So, after having played after around 10 games of Civ 6, my conclusion is . . .

[Orup The Great]

the correct sentence is "the AI seems bad because of the chosen rules for 1UPT and because developers time is neither free or infinite"

if you look at the code for example, civ5 tactical AI is (a bit) more complex than civ4, yet civ4 AI seemed to perform better.

Gedemon is actually one of the esteemed modders quoted in that article I linked to earlier: https://www.pcgamesn.com/civilization-6/dll-source-release-modding-community

I definitely agree with what is the central truth of Gedemon's reply: the coding didn't get all that much better; but rather the whole game surrounding that code got more complicated. So, it feels horse-sensical to assume that if you're using tactical coding that is not all that much more complex than the coding that occured in IV (at a time when that coding only had to deal with the total combat values of one square relative to another square (SOD)) then that simple tactical coding would stumble in the new, 1UPT environment. And that's not even yet factoring in how all the other complex systems that a player needs to take into account in the VI environment before they effectively engage in war (as a for instance, many people have surmised that one of the reasons why A.I. seems to come across so meekly in VI is because it has to take into account it's Amenities situation before it takes one of your cities). As much as I love/loved the complexity of IV, I think I would now rate VI at least on a par with IV in terms of all the interworking systems. I think I might even rate it a more complex game than IV. So it doesn't surprise me one bit that A.I. stumbles in giving human players a good run in the military department.

 

[Civrinn]

To clarify:

First off this isn't an insult to anyone in the community but I seriously hate appeal to authority. So while I concede that specifics on modding and coding in general Gedemon is clearly much better than I (mostly because I don't code) it doesn't add much to the point I was making.

A while back in these forums people parroted this notion that it was absolutely impossible to make a good AI with 1UPT. For a while people like myself would correct people and say "no you can, it exists, Civ 5 VP". That was my point. Apparently I'm seeing this argument crop up again so I'm refuting it, so that readers like yourself won't actually believe that.

As far as the complexity, I wasn't arguing that it was less or more complex, I was arguing that it was possible. Hence the evidence of Civ 5 VP.

So I don't know if you are trolling at this point because you are going off on a tangent.

 

[Orup The Great]

Check out VP. You will probably like it. For a while they were locking AI posts because it's a carbon copy of what you have said. Yes AI is bad. Hence why people are saying it's beating a dead horse.

Ok, got it, and I understand. Sorry if I sounded snippy.

And yet, I am still happy with the thread because it actually evolved into exactly what I wanted it to evolve into: a call to action for the release of the VI dll.

And here you got me really parroting, because there is only one viable solution for everyone to be happy: release the source code, please. And earlier than 1 year ago would be nice, tomorrow or next hour is too late.

 

[Civrinn]

But yeah I agree modders need more tools to fix things.

 

[Orup The Great]

Yeah, to share a little bit more extensively what I have learned (and, I am only a novice at this): Civ V VP exists as a tactically challenging game because it was modded after Vanilla V was released. The modding was able to take place as a result of the dll being released 18 months after Vanilla. It is the dll that contains all the coding needed to actually "teach" the A.I. it's tactics. Whatever learning abilities the A.I.s have: all in the dll. So-we're not going to see any improvements in VI until they release the dll-something they promised years ago, but have still not done.

A while back in these forums people parroted this notion that it was absolutely impossible to make a good AI with 1UPT. For a while people like myself would correct people and say "no you can, it exists, Civ 5 VP". That was my point. Apparently I'm seeing this argument crop up again so I'm refuting it, so that readers like yourself won't actually believe that.

I would agree with you that statements like this are as uninformed as they are unhelpful. There are reasons why VP plays the way it does, and VI plays the way it does. This is not some VooDoo crapshoot. The reason is simple: VP exists because the coding for V was released. Period. Coding released=modders who love the game are immediately able to get onto the work of teaching the AI better tactics.

Saying 1UPT will ALWAYS=bad AI is just lazy thinking, imo.

