New Version - August 18th (8-18)

[Jiska]

I usually just lurk, but I'm gonna chime in and give G some support and say that I think the CP is by far the most superior of all the different AI's I've played against.

I agree. Forget the "too few wars" for a second and focus on the "over-friendliness". The base friendliness of all AI has gone up significantly. Virtually no denouncements until ideologies. AI stays friends even with warmonger AIs that wipe out other AIs. Can this be looked into as a separate item?

I think these are actually all positives.

 

[Morgawr]

How are they positives?

 

[Gazebo]

The problem with this, however, is that, if the CP AI is designed with (if not only) the CBO in mind, then the AI may never reach a point where they are capable of conducting a war. And AFAIK its not merely that the AI is too peaceful - its that they're too friendly, as well. That is, they never become hostile, or guarded, or even neutral, even when you take a city that will supposedly make them very upset. This seems like an unintended irregularity.

I agree. Forget the "too few wars" for a second and focus on the "over-friendliness". The base friendliness of all AI has gone up significantly. Virtually no denouncements until ideologies. AI stays friends even with warmonger AIs that wipe out other AIs. Can this be looked into as a separate item?

The CP AI is developed independent of the CBO - I test both to check performance.

I can honestly say that I only rarely see the 'lovefests' that are noted here. Generally speaking there are about 25% isolationist, 25% wiped out, 25% defensive-war, and 25% warmonger civs in each game, depending on map shape and size.

G

 

[Vermicious Knid]

The problem I'm seeing with the AI in the last iteration isn't that they are too friendly exactly...it is that the friendliness is just about unshakable. I had a long border with Poland and I started slowly taking their territory with Citadels. To the point that I popped a citadel and took two plantations directly adjacent to their capital city.

Not only has the declaration of friendship never wavered...the diplomatic breakdown says we have no territorial disputes.

 

[nOxr]

The CP AI is developed independent of the CBO - I test both to check performance.

Ok, that is good to know. To clarify, I play CP and I have had nothing but feasts of friendliness in several games since 8-8.

I can honestly say that I only rarely see the 'lovefests' that are noted here. Generally speaking there are about 25% isolationist, 25% wiped out, 25% defensive-war, and 25% warmonger civs in each game, depending on map shape and size.

G

I would expect the AI to be more aggressive and militaristic when you play with Domination as the only VC, but it doesn't seem to make any difference. I agree that the AI should only do what is best for themselves, but I also think they should try to win the game. If Domination is the only VC then I think the AI should be more willing to gamble on military conquest.

 

[Zanteogo]

The CP AI is developed independent of the CBO - I test both to check performance.

I can honestly say that I only rarely see the 'lovefests' that are noted here. Generally speaking there are about 25% isolationist, 25% wiped out, 25% defensive-war, and 25% warmonger civs in each game, depending on map shape and size.

G

I have to agree with the people pointing towards overly friendly AI. I have played three games with the current build and usually notice a single AI civ that acts disagreeable and warlike with the rest going for friendship declarations and research treaties. This all ends once ideologies unlock and civs start to have issues with each other. The problem is, the few civs that don't become super friendly get left behind and don't make it very far.

I also notice the AI doing the old rejecting it's own offers again...

 

[Funak]

I can honestly say that I only rarely see the 'lovefests'

Poor old Gazebo, looking for orgies in all the wrong places

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

The CP AI is developed independent of the CBO - I test both to check performance.

I can honestly say that I only rarely see the 'lovefests' that are noted here. Generally speaking there are about 25% isolationist, 25% wiped out, 25% defensive-war, and 25% warmonger civs in each game, depending on map shape and size.

G

Well, then your experience is far from what I've seen and had, and from what I see in this thread and on these forums, I definitely am not the only one.

Every game (and I've played tens on this patch) there's DoFs, ranging from "everyone" to "almost everyone". A warmonger civ happens, yeah - once in two-three-four games. Unless you count me that is, then every game has a warmonger. The Smurfy circles I've mentioned before are back, but this time even going full-on Gargamel doesn't make anyone really hostile or mad. I've conquered almost the entirety of my continent and the friends of the conquered want DoFs with me still as I obviously prepare to take them over.

The other AI's at most be passive aggressive and declare the +33% unit maintenance congress thing, but that often hurts them too because some AIs just make huge armies they don't use.

In VP right now the status is as follows:
Situation normal - all's Smurfed up. Smurfs are love, Smurfs are life.

If the AI is to remain as it is, just hardlock it out of ever taking Authority and beliefs like Orders/Hero Worship so they are more efficient. No point in having them take something they won't ever make an use of, especially Hero Worship/Authority, though Orders at least buffs your Defense while Hero Worship needs you to conquer cities to do anything and Authority is inferior to Progress in everything if you don't fight hard at least in Classical era. As it stands, Authority/Hero Worship should be pretty much Player exclusive, just forbid AI from taking them unless they plan to fight by Classical and all will be fine.

