How does Civ 6 compare to Civ 4?

[MyOtherName]

That's the crux of our disagreement. In my opinion, AIs are not players.

The thing is, they quite objectively are players. And sticking NPCs in a player seat makes for a sucky game.

What you're looking at is a metagame consisting, say, of a human player sitting down at a virtual table to play a game of Civ 6 against a bunch of AI players. And it is important to make sure this metagame is an enjoyable thing. But in the default game mode, nearly all of the content of the metagame is the game itself; you need an extremely good reason for it to be a good idea to sabotage the game for the sake of the metagame.

Or maybe the problem is that's not even the metagame you're thinking of. Maybe you're thinking that Civ 6 is a sandbox game with the rival civs just there to take up space and be exploited/stomped upon if the player is so inclined. That being the primary game mode would be a radical departure from previous civs; I really don't think that's what the game is meant to be at all. (and if it was, I would be extremely furious about the bait and switch)

 

[LDiCesare]

The thing is, they quite objectively are players.

That is not objective. The term NPC exactly describes AI civ leaders, and it means "non player".
If you go this way, barbarians are a player too. Remember Civ IV (warlords I think) had an official mod where you were playing the barbarians. That is why I lump AI, both civs and city states, and even barbs together as NPCs. They are elements of the game that you interact with and each of them can make the game end for you (e.g. move towards a city state, declare war and get all your units including settler killed).

What you're looking at is a metagame consisting, say, of a human player sitting down at a virtual table to play a game of Civ 6 against a bunch of AI players.

No. That is what you are looking at. The metagame I look at is a player sitting on front of a computer playing against a computer, period. You are the one inventing a metagame where the NPCs have to behave like human players. There is no objective reason to do that. What's more, you want them to act as competitive human players, which is defining or limiting the game further.

 

[LDiCesare]

The more obvious explanation is that the AI did not, in any patch, even come close to successfully behaving like a remotely competent human player. Not tactically, and not strategically

I don't have any problem with the AI trying to act on a tactical or strategic basis as a human player. My concern is on the diplomatic side (which I admit somewhat ties in with the strategic).

These are not rules, they are (poor) decision algorithms for the AI,

I beg to differ. They are rules of the game. You choose to not brand them as rules just because you want to see the AI as humans and so any rule that does not apply to a human you brand as not a rule. Sending an embassy to get a diplomatic bonus is an element of the game, that makes only sense because there's a rule saying it boosts relations. If the relations had an impact on the human players (e.g. can't declare war on an opponent if your relations are positive), you would probably brand it a rule too.

Again, civ 5 is not a viable example of an AI attempting to win

But it is the only example Firaxis gave us. Should they try again, would they get it any better? Again, please consider jsut the diplomatic side of the AI. Civ V and VI inability to win a war or game is just incompetency and not related to whether or not it tries to win.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There is no objective reason to do that. What's more, you want them to act as competitive human players, which is defining or limiting the game further.

They are representative agents in the same slot as the player with the same victory conditions available as the player would have using that nation. The game defines them as players per its rules.

I beg to differ. They are rules of the game.

No, I brand them what they are. There is no rule stating any player has to care about warmongering for example. I can, as a player, even choose to ally somebody over it and the game lets me. That is conceptually distinct from "killing x unit has y consequence consistently" in an objective sense, same as warriors having two movement points.

Sending an embassy to get a diplomatic bonus is an element of the game, that makes only sense because there's a rule saying it boosts relations.

You get other information with an embassy, including some that would be relevant to some situations in competitive MP (IE who is trading with other nations).

If the relations had an impact on the human players (e.g. can't declare war on an opponent if your relations are positive), you would probably brand it a rule too.

Yes, with good design mechanics would have reasonable incentive to use depending on context even with player vs player interactions. That Firaxis doesn't tend to get that right consistently in diplomacy is an issue.

But it is the only example Firaxis gave us.

Demonstrating that is isn't a viable example, and with pretty clear evidence (align civ 5 AI behaviors vs competitive MP behaviors), it should be obvious that I am pointing out that there is not "one" example. There is no example whatsoever.

Firaxis has never made an AI that plays to win, and the claim that it ever did was bogus. Based on the evidence presented in-game, I'd be willing to say that directly to a developer if they wish to challenge this particular statement. I don't think even they could make a rational, self-consistent case that the civ 5 AI consistently played to win.

Again, please consider jsut the diplomatic side of the AI. Civ V and VI inability to win a war or game is just incompetency and not related to whether or not it tries to win.

If the "diplomatic side of the AI" needs to be different from MP diplomacy, the design of the game's diplomatic system is flawed. Players frequently cite wanting to have meaningful interactions with other civs in the game, then complain when the AI doesn't manage it.

The fact of the matter is that problem stems from a bad diplomacy design, even more so than bad AI. The incentives aren't there, and asking players to play pretend like the incentives do exist is disingenuous. If it weren't for heavy UI regressions over the past two civ games I'd probably consider the diplomacy design among the game's larger flaws.