 

[Krajzen]

Still more optimism - prone than my position:

Half of the concepts in this game are bad and on top of that AI sucks

(Although I have liked changes of GS and following patches - I came back to bad mood only due to the recent long silence)

 

[Kruos]

But the targeted audience doesn't want good old school, it wants instant gratification, short playing sessions, shiny graphics, complex mechanisms over good AI.

The fact that the game has been released on tablet, phone and switch is the best illustration of this. It's no longer the "old school PC gamer" audience, it's larger. Money money.

 

[Cerilis]

The fact that the game has been released on tablet, phone and switch is the best illustration of this. It's no longer the "old school PC gamer" audience, it's larger. Money money.

Oh noes! New platforms! Hide yo keyboards!

 

[Señor]

if you dont like the ai then play online multiplayer.

 

[mitsho]

The opening post doesn‘t really have anything new to add, but it‘s a good writeup. Sure, it‘s like that - handwringing - they‘ll not make the AI better. Let‘s move on.

I want to add one thing though, the mentioned lack of a challenge that the AI (and the other game systems) pose results in a lack of replayability as well. It‘s just not that engaging to f.e. build up a coast-hugging Phoenician-Carthaginian naval Empire after you have done it once. At least in civ6 which seems to pose me these puzzles of creating Empire X after its historical reality and then I have experienced it. With more active AI players, they might make me go back to a civ after a while. Or is that just me?

 

[fantsu]

The fact that the game has been released on tablet, phone and switch is the best illustration of this. It's no longer the "old school PC gamer" audience, it's larger. Money money.

Yeah. Civilization 1 was made just for money, because it was released on SNES too. Civilization was oversimplification of real war strategy games from 70s aimed at larger audience.

 

[Trigan Emperor]

Saying 1UPT will ALWAYS=bad AI is just lazy thinking, imo.

Chess is 1UPT.

 

[khaciv]

If i remember correctly Sid himself once said people generally don't want to lose.
The AI in civ6 is 'good enough' for most people and that's what they settle for.
Remember that the default difficulty is Prince and most who play civ are not fanatics.
They will keep working on the ai but, unfortunately for some of us, it will never be a number one priority.

 

[Kruos]

Oh noes! New platforms! Hide yo keyboards!

What's the problem with new platforms, please develop.

Yeah. Civilization 1 was made just for money, because it was released on SNES too. Civilization was oversimplification of real war strategy games from 70s aimed at larger audience.

Exactly, and at the time of Civ1 the larger audience was the 'old school PC gamer' of today. Not the same audience as the one enjoying the candy Civilization games developped now.

If i remember correctly Sid himself once said people generally don't want to lose.
The AI in civ6 is 'good enough' for most people and that's what they settle for.
Remember that the default difficulty is Prince and most who play civ are not fanatics.
They will keep working on the ai but, unfortunately for some of us, it will never be a number one priority.

A bad AI is an acceptable thing to some extend, but an unfunctional one is a whole different story. The AI of Civ6 is not functional, and also bad. It is really a shame because the game is good, game design wise they are some excellents things (1UPT apart), which make it even more painful.

 

[hr_oskar]

Ugh, this is a recurring complaint in every single-player strategy game I've played. Yes, the AI truly has never been good. I've played every game in this series extensively since Civ 1, plus a whole bunch of other turn-based strategy games to compare.

Yes, Civ 4 was a great game, really the best in the series relative to its time. I would still not really go back to it, nor Civ 5 (which I enjoyed very much once BNW came). I also played the Civ 5 VP mod extensively and regard it as one of the pinnacles of the series, though not primarily because of a slightly better AI.

Civ 4 was indeed the most challenging game in the series, not because of a better AI but rather because of mechanics that supported AI snowballing -- vassals and doomstacks -- leading to some scary situations in the mid- to end-game. The challenge had nothing to do with better AI. In Civ 5 and 6 meanwhile, the challenge curve is very front loaded, leading to a tense early game and the familiar late game mopup (an issue with many 4x games).

