The AI problems Civ 6 currently has are in no way related to 1UPT. I'm not saying 1upt is good or bad, but units not attacking a city when they surround it is not dependant on 1UPT and it's the worst problem the AI has right now.
Is AI really brain dead?
- Thread starter ThunderLizard2
- Start date
I guess I have to dig up my "Isolated Cleo on turn 97"-screenshot again:
Well... I'm currently playing Civ IV/BtS again and judging from that experience, I'd say 1UPT probably isn't the only culprit in confusing the AI - but it certainly is part of the problem. Civ IV's combat is also quite a bit simpler than V's and VI's. For one thing, there are virtually no engagements that don't end in the death of one unit. In that regard, IV is a lot more like chess, I guess. Plus of course the fact that with SoD and cities that can't defend themselves and don't have hit-points, conquering cities is a *lot* more straight-forward than it is in either V or VI.
S.
Last edited:
ThunderLizard2
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 302
1 UPT adds a level of complexity for the AI beyond the benefit it offers. Why spend all this programming effort on "path finding" etc.? Having a brain dead AI makes for a boring game. I'll take SoD any day if I can have a fun game experience.
orasis
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2006
- Messages
- 441
1UPT is not the problem. There mods that make the AI in V very intelligent and dangerous. One of those mods was 'Aicken's' and I am seriously disappointed that Firaxis did not got in touch with him/her.
How modders can make 1UPT work without having access to the source code unlike Firaxis developers is frustrating to say the least.
Started a new game as Pericles - with no CS anywhere close to me I might add. I'm playing king/epic/fractal and am on turn 100 or so now and despite extensive exploration, I haven't found a single CS yet.
Anyway: My next-door neighbor is Arabia who were the one ones who did the (scripted?) early DOW on me. Seriously: From what I've read here and experienced myself, it almost seems like the AI will declare on me in the very early game as a scripted event. I had no conflict with Arabia, religions aren't even a thing yet for either of us and since I already had 3 cities vs his capital (plus sufficient military units to not be considered a squishy target) there really was no good reason for him to declare war.
He stupidly parked 3 warriors just outside my front-line city (within my territory) about 3 or 4 turns before he did the DoW, tipping me off nicely. After the DOW he approached my front-line city (no walls yet) with about 5 or 6 warriors altogether and - eventually - a slinger. I had a warrior and an archer already in position and two more archers and another warrior on the way. He actually managed to attack my city twice, but in doing so he ignored my ranged units that were shredding his assault force to bits. The truly "braindead" moment came however when - during war - he sent an unescorted settler right past my frontline city and towards my capital .. "someone's bad decision.." and all that. After I captured that one and had decimated his assault force, he sent *another* unescorted settler towards my front-line town (which was crawling with my defenders). So even though I didn't get that much gold out of the peace-deal he eventually offered, I did get two new towns - all thanks to an AI that doesn't seem to know that settlers can be captured ... :/
S.
Anyway: My next-door neighbor is Arabia who were the one ones who did the (scripted?) early DOW on me. Seriously: From what I've read here and experienced myself, it almost seems like the AI will declare on me in the very early game as a scripted event. I had no conflict with Arabia, religions aren't even a thing yet for either of us and since I already had 3 cities vs his capital (plus sufficient military units to not be considered a squishy target) there really was no good reason for him to declare war.
He stupidly parked 3 warriors just outside my front-line city (within my territory) about 3 or 4 turns before he did the DoW, tipping me off nicely. After the DOW he approached my front-line city (no walls yet) with about 5 or 6 warriors altogether and - eventually - a slinger. I had a warrior and an archer already in position and two more archers and another warrior on the way. He actually managed to attack my city twice, but in doing so he ignored my ranged units that were shredding his assault force to bits. The truly "braindead" moment came however when - during war - he sent an unescorted settler right past my frontline city and towards my capital .. "someone's bad decision.." and all that. After I captured that one and had decimated his assault force, he sent *another* unescorted settler towards my front-line town (which was crawling with my defenders). So even though I didn't get that much gold out of the peace-deal he eventually offered, I did get two new towns - all thanks to an AI that doesn't seem to know that settlers can be captured ... :/
S.
Roald Amundsen
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 181
Special tip! Always bring scouts to your siege. The AI really like to hit them with city fire, leaving your army unharmed. That's civ6 AI for you 
kornelm1978
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 119
1 UPT is a problem for AI but maybe it can be coded that is competitive. But it's bad also from gamepley perspecive. It's not strategical but tactical and it makes reall strategies less viable. Can you imagine paratroopers landigng to kill industry ie? No because your units will be spred across huge area and die quiclky. On huge area becasue of hills, cities, and carpet on the back. And in range of at least 3 cities. Can you imaging paratroopers landing on small island? No, becasue the island is to small. Can you imagine small sea landing of 5 units to support ground advance on difficult terain. No, becasue it will be spread on huge area (mountains, cliffs and other units). Many of you defend 1upt and says that better AI is sollution. But 1 upt is limits really the strategies (just expamples not possible now, or at least exterely dificult) of interesting and dynamic war giving you the puzzle of efective movement and effective placing the units. Boring an really tiring.
