Problems still remain

[nokmirt]

So basically all the problems of CiVanilla. Firaxis has learned nothing, or rather they have learned they no longer need to make a decent game to sell it.

I agree these are common sense issues that should be addressed before release. Like the AI programmer. He watches days and days of the AI not upgrading units and does nothing about it. It is just crazy.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Solutions with non-resource units in the middle of upgrade chain will not work with dense chains of Civ6.

Making resources less important for units will make them loose their meaning.

 

[Furycrab]

Conquest is such a touchy subject IMO with AI. The problem being, as you make your AI better at the game, it should be able to defend itself with far less troops than the attacker, which in turn means the attacker has to know this on some level and if you assume that both players are of reasonably equal skill level, the better move becomes to just keep macroing.

When they took the time to say things like: Under these conditions, Domination victories are kinda rare. That's not necessarily a sign of bad AI. Ever try to play chess against yourself? It's kinda the same idea... If one side manages to win without some major advantaged start, it likely means either the attacker or the defender made a mistake... and as the AI gets better at the game it should be stalling a lot more.

The fear I have with messing around with the Diplo penalties is you risk making the AI kinda "dumb". Ever play Risk or a Multiplayer game where one guy takes out one or two players and threatens to win? Guess what... The rest typically start fortifying borders near him and treating him as hostile... The smart decision in many cases becomes not to fight, sometimes the even smarter decision is to skimp on defenses and units till hopefully the last minute where you buy a Wall and some units as the opponent starts to come for you.

The solution just shouldn't be to make the AI oblivious to someone warmongering till they are too big they can't be stopped.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Conquest is such a touchy subject IMO with AI. The problem being, as you make your AI better at the game, it should be able to defend itself with far less troops than the attacker, which in turn means the attacker has to know this on some level and if you assume that both players are of reasonably equal skill level, the better move becomes to just keep macroing.

When they took the time to say things like: Under these conditions, Domination victories are kinda rare. That's not necessarily a sign of bad AI.

Yes. But the problem is - AI doesn't seem to threat the conquest victory, or at least significant conquest. If I play on continents, I expect the other continent to sometimes be dominated by a single AI - usually a militarist with a good start. If this never happens, it would look a bit wrong to me.

 

[Furycrab]

Yes. But the problem is - AI doesn't seem to threat the conquest victory, or at least significant conquest. If I play on continents, I expect the other continent to sometimes be dominated by a single AI - usually a militarist with a good start. If this never happens, it would look a bit wrong to me.

But that's the thing... As you make your AI better, you should expect this to happen less and less. In multiplayer it happens all the time because most of the time players are not of equal skill level and someone makes a mistake that quickly snowballs into someone owning a continent.These are equal difficulty level AI... If someone did runaway frequently by conquest, the AI either is bad at playing against it or the civ in question is too strong.

That said, I don't think we saw evidence that the AI can't sometimes pull it off one way or another. However the fact that it didn't happen in one game for our entertainment isn't evidence that the AI is bad.

I think they even tried to force such a game when they decided to put Rome, Aztecs and Gorgo in the mix, but positions and events in this game conspired to slow down rather than give an edge to the ones that could. So most of them went down Macro routes or backed down from aggression... and I don't think they did that bad.

 

[Acken]

Let's play the game first and maybe run our own simulations and see what is possible to mod.

It's a bit hard to claim exactly what needs to be modified at this stage or what even can be modded.

 

[Acken]

But that's the thing... As you make your AI better, you should expect this to happen less and less. In multiplayer it happens all the time because most of the time players are not of equal skill level and someone makes a mistake that quickly snowballs into someone owning a continent.These are equal difficulty level AI... If someone did runaway frequently by conquest, the AI either is bad at playing against it or the civ in question is too strong.

That said, I don't think we saw evidence that the AI can't sometimes pull it off one way or another. However the fact that it didn't happen in one game for our entertainment isn't evidence that the AI is bad.

I think they even tried to force such a game when they decided to put Rome, Aztecs and Gorgo in the mix, but positions and events in this game conspired to slow down rather than give an edge to the ones that could. So most of them went down Macro routes or backed down from aggression... and I don't think they did that bad.

Yes you are right if the goal is to make the AI play well. But I don't think that is the goal to achieve. If an AI is able to surprise another by having more units then that is fun and dynamic. I don't need the AI to be a master strategist. I just need it to be competent in its actions. For example if it choses to go to war, it really make an army and attack. I also want it to be dynamic and able to put pressure on a player.
I personally enjoy an overagressive AI, to the point it neglects defense, a lot more than one that turtles for 300 turns.

And from what the lead AI designer has blabbered about I'm a bit worried he wants something totallly different for his AI. Not sure it will work well with the fans.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm not speaking about mods, just speculating about how deep the problems are.

Speaking about the AI - the main criteria of how good it is - whether it gives enough challenge for human in each aspect of the game. If it doesn't pose a military threat, that's one big area of the game not covered.

Whether AI plays effectively or not, is not a criteria.

And I'm speaking not only based on the stream, but the developers worfs.

 

[Al Bundy]

It seems that the AI is exactly the same, which points me to believe that we are losing our time here. No matter what we say, the devs don't change a thing (or even worst, they are incompetent to make the AI better). Warriors in the late game, space race in 1800s. Sad, very sad....