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Chess is 1UPT.

Also has one map.
Multiple players.
No economy to manage.
No changing to the map that the AI has to learn to benefit from.
No invisible spots on the map where doesnt "see" what the human is doing and has to guess.
No politics.
Everyone has the same units, and nobody has to create new units during the course of the game.
AI doesn't have to strike a balance between units and other needs
Can read from thousands of previous games in order to search to find a best solution.
etc.

 

[AsH2]

Also has one map.
Multiple players.
No economy to manage.
No changing to the map that the AI has to learn to benefit from.
No invisible spots on the map where doesnt "see" what the human is doing and has to guess.
No politics.
Everyone has the same units, and nobody has to create new units during the course of the game.
AI doesn't have to strike a balance between units and other needs
Can read from thousands of previous games in order to search to find a best solution.
etc.

and not to forget: no damaged units, just kills.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Ugh, this is a recurring complaint in every single-player strategy game I've played. Yes, the AI truly has never been good. I've played every game in this series extensively since Civ 1, plus a whole bunch of other turn-based strategy games to compare.

Yes, Civ 4 was a great game, really the best in the series relative to its time. I would still not really go back to it, nor Civ 5 (which I enjoyed very much once BNW came). I also played the Civ 5 VP mod extensively and regard it as one of the pinnacles of the series, though not primarily because of a slightly better AI.

Civ 4 was indeed the most challenging game in the series, not because of a better AI but rather because of mechanics that supported AI snowballing -- vassals and doomstacks -- leading to some scary situations in the mid- to end-game. The challenge had nothing to do with better AI. In Civ 5 and 6 meanwhile, the challenge curve is very front loaded, leading to a tense early game and the familiar late game mopup (an issue with many 4x games).

and it's like the people who like to talk about Civ 4 AI just ignore the issue of tech trading.

 

[Kruos]

Ugh, this is a recurring complaint in every single-player strategy game I've played. Yes, the AI truly has never been good. I've played every game in this series extensively since Civ 1, plus a whole bunch of other turn-based strategy games to compare.

Yes, Civ 4 was a great game, really the best in the series relative to its time. I would still not really go back to it, nor Civ 5 (which I enjoyed very much once BNW came). I also played the Civ 5 VP mod extensively and regard it as one of the pinnacles of the series, though not primarily because of a slightly better AI.

Civ 4 was indeed the most challenging game in the series, not because of a better AI but rather because of mechanics that supported AI snowballing -- vassals and doomstacks -- leading to some scary situations in the mid- to end-game. The challenge had nothing to do with better AI. In Civ 5 and 6 meanwhile, the challenge curve is very front loaded, leading to a tense early game and the familiar late game mopup (an issue with many 4x games).

With my group of friends we have relaunched Civ4 last month, and BOOM, we took a blast. So much that we have put now more than one hundred hours in our regular gaming cessions. It is incredible how good it has well aged. It is impossible for us to come back to Civ6 now, alas. Regarding AI, it's a blast to see a competent one, which can threat the player all along the game, while being also very consistent diplomaticaly.

Considering this recent experience, I agree that the challenge is not only due to a better AI, but frankly speaking it strongly contribute to it.

I read the post of Gedemon about how sophisticated were the Civ5-6 AI with 1upt, more than the one of Civ4 apparently, it is really difficult to trust when you compare a war in Civ4 and a war in Civ5-6. 1upt apart, you can see really consistent and interesting units&stacks moves in Civ4, retreating, focus on weak point, harassing, etc.. while in Civ5-6 the AI has tremendous difficulties to just put a consistent offensive on a city, and is barely capable of taking one with wall to a player.

 

[Kruos]

and it's like the people who like to talk about Civ 4 AI just ignore the issue of tech trading.

The 'No tech brokering' option solve the supposed 'issue' for the few peoples not enjoying it.