[GS] New patch: AI walled city attack experiment results

[darko82]

I would buy this expansion if the AI was significantly improved. If not, I might buy it at 60% discount. This is definately too expensive. The base game, which has so more to offer costs less than expansion (it was even bundled for pennies). No logic at all. Not buying it, sorry. Firaxis (2K) marketing is also to be changed. No logic.

 

[DemonMaster]

I would buy this expansion if the AI was significantly improved. If not, I might buy it at 60% discount. This is definately too expensive. The base game, which has so more too offer costs less than expansion (it was even bundled for pennies). No logic at all. Not buying it, sorry. Firaxis (2K) marketing is also to be changed. No logic.

The base game is a a couple of years old and is needed to play the expansions. It is very logical that they lower the price for the base game when they release a new expansion. They hope that the new people who buy the base game, like it, and will buy the expansions as well.

 

[darko82]

The base game is a a couple of years old and is needed to play the expansions. It is very logical that they lower the price for the base game when they release a new expansion. They hope that the new people who buy the base game, like it, and will buy the expansions as well.

It was given away for pennies on Humble Bundle just after about over a year from the release. Now we are over two years (late 2016 Oct.)

No, because they do not lower it for the people who already bought the game for a lot higher price. The lower it for the new people to get caught. And for those who already bought the game market the expansion for the price of a full game, which provide a lot less than a full game.

New additions are always nice. But as long as the AI is not fixed, I won't care about them.

 

[DemonMaster]

It was given away for pennies on Humble Bundle just after about over a year from the release. Now we are over two years (late 2016 Oct.)

No, because they do not lower it for the people who already bought the game for a lot higher price. The lower it for the new people to get caught. And for those who already bought the game market the expansion for the price of a full game, which provide a lot less than a full game.

New additions are always nice. But as long as the AI is not fixed, I won't care about them.

The expansion doesn't cost as much as the full game. Prices for a game goes up and down and the prices for civ 6 has been standard for the most part, except for black Fridays, Cyber-Mondays and when a dlc is released.

So you don't have the expansion, but you know that the game isn't fixed. So why do you bother to come to this site if you don't like the game.

 

[ZeroSuitSenpai]

Just had a match against Monty who tried to stop my land assault by continuously building galleys in his besieged city next to a 6-tile lake. It did not work out for him :X

 

[Ferocitus]

The thing is, the game has something called a difficulty setting for this purpose. If you're playing on Deity, you aren't going to want the AI to pull its punches. Firaxis must understand this.

Maybe they do understand it and don't want the game to be that way.

Also, Civ VI has sold far less than Civ V and has a much lower user rating on Steam, so I'm sure they've taken note of the criticism.

False assumptions, flawed reasoning, and completely ignoring the fact that Civ5 was an appalling mess on release.

 

[darko82]

The expansion doesn't cost as much as the full game. Prices for a game goes up and down and the prices for civ 6 has been standard for the most part, except for black Fridays, Cyber-Mondays and when a dlc is released.

So you don't have the expansion, but you know that the game isn't fixed. So why do you bother to come to this site if you don't like the game.

Civ games and the expansions are all overpriced. That said. €39,99 for the expansion. How many AAA games could you get for it? Probably many

I like the game. I just do not like the AI and the price.

 

[Siptah]

False assumptions, flawed reasoning, and completely ignoring the fact that Civ5 was an appalling mess on release.

Civ 5 being a mess on release is no longer relevant when comparing V and VI. Both had two expansions so we have to compare the wonderfully-improved post-BNW civ V with still-the-Same-as-vanilla GS-civ VI.

 

[kaspergm]

Reading the OP, I don't know whether I should laugh or cry.

However, if it's true that AI behaviour changes so radically when AI is the one to declare war compared to when player does it, that does offer some light. This should make it possible for the programmers to add some sort of switch in AI behaviour that triggers when player DOW him, so rather than reprogramming the whole AI (which is obviously not going to happen), they can make the AI act more sane given the circumstances.

On a sidenote, the AI in GS *does* seem capable of acting depending on circumstances. I was pleased to see this behaviour from the AI in my game last night. I was 2 points away from winning diplomatic victory, and the AI players all unanimously voted to decrease my diplomatic victory score. This is a welcome behaviour changed compared to Civ5 world congress, where AI would be completely oblivious to circumstances when making their votes.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Thanks for the thread, it's refreshing to see a constructive and reasonable approach to discussing the AI.

