Does anyone else agree that the AI is the highest priority?

[Biz_]

well, there's a difference betwen giving the AI a few minor bonuses to keep the game interesting and giving the AI so many bonuses that it turns into a different game

when humans play games, they stick to a few optimal strategies because the other ones won't win the game. it's reasonable to let the AI get a small discount on stuff (eg. 2% cost reduction on everything) so that it can pursue a wider variety of strategies to keep the game more interesting for the human

but it's just a complete lack of effort to give the type of bonuses we see on diety which is more like 300% more stuff at the start and 80% cost reduction on everything, and then seeing the AI still manage to lose the game somehow

 

[dexters]

@biz Civ AI always required discounts and production and science boosts on a scale larger that what you are suggesting.

I don't think that will change. I think the game should have good balance , features and tight game systems. Balanced games with a tight game ststem tend to promote better AI as they discourage exploits.

The AI itself should ideally scale well with the difficulty but should be tested on the middling difficulty as that's where the majority of players will settle into IMHO. This invariably means insane production bonuses on diety

 

[bison21]

I think AI has become such an overused catch-all phrase for many things. It's like saying "we need less crime!". Of course we want a good AI. Civ5 had glaring problems in that area, as pointed out by other people in this thread.
The lack of casus belli in Civ and other nuances of diplomacy are highly annoying. Other things, like troop mismanagement by AI- sorry but 90% of players make these mistakes, too. I think 1UPT+hex was a big step up and takes time to develop.

the most important thing is features, mechanics and balance.
if the game doesn't have working features and mechanics, and isn't well balanced, then it doesn't matter if the AI is good or MP works.

^This. Needed quoting again

 

[TheMeInTeam]

When it comes to balance there are indeed a lot of "could have been"

My point was only to illustrate that the AI reacts logically to how it was designed. A religious civ will pick piety more often, as it should a priori. But because of balance issues it is a posteriori a poor choice.

No argument there.

Though I think it is fair to say that such an outcome shows misaligned priorities. Piety should *sometimes* be the best choice in a competitive environment, but I don't see any evidence of that.

Honor has problems too, but it's still better than piety because it has some early all-in potential with the general/xp boost. If you really need to put that one guy down, and you tech horse before 1st policy, I can see someone doing honor + 4 chariot type plays in 1v1. It'd be really hard to make any tile improvements on defense against something like that, maybe even with liberty, and liberty/trad bonuses aren't enough to overcome honor without improvements.

SP makes it more viable for civs like Huns on Pangaea, especially on slower speeds, but that goes back into "needs AI abuse to be viable" territory .

 

[Biz_]

@biz Civ AI always required discounts and production and science boosts on a scale larger that what you are suggesting.

I don't think that will change. I think the game should have good balance , features and tight game systems. Balanced games with a tight game ststem tend to promote better AI as they discourage exploits.

The AI itself should ideally scale well with the difficulty but should be tested on the middling difficulty as that's where the majority of players will settle into IMHO. This invariably means insane production bonuses on diety

AI should need fewer and fewer bonuses as our computers get better

what single-core games from 15 years ago decided to do has nothing to do with how the game should be in 2016 imo

 

[dexters]

I think AI has become such an overused catch-all phrase for many things. It's like saying "we need less crime!". Of course we want a good AI. Civ5 had glaring problems in that area, as pointed out by other people in this thread.
The lack of casus belli in Civ and other nuances of diplomacy are highly annoying. Other things, like troop mismanagement by AI- sorry but 90% of players make these mistakes, too. I think 1UPT+hex was a big step up and takes time to develop.


^This. Needed quoting again

There's also tactical and diplo AI. Tactical AI is a much larger issue now that stacking is gone, but I think the franchise has come a long way with Diplo AI.
My litmus test is if an AI can throw a wrench into my plans not from some random RNG throw (in Civ3, there was an exploit where you repeatedly ask another Civ to leave your borders to hope they DoW on you due to RNG luck) but long term planning. The Civ whom I've stolen city-state alliances from may have a legitimate grudge to come at me, and they should. So when they DoW when I wasn't ready for it, I am satisfied.

