iowa USA
    What I noticed was warriors and catapults sticking around to the end of the game. AIs would not upgrade or disband worthless outdated units. Wars were too rare as well. The game is too passive at this point. Warmonger penalties are too stiff for late game wars. Saying that I think Firaxis will fix these issues with balancing and patching. They may need to get rid of niter at some point so units can upgrade. I know this, a human player will have a field day against this AI in war, because wars will be too one-sided. At least until the Atomic Era when the AI starts building modern armor and mech infantry. Also, there is a real lack of the AI building aircraft. I saw only one fighter and one biplane. Military AI needs work.

    This stream may have proved why the AI does not upgrade units, but that should have been fixed already. What good is it if the AI does not upgrade to gunpowder units? It is ridiculous.
     
  18. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,570
    I believe that is just misworded. He seems to dislike Civs who control less territory, not little. Besides, what would you expect him to do about it?
    And they had all been at war, but not surrendered in a peace deal.

    On continents she is not on. And again, agendas do not automatically override everything else.

    I agree with this.

    The Civs with strategic resources upgraded. I saw swordsmen and knights.
    There is an amount that I would consider acceptable. One game is not enough to prove anything for this.

    This is a simple balance concern, not an AI concern.
    Likely because the AI thinks it has a spot to settle, but the military AI wishes to hide and protect the settler.

    The AI developer just pointed out that he recently fixed a bug with that.

    I wouldn't expect it to be. You think 8 perfectly evenly matched players would end up having one defeat EVERY other player?

    Likely the Diplomacy AI recognizes their combined strength, but the Military AI has no way to coordinate with their teammate. This is very difficult to fix unless you'd rather make the AI suicidal by having them throw their weaker army into a blender.


    I havent seen this yet, so I have no way of judging exactly whats happening.

    This has always happened, and will likely continue to happen. Planning ahead is very difficult, because it means understanding how everything affects everything else in the game. That is a difficult puzzle. That is the meat of a strategy game, and is what makes the game hard to play even for humans, who are good at pattern recognition and understanding cause and effect.

    You expected them to say "yeah this sucks, and is very difficult to fix. Definitely not by release" 10 times? The stream is advertisement.
     
  19. Zhahz

    Zhahz PC Gamer

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,615
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Well, I'm hardly going to cancel my pre-order or have a cow. Civ has always delivered and I think some people are spazzing out a bit too quickly. I'll reserve judgement til I play it myself and I tend to think that even with some "wtf" moments that I'll be enjoying myself. I also might view civ different from some. For me it's not just a glorified war game with added side elements - more like it's a well rounded game where war is a part of it.

    I think the one real issue, or design flaw, is that there should not be such a resource hog setup for upgrading units. Either resources need to be more common, there needs to be an alternate path, or the AI needs to build something else. But IMO, this applies most to the let's plays (but even then it's usually expert players vs prince), and less to this "brawl" - either way, it's a bit crazy that if you don't have resources that you can't upgrade a unit for several eras. Some other things like Russia settling that 2nd city and stuff like that were a bit...alarming...but based on the LP's I've watched I don't think that's usual behavior and in any version of civ AI behaviors will sometimes make you wonder.

    Anyways.

    The #1 thing I think most of the sky is falling crowd are failing to remember is that Civ is not a game designed to be played as AI vs AI only. This brawl game has some special coding done to make it work (and I saw someone mention it and the devs said they'd like to add such a feature for the game but it's not on the table). I think the player is a huge catalyst in how a game of civ unfolds and while the AI v AI is probably handy for testing and could be entertaining to some, it's hardly how the game is supposed to be played.

    Civ is a game designed more around player behaviors.

    So while many warriors weren't upgraded due to lack of resources, they also perhaps were not upgraded due to lack of need - no player building superior units to contend with. If you're not playing aggressive (as an AI) why do you need beefier units?

