Make The AI Great at Conquering Again

[Foufa131]

My biggest wish for the Civilization 7 is this : the AI should be able to conquer other civilizations effectively again.

I enjoyed Civilization 6, but it felt more like a city-building management game than the sandbox experience I loved in Civilization 4. For me, a true Civilization game is about the stories you create as you play, and the sandbox aspect is crucial to that.

In Civilization 6, I often found myself overly focused on building districts and rushing victory conditions, neglecting what was happening across the map. Why? Because civilizations rarely conquer each other, and even when they do, there's no sound notification, making it easy to miss. This shift turned the game into more of a management experience than a dynamic sandbox strategy.

In contrast, Civilization 4 kept you on your toes. You could be racing for a science victory while maintaining a strong enough army to survive, and then—suddenly—war horns! Even if you weren't involved, the sound of cities being conquered and a quick glance at the minimap told you a dramatic story unfolding in the game.

This made Civilization 4 (and even Civilization 5) far more exciting and immersive in my opinion. Anyone else agree?

 

[Haig]

Totally agree, I want to see AI empires eat other nations like in Civ 4.

1upt is difficult for AI to handle so I am glad we get commanders in Civ 7.
I hope that air units are more straightforward to use than in Civ 6 too.

 

[ehecatzin]

I think commanders will help the AI stage more efficient attacks, pathing 1 unit and releasing a whole army should make it easier to program, I hope.

 

[Foufa131]

Totally agree, I want to see AI empires eat other nations like in Civ 4.

1upt is difficult for AI to handle so I am glad we get commanders in Civ 7.
I hope that air units are more straightforward to use than in Civ 6 too.

I totally agree !

Maybe they should also nerf the walls?

 

[Foufa131]

I think commanders will help the AI stage more efficient attacks, pathing 1 unit and releasing a whole army should make it easier to program, I hope.

I’m also really optimistic about the commanders. The real question now is whether the AI will be able to use the commanders effectively.

 

[Haig]

In gamerant's article, the player allies with Caesar to attack Ahsoka.
Player has two commanders with armies but gets all his units killed.
Meanwhile Caesar manages to wipe out Ahsoka's empire.

Reading that made me very happy.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

The warhorns always make me jump in my chair, and is actually one of my favorite Civ4 features. Especially the times I knew I had neglected military, hoping the coalition of AI's would pick on some other Civ first. I remember the fun of watching the replays in 4 (and 3 for that matter) and watching the AI gobble up entire nations in record speed. For me the absentness of Civ 6 tension after the first inevitable invasion made the game unplayable.

Really hoping commanders can fix this, however I'm not too optimistic. But maybe. Coupled with the Era mechanic it could prove something. I think it will be easier to make the AI understand the game better with "three separate games." 1upt makes it hard for the AI civs, the difference between a huge army and a big one is rather small, losing just a few units is too crucial. Old World manages to fix this somehow, I guess it has to do with the larger maps and cheaper unit cost? In that game I regularly see empires swallow each other. Then again I find combat in Old World to be it's weakest feature, however miles more fun than in Civ5-6.

The commanders idea seem very good on paper. If the AI understands how to use them properly, and gets enough production bonuses, they could mass produce them and we would see "stacks" like back in Civ4 when you would just look in awe at the AI's stacks of 50 destroyers patrolling your coast.

For me it seems there are two kinds of Civ players, those who want to just steamroll and those who want to be steamrolled. I was always of the latter and would always quit the game as soon as I could see the I will win the game. If I'm losing I'm excited. If I'm winning, I'm bored.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I totally agree !

Maybe they should also nerf the walls?

I saw a gameplay video where a commander would enter the center of a city without fighting, and claimed the city.

So based on what I saw, it seems the cities by itself, do not have any HP, which was the major cause why in civ V and VI, AI would often
deliberately choose to NOT build ANY military units, just because cities by themselves were in many case just a better option defensively.

I might be wrong, I'm hoping this is the case, as it was an issue that needed to be addressed if they wanted a comeback for a barely acceptable Ai...

Walls do not need to be nerfed, they need to work as a defence multiplier for garrisoned units. If no military units are garrisoned, then a city could use civilian troops, and if city pop
would get to 1, then a city HP should be automatically zero, and pose no resistance, than even a scout could conquer it. This is the only change to walls that needs to be done in my
opinion. Otherwise walls could be highly optimized, and work also as elevated fortified roads, and allow quick troops movement in what are now huge cities...

Walls could be upgraded with towers, forts, moats, etc etc... and every one of these upgrades could serve a specific defensive role which is not just a static bonus of some
sort, but units could use them actively. Archers on towers could gain +1 range, and so on...

Also, hystorically, eastern walls made of earth reinforcements were much stronger and well suited for bombardments than westrn medieval walls until Star forts made a comeback...
Walls hystory by itself is very fascinating... the biggest walls in Greece and Italy were said to be built by Cyclops for a reason...
Syracuse in Italy legends says the island of Ortigia (part of Syracuse) was anchored to the sea floor by a goddess, Latona, which Jupiter was very jealous about and didn't want her to come onto the land of Sicily. She built huge pillars to anchor the island. It's just a legend but seems like the biggest and tuffer construction project happened in mythological times.

