Civ VI AI not THAT bad

[Kurnn]

The AI got vastly improved in Expansion, and works great with the Awesome AI+ mod.

 

[ashendashin]

In fairness to you, Siesta Guru, Arabia and India did stomp me in my recent game as the Khmer when they dual-declared as part of an emergency and showed up with (buffed by Quo's Combined Tweaks mod) Catapults and Archers, which they actually used fairly well. But I'm in total agreement with you about shortcomings of the AI's master strategy. Just wanted to put it out there that you've done some nice work, to the degree it is possible with the systems Civ 6 gives us.

I'm really not a fan of people on this forum saying that the current AI systems are fine as-is, if needing improvement. His mod can only do so much. The AI still has the same crapton of cheats since it doesn't run on any logic and will always be limited by how far it can follow the game rules. All he can do is limit the amount of mistakes made by the system itself, as if that would lead to an AI that's fun to interact with. To make an actually capable AI that understands the game, he'd need DLL access.
Saying that current moddability is perfectly fine is not only going against Siesta's own words, it's also the sort of thing that could encourage Firaxis to not release the DLL.

The AI got vastly improved in Expansion, and works great with the Awesome AI+ mod.

You've got the dude who made AI+ saying that the AI still sucks right in this thread.

 

[Kurnn]

And I would also recommend all civ 6 players to use his AI+. Its fantastic. It adds a lot of things that I, me, sees as important.

AI needs to be ever expanding, or its just an automatic chess player.
MY view would to hire the AI+ mod guy and let him develope it!

 

[Siesta Guru]

Thanks @Kurnn

But yes, I believe that my mod, while making it a bit stronger, is still quite a way from being a competent AI in its current version. Humans should not be able to win 90% of games on emperor while playing against 8 players, right now there's probably people out there who can still do that on deity even with my mod.
The next version of AI+ should hopefully be able to change that. The tools definitely allow for a difficulty increase the equivalent of about 2 difficulty levels, but whether I'll be able to realize that is another matter of course The new tools aren't exactly dll access still, but it's a night and day difference between just hacking some xml together.

@ashendashin
Isau's mod actually helps a lot too, the extra movement speed is a godsend to the AI because it allows them to attack from the shadows. It makes micro a lot harder to deal with.

 

[ashendashin]

Isau's mod actually helps a lot too, the extra movement speed is a godsend to the AI because it allows them to attack from the shadows. It makes micro a lot harder to deal with.

I've been spoiled by Vox Populi. Everything the AI does is so much better than any game I've played that just making war more interesting doesn't look good to me, not to mention the direct communication that's gone on with Gazebo and ilteroi, who have the freedom to change core mechanics. Just a few days ago G added a simple desperation factor to the AI for domination victories at user request. That said I do like that you guys are trying. It'll hopefully make things smoother if the DLL gets released to allow some proper overhauls.

 

[isau]

I'm really not a fan of people on this forum saying that the current AI systems are fine as-is, if needing improvement. His mod can only do so much. The AI still has the same crapton of cheats since it doesn't run on any logic and will always be limited by how far it can follow the game rules. All he can do is limit the amount of mistakes made by the system itself, as if that would lead to an AI that's fun to interact with. To make an actually capable AI that understands the game, he'd need DLL access.
Saying that current moddability is perfectly fine is not only going against Siesta's own words, it's also the sort of thing that could encourage Firaxis to not release the DLL.

You've got the dude who made AI+ saying that the AI still sucks right in this thread.

I don't understand your reply. I feel like you misunderstood what I wrote. I not only use the AI+ mod, I am a modder too, and write a mod that specifically recommends that players use AI+ because it improves the AI's performance. All of my gameplay testing is done in combo with AI+. My post complimented Siesta Guru for his work. It's nothing more than that.

 

[ashendashin]

I don't understand your reply. I feel like you misunderstood what I wrote. I not only use the AI+ mod, I am a modder too, and write a mod that specifically recommends that players use AI+. My post complimented Siesta Guru for his work. It's nothing more than that.

I understand that you're complimenting his work, but my response also has to do with the sentiment that the AI can be viewed as something like level design. I dislike it when people say these roundabout methods are acceptable(I can still appreciate the concepts) largely because, well, I've been spoiled by VP and I'm really hoping that Firaxis will release the DLL already. I don't like their business practices and I'm kinda sick of those who defend it -and there's a lot of those here-, so I'm sorry if I came off as hostile.

 

[Timothy001]

Having a "Smart AI" is extremely situational in CiVI. I have seen dumb moves from the AI (i.e.. not killing a city/unit that is almost dead), to a very well executed attack, in which I was defeated. I was playing as Tamar. I had Poundmaker to my North East (about 10 hexes). I had also met Alexander. He was to the Southwest (more than 20 hexes thru dense Forest/Rainforest). I left a lowly slinger guarding my capital, sent the rest of my army after Poundmaker. As soon as I surrounded Poundmaker, Alex Declares on me, a joint war with Poundmaker, Flips Toronto (5 hexes from me, I was Suzerain with). Then Alex Levies a very large army of swords and catapults from them. I quickly take Poundmaker's capital, then head back to defend my other 2 cities. The Poundmaker's old capital flips to Neutral, and Alex stomps my 2 cities. Game over.
I could play the same game over again, and get a completely different result. Maybe the AI in the next situation is not ready for an all out attack. Maybe it's logic gives a different priority. But the above example does illustrate 2 things. One the AI can wage a war, if all its logic lines up. Two: NEVER TRUST ALEXANDER.