I'd say forbid them from taking God of War too, but I only saw AI take it once I think and it was so long ago, I can't say if they fought or not.

Poor old Gazebo, looking for orgies in all the wrong places

At least he isn't looking for them in Civ 6 - it would prove he has some terrible taste because in that game everyone looks terribly ugly and barely human.

 

[tu_79]

I don't know what is causing the issue, maybe it's the excesive friendlyness, maybe it's the AI undervaluing its uniques. Or are we mistaken and the AI has really better chances at winning not attacking anyone?

 

[Morgawr]

I don't know what is causing the issue, maybe it's the excesive friendlyness, maybe it's the AI undervaluing its uniques. Or are we mistaken and the AI has really better chances at winning not attacking anyone?

Absolutely not - I have played 4 games with the new version and won each one on Emperor. My previous win rate was around 20%. As others have said, this "new AI" makes the game easier because you don't have to build military or be scared of getting attacked. Or you could just invade everyone and keep your DOFs because nobody seems to "care" about warmongering anymore. I act like a complete a**hole to everyone spreading my religion to their holy cities and they are still my bffs.

I feel like a broken record but would the devs please look into AI attitudes - it is significantly different from before. It feels like the AIs all start with eg +10 positive attitude modifiers from get go and also don't "register" negative ones like borders or warmongering, except ideology. I am still hoping that there will be some eureka moment when the bug in the code is found that is causing the AI to behave this way and the devs will be like "aaah THATS why it was happening"

 

[Txurce]

...I act like a complete a**hole to everyone spreading my religion to their holy cities and they are still my bffs.

To be precise, this is on the current version, right? I play on 8/12, spread my religion to holy cities, and 1) always lose DoF's, and 2) sometimes wind up with a war. These effects are permanent. However, they don't happen on the very next turn (which I think is good).

 

[Morgawr]

To be precise, this is on the current version, right? I play on 8/12, spread my religion to holy cities, and 1) always lose DoF's, and 2) sometimes wind up with a war. These effects are permanent. However, they don't happen on the very next turn (which I think is good).

Yes in 8/18. I do lose the DOF eventually (if I wiped their religion to 0) but about 100 turns later. Never seen denouncements or war as a result until past turn 300

 

[Workerspam]

If the AI is to remain as it is, just hardlock it out of ever taking Authority and beliefs like Orders/Hero Worship so they are more efficient. No point in having them take something they won't ever make an use of, especially Hero Worship/Authority, though Orders at least buffs your Defense while Hero Worship needs you to conquer cities to do anything and Authority is inferior to Progress in everything if you don't fight hard at least in Classical era. As it stands, Authority/Hero Worship should be pretty much Player exclusive, just forbid AI from taking them unless they plan to fight by Classical and all will be fine.

I've found early peaceful authority to be a perfectly valid strategy as a player; I'll have to pay more attention to the AI to see if it hurts them more. But while you lose passive science and growth you get more happiness; gold and culture are situational but can be comparable (inland empires get more benefit from authorities cheaper roads). Early aggressive expansion even seems easier as once you hit (policy that grants +1 happiness and 2 culture from garrisons) early new cities actually shorten time to next policy. And the passive production can be put to great use, to the point where you can make up much of what you lose by not going progress through early specialists and churning out diplomatic units.

If you can hunt down barbarian units and protect city state invasions with your otherwise unused army, hey, bonus! Granted, I normally only take authority when I plan to go to war at some point in the future but I've never felt hamstrung with it when I play nice with my neighbors.

 

[Gazebo]

Absolutely not - I have played 4 games with the new version and won each one on Emperor. My previous win rate was around 20%. As others have said, this "new AI" makes the game easier because you don't have to build military or be scared of getting attacked. Or you could just invade everyone and keep your DOFs because nobody seems to "care" about warmongering anymore. I act like a complete a**hole to everyone spreading my religion to their holy cities and they are still my bffs.

I feel like a broken record but would the devs please look into AI attitudes - it is significantly different from before. It feels like the AIs all start with eg +10 positive attitude modifiers from get go and also don't "register" negative ones like borders or warmongering, except ideology. I am still hoping that there will be some eureka moment when the bug in the code is found that is causing the AI to behave this way and the devs will be like "aaah THATS why it was happening"

There is no 'eureka' bug, as it isn't bugged. As I've said before, the core structure of the diplo AI (do what is best for you, not what is best for the human) is steadfast. Other changes will come as needed. I hear all of you - when I say that 'I don't see the lovefests' that doesn't mean I'm ignoring you, but rather it is not as easily re-produceable as you think it is. Hitting it with a big stick until it breaks is not a solution.