    You somewhat have to figure the AI's are aware of each others agendas and generally avoid setting each other off. Players shrug off the "cost" of war, be it weariness, diplo hits. Players can imagine and be more creative with their thinking and war handling. An AI has to evaluate data - and if it's more effective to not go to war as an AI, that's what an AI does. Tweaking AI's to be violent and aggressive without thinking to the point of self destructing most of the time would not make for a fun experience.

    For some of you, you seem to think Civ is little more than a war game with added elements and you want war, war, war, but I'd wager that getting the AIs to be good at war and especially at domination or conquest is far tougher than having them go for other victory conditions. If you want the AIs to play to win, shouldn't they go for the path of least resistance...which for them is anything but war? That puts the pressure on the player to either keep up with them or conquer them.

    So being upset that AIs aren't bloody warmongers like players seems a bit much.

    Another big factor is that this was just ONE AI brawl. Do you really think the game plays out the same every time? If it did, we wouldn't play it for hundreds or thousands of hours. There are so many factors that can tilt any given game of civ.

    People are spazzing because few cities changed hands but the AI guy said he's seen 3 capitals fall in a game before (to one AI), which somewhat suggests that cities can change hands. Then people are alarmed because the AI has never won domination in an AI v AI simulation but per my previous point, I think that would be the toughest way for an AI to win, especially with a player involved. Even if you just look at AI v AI, doing domination is not easy - trying to take out every other civ's capital without the creativity and deviousness of a player is not necessarily an easy task, especially vs just hunkering down and going for less complex victory types.

    I remember back in early Civ 5 when AIs would sometimes run away with the game via conquering and people were crying up a hurricane over it. Outside of the early days of Civ 5 when some AIs would run away, I hardly remember any times when any Civ 5 AI either with or without the balance patch would truly go crazy with conquering. Just didn't happen in my games. I'm not a diety player, not even close, so maybe it happens some times to the minority that play at harder difficulties I have certainly in a couple thousand hours of playing never been at risk of losing to an AI winning via domination or conquest.

    So while I too think the AI did some boneheaded things, seeing that in one AI v AI game with no player - something the game isn't even designed for - it's hardly a complete indictment of the dev team, hardly means they don't care about AI (please be serious), and is hardly a reason to give birth to a cow on a forum.

    So what if the game needs a couple of patches to fine tune some things. Most games do. Having millions of players play, criticize (shred), and otherwise do things to your game that you never even considered are par for the course. Civ 6 is shipping far more complex than most civ releases (with features/mechanics and more depth that usually comes later via xpacs). It is extremely unlikely that any game or any piece of software of this complexity will ship bug or issue free.

    I'm not going to give up and think random modders will some day save a game I haven't even played yet. That's a completely ridiculous idea. I also never thought the community balance patch made Civ 5 better. It made it different, and that was entertaining and added endurance to the game. But I hardly think random modders ever know what's better for a game than the people who spend years designing and working on it and/or who have held a franchise for decades/ Maybe it's because I'm a dev myself and find that kind of thinking ot be arrogant and ridiculous. Dunno.

    I do think the battle royale wasn't the best idea for Firaxis because it's just not how the game is meant to be played and one sample out of many of such gameplays is a terrible representation of the game. Perception is a huge thing and it's way too easy for people to overreact without really thinking things through.

    Cheers and happy civving. My enthusiasm to play the game the second it unlocks hasn't diminished at all, but that's just me.
     
  20. gunnergoz

    gunnergoz Cat Herder

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,228
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southern California
    If you regard Civ strictly as a consumer product, you may well be right to complain about what is being delivered as incomplete and imperfect, because to some extent it is. If you regard Civ as a long-term hobby, your perspective may be quite different. In the latter case, you are in it for the long haul anyway. You know from past experience that the game improves with time and as the user base and developers interact and gain experience. I think there is room for both views of the game and both sides can benefit from the impact each side has on game development.
     
    c4c6, malekithau and Eagle Pursuit like this.

Share This Page