[poll] How excited are you currently about Civ7? [vol 2 - November/December 24]

[ColtSeavers]

I suspect this is something that a very, very small portion of the player base wants. I know I found it a huge turnoff in Civ5 and when they briefly tried to implement it in Civ6.

I don't understand, why wouldn't you want the AI play to win? What else is the purpose of playing a strategy game?

 

[gdr_willter]

I don't understand, why wouldn't you want the AI play to win? What else is the purpose of playing a strategy game?

The Civilization is neither an one-sided "strategy game" nor "simulation game", a delicate compromise of both. Sometimes it can be even a role-playing game for many users. The NPC who don't follow the roleplay, or the NPC who suddenly change their mind and try to kill the player, will not be a great experience for the most of RPG players. And I can understand the civ players who feel the play-to-win AI as like the rule-breaking NPC above.

 

[Gedemon]

I don't understand, why wouldn't you want the AI play to win? What else is the purpose of playing a strategy game?

for the same reason I don't play competitive MP, I don't find that fun.

For me civ is more about playing into an alternative history than aiming to reach one of the victory condition ASAP.

But I do want some challenge too, else the story would be boring.

It's a kind of balance, and between pure RP and pure competition there are as much nuances as there are players.

 

[ColtSeavers]

The Civilization is neither an one-sided "strategy game" nor "simulation game", a delicate compromise of both. Sometimes it can be even a role-playing game for many users.

Simulation/ Immersion is important to me, too (as widely discussedin the Civ Switching Threads), but to me it was always clear, that the AI should play to win the game, and not prioritize some more or less generic agendas over this.

 

[tedhebert]

for the same reason I don't play competitive MP, I don't find that fun.

For me civ is more about playing into an alternative history than aiming to reach one of the victory condition ASAP.

But I do want some challenge too, else the story would be boring.

It's a kind of balance, and between pure RP and pure competition there are as much nuances as there are players.

While I fully understand your explanation, to me, that's exactly what difficulty levels should resolve... Higher levels for play-to-win, lower levels for RP

EDIT: And there should be at least 3 levels of each, so that competitiveness is also present

 

[gdr_willter]

Simulation/ Immersion is important to me, too (as widely discussedin the Civ Switching Threads), but to me it was always clear, that the AI should play to win the game, and not prioritize some more or less generic agendas over this.

It's your standard, not all of Civ players.

I personally play this game as strategic board game in early period of each game, and it slowly becomes a role-playing game when the global powers are solidified. So in the end game, I expect my small alliance (who can't really achieve the VCs obviously) stay with me and don't betray. If they still want and play to win, it will ruin my play experience.

 

[Zaarin]

I don't understand, why wouldn't you want the AI play to win? What else is the purpose of playing a strategy game?

If the AI is playing to win, it's simply reminding me I'm playing a game. The AI should provide the illusion of playing against other nations, not against playing competitively against humans; that's what MP is for for those who want that--I don't. It should play competently enough not to get steamrolled, but it shouldn't metagame.

 

[tedhebert]

If the AI is playing to win, it's simply reminding me I'm playing a game. The AI should provide the illusion of playing against other nations, not against playing competitively against humans; that's what MP is for for those who want that--I don't. It should play competently enough not to get steamrolled, but it shouldn't metagame.

Again, if you chose to play Immortal or Deity levels, the AI SHOULD try and win... If you chose lower levels, then yes, less so !

 

[Zaarin]

Again, if you chose to play Immortal or Deity levels, the AI SHOULD try and win... If you chose lower levels, then yes, less so !

What the AI is doing at high difficulties is none of my concern.

 

[gdr_willter]

Again, if you chose to play Immortal or Deity levels, the AI SHOULD try and win... If you chose lower levels, then yes, less so !

High level game is still a civ game, and not ALL AIs have to try to win. Civs that left behind from the victory race have to try to survive rather than win.

 

[rocksinmypath]

I don't understand, why wouldn't you want the AI play to win? What else is the purpose of playing a strategy game?

Some people don't like to deal with situations like the following:
- You're Cyrus (or Chandragupta or Mongolia). Every time you meet an AI player, they immediately declare war on and never agree to a peace deal.
- Hammurabi is in the game. You're in Medieval Era. Hammurabi has Bombers and wants to kill everyone.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

If the AI is playing to win, it's simply reminding me I'm playing a game. The AI should provide the illusion of playing against other nations, not against playing competitively against humans; that's what MP is for for those who want that--I don't. It should play competently enough not to get steamrolled, but it shouldn't metagame.

There are victory conditions, too. What is the point of the victory conditions if only the human player tries to achieve them?

