Latest AI Information

[thecrazyscot]

From the livestream today (Oct. 13):

-Chieftain is baseline AI
-Subsequent difficulties have AIs getting progressively larger bonuses
-Bonuses include extra tile yields and more productive cities
-AI get combat strength bonuses on higher difficulties (looks like it starts at +1 on King with an additional +1 per difficulty level?)
-No mention of whether or not bonuses include more tactical AI...from the way it was described it seems like the bonuses are only to production and yields
-Barbarians have larger armies
-Increased AI agenda pressure

Bottom line: it looks like the AI won't play smarter above Chieftain, it will simply play faster and hit harder.

 

[Magil]

The bottom line is generally how it's always been in Civ, as far back as I can remember.

 

[thecrazyscot]

True, but with every new release all the fans hope that changes

 

[EricTheGreat12]

From the livestream today:

-Chieftain is baseline AI
-Subsequent difficulties have AIs getting progressively larger bonuses
-Bonuses include extra tile yields and more productive cities
-AI get combat strength bonuses on higher difficulties (looks like it starts at +1 on King with an additional +1 per difficulty level?)
-No mention of whether or not bonuses include more tactical AI...from the way it was described it seems like the bonuses are only to production and yields

Bottom line: it looks like the AI won't play smarter above Chieftain, it will simply play faster and hit harder.

DOn't think that is should be considered as a sense that the game is going in the wrong direction; on the contrary, it allows for more pressure on the player, therefore increasing the intensity of the game.

While tactical warfare is always a worrying part of the AI's plan in every Civ game, it's never perfect, and I don't think we'll ever reach the point when smart tactical warfare by the AI, as in the Total War series, will be feasible.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing either...I've never had an issue with the AI as I've never really been able to win above King, so there's still plenty of wiggle room when it comes to the AI for me

 

[Silverdawn]

Ed also said at higher difficulties, the barbarians get more units in their forces.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Thanks...added that to the OP.

 

[Haggbart]

I think adding combat strength on higher levels is a step in the right direction, considering that coordinating moves of many units is exactly what the AI is worst at. So better production and more units just make the game more difficult to a certain degree.

AI in today's stream had a good amount of units, just hope it will eventually upgrade them as well

 

[leandrombraz]

Personally, I think that the only thing that matter is if higher difficulties will get harder without locking the player into a single strategy, doesn't matter if it's through bonuses or a smarter AI. What make a high difficult bad is if it kills your freedom of choice, there's only one path to victory because everything else is too weak. If the easy difficulties are too easy to be fun while the harder difficulties lock you into one path, then we have a problem.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Personally, I think that the only thing that matter is if higher difficulties will get harder without locking the player into a single strategy, doesn't matter if it's through bonuses or a smarter AI. What make a high difficult bad is if it kills your freedom of choice, there's only one path to victory because everything else is too weak. If the easy difficulties are too easy to be fun while the harder difficulties lock you into one path, then we have a problem.

The ideal situation is for everyone to have their own single difficulty "sweet spot", which I've always been able to find in all the Civ games. Prince and below are usually too easy for me and anything above King is too hard. I'm optimistic I'll be able to find a sweet spot in Civ 6 because they've never let me down in that regard before.

 

[skyclad]

AI getting combat bonuses are great. I always disliked for example in civ 5 that the AI had unlimited happiness. Which made any attempt at hurting their happiness for example banning luxuries or stealing city states pointless, like removing a part of the game. So the more "spread out" in different areas the bonuses are the better.
Also, I am kind of hoping for some kind of AI bonus depending on era. It seems that the AI is always extremely strong in the beginning like starting with techs and extra units, but falls behind later on despite their bonuses.

 

[Haggbart]

Personally, I think that the only thing that matter is if higher difficulties will get harder without locking the player into a single strategy, doesn't matter if it's through bonuses or a smarter AI. What make a high difficult bad is if it kills your freedom of choice, there's only one path to victory because everything else is too weak. If the easy difficulties are too easy to be fun while the harder difficulties lock you into one path, then we have a problem.

I see what you mean, but on the same time I wouldn't want a deity AI that will let you get away with a peaceful builder game with a small army without punishing you. Several paths to victory doesn't mean there shouldn't be paths that are better/worse than other.

 

[Gort]

AI getting combat bonuses are great. I always disliked for example in civ 5 that the AI had unlimited happiness. Which made any attempt at hurting their happiness for example banning luxuries or stealing city states pointless, like removing a part of the game. So the more "spread out" in different areas the bonuses are the better.
Also, I am kind of hoping for some kind of AI bonus depending on era. It seems that the AI is always extremely strong in the beginning like starting with techs and extra units, but falls behind later on despite their bonuses.

I always thought that free promotions would've been a better way of making AI armies nastier in Civ 5, but instead they got endless seas of units that couldn't really accomplish anything and got in each other's way a lot.

 

[Ryika]

True, but with every new release all the fans hope that changes

I wouldn't want AI to get "smarter" on higher difficulties, AI should be as smart as reasonably possible within the budget, if that's too strong for lower difficulties, then they should get number penalties instead of wasting resources to artificially reduce its efficiency on lower difficulties.

