Civ VI is SO close to greatness - A call to the developers

[Gedemon]

No, I want them to release the DLL now, so I can change base rules, and modders can start working on the AI now, so you may have a good one a few years after.

But I'll leave others modders do that, those that like the game as it is, because I don't, and I need to change a lot of things before I'll want to play it. Until then, for me, the state of the AI is not an issue, it's other things that prevent me to play civ6. And once I'll finally want to play, I'll need to adapt the new AI to my rules.

In short, the base game is far for greatness for my taste, so my call is different.

 

[bitula]

And amassing an army the way a player does is just not happening. At all.

So how does a player amass an army? Because for me it seems that in the cases when "AI" actually does decide to amass it does it more-or-less correctly. I mean what would you write in a bug report to help track the so-perceived bug?

 

[MrRadar]

Because for me it seems that in the cases when "AI" actually does decide to amass it does it more-or-less correctly.

AI can amass an army all right, especially in the earlier eras, it can overwhelm you at first and take a couple of cities, including your capital. But what of it? It then does not press home its temporary advantage. The player just refuses to any peace terms, AI loses focus, its erratic units are killed off one by one by the player, its taken cities are reconquered by the player or flip back on their own, the player builds up their force and comes back with a vengeance. The AI just does not have that "killer instinct" from previous versions of the game. It can declare absurd wars without any purpose and then be milked off of all its gpt in peace.

And then in the latest stages it seems, that AI just quits the game - it loses track of any victory condition and does not even try any more. I don't think I saw an AI to go further than Mars since GS.

 

[Gedemon]

That makes way more sense, i see what you mean now.
Does it really take years for modders for a better AI?

Small, focused improvements could be released pretty quick I suppose (ie days/weeks), and you could have a globally "better" AI a few months later, but for a "good" AI (OK, that's subjective) I don't think that "years" is an exaggeration.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Very simple: release the DLL source code.

Yet, when they'll do it, I'm not going to work on the AI, as there are a lot of other things that take priority for my enjoyment of a Civilization game, like diplomacy, combat mechanisms, more units per tile, etc... No point in starting by the AI when all those changes will affect it.

This is worth mentioning in its own right actually. AI and the design of the game are not completely independent, just like the design of the game is not completely independent from the player. In making templates onto which DLC will be added later, games do lose out on some ability to make decent AI by necessity.

It's another side of the coin in terms of Civ 6 problems - a lot of its mechanics actually don't make sense if everyone in the game is trying to win...which means either those mechanics or the victory conditions are misaligned. Making the AI (or human player choosing) to do one comes at the expense of the other. This isn't the only reason the AI is bad, but it doesn't help and it puts an unnecessary upper boundary on AI quality by design...

I think bad journalism is THE problem of our society in 2019 and game reviews show that really good.

They're just the tip of the iceberg. Were they the only problem with mass media the world would be much better, but sadly no. Still, it's worth pointing out when "professional" publications lie, regardless of context. Firms that do that are in essence scammers, promising a service that goes unprovided.

So you want to have a bad AI for years until every feature is in the game and only THEN care about the AI?

Rather, since the AI acts in the role of a player each new feature must be aligned with the AI capabilities (and vice versa) for games that do single player.

Firaxis straight up doesn't care. It has implemented numerous things into Civ 6 that basically don't work in competitive MP. That is all but an open admission the AI isn't a serious priority, but it also means they don't mind obvious holes in terms of their design having obviously broken incentive structures/choices. I'd be inclined to agree that the AI can't easily be made good without fixing the game's design itself first, because doing so would mean instructing the AI to blatantly ignore quite a few mechanics in the game while trying to win...

Small, focused improvements could be released pretty quick I suppose (ie days/weeks), and you could have a globally "better" AI a few months later, but for a "good" AI (OK, that's subjective) I don't think that "years" is an exaggeration.

That's the course AI mods in Civ 4 followed. You saw some improvements quickly, but over year(s) it kept improving and eventually became substantially better than vanilla/BTS variants. Much of this happened post-BTS, however, where the game barely changed after that.