Walls of all kinds had numerous advantages to terraforming, so not just military function. Dams are walls. etc. Were dams invented in the Industrial age? I don't think so..
Walls should really be expanded on. Not nerfed.

 

[Alextheglorious]

One of the frustrations with Civ 6 is that you could win despite ignoring everything else that was happening in the world. I'd love it if there was a mechanism whereby if a rival Civ starts taking over other Civs (especially ones you are friendly with) your people would rise up (i.e. lose productivity) unless they saw you were doing something to help the global situation. Suddenly you've got a decision to make - keep on throwing all your resources at a scientific victory or step back and go to war!

 

[Foufa131]

The warhorns always make me jump in my chair, and is actually one of my favorite Civ4 features. Especially the times I knew I had neglected military, hoping the coalition of AI's would pick on some other Civ first. I remember the fun of watching the replays in 4 (and 3 for that matter) and watching the AI gobble up entire nations in record speed. For me the absentness of Civ 6 tension after the first inevitable invasion made the game unplayable.

Really hoping commanders can fix this, however I'm not too optimistic. But maybe. Coupled with the Era mechanic it could prove something. I think it will be easier to make the AI understand the game better with "three separate games." 1upt makes it hard for the AI civs, the difference between a huge army and a big one is rather small, losing just a few units is too crucial. Old World manages to fix this somehow, I guess it has to do with the larger maps and cheaper unit cost? In that game I regularly see empires swallow each other. Then again I find combat in Old World to be it's weakest feature, however miles more fun than in Civ5-6.

The commanders idea seem very good on paper. If the AI understands how to use them properly, and gets enough production bonuses, they could mass produce them and we would see "stacks" like back in Civ4 when you would just look in awe at the AI's stacks of 50 destroyers patrolling your coast.

For me it seems there are two kinds of Civ players, those who want to just steamroll and those who want to be steamrolled. I was always of the latter and would always quit the game as soon as I could see the I will win the game. If I'm losing I'm excited. If I'm winning, I'm bored.

I feel exactly the same way! It’s great to see others who enjoy the game more when they’re losing. The game becomes so dull once you’re winning, especially in Civ 6 where you can easily crush the AI without them putting up much of a fight.

For me, the game isn’t about winning; it’s about the thrill of finally taking down that annoying opponent who declared war on me twice and weakened my empire. The excitement comes from knowing you’re at a disadvantage but pushing through and doing your best to catch up. That’s where the real fun lies.

 

[Foufa131]

In gamerant's article, the player allies with Caesar to attack Ahsoka.
Player has two commanders with armies but gets all his units killed.
Meanwhile Caesar manages to wipe out Ahsoka's empire.

Reading that made me very happy.

That’s really good news if it works consistently! Another promising aspect is that if I understand correctly, when you change your civilization at the beginning of a new age, you receive bonuses designed to help you catch up. This could mean that we’ll no longer see certain civs lagging far behind. Instead, we might witness AI civilizations pulling off a "remontada" coming back from being weak in a previous age to conquer and steamroll other AI in the next. It could make each new age feel like a fresh game.

 

[Haig]

That’s really good news if it works consistently! Another promising aspect is that if I understand correctly, when you change your civilization at the beginning of a new age, you receive bonuses designed to help you catch up. This could mean that we’ll no longer see certain civs lagging far behind. Instead, we might witness AI civilizations pulling off a "remontada" coming back from being weak in a previous age to conquer and steamroll other AI in the next. It could make each new age feel like a fresh game.

Also UrsaRyan and Potato McWhiskey wrote that AI seems better but it was only from a small sample of a couple hours of playing on Prince level.
UrsaRayan had his capital reduced to half health.

 

[Prester John 2]

Yes, the AI should be a military threat again both to other AIs and to the human player. Cities and towns should be less an obstacle in themselves (like having ranged strikes) but be garrisonable. Battles should take place between units not primarily between cities and units, although that too has a place.
I'm curious as to how the change of ages will affect an empire: will an empire loose some of its cities/towns as German gamer Writing Bull has indicated or just the districts. If it looses cities then the snowballing of early conquests would be mitigated. However I hope the cities do not disappear completely and instead just turn into independent powers.
I also hope that plundering is still a viable option short of outright conquest.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

I feel exactly the same way! It’s great to see others who enjoy the game more when they’re losing. The game becomes so dull once you’re winning, especially in Civ 6 where you can easily crush the AI without them putting up much of a fight.

For me, the game isn’t about winning; it’s about the thrill of finally taking down that annoying opponent who declared war on me twice and weakened my empire. The excitement comes from knowing you’re at a disadvantage but pushing through and doing your best to catch up. That’s where the real fun lies.

Yes! If I get beat in a strategy game I'm much more inclined to give it another go and try better next time. And I actually find the Game Over state in Civ much more satisfying than the next-turn-click-mouse-button-slog that is called Victory.