 

[Dedrytus]

IMO we should understand bonuses AI gets as the handicap, like in golf. I can play with the best golf player in the world and still have chance to win or stalemate on the field but in our game it is AI that needs help. How it is implemented is completely different thing (removing happiness issues for AI in CiV was terrible idea).

 

[Lord Yanaek]

Personally, I think that the only thing that matter is if higher difficulties will get harder without locking the player into a single strategy...

This, exactly this. I don't care if the AI gets bonuses to compensate sub-par economic decisions and more strength to compensate for sub-par tactics. It's an issue is half the game is locked from me because of those bonuses.

The ideal situation is for everyone to have their own single difficulty "sweet spot", which I've always been able to find in all the Civ games. Prince and below are usually too easy for me and anything above King is too hard. I'm optimistic I'll be able to find a sweet spot in Civ 6 because they've never let me down in that regard before.

Much harder for people playing at Deity. Winning at this level is perfectly possible but in CiV, it meant not playing part of the game, like almost always ignoring religion and early wonders and cheasing around AI bonuses to turn them in your favor, like stealing their starting workers as it's rather easy while they are out exploring.

AI getting combat bonuses are great. I always disliked for example in civ 5 that the AI had unlimited happiness. Which made any attempt at hurting their happiness for example banning luxuries or stealing city states pointless, like removing a part of the game. So the more "spread out" in different areas the bonuses are the better.
Also, I am kind of hoping for some kind of AI bonus depending on era. It seems that the AI is always extremely strong in the beginning like starting with techs and extra units, but falls behind later on despite their bonuses.

Again, 100 agreed.
Hopefully, they had a look at some CiV mods that solved this, such as Acken's mod. Otherwise they would have been wise to hire him. He managed to distill the bonuses in a way that made the AI stronger in later eras while also keeping the player's options open early (religion was perfectly possible, as were early wonders). A proof it's possible if you simply care to consider options rather than re-use static bonuses as old as the franchise. Hopefully, this time they will get those right.

BTW Skyclad, is your nickname related to a British fold metal band?

 

[redwings1340]

Personally, I think that the only thing that matter is if higher difficulties will get harder without locking the player into a single strategy, doesn't matter if it's through bonuses or a smarter AI. What make a high difficult bad is if it kills your freedom of choice, there's only one path to victory because everything else is too weak. If the easy difficulties are too easy to be fun while the harder difficulties lock you into one path, then we have a problem.

From what I've seen, I imagine that you will have to play optimally to win on the higher difficulties, but that optimal play will vary from game to game. VI seems to be focused on forcing you to react to your terrain and civilization. Civ abilities are looking much stronger in VI than in V, and adjacency bonuses will matter. This will determine optimal strategy just as much as standard game balance does.

For example, you will probably be able to win the game on the highest difficulty with a strong religion, or strong science, or strong culture, but maybe not with any strategy with any start with any civilization. Brazil near rainforest definitely lends itself to strong science and faith, while greece with hills will make you want to go strong culture. However, going strong culture with brazil/rainforest probably won't get you a win.

 

[RaidandTrade]

I wouldn't want a deity AI that will let you get away with a peaceful builder game with a small army without punishing you.

I think the agendas means you're more likely to get on their wrong side earlier. In part of the livestream I caught, Trajan was dissing Gorgo for not expanding her borders as quickly (i.e., Trajan's agenda). That was Emperor where Trajan had an extra settler (or two?) at the start. Ed made the comment that the agendas are geared towards the player keeping up with the AI - which is harder on higher difficulties. Guess we'll find out in a week or so.

 

[Haggbart]

I think the agendas means you're more likely to get on their wrong side earlier. In part of the livestream I caught, Trajan was dissing Gorgo for not expanding her borders as quickly (i.e., Trajan's agenda). That was Emperor where Trajan had an extra settler (or two?) at the start. Ed made the comment that the agendas are geared towards the player keeping up with the AI - which is harder on higher difficulties. Guess we'll find out in a week or so.

Yes I noticed that, and I do think it was a good idea to encourage tension while still keeping the AI leaders "in character". So that will mean that most of the agendas probably will be harder to keep up at higher levels. While the leader agendas of Teddy, Tomyris and Qin Shi would be fairly easy to maintain. Off course there will be the random agenda as well to consider, so...

 

[treadwin]

IMO we should understand bonuses AI gets as the handicap, like in golf. I can play with the best golf player in the world and still have chance to win or stalemate on the field but in our game it is AI that needs help. How it is implemented is completely different thing (removing happiness issues for AI in CiV was terrible idea).

Not a good example. A better golf analogy would be the course superintendent growing the rough higher or making the greens faster for the players. The players are still trying to make the same shots, on the same course, but the penalties for making a bad shot/decision are much higher. Or to put it another way the risk/reward equation is skewed in the course's favor.

The problem with the handicap example is that one player does not affect the play of another player directly in golf. It just is a way of evaluating their performance.