 

[bitula]

AI can amass an army all right, especially in the earlier eras, it can overwhelm you at first and take a couple of cities, including your capital. But what of it? It then does not press home its temporary advantage. The player just refuses to any peace terms, AI loses focus, its erratic units are killed off one by one by the player, its taken cities are reconquered by the player or flip back on their own, the player builds up their force and comes back with a vengeance. The AI just does not have that "killer instinct" from previous versions of the game. It can declare absurd wars without any purpose and then be milked off of all its gpt in peace.

And then in the latest stages it seems, that AI just quits the game - it loses track of any victory condition and does not even try any more. I don't think I saw an AI to go further than Mars since GS.

Well OK, but these are too many parameters, what should be addressed first? Make "AI" a "Killer Instinct"? I wouldn't like that for RP reasons. That would really make the game-play experience one-dimensional. I think that when "AI" gets aggressive it should do so for valid reasons and it should be effective in executing the conquest which in many cases is not so, because of bugs due to the complexity of the game and the many different modes people play it. So I don't really see any other solution than diligent bug fixing.
I don’t see any core mechanism or underlying framework being non-reversibly broken so far. I mean you can’t even make such assumption without seeing core source code.

 

[Aristos]

Very simple: release the DLL source code.

Yet, when they'll do it, I'm not going to work on the AI, as there are a lot of other things that take priority for my enjoyment of a Civilization game, like diplomacy, combat mechanisms, more units per tile, etc... No point in starting by the AI when all those changes will affect it.

No way you can make the diplomacy part of this game enjoyable without touching the AI.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well OK, but these are too many parameters, what should be addressed first? Make "AI" a "Killer Instinct"? I wouldn't like that for RP reasons. That would really make the game-play experience one-dimensional. I think that when "AI" gets aggressive it should do so for valid reasons and it should be effective in executing the conquest which in many cases is not so, because of bugs due to the complexity of the game and the many different modes people play it. So I don't really see any other solution than diligent bug fixing.
I don’t see any core mechanism or underlying framework being non-reversibly broken so far. I mean you can’t even make such assumption without seeing core source code.

Pursuing a victory condition is a valid reason.

No way you can make the diplomacy part of this game enjoyable without touching the AI.

Until diplomacy is functional in competitive MP where everyone is trying to win, no amount of changing the AI will make diplomacy good.

Once a competent diplomacy framework exists, there is a chance Firaxis (or someone else) could introduce an AI that interacts with it well. But if it's junk in the first place nothing you do with the AI will make it stop being junk.

 

[MrRadar]

I think that when "AI" gets aggressive it should do so for valid reasons and it should be effective in executing the conquest.

Yes, yes, precisely!
If AI is seeking domination victory (AI essentially lost its "teeth" to achieve that already in V), it should have that "killer instinct" and go for complete elimination of a civ, if necessary, but by no means I want every AI to become a bloodthirsty maniac, making it all the way Civ3 again, where ultimately there only was perpetual war until one top power emerged.
But if AI declares war, it should have some aim, some specific cities it would want to take and keep, and apply necessary force to take them and hold them and if player refuses to accept terms, hurt them more, but not blindly make the terms harsher. Of course, most of human players would probably just rage quit in such situation anyway, so I doubt whether we'll see much refinement of the AI - that would be too much effort and testing and fine tuning for very dubious financial gains.

 

[Archon_Wing]

The AI does wipe other AI out though. The issue is they often don't follow through at times for some reason or another.

 

[glider1]

The question I have is how many long term players play Civ6 unmodded? To be a great game it should not need modding. For me personally, even before I bought civ6 I knew it was going to have to be modded to make it better and even after buying it I'm still trying to mod it up to make it better. That cannot be the definition of a great game if you start fiddling with it a few hours after you buy it. At best you could say "Civ6 is a great game for modders".

