One unit per tile concerns

[SuperFly47]

The AI is bad at one unit per tile combat in both civ 5 and 6. I doubt the developers will make the AI good for civ 7 after failing for both previous games and all the expansions with both. The great general ability to move armies should help with movement for the AI, but the AI could be bad at knowing how and when to use great generals, just like it was bad in civ 6.

Even if the AI uses the great generals well for movement, that won’t mean the AI will be much better at combat. I was hoping and expecting the developers to use a combat system like Humankind. In Humankind a human with a significantly worse army wouldn’t defeat a far stronger AI one like what happens in civ 6.

I thought the worst problem with civ 6 was the AI in combat and I doubt this issue is going to be fixed.

I'm also concerd if the AI will be able to conquer other civs like in the first 5 civ games, or if it will be like civ 6 and really struggles to conquer enemy cities. One unit per tile doesn't mean the AI won't be able to, it can in civ 5, but I worry it will be like civ 6 and not able to. The game is much less fun if the AI can't conquer other civs like in civ 6. I really enjoy seeing what AI would expand and become great powers in a game, in civ 6 that didn't happen. If it had Humankind's combat system or a similar one, then it certainly could conquer, but with one unit per tile it could go either way. I really hope the AI is able to conquer others and be at least decent in combat.

 

[AriochIV]

We won't know until we play it, but the devs have said that AI is a priority for them this time, and that the AI team for Civ7 is twice the size it was for Civ6.

For myself. 1UPT even with bad AI is more fun than stacks of doom with better AI. Playing tag with enemy stacks was never fun for me.

 

[Quintillus]

The Civ VI AI can conquer cities. The Maori conquered all of Hungary in my current game. It just really struggles to do so once walls have been built, and usually prioritizes peaceful expansion before walls are built.

I agree with the general sentiment, part of why I still play III and IV is that the AI in those games can pose a threat. Especially in IV, it often will make you regret excessive neglect of your defenses. I never found the AI in V to be threatening, and only the barbarians have been threatening to me in VI, largely because of their numbers in the early game. I've still taken to VI because its peace game is fun, but a competent combat AI is at or near the top of my wish list; it's just too easy to gain an unfair advantage by conquering a few cities from the inept AI. Poor Ambiorix in my current game, he had plenty of knights to make me feel the pain, but sent them in one at a time like in a martial arts movie, and they were easy picking that way.

I'm glad Firaxis is trying something different, and that could be a sign of realizing that it's a significant weak point of VI. I'm hoping the (soft) city limit isn't an attempt to artificially limit expansion to cover for a weak combat AI, as I'd much rather have "the AI can defend itself well and make counter-attacks" be the way that expansionist tendencies are countered. Old World does this particularly well, and nearly every patch has additional AI improvements.

That said I'm not hoping for a Humankind combat system. It's basically the same as in Endless Legend, and in both games I find it far too tedious and slow as the game progresses. It also kind of pushes the game towards tactics in what is ostensibly a strategy game.

 

[Quintillus]

We won't know until we play it, but the devs have said that AI is a priority for them this time, and that the AI team for Civ7 is twice the size it was for Civ6.

Oh, that's good to hear. Where did they share that?

 

[Zaarin]

Oh, that's good to hear. Where did they share that?

In the interview with Dennis Shirk.

 

[Krikkit1]

Oh, that's good to hear. Where did they share that?

Unfortunately they almost always say the AI is a priority. So merely because they say it’s a priority and they are aware of issues doesn’t mean their solutions will work well. (particularly because it’s hard). But there is hope

 

[Quintillus]

Unfortunately they almost always say the AI is a priority. So merely because they say it’s a priority and they are aware of issues doesn’t mean their solutions will work well. (particularly because it’s hard). But there is hope

Doubling the size of the AI team is a commitment though. As the director of the CIA said recently, "priorities are only real if budgets reflect them", and doubling the size of the AI means an increased budget and thus some real prioritization of it.