I'm hoping they dial way down how powerful cities are. The AI had an easier time in the first four Civ's where cities were defenceless. It seems that cities doesn't shoot anymore, which I always didn't like, and it will hopefully help the AI. I mean, I see from a development perspective why they made cities hard to loose for the player so new players wouldn't be scared away from the game, but for me it just doesn't work and it doesn't seem to work that well for the AI too. Scaling down city HP poses it's own problems with 1upt. Before you could stack huge ammounts of units within the city and protect it. Not so much with 1upt.

Hopefully the new generals could fix this, so there is some way to stack units in the cities. I'd say, make defenseless cities bite the dust!

 

[Somebody613]

For me it seems there are two kinds of Civ players, those who want to just steamroll and those who want to be steamrolled. I was always of the latter and would always quit the game as soon as I could see the I will win the game. If I'm losing I'm excited. If I'm winning, I'm bored.

I'm kinda 50/50.
I personally enjoy WINNING and dislike LOSING... as an overall game outcome.
But at the same time, I dislike seeing AI being outright stupid (and me winning solely because of THAT) - and I just as much dislike "sudden Barbarian MEGA hordes out of nowhere".
That's not "AI winning", that's "RNG rolling a 6 against your 1, all the 1234 times in a row".
THAT actually sucks to experience, because it's technically just AI cheating, not really AI strategically winning.
But when AI manages to take my city with actual warfare (or better yet, given how extremely rare this is, with culture) - I like it, because it's actually playing and winning, not RNG cheating.

 

[Krajzen]

I am highly optimistic in this regard thanks to the commander system.

The biggest problem for AI was moving big armies on the offensive. Coordinating 1UPT for many unit types (many of which can't take cities) plus very harsh terrain rules plus civ6 systems of walls and encampments (and very tight city space) plus loyalty - all that combined caused AI to have horrible time attacking other empires. On top of it, unit-individual promotions were very beneficial for the human player, who could carefully micro his/her units till super elite special forces, whereas AI could never go beyond 1-2 basic terrain promotions, which then it failed to use.

Now AI can pack several (six?) units in one army, slap bonuses on all of them at once thanks to commander skill trees to make them closer in quality to human's, move them under enemy city with 6^n less brain power required to deal with the damn terrain and traffic jams, and doesn't have to deal with encampments and loyalty. On top of it, now city defenses are going to be attacked not by 1-3 suicidal units (persistent AI problem) but by like at least 4-6 of them at once.

The system is going to be much more AI friendly, micro friendly and turn time friendly.

Honestly the news that civ7 is going to retain the same civ6 army system would be way worse blow for me than civ switching controversy, since here it would mean omnipresent misery inescapable even with expansions, good design aproach, optional rules or mods, which are my hopes for civ switching.

 

[Somebody613]

Yes! If I get beat in a strategy game I'm much more inclined to give it another go and try better next time. And I actually find the Game Over state in Civ much more satisfying than the next-turn-click-mouse-button-slog that is called Victory.

Weeelll, I call it a "victory" only when I'm literally the only one standing on the entire map (disregarding my vassals, obviously). LOL!

 

[Foufa131]

I am highly optimistic in this regard thanks to the commander system.

The biggest problem for AI was moving big armies on the offensive. Coordinating 1UPT for many unit types (many of which can't take cities) plus very harsh terrain rules plus civ6 systems of walls and encampments (and very tight city space) plus loyalty - all that combined caused AI to have horrible time attacking other empires. On top of it, unit-individual promotions were very beneficial for the human player, who could carefully micro his/her units till super elite special forces, whereas AI could never go beyond 1-2 basic terrain promotions, which then it failed to use.

Now AI can pack several (six?) units in one army, slap bonuses on all of them at once thanks to commander skill trees to make them closer in quality to human's, move them under enemy city with 6^n less brain power required to deal with the damn terrain and traffic jams, and doesn't have to deal with encampments and loyalty. On top of it, now city defenses are going to be attacked not by 1-3 suicidal units (persistent AI problem) but by like at least 4-6 of them at once.

The system is going to be much more AI friendly, micro friendly and turn time friendly.

Honestly the news that civ7 is going to retain the same civ6 army system would be way worse blow for me than civ switching controversy, since here it would mean omnipresent misery inescapable even with expansions, good design aproach, optional rules or mods, which are my hopes for civ switching.

I’m even more optimistic now after reading your message, especially coming from you, because I remember searching about the Civ 6 AI not conquering each other problem two years ago and finding your thread. I was so relieved to see I wasn’t the only one concerned about it.

Also, I heard that they’ve doubled the development team working on the AI for the next Civilization game! I can't wait to play it.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

Have Devs said anything about war AI?

 

[Nikolai II]

Agreed. An AI that - at the higher difficulties - is a danger to the human, or at least a big speed bump, is important. And they should also be able to take on each other with success, thus being one bigger challenge vs two smaller, weaker!