I get the point about meta-gaming and immersion. The AI shouldn't gang up on the human player, shouldn't always backstab, especially if friendly relations benefits that AI, too, etc. But it also shouldn't passively and incompetently sit there pursuing no victory-oriented strategy at all (scientific, cultural, whatever, it doesn't have to be war). If that's the sort of game Firaxis is putting out, then they should go full Paradox and remove the victory conditions all together.

Personally, I want to play Civ specifically because it is a game. It's a crappy simulator of history, but it can be (and has been in past versions) a fun history-flavoured game.

 

[Zaarin]

There are victory conditions, too. What is the point of the victory conditions if only the human player tries to achieve them?

I get the point about meta-gaming and immersion. The AI shouldn't gang up on the human player, shouldn't always backstab, especially if friendly relations benefits that AI, too, etc. But it also shouldn't passively and incompetently sit there pursuing no victory-oriented strategy at all (scientific, cultural, whatever, it doesn't have to be war). If that's the sort of game Firaxis is putting out, then they should go full Paradox and remove the victory conditions all together.

Personally, I want to play Civ specifically because it is a game. It's a crappy simulator of history, but it can be (and has been in past versions) a fun history-flavoured game.

And I want to play Civ because I like building pretty things and enjoy interacting with avatars of interesting historical personalities. It's not that the AI shouldn't try to win if it's able to or that it shouldn't be focused on pursuing a victory condition, but, for example, when they made it so the AI would have a relationship penalty "because you're winning" in Civ6 it made me sufficiently annoyed I uninstalled the game until they patched it out.

 

[Disgustipated]

From what we've seen in the recent stream, the AI does seem to be playing to win. Or at the very least, developing their empire indirectly led to those victory points we saw at the end of the Antiquity era.

 

[gdr_willter]

From what we've seen in the recent stream, the AI does seem to be playing to win. Or at the very least, developing their empire indirectly led to those victory points we saw at the end of the Antiquity era.

I'll say it that the game changed, not AI changed. The victory(legacy) points requirements in the Antiquity and Exploration Age are the things that AI already did well. Spamming/conquering settlements, building wonders, gaining relics/great works/resources...

It will nicely work for 2/3 of the game, preventing the AI knocked out from the victory race till the endgame comes. And it is also good change for the balance between competition and role-playing, the goals of VCs in first two Ages are technically not exclusive so everyone can pursue their goals. Of course there will be some competitions caused by the lack of land, wonder list, resources, but this race allows more various approaches and not eliminate losers. So the AI leaders can be play-to-win rivals and role-playing partners at the same time in these ages.

The victory race in the Modern Age will be more important and intense, but we have not seen any clue about it. I'll put back my conclusion untill the 3rd Age become more clear.

 

[ColtSeavers]

What the AI is doing at high difficulties is none of my concern.

What difficult level are you playing then?

 

[ColtSeavers]

Some people don't like to deal with situations like the following:
- You're Cyrus (or Chandragupta or Mongolia). Every time you meet an AI player, they immediately declare war on and never agree to a peace deal.
- Hammurabi is in the game. You're in Medieval Era. Hammurabi has Bombers and wants to kill everyone.

I understand that Civs are prioritizing Military or Scientific or Economic Victories etc. What I don't understand is when an AI proritizes building a Wonder during a space race just because it is their Agenda, instead of building the necessary parts for the spaceship.

 

[Olle Wernersson]

I suppose ideal situation you wanting winning to be running a balanced civilization well, and in that respect you'd want to see other civs "playing to win", but the way victory conditions have always been implemented distorted what is optimal to win away from what is optimal to create a balanced civilization

hybrid AI system that balances immersion and competition, with adjustable difficulty settings:

• Personalities: AI leaders should feel unique, following their traits and historical inclinations.
• Goals: AI prioritizes winning but does so in ways consistent with its personality.
• Adaptability: At higher difficulty levels, AI becomes more competitive, while at lower levels, it emphasizes storytelling and roleplaying.

 

[Uberfrog]

I’m still quite excited, I always am with a new civ game/expansion. I think the devs are clearly thinking carefully about the game design, and I have high hopes that this will be better than Civ 6. I am glad they are taking risks and changing things up, I really hope it solves the problem of late-game fatigue.

I am generally against pre-orders, and I am irritated that they have two different tiers of DLC content. I will probably buy the game just before release in order to get the Shawnee. I definitely won’t pay £120 in advance, even if I will eventually end up getting all the new civs.

 

[Zaarin]

What difficult level are you playing then?

Chieftain. I've won on Warlord, but I didn't enjoy it. The AI just got too aggressive.