It should be strategy game not puzzle.
It should be strategy game not puzzle.
Update on my Pericles-game:
I just tried to trade away excess citrus to Gandhi (who, for some reason, hates me). I asked him what he wanted to give me for it and he offered some flat gold, 3 GPT and Open Borders (to me). I tried to get more money out of the deal, adding Open Borders myself to the table. He didn't take it (even without me asking for more gold). When I asked him to make the new deal (my citrus plus me offering open borders) more equitable, he then wanted Citrus, flat gold, 5 GPT and my Open Borders for his Open Borders - and nothing else on his side of the deal. WTH?
Update: And it couldn't have been him being unwilling to grant me open borders. What I ended up doing was to accept his first deal (his open borders, plus gold plus GPT for my citrus), then I asked him if he wanted open borders from me as well (in a new deal), which he happily accepted for 1 GPT. Doesn't - make - any - sense ...
S.
I just tried to trade away excess citrus to Gandhi (who, for some reason, hates me). I asked him what he wanted to give me for it and he offered some flat gold, 3 GPT and Open Borders (to me). I tried to get more money out of the deal, adding Open Borders myself to the table. He didn't take it (even without me asking for more gold). When I asked him to make the new deal (my citrus plus me offering open borders) more equitable, he then wanted Citrus, flat gold, 5 GPT and my Open Borders for his Open Borders - and nothing else on his side of the deal. WTH?
Update: And it couldn't have been him being unwilling to grant me open borders. What I ended up doing was to accept his first deal (his open borders, plus gold plus GPT for my citrus), then I asked him if he wanted open borders from me as well (in a new deal), which he happily accepted for 1 GPT. Doesn't - make - any - sense ...
S.
Last edited:
Update 2:
God, that was *way* too easy.
Switched to pikeman-production and denounced Gandhi in preparation to take his capital. Before I could start the war, Norway (2nd best buddy of mine), Germany (neutral/friendly towards me) and Monty (neutral) decided to declare war on me. Monty was way behind in tech and had all his invasion force embarked near his "thorn in my side"-city on my western flank. Two ironclads and a frigate were enough to eliminate his 6 or 7 embarked horsemen, then a few turns later I had taken his city on my continent and he was instantly willing to peace out, cede the city *and* give an insane amount of GPT and gold.
Next target was Harald's capital just east of my lands. He tried to attack my eastern border-city with three or four cats and some spearmen (when I was on bombards, knights, field-cannons and infantry). A few turns later, his capital was mine, he ceded it and also gave me a hugely favorable peace-deal. Germany peaced out on their own and had never even sent a single unit anywhere near my territory.
Then I turned my attention to Gandhi, whose capital is just north of my empire. First I eliminated all his roaming elephants that he had parked on one of my borders but miles away from his territory - there's a huge desert and jungle-area separating our two civs. The "toughest" part then was to move on his capital because of the jungle. His capital is 3 or 4 tiles from a coast where I had parked two frigates and he was kind enough to needlessly move some of his remaining units into bombard-range of those two ships. Then my bombards, field cannon and modern infantry made short work of his city, despite him having an encampment there. Again: He peaced out immediately and showered me with gold for it (he has one crappy city left, no idea where he's still getting all that GPT from).
Result: Before the wars, I was ahead 350 to 280 over my next strongest opponent (Germany), now I'm at 560 or so and am seriously thinking about abandoning the game and re-starting on a higher difficulty. I mean: The war AI in Civ V was usually pretty bad. But if defeating V's AI felt like taking candy from a baby, VI's feels like taking candy from a sleeping baby who has his hands tied behind his back.
S.
God, that was *way* too easy.
Switched to pikeman-production and denounced Gandhi in preparation to take his capital. Before I could start the war, Norway (2nd best buddy of mine), Germany (neutral/friendly towards me) and Monty (neutral) decided to declare war on me. Monty was way behind in tech and had all his invasion force embarked near his "thorn in my side"-city on my western flank. Two ironclads and a frigate were enough to eliminate his 6 or 7 embarked horsemen, then a few turns later I had taken his city on my continent and he was instantly willing to peace out, cede the city *and* give an insane amount of GPT and gold.
Next target was Harald's capital just east of my lands. He tried to attack my eastern border-city with three or four cats and some spearmen (when I was on bombards, knights, field-cannons and infantry). A few turns later, his capital was mine, he ceded it and also gave me a hugely favorable peace-deal. Germany peaced out on their own and had never even sent a single unit anywhere near my territory.
Then I turned my attention to Gandhi, whose capital is just north of my empire. First I eliminated all his roaming elephants that he had parked on one of my borders but miles away from his territory - there's a huge desert and jungle-area separating our two civs. The "toughest" part then was to move on his capital because of the jungle. His capital is 3 or 4 tiles from a coast where I had parked two frigates and he was kind enough to needlessly move some of his remaining units into bombard-range of those two ships. Then my bombards, field cannon and modern infantry made short work of his city, despite him having an encampment there. Again: He peaced out immediately and showered me with gold for it (he has one crappy city left, no idea where he's still getting all that GPT from).