It seems to me that the AI is very reluctant to go to war in the later stages of the game, something in the decision tree makes them unlikely to declare even when they dislike you. Based on Soma's test, I suspect this makes the AI seem worse than it is because late game wars are typically started by the player. This would also explain why the early game AI appears to much more effective and threatening.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I wonder if this sort of problem comes up when the AI is presented with opportunities in other victory types besides domination? Maybe the AI is slow to do things such as win science victories because it's preoccupied with other things, and doesn't recognize the value in obtaining a victory?

I was 2 points away from winning diplomatic victory, and the AI players all unanimously voted to decrease my diplomatic victory score.

The problem is many people, myself included, don't want the AI trying to win - they're there to play a role and add flavour. Personally I would find that kind of voting change based on game state incredibly annoying and frustrating.

 

[Legacy of Smiles]

I think it'd be interesting to try this test on a couple of AI mods and observe if there are any major improvements.

 

[Infixo]

It seems to me that the AI is very reluctant to go to war in the later stages of the game, something in the decision tree makes them unlikely to declare even when they dislike you. Based on Soma's test, I suspect this makes the AI seem worse than it is because late game wars are typically started by the player. This would also explain why the early game AI appears to much more effective and threatening.

I believe this is due to few reasons.
1. Diplo penalties. Obviously they are bigger in later eras. Unless they are really hating each other, most AIs prefer peaceful ways.
2. AI prefers to go science, culture or religion way.
3. City valuation drops drastically due to better defenses (units). When creating Real Strategy, I noticed that putting 3-4 units nearby a city drops its valuation to 0, and AI will never attack it.
Put this all together and you get what you see - wars are almost non-existent in later eras.

 

[DemonMaster]

3. <> wars are almost non-existent in later eras.

In pre-GS games that might have been the case, but this has been improved. I have finished two games so far and there where several wars in "later eras", (with city capturing).

 

[Infixo]

In pre-GS games that might have been the case, but this has been improved. I have finished two games so far and there where several wars in "later eras", (with city capturing).

That is a good news then. Seems like changing warmonger mechanics into grievances really helped in this area.

 

[kaspergm]

That is a good news then. Seems like changing warmonger mechanics into grievances really helped in this area.

Also, for better or worse, the new diplomatic modifier for different governments is kind of ridiculous in late game. Modifier for different government was -66 (WTH?) in Modern age and -88 (seriously) in Future age? Modifier for same government was +40. That's basically saying: If we have same government, we like you, if we have different government, we will dow. you.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Also, for better or worse, the new diplomatic modifier for different governments is kind of ridiculous in late game. Modifier for different government was -66 (WTH?) in Modern age and -88 (seriously) in Future age? Modifier for same government was +40. That's basically saying: If we have same government, we like you, if we have different government, we will dow. you.

I quite like that, reminiscent of ideologies.

 

[Takfloyd]

False assumptions, flawed reasoning, and completely ignoring the fact that Civ5 was an appalling mess on release.

Name the false assumptions and flawed reasoning in my irrefutable statements based on hard numbers. You are the one with flawed reasoning considering you are trying to compare vanilla Civ V with current Civ VI. Try to actually think through what you are writing next time so you don't just post generic non-arguments.

 

[Infixo]

Also, for better or worse, the new diplomatic modifier for different governments is kind of ridiculous in late game. Modifier for different government was -66 (WTH?) in Modern age and -88 (seriously) in Future age? Modifier for same government was +40. That's basically saying: If we have same government, we like you, if we have different government, we will dow. you.

I believe they (Firaxis) try to replicate the Ideologies with the mechanics available in Civ6. In Civ5 different Ideologies caused many wars and that was the whole idea and it worked.
So, in Civ6, they have to use different governments situation. There is even a casus beli "Ideological War" but I've never seen it used.

 

[darko82]

The problem is many people, myself included, don't want the AI trying to win - they're there to play a role and add flavour. Personally I would find that kind of voting change based on game state incredibly annoying and frustrating.

Diety should be frustrating. Want to roleplay? Then, choose chieftain.