 

[isau]

I understand that you're complementing his work, but my response also has to do with the sentiment that the AI can be viewed as something like level design.

Well IMO... AI can be viewed much like level design. It's how I've worked it into various other games I've had to incorporate it in. In the end though I think Siesta and I are mostly on the same page. The main fault of Civ 6 AI is an XML node based approach that is overly broad and lacks a sense of grand strategy.

I'm familiar with the AI from other games, and "level based" is IMO a fair approximation of the technique. That differs from, say, "chess based" design. The main intent of AI in a game like civ is creating an obstacle with an intelligent-like appearance. That is basically how the AI in Vox Populi works from what I've seen of it. It's well done, but I wouldn't call it exceedingly smart, it's level-based in that it's got bots that present a legitimate obstacle and avoid doing stuff like running into walls or falling off cliffs, which is really all the average player is asking for.

 

[Stomper66]

I don't have Rise and Fall yet on my mac but the AI+ mod vastly improves the vanilla game. The movement of enemy units is much more thought out than it was in Civ 5, and the specialisation in certain great people / districts is also good. The AI choice of settlement is still a problem though they won't colonise other continents and they will also ignore ideal spots in their own land to found a city right by me. Does R&F prevent this from happening now?

I play on emperor with AI+ and I have found the game much more of a challenge if you limit your autosave to just 1 every 10 turns. Resist the urge to re-load after every single mistake you make and you will find much more of your units dying and more of your cities being taken in AI attacks you didn't prepare for. Reducing the autosave will also speed up your game performance massively. I've being playing this game for a year and only just realised this recently.

 

[ashendashin]

Well IMO... AI can be viewed much like level design. It's how I've worked it into various other games I've had to incorporate it in. In the end though I think Siesta and I are mostly on the same page. The main fault of Civ 6 AI is an XML node based approach that is overly broad and lacks a sense of grand strategy.

I'm familiar with the AI from other games, and "level based" is IMO a fair approximation of the technique. That differs from, say, "chess based" design. The main intent of AI in a game like civ is creating an obstacle with an intelligent-like appearance. That is basically how the AI in Vox Populi works from what I've seen of it. It's well done, but I wouldn't call it exceedingly smart, it's level-based in that it's got bots that present a legitimate obstacle and avoid doing stuff like running into walls or falling off cliffs, which is really all the average player is asking for.

Oh don't get me wrong, designing the game around the AI is important. I'm just peeved at the current design of both the game and AI, so working around that doesn't look acceptable to me. Maybe that's where I misunderstood you.
Also when did you last play VP? It's definitely largely built around the AI, but it's had tons of improvements that are still being made.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

It's nowhere close to the level of intricacy that you describe, while the complexity you describe should honestly be some kind of minimal baseline.

I really appreciate you taking the time to understand and try to improve the AI behaviour, Siesta Guru, and to explain how it functions.

I've been baffled by a number of game design decisions in Civ 6, but likely none so much as this. If you skip the step about what the AI should be trying to do - no matter how rudimentarily this is defined - it just strikes me like it would be infinitely more complicated to code it to make efficient individual decisions. I'm a layperson, so perhaps this makes sense to professionals in this field.

The main intent of AI in a game like civ is creating an obstacle with an intelligent-like appearance.

That captures very well what I would expect. It's complicated in a game like Civ because some of the fan base want an AI that appears to try to win, while others prefer one that acts like a consistent foil to their own role playing. I would think that the experience for both would be enhanced, however, by an AI that appears to have objectives/motives behind their actions.

 

[isau]

I think a clue to the design decisions made about AI lies in the changes to other systems. The "unified Modifiers" system as I think of it that exists under the hood is largely (IMO) a success. The systems that drive Leaders, Beliefs, Governments, Policies, Governors, Ages, Wars, and so on are all incredibly organized and clean. The database in Civ 6 is a thing of beauty compared to almost any other major title I can think of, and the team does deserve kudos for that I think.

But it looks like they tried to do the same thing with AI. It doesn't work. AI is a fundamentally different thing. In theory there are some elements that can be reduced to nodes, but it just doesn't work the same.

The AI in its current state kind of reminds me of the climate change deniers John Oliver roasted with his "Do owls exist? Are there hats?" dialog. The tactical AI in particular remains unconvinced there is anything close to an objective reality in which the game is played, one in which Ranged units placed in cities are generally good and in which Air units exist and can attack. It is one thing to make an AI that is flexible to mods. But unless what you're programming is a simulated human far outside the scope of a Civ game, the AI needs to know fundamentals about the world it exists in.

Fortunately, some of the strategic AI seems more self aware. The AI does buy and use Great People, found religions, and so on. So on that front it's at least somewhat aware. Tactically, not so much.

 

[Tech Osen]

I attacked the Cree yesterday with an infantry army and two tank armies. He then rolled in 4 tank armies and two helicopter armies. He crushed me pretty hard. That was mildly humilating. Don't think I've ever seen an AI with a big modern force like that before.
Of course just then I got my first fighters and bombers out and it was game over. He actually had an aerodrome as well, very handy to move the airforce forward.