Daftest Messages

[Thormodr]

Just like Kilwa, some people complain with great vigor.

You see, I see things moving in the right direction. Is it perfect now? No. However, they are on to something and returning to the awful Civilization 5 way is absolutely the wrong idea.

It baffles me that people would laud Civilization 5 for having interesting AI. At the start of the iteration it was so terrible and inscrutable. Anyone remember the Rage Quit disastrous AI, for example? The AI that you could never be friends with for completely unknown reasons? Definitely forgettable.

It took Ed Beach to try to salvage that disaster. He shined up that turd as best he could.

Why I like the Civ VI AI is that they are there to supplement my game playing experience. If I want to be friends with an AI, it is pretty straightforward what I have to do. It is also pretty clear as to who I will most likely be at odds with. For example, if I want to play a religion game, I likely won't get along with Spain. Playing a city state game us not going to endure me to Pericles, etc.

Anyway, my point is, while not perfect, they are onto something. They need to refine it and improve upon it. Not throw it out and go backwards.

 

[pokiehl]

With agendas, every AI personality is identical except where they're neurotic.

Even this is too generous an interpretation to me. What you and I are getting at is that agendas don’t really change how the AI act at all. There are a few hardcoded exceptions that do essentially nothing to improve the AI or player experience. Okay, Gorgo won’t ever capitulate war spoils. Whatever. Beyond that she’s the same as any other AI except the arbitrary behavior that makes her green smiley face turn into a red frowny face is different from leader to leader.

No pining for Civ5 here.

Likewise and I think you and I are among the few here who will fairly criticize the game without being overly dramatic and emotional about how bad it is or pining endlessly for Civ 4 or Civ 5.

Agendas could work really well.

Anything could work but all we know is what we’ve seen, and we’ve seen agendas fail. If the goal is immersive AI behavior and distinct personalities, then returning to flavor scores is a proven and excellent option than over complicating it with agendas again. Shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

I don’t get what people think agendas add that flavor scores don’t have. Do you like that they have names? OK, then give every unique flavor score point distribution a name. Problem solved.

 

[Zaarin]

Anyway, my point is, while not perfect, they are onto something. They need to refine it and improve upon it. Not throw it out and go backwards.

Having neurotic fixations on top of a generic universal AI package is an improvement over having actual individual priorities and preferences?

Likewise and I think you and I are among the few here who will fairly criticize the game without being overly dramatic and emotional about how bad it is or pining endlessly for Civ 4 or Civ 5.

Indeed. I think Civ6 is a great game; I just want Civ7 to be a better one by learning from Civ6's mistakes.

 

[canadamufc]

The AI's in Civ 6 are one and the same. Qin Shi Huang will have a go at you for taking his wonders when he has the exact same amount as Harald and his boats. I expect Qin to be snagging up as many wonders for himself as possible, but instead he is sitting around talking to random people about how they're stealing his wonders when he doesn't even build them himself. A civ with bonuses to building wonders should be prioritizing them. This just goes to show you how shallow the system is, and where civ 5's flavour system works much better.

Let's take an example from Civ 5. Another wonder builder like Ramesses and Egypt. I'm running an AI only game with 6 civs, and look at him having 11 wonders on turn 124, with the next competitor having 5. You won't see China in Civ 6 getting a monopoly on wonders like he did. There is also Shoshone, spamming cities like no tomorrow, using his ability as much as possible to grab land. And then in Civ 6 you have Russia, and look at that: they care about expanding as any other civ. No flavour at all.

Does Wilhelmina build Harbors and Commercial Hubs more than any other civ to take advantage of Radio Oranje? Does England really care about settling other continents? Does Pedro really put in any extra effort into getting great people as anyone else? The answer for this is a NO. When, with similar situations in Civ 5, they would be YES. They changed something that wasn't supposed to be broken, the flavour system works much better than agendas.

And this isn't a post about how Civ 5 is clear of 6, but rather how 5 has some mechanics that were much better implemented than 6. In many ways, Civ 6 is better than 5.

 

[Tech Osen]

Djengis complaining that my cavalry is too big after building my first cavalry unit. Like it's my fault he's slacking.

 

[General_Sahib]

Qin Shi Huang will have a go at you for taking his wonders when he has the exact same amount as Harald and his boats. I expect Qin to be snagging up as many wonders for himself as possible, but instead he is sitting around talking to random people about how they're stealing his wonders when he doesn't even build them himself.

Civ VI leaders are all raging hypocrites. Cyrus is an exception though and seems true to his word. He loves to surprise DOW me.

 

[dagriggstar]

I was excited for agendas when they were announced, but yeah the more I think about it the more I agree all the AI's are basically the same, with a couple of exceptions (Persia mentioned already, Carthage as well for settling coastal cities in places no one else can). I do think part of the problem is that civ 6 is a more complicated game, for example China can't spam wonders if they don't have the right terrain for them.

 

[Ordnael]

I love how Harald Hardrada complements me over and over on my great navy of a single galley.

