[GS] Does the AI "learn" from past mistakes?

[Tech Osen]

So the for some reason the Ottomans have their heart set on Nazca. They conquered it once but couldn't hold loyalty so I liberated it after it became a free state. I had an army and navy there because they also declared war on my ally Gilgamesh at that time. I beat him down easily and left two submarine armadas, a destroyer armada and a carrier with 3 (jet) fighters in the area, just in case.

He declared war on Nazca three more times, now without declaring on Gilgamesh so he had to move his land units over sea as well. Straight at my waiting fleet, with the expected result. The screenshot is one turn after my science victory. I got so fed up with his antics that I dropped a nuke on Erzurum a few turns earlier.

Anyway, I know the AI isn't all that but this really seemed like an strange move. To declare war on a city state, that they can't hold loyalty at, repeatedly, while the suzerain, that has shown he will declare a protectorate war immediately, has an armada waiting next to it.

 

[kaspergm]

No, it seems quite evident that AI has zero recollection of past events. For instance, there's been many listed cases of AI repeatedly sending settlers in the same direction only to be captured by barbs, to the extent that in the end, there'll be an army of barb settlers walking around in the area.

 

[Krajzen]

it doesn't even learn from present mistakes, not to mention past

 

[RohirrimElf]

So the for some reason the Ottomans have their heart set on Nazca. They conquered it once but couldn't hold loyalty so I liberated it after it became a free state. I had an army and navy there because they also declared war on my ally Gilgamesh at that time. I beat him down easily and left two submarine armadas, a destroyer armada and a carrier with 3 (jet) fighters in the area, just in case.

He declared war on Nazca three more times, now without declaring on Gilgamesh so he had to move his land units over sea as well. Straight at my waiting fleet, with the expected result. The screenshot is one turn after my science victory. I got so fed up with his antics that I dropped a nuke on Erzurum a few turns earlier.

Anyway, I know the AI isn't all that but this really seemed like an strange move. To declare war on a city state, that they can't hold loyalty at, repeatedly, while the suzerain, that has shown he will declare a protectorate war immediately, has an armada waiting next to it.

View attachment 549621

dont expect to much from an AI that also works on consoles, handhelds and tablets. Its intelligence is not past toddler level yet.
Its getting better at each update. but needs a huge bonus gradually to keep up with someone who played a couple of hundred hours of civ games.

On some erea’s the AI is very competent. On some it can pass for a human. But a lot of times it makes erratic moves/blunders. No human player would make.

The AI does not improve itself. It needs a developer with right data and code to fix what is wrong with it.

 

[Chefofrats]

dont expect to much from an AI that also works on consoles, handhelds and tablets.

This attitude is so annoying. The platform has nothing to do with it. In fact, some of the most intelligent IT solutions at present work best on mobile devices, utilising AI in the cloud. And modern consoles and smartphones have more computational power than PCs in the days of Civ IV, when Civ supposedly had better AI than today, according to many posts on this forum.

I am also quite sure the AI presents enough of a challenge for the vast majority of players - not those so vocal on forums, but the ones quietly playing occasionally for fun at home. In fact, having played all Civ's iterations over the past 30 years, and with well over 1000 hours of Civ VI played, I see the deficiencies of Civ VI's AI, but I do not consider them game breaking. I admit without shame that I like the fact the AI cannot outwit me. If it could, I would lose, and where would my fun be then?

 

[RohirrimElf]

This attitude is so annoying. The platform has nothing to do with it. In fact, some of the most intelligent IT solutions at present work best on mobile devices, utilising AI in the cloud. And modern consoles and smartphones have more computational power than PCs in the days of Civ IV, when Civ supposedly had better AI than today, according to many posts on this forum.

I am also quite sure the AI presents enough of a challenge for the vast majority of players - not those so vocal on forums, but the ones quietly playing occasionally for fun at home. In fact, having played all Civ's iterations over the past 30 years, and with well over 1000 hours of Civ VI played, I see the deficiencies of Civ VI's AI, but I do not consider them game breaking. I admit without shame that I like the fact the AI cannot outwit me. If it could, I would lose, and where would my fun be then?

i’ve read your whole reply. But i pretty much disagree without about all things you said in the last post. As a fellow civ veteran with over 6000+ hours of civilization played. 4000 hours on civ 4. I would advise to play a game with a couple of AI opponents on prince level (no bonus for AI). Quickly play through your moves and not focus on your empire building. But look at what the AI does. Check if it has a military. Look at how it circles around your cities or sends a lonely siege unit forward unsupported during an attack.

How it can’t handle chokepoints. Naval/Air combat. How you could press enter and do things at random once you reach the 2nd part of the tech tree and still win a science victory. There is so much wrong with the game that anyone looking himself for a challenge gets disheartened. I dont mind losing to the AI at all. I play chess against Fritz on its highest level and get beaten every time. Coming back for more. It is a good training tool. Considering all the flaws of civ 6. I would call the game broken at this point. Having played full price for a game that feels like betatesting.