Re: Casus belli system, is to be clear not an AI component, it's a feature. I'm not opposed to having something similar in Civ to add to the diplomatic game, to improve transparency (going back to the Civ who declare war on me with whom I've stolen CS alliances from), but Civ is not EU. You have to maintain the sandbox feel to the game that casus belli system strictly speaking may not work well with especially if people want intricate factors feeding into the system.

So a casus belli system necessarily needs to be simple and flexible for modding and other things. I have a feeling we won't get casus belli system with the announced Agenda/secret Agenda mechanic. I would venture to guess AI priorities will be listed there, and it will include items like ' X Civ is upset Y Civ built Z wonder' and therefore they have a 'hostile' agenda towards Y.

 

[noto2]

That's why I said the mechanics/features need to exist first. If the developers want diplomacy as part of the game, then they should set their mechanics to incentivize/necessitate diplomacy to win in MP. Use whatever tools is necessary; overwhelming strength from collusion, joint victories, economic victory that you can't reach without cooperation but risk your ally out-managing you, whatever. If that's the route you want to go, to make diplomacy engaging, then rather than making the AI throw...make the mechanics work in the first place.

If the AI has to throw for the mechanic to be usable and it isn't viable in MP, the mechanic doesn't work.

Yes, I completely agree. Without any incentive for cooperation, Civ games would just look like a game of Risk, everyone at war all the time with everyone else. If they want intricate diplomacy they need to give players more reasons to cooperate with other civs.

It's like how in Civ4 the AI would like you more if you shared a religion. This only made sense in the SP context until they added the feature of "we will not fight with our brothers and sisters of the faith". It wasn't enough to simulate the incentive to cooperate with another civ of the same religion, but it was a step in the right direction. You're absolutely right that they need to tweak the game for good MP balance.

I really wish Civ could be made into a viable MP game, but I just don't see how it could be done without a massive reduction in complexity to speed up the game (as well as forgoing options such as animations, which increase game time but also increase immersion. I'm one of those players who plays with animations on...)

 

[bite]

AI is one priority, it might not be the highest, Mechanics->AI->Graphics

 

[bison21]

There's also tactical and diplo AI. Tactical AI is a much larger issue now that stacking is gone, but I think the franchise has come a long way with Diplo AI.
My litmus test is if an AI can throw a wrench into my plans not from some random RNG throw (in Civ3, there was an exploit where you repeatedly ask another Civ to leave your borders to hope they DoW on you due to RNG luck) but long term planning. The Civ whom I've stolen city-state alliances from may have a legitimate grudge to come at me, and they should. So when they DoW when I wasn't ready for it, I am satisfied.

Re: Casus belli system, is to be clear not an AI component, it's a feature. I'm not opposed to having something similar in Civ to add to the diplomatic game, to improve transparency (going back to the Civ who declare war on me with whom I've stolen CS alliances from), but Civ is not EU. You have to maintain the sandbox feel to the game that casus belli system strictly speaking may not work well with especially if people want intricate factors feeding into the system.

So a casus belli system necessarily needs to be simple and flexible for modding and other things. I have a feeling we won't get casus belli system with the announced Agenda/secret Agenda mechanic. I would venture to guess AI priorities will be listed there, and it will include items like ' X Civ is upset Y Civ built Z wonder' and therefore they have a 'hostile' agenda towards Y.

Hm I see your point about it being a feature rather than "AI", but I wasn't really referring to a casus belli system as a built-in system that dictates what everyone does at each circumstance. Geographic proximity, shared victory types and leadership style should be the factors influencing an AI - and to an extent I think they already do. I think it is the lacking interaction with City states that feels like the "all or nothing" mechanic that's the annoying part.

I actually think Civ should be "like the EU" once you hit the right era. I mean to have UN, advanced tech but still not being able to figure out who is spying/stealing/etc feels unrealistic. I feel that late-game civ deviates quite a bit from the interlinked economies and knock-on effects and it's more of an Empire that lasts into the future.