 

[Zaarin]

I love how Harald Hardrada complements me over and over on my great navy of a single galley.

Well, that's more than he can be bothered to build, by Odin.

 

[Patine]

Also Wilhelmina throwing a fit because you won't trade with her from the other side of the world.

For the Dutch Republic at it's very height, at least, that actually could be - and was a legitimate gripe.

 

[Thormodr]

I must admit I always laugh when I am told that my airforce is nothing to be trifled with after building my first biplane. Lol.

 

[Zaarin]

For the Dutch Republic at it's very height, at least, that actually could be - and was a legitimate gripe.

While perfectly true and reasonable, for my empire in 1500 BC it's literally impossible and also very annoying.

 

[Linklite]

I must admit I always laugh when I am told that my airforce is nothing to be trifled with after building my first biplane. Lol.

Well it's not...Trajan's legionaries really shouldn't with a biplane!

 

[bbbt]

It baffles me that people would laud Civilization 5 for having interesting AI. At the start of the iteration it was so terrible and inscrutable. Anyone remember the Rage Quit disastrous AI, for example? The AI that you could never be friends with for completely unknown reasons? Definitely forgettable.

It took Ed Beach to try to salvage that disaster. He shined up that turd as best he could.

Ed Beach was also the "AI/Gameplay Lead" for Vanilla Civ 5 before taking over the expansions...

 

[Patine]

Ed Beach was also the "AI/Gameplay Lead" for Vanilla Civ 5 before taking over the expansions...

I admit, I've never played Civ V (or Civ IV). I played Civ I and Colonization on someone else's computer, which got me interested in the franchise (though I had, in my childhood, also played Utopia on the Intellivision, considered as the very first nation-building-and-managing computer strategy game ever released), and I bought Civ 2 with my first Windows (95) PC. I've also played Alpha Centauri, Master of Magic, Master of Orion 2, and Civ 3. I'm still also active on the Civ 2 Scenario League. I drifted to RTS games like Age of Empires/Mythology, Starcraft, Warcraft, Empire Earth, Rise of Legends, as well as the 270soft simulator strategy games (which, unlike most election simulators, cover, and allow scenario and mod-making, beyond modern U.S. or UK elections to a large degree of custom material) and others during the heyday of Civ IV and Civ V, and then popped into check out Civ VI. So, I must admit, reminiscence of Civ IV and V has always mystified me, if you will.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I was excited for agendas when they were announced, but yeah the more I think about it the more I agree all the AI's are basically the same, with a couple of exceptions (Persia mentioned already, Carthage as well for settling coastal cities in places no one else can). I do think part of the problem is that civ 6 is a more complicated game, for example China can't spam wonders if they don't have the right terrain for them.

The issue with agendas is that they're a "If/Else" statements and nothing else.

It should be a slider of value, like, for each Wonder more you have than say Qin Shi, you get a -2 Diplomatic, meaning the more wonders you built, the more he dislikes you, instead, it's "If you have more, then he hates you, else, he likes you" which just makes them more manic than anything.

I do like the Agendas, but there is something missing from how they are playing, I mean, there are defines and flavor shifts for each leader, but they don't seem to be programmed as well

Another thing to consider is circumstance, Great People and Wonders are much harder to acquire than in Civ 5 or 4, with there being a common pool for Great People (which require districts), and Wonders being VERY specific (Flat land grassland tile adjacent to a Campus with a University).

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

"They just plain don't like you."

The single laziest comment I have received from any of the schizophrenic leaders. I really, really hope they revamp the idiotic denouement system in future entries.

 

[Zaarin]

"They just plain don't like you."

The single laziest comment I have received from any of the schizophrenic leaders. I really, really hope they revamp the idiotic denouement system in future entries.

That one's not new, though; I recall that one from Civ5 at least.

 

[Patine]

The issue with agendas is that they're a "If/Else" statements and nothing else.

It should be a slider of value, like, for each Wonder more you have than say Qin Shi, you get a -2 Diplomatic, meaning the more wonders you built, the more he dislikes you, instead, it's "If you have more, then he hates you, else, he likes you" which just makes them more manic than anything.

I do like the Agendas, but there is something missing from how they are playing, I mean, there are defines and flavor shifts for each leader, but they don't seem to be programmed as well

Another thing to consider is circumstance, Great People and Wonders are much harder to acquire than in Civ 5 or 4, with there being a common pool for Great People (which require districts), and Wonders being VERY specific (Flat land grassland tile adjacent to a Campus with a University).

Although, getting the navy part to impress Harald is not as hard. While you can't have the vast standing armadas (or legions, or awe-inspiring air power) that other iterations of Civ allow, the unit based showing up of AI's isn't as hard as showing up Qin with Wonders.

 

[Thormodr]

Ed Beach was also the "AI/Gameplay Lead" for Vanilla Civ 5 before taking over the expansions...

Obviously, he learned his lesson after a disastrous launch of the turkey.