Remember that I can only run one test game at a time, whereas there are thousands of users running games at the same time. Issue of scale.

G

 

[matlajs]

There is no 'eureka' bug, as it isn't bugged. As I've said before, the core structure of the diplo AI (do what is best for you, not what is best for the human) is steadfast. Other changes will come as needed. I hear all of you - when I say that 'I don't see the lovefests' that doesn't mean I'm ignoring you, but rather it is not as easily re-produceable as you think it is. Hitting it with a big stick until it breaks is not a solution.

Remember that I can only run one test game at a time, whereas there are thousands of users running games at the same time. Issue of scale.

G

gazebo when anything else, you should at least disable that ,, Buy me peace for 5GPT(sometimes less)'' . Thats how it works, is just awfull. They are doing it just by routine, bcoz i dont rly see a reason why anyone whole world far should want peace betweet two waring factions when he isnt Friend with anyone of those two. And to adition to that, it is based on war score, not about who declared what is even worse. Your few wars( Your, bcoz its your work with this AI) stands just few turns before someone pay that above mented huge pile of gold.

second thing is i dont absolutely know what you are talking about. That sentence ,,Ai do best for itself, not for human''. 1) its for fun, i see no way how should player profit from two waring AI's except of some circumstances. 2) AI going for domination victory(which you putt off with this AI logic) is doing something in favour of player? where?

 

[Vermicious Knid]

Is there an easy spot to change a number and make the AI react more strongly to affronts?

The other option I'm imagining to make the current version interesting is enabling "always war", but that is a baby with the bathwater solution.

 

[tu_79]

second thing is i dont absolutely know what you are talking about. That sentence ,,Ai do best for itself, not for human''. 1) its for fun, i see no way how should player profit from two waring AI's except of some circumstances. 2) AI going for domination victory(which you putt off with this AI logic) is doing something in favour of player? where?

He says that AI is going to war when it needs to. Not because the diplo actions of the player forces it, but because AI can see some profit. It's just that our feedback says that AI is missing some benefits by acting too friendly, specially for warmonger civs. So what we really want to say is that AI isn't valueing correctly its chances, or at least, we think so. By being so passive, AI is losing more often.

Perhaps when giving feedback, we should tell our difficulty level, pace, map and civ density.

 

[Revolutionist_8]

I agree. Forget the "too few wars" for a second and focus on the "over-friendliness". The base friendliness of all AI has gone up significantly. Virtually no denouncements until ideologies. AI stays friends even with warmonger AIs that wipe out other AIs. Can this be looked into as a separate item?

I've got 2 denouncements in medieval era (large, epic speed), and couple of wars too (not counting mine). I guess it's probably really situational.

Although I agree that AI tends to be way too friendly sometimes, as far as I can remember even vanilla AI was like that (especially the friendlier civs with their flavors, made the game incredibly predictable - you knew exactly what AI will do what).

I even remember when in one patch, probably due to some bug or quirks, the AI was incredibly bloodthirsty, and it wasn't fun either.

The AI now is the most rational, human-like in CiV so far, in my humble opinion, for which I'm really grateful to Gazebo

 

[matlajs]

He says that AI is going to war when it needs to. Not because the diplo actions of the player forces it, but because AI can see some profit. It's just that our feedback says that AI is missing some benefits by acting too friendly, specially for warmonger civs. So what we really want to say is that AI isn't valueing correctly its chances, or at least, we think so. By being so passive, AI is losing more often.

Perhaps when giving feedback, we should tell our difficulty level, pace, map and civ density.

yee this is fair explanation.

 

[kaspergm]

Let's all be clear re: the 'AI to peaceful' discussion. You all want the AI to be warmongers and attack each other/you. You want them to invest heavily in the gamble that is military conquest. You want them to be the antagonists in your story. That's not what the CP's AI is all about. If it is not in the AI's best interests to attack someone, they will not attack. If it is, they will. I'm always adjusting the AI here and there, but this core principle remains. Some games you will have all-out war. Some games you will not.

G

I hear what you say here, but there's an inherent dilemma here. Because on one hand, an AI that DoW you without any chance of winning breaks immersion. On the other hand, an AI that just sits around passively once you become top dog is boring (and, I suppose, also breaks immersion). I'm very torn on the "chaos" feature the developers supposedly have worked into the Civ 6 AI, because I hated how insane Civ 5 early AI seemed - but on the other hand, when AI starts acting too rational, it's also not ideal.

Anyway, that's just my 5 cents. The fact that in the game I referred to, it was not only in relation to me but also between AI's there was no war did strike me as something being off. Everybody were, literally, friends with everybody else. Several civs happily sat around with just one or two cities among vast empty lands and did nothing. But again, that might just have been a fluke.