Result: Before the wars, I was ahead 350 to 280 over my next strongest opponent (Germany), now I'm at 560 or so and am seriously thinking about abandoning the game and re-starting on a higher difficulty. I mean: The war AI in Civ V was usually pretty bad. But if defeating V's AI felt like taking candy from a baby, VI's feels like taking candy from a sleeping baby who has his hands tied behind his back.
S.
kornelm1978
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 119
I guess I have to dig up my "Isolated Cleo on turn 97"-screenshot again:
Well... I'm currently playing Civ IV/BtS again and judging from that experience, I'd say 1UPT probably isn't the only culprit in confusing the AI - but it certainly is part of the problem. Civ IV's combat is also quite a bit simpler than V's and VI's. For one thing, there are virtually no engagements that don't end in the death of one unit. In that regard, IV is a lot more like chess, I guess. Plus of course the fact that with SoD and cities that can't defend themselves and don't have hit-points, conquering cities is a *lot* more straight-forward than it is in either V or VI.
S.
But city defences and bomaderment is not connected with 1upt. I like city defences idea, but hate 1upt. But those 2 can be really combined - more units per tile + city defences. The simplest result would be conquering more difficul thatn in 5/6 but more difficult than in 4.
LukaSlovenia29
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2016
- Messages
- 1,500
I agree, 1UPT is not the problem, Firaxis is. The mods for Civ V have made the AI, including fighting, awesome. No reason why Firaxis couldn't.
I didn't say that it was. I was simply stating different aspects/concepts that, IMO, probably make it harder for the AI to shine in V and VI. 1UPT is one of them (IMO), but there are other factors.
In IV, the AI could simply rush a SoD to a city, keep attacking the city until all defenders were dead and, boom!, it had conquered the city. For the AI, it was pretty much just a matter of calculation. How strong is their stack, how strong is the opposing stack?
In V and VI there are no more SoD, but there is also 1UPT, ranged combat and combat that can result in both units surviving the encounter (in Civ IV, combat usually ends with the losing unit getting killed). All of which mean that moving armies around isn't as simple as it was in IV, smart placements of units and considering terrain features now is a huge factor just as much as prioritizing key units as prime targets is. Like taking out enemy siege/ranged units first when you're defending a city.
S.
I fall on the side of the AI not being able to play with 1upt. It could cope much much better with stacks. I also think that civ 6 suffers from requiring a whole turn of movement to move on to hill tiles, cross rivers, and forrests/jungle. The result is basically a massive traffic jam. Carpets of doom are no more fun than stacks of doom. And in fact they are worse when the carpet cant even move.
I dont know how feasible it would be, but having a turnbased version similar to how MOO2 worked might be interesting. Endless legend also had an interesting take on combat. As Civ6 is a very similar sort of game to endless legend, maybe that might be a system worth developing.
I dont know how feasible it would be, but having a turnbased version similar to how MOO2 worked might be interesting. Endless legend also had an interesting take on combat. As Civ6 is a very similar sort of game to endless legend, maybe that might be a system worth developing.
fatgordy
Chicken in Pants
I too agree that a lot of the issue with the AI is with 1UPT. I had no issue at all with SoD in Civ IV and I wish they would have abandoned 1UPT in Civ VI. Hopefully the modders will salvage the terrible VI AI sooner rather than later.
ProMeTheus112
Prince
I will buy Civ 6 only if I see big improvement on AI 
Same here! I'm intrigued by a lot of it's interesting features but having an AI that can't play the game at least somewhat properly ruins it for me.I will buy Civ 6 only if I see big improvement on AI
princereggiek
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 1
I feel like AI for this should be programmable. People say 1UPT is some hard restriction that makes it impossible to code for. That the AI can't pathfind around it.
The entire map can just be seen as open or closed squares. It's not like the terrain changes, so it can be analysed in detail, the positions of cities, the terrain, then an invasion plan can be created and it sends units in to attempt this. The problem is that computer is not doing very basic calculations. The strength of all the units is known, the computer could easily calculate how many of it's units are needed to focus down enemy units, but it doesn't not take this action. It moves units around randomly and sporadically attacks. It's not being honest. If it just honestly threw everything it had at the opponent with a remotely organized and focused force at least it would feel honest.
The entire map can just be seen as open or closed squares. It's not like the terrain changes, so it can be analysed in detail, the positions of cities, the terrain, then an invasion plan can be created and it sends units in to attempt this. The problem is that computer is not doing very basic calculations. The strength of all the units is known, the computer could easily calculate how many of it's units are needed to focus down enemy units, but it doesn't not take this action. It moves units around randomly and sporadically attacks. It's not being honest. If it just honestly threw everything it had at the opponent with a remotely organized and focused force at least it would feel honest.
Similar threads