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The first problem is why they went to the Civ V method of strategic resources in the first place. It allowed them to scatter strategic resource tiles more frequently so it's more likely that a civ could manage to grab at least a few. The side effect of the Civ IV/VI strategic resource method is that the tiles are quite a bit more scarce. It's far more likely that a player could get completely shut out on necessary strategic resources. The Civ IV solution was to allow bypass upgrades, and that should be implemented here as well. It would also be nice if the AI could have a plan B in case of a failure to acquire necessary resources where it builds resourceless units instead.

And if it seems like they are back to square one with the AI, it's because they are on a new engine. They can't just copy paste the Civ V AI and program it to play with the new toys and a few new tricks. They really are starting over at square one.

Frankly, this doesn't surprise me. There's no 4X games with really good AI, and it takes a supercomputer to run AI that's good enough to play simplistic games like chess and go against competent humans. Between that and starting with a whole new engine, it was inevitable that the other shoe would drop. I feel confident that at least some improvements will be made to the AI in future patches. If this is a significant issue for anyone, they should seek a refund and await future developments.

Exactly why we need to go back to the Civ5 method of Strategic Resources......which I thought was a major step up from Civ4.....I don't understand why they have gone backwards on this matter.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Exactly why we need to go back to the Civ5 method of Strategic Resources......which I thought was a major step up from Civ4.....I don't understand why they have gone backwards on this matter.

I see the reason - the Civ4/6 system is easier, make competition for resources more active and encourages resource trade. The disadvantages are clear too, though.

It seems that the AI is exactly the same, which points me to believe that we are losing our time here. No matter what we say, the devs don't change a thing (or even worst, they are incompetent to make the AI better). Warriors in the late game, space race in 1800s. Sad, very sad....

That's a bit ignorant...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I see the reason - the Civ4/6 system is easier, make competition for resources more active and encourages resource trade. The disadvantages are clear too, though.


That's a bit ignorant...

Actually, in my Civ 5 games, I found myself making far more strategic resource trades than I ever made in Civ4......it's always ended up being luxuries that I never trade, as every other civ always ends up having at least one copy already. Maybe if strategic resources had more uses *outside* of the military, then that would help drive resource trades more than this artificially enforced scarcity-which is only really hurting the AI.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Actually, in my Civ 5 games, I found myself making far more strategic resource trades than I ever made in Civ4......it's always ended up being luxuries that I never trade, as every other civ always ends up having at least one copy already. Maybe if strategic resources had more uses *outside* of the military, then that would help drive resource trades more than this artificially enforced scarcity-which is only really hurting the AI.

Well, for me as a player, Civ6 system looks better, if AI will be able to handle it somehow. But it's a matter of personal preference.

 

[caiman0815]

why not a system where you can build every unit w/o strategic ressources, as long as you have the tech, but if you dont have a specific ressource for an unit, it suffers from a combat penalty?

i.e. you can build swordmen without iron if you have the tech, cause they use obsidian or other materials for their weaponry (or leather for their armors). And before s/o asks, no, warriors are not swordmen w.o iron weaponry, because there is also a difference in tactics, training, organisation and ohter equipment than weaponry (armor ie) ... like pikemen are not spearmen with iron pikes but a different unit class

problem solved. the ai and players can upgrade units anytime, strats are important, and we got more scaling along troop strengs. no difficult ai programming patch for that issue

ie warrior
swordsman w.o iron weaponry
swordsman w. iron weaponry

 

[anandus]

The problem with Civ games that require resources to build units is that it is a game destroying feature for players that are missing a resource. (Civ 4-6 iirc)

To fix this, the lack of a resource should just increase production time and upgrade cost by some (low) amount, say 10-20%).

Although I agree with this solution (or a similar solution), I'm also quite sure about the amount of ranting which will result from this
"UNREALISTIC! BUILDING A SWORDSMAN *WITHOUT* IRON? FIRAXIS FIX THIS! LITTERALLY UNPLAYABLE!", etc.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

If it were up to me, luxury resources in Civ5 would have worked in much the same way as strategic resources. I just hope somebody mods *all* resources in Civ6

 

[Al Bundy]

I see the reason - the Civ4/6 system is easier, make competition for resources more active and encourages resource trade. The disadvantages are clear too, though.


That's a bit ignorant...

Take it easy, man. I am also a big fan of CIV. I already played CIV I when I was a teenager, but the AI looks bad and unimproved since the last stream. That's a fact, whether you like it or not.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Take it easy, man. I am also a big fan of CIV. I already played CIV I when I was a teenager, but the AI looks bad and unimproved since the last stream. That's a fact, whether you like it or not.

No. The AI is the best I've seen in civ games. But the game (not AI) still have some problems.

Complains often come from not understanding. "Oh no, so many warriors, everything is lost".

 

[anandus]

No. The AI is the best I've seen in civ games. But the game (not AI) still have some problems.

Complains often come from not understanding. "Oh no, so many warriors, everything is lost".

Indeed it's an interesting question.
Is it actually the AI that's bad, is it that certain game rules are fundamentally bad, is it a matter of wrong values, etc.?

 

[DCParry]

fact.

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.