Humankind is Awesome :) , but too easy :(

[Taefin]

Hmm I disagree with that, Civ a.i. has to deal with stuff like loyalty and food and unit upkeep, but Humankind a.i. just rides on without feeding its population or caring about paying troops or stability. Of course without the bonuses a.i.s would be worse both games.

I don’t recall Civ6 AI managing these. I only played one game post April, but they seemed to lose cities to stability unless a governor would prevent it, and they generally struggled to maintain a large army (let alone use one).

I don’t know that the improvement to HK is about the AI being any smarter, but to me it seems that HK makes a few technical changes that play to the AI’s favor.

-4 tile movement means units don’t need to plan 2 turns ahead to make tactical decisions in battle. As a result it is ever so sightly harder to use range units to destroy the entire AI army at a chore point.
-their bonuses actually directly help with fame, unlike Civ6 win conditions.
-improvements don’t require builders, a bridge too far for modern 4X AI.
-War support and sieges make conquest by AI possible and likely.

Now of course, HK introduces mechanics that unduly limit its own AI:

-Battles result in 100% casualties.
-Some key techs are not reached (homeland is in an awkward part of the tree but is essential to resist player aggression).

The parts of HK AI that seem most impressive to me:
-Does a half decent job picking battles on the main map. Still tons of unforced errors.
-Does sometimes go on defensive stance in battles if the terrain is stacked against the offense.
-Rushes units early game.

 

[Cherenkov]

Had a very tough start but once I fought my way off my continent it was easy to catch up in Fame. Admittedly I was conquering/colonizing the new world with 2 militaristic cultures in Early Modern/Industrial (Poles/Germans) for some easy militarist fame bonuses.

There's not a huge amount of game left (about 4 empires heading for a science finish) and the best AI is only just over 9000.

Spoiler :

Very cool that you recovered. Let us know how it ends. I think my next game I'm going to skip the French and try something else. Italians maybe lol.

 

[Aristos]

Hmm I disagree with that, Civ a.i. has to deal with stuff like loyalty and food and unit upkeep, but Humankind a.i. just rides on without feeding its population or caring about paying troops or stability. Of course without the bonuses a.i.s would be worse both games.

Humankind difficulty

-50% time to convert territories to religion / culture (rounded up)
-70% population food consumption
+25% science
+10 industry per population
+30 industry, money and food
+30 stability
-80% unit upkeep
-60% buyout cost
+10 fortification
+2 combat strength on units

What HK does well is stacks, Civ 7 must have them back as it makes moving troops much easier for a.i.

Yeah... now show the Deity Civ 6 outrageous bonuses side by side... and still a walk in the park.

 

[fortydayweekend]

Very cool that you recovered. Let us know how it ends. I think my next game I'm going to skip the French and try something else. Italians maybe lol.

I'm terrible at finishing games, but it would be a pretty even race to a science finish so I might give it a shot. The problem is it's basically just a matter if spamming research districts, which isn't that exciting. Mars would be too easy. Or I could try invading, but unless I can cripple the 3 lead AI on the other continent (who I have no grievances against) then one of them is going to beat me to a tech finish.

It's very tempting just to start a new game with no New World and try to get another poor starting location.

I've been trying all the different cultures and deliberately avoiding early builder and late science. I think it's a more interesting game when you can't rely on powerful EQs, it becomes much more map dependent and those forested rivers, rocky mountain areas, and clustered resources are worth fighting for.