 

[Chefofrats]

i’ve read your whole reply. But i pretty much disagree without about all things you said in the last post.

I appreciate your viewpoint and I can see where it is coming from, yet I do not agree with your ultimate conclusion, writing Civ VI off as a broken game.

Unscientifically, I will use personal example. I haven't played on prince in ages, but when the game came out I spent weeks playing on Prince and having very good fun. Was the AI perfect? Of course it was not, but it provided exactly the sort of challenge it should have, on a difficulty level labeled as "normal". Then I moved on to King, appreciating the much higher difficulty level, yet one which still let me win pretty much all of the time - as should be the case for a semi-experienced player (given my decades of playing Civ games) on a difficulty described by the game as hard. I played several games on Emperor, Immortal, and Diety, each time encountering a higher difficulty level and winning by the skin of my teeth (and probably only because I rerolled my starting locations to death). How was any of that broken? I got exactly what I expected on each difficulty level, which was not always what I enjoyed (Emperor and above was more of a chore than fun).

The very fact that the consensus on this forum seems to be that to consistently win on Emperor and above you need to maximize efficiency by chopping, timing eurekas etc. proves that the game is not broken by the AI presenting too little of a challenge.

Don't get me wrong by the way, I am not criticizing your subjective perception of the AI. I just do not agree with your conclusion, declaring the game a beta version.

PS. The annoyance I mentioned earlier related only to the part of the statement that related the AI's defficiencies to multi-platform game support, including mobile devices.

PS2. The day I start enjoying losing and treating games as a training excercise rather than a source of fun will be the day I realize I need to stop gaming.

 

[RohirrimElf]

I appreciate your viewpoint and I can see where it is coming from, yet I do not agree with your ultimate conclusion, writing Civ VI off as a broken game.

Unscientifically, I will use personal example. I haven't played on prince in ages, but when the game came out I spent weeks playing on Prince and having very good fun. Was the AI perfect? Of course it was not, but it provided exactly the sort of challenge it should have, on a difficulty level labeled as "normal". Then I moved on to King, appreciating the much higher difficulty level, yet one which still let me win pretty much all of the time - as should be the case for a semi-experienced player (given my decades of playing Civ games) on a difficulty described by the game as hard. I played several games on Emperor, Immortal, and Diety, each time encountering a higher difficulty level and winning by the skin of my teeth (and probably only because I rerolled my starting locations to death). How was any of that broken? I got exactly what I expected on each difficulty level, which was not always what I enjoyed (Emperor and above was more of a chore than fun).

The very fact that the consensus on this forum seems to be that to consistently win on Emperor and above you need to maximize efficiency by chopping, timing eurekas etc. proves that the game is not broken by the AI presenting too little of a challenge.

Don't get me wrong by the way, I am not criticizing your subjective perception of the AI. I just do not agree with your conclusion, declaring the game a beta version.

PS. The annoyance I mentioned earlier related only to the part of the statement that related the AI's defficiencies to multi-platform game support, including mobile devices.

PS2. The day I start enjoying losing and treating games as a training excercise rather than a source of fun will be the day I realize I need to stop gaming.

From my perspective the day i start losing on deity/immortal after the next update would be a major victory. Which means i could play the game 1 difficulty lower. Analyse my shortcomings and train myself to be creative enough to handle the situation better. It did happened recently when the AI got a defensive buff after an update. I underestimated the AI and my units got oneshotted by a culverin in a city with just to much toughness, My attack got halted and i was very proud about the AI in stopping me.

There needs to be a good balance do between giving the AI a starting bonus and being made smart enough to handle a human om equal terms. I dont get excited about the same flow over and over again. Giving the AI an extra settler and a ton of military units. At some point you are his equal. And after this point the game is pretty much won. The AI can’t hold his ground on equal terms.

I have lost in the past. But it often happened due to early aggresion. Me trying to press religion where i should use the time on more pressing matters. And once or twice by a runaway civ. At some times i felt cheated. But losing does not lower my wish to continue playing civ 6. When i stop playing and wait before another update hits usually comes by winning the game after 3-4 era’s played. And continuing the game unchallenged does not feel fun anymore. Also the turn times go up towards the end of the game. Which increases my frustration.

Maybe calling the game broken is not phrasing it at its best. The last year have not be that bad at times. I could also say the game is fun for the first 3 era’s. And sometimes even challenging. Untill the AI does not fight back and you can do most things what you want unapposed. Which is like 50-60% of the game by tech era’s.

 

[steveg700]

The AI makes decisions largely based on capacity. That is to say, if the AI can do something that's at the top of its priority list, then it will do so. If it can't, it will move to the next option.