 

[tab]

I dont know how are people able to defend Firaxis and the state of the game. Even after 2 expansions every game ends up being a next turn click fest. There is no tension in the game. I feel like Im playing turn based sim city with natural disasters. I really dont think the developers are serious about the AI as Firaxis profits seem optimum. When I see so many kamikaze attacks by the AI, I just kamikaze myself and ALT+F4. I dont think CIV 6 is anywhere close to greatness. One of the worst games for me in the series. I reinstalled the game for gathering storm expansion but its the same broken game for me as when it was released.

As long as the money keeps rolling in, DLC model and attitudes of the developers is not going anywhere. People have been screaming on steam review, forums, discord for AI improvements but it seems AI is the least of their concerns...... Next expansion then but heck if buy it.

 

[racha]

I dont know how are people able to defend Firaxis and the state of the game.

I agree, that's silly behaviour for members of Civ Fanatics.

Despite that, I don't see anyone claiming the game is perfect. At the same time, nor is it sewage-tier like some alleged triple-A games. What I see a lot of on this site is people that acknowledge the game needs various things done better whilst simultaneously enjoying it the way it is. Seems like a reasonable position to me.

I'm not sure where you're seeing people defending Firaxis, on the other hand. Personally, I'm not a fan of some of the things they do, but they're objectively moving in a direction that I think is better. YMMV.

 

[Agent327]

This

There is no tension in the game

sums up the problem. And with two expansions released Civ 6 will not be fixing what Civ 5 could not.

 

[Bibor]

Civ VI (and Civ in general) is a brilliant game and at this point it's SO close to greatness. Really the main factor holding it back is the AI.

No. There's nothing wrong with the AI. It's just not compatible with the rest of the game.
You can't create a vehicle, equip it with a self-driving AI and then demand it race over a swamp that's different every time.

 

[Aristos]

No. There's nothing wrong with the AI.

|
|
v

It's just not compatible with the rest of the game.

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
Francisco d'Anconia to Dagny Taggart

 

[Bibor]

@Aristos It's not a contradiction. Pigs can't fly, Civ6 AI can't handle Civ6 game mechanics. You're exactily right, your premises are wrong in thinking the AI and the game mechanics are one and the same. They are not. The needs of one cannot possibly fit into the constraints of the other, and vice versa.

Having a "successful" AI that can be delivered for a reasonable amount of work hours and investment has it's own set of abilities and limitations that other game designs conform to. Civ6 is deliberately making it harder on the AI by being AI-incompatible.

 

[Aristos]

@Aristos It's not a contradiction. Pigs can't fly, Civ6 AI can't handle Civ6 game mechanics. You're exactily right, your premises are wrong in thinking the AI and the game mechanics are one and the same. They are not. The needs of one cannot possibly fit into the constraints of the other, and vice versa.

Having a "successful" AI that can be delivered for a reasonable amount of work hours and investment has it's own set of abilities and limitations that other game designs conform to. Civ6 is deliberately making it harder on the AI by being AI-incompatible.

Once again, the fallacy in disguise (or am I wrong?). The same can be said of civ 5, yet two fans, in their spare time, destroyed the fallacy. Why would I assume the same cannot be done with civ 6, and thus, void the fallacy fallacious...?

I stand my ground; 1 UPT, nor other mechanics, are to blame here for mediocre AI.

 

[ashendashin]

Once again, the fallacy in disguise (or am I wrong?). The same can be said of civ 5, yet two fans, in their spare time, destroyed the fallacy. Why would I assume the same cannot be done with civ 6, and thus, void the fallacy fallacious...?

I stand my ground; 1 UPT, nor other mechanics, are to blame here for mediocre AI.

Can't deny that the game isn't gonna get an AI that handles as well as a human. The problem here is that few games bother with an AI capable of anything more than the most basic functions, and even fewer are designed in such a way that you care for more than immediately beating the opponent, so it's assumed that anything better than the atrocious Civ AI may as well cost millions on top of twice the dev time.

 

[Aristos]

so it's assumed that anything better than the atrocious Civ AI may as well cost millions on top of twice the dev time.

Hence the fallacy. I strongly question that assumption, based partially in my own knowledge, but also in the clear (yes, repetitive ) example of Vox Populi.