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

[Victoria]

I have to add to the record that the AI has improved.
It is in no way consistent but if you get cocky you can be bashed about.
Cities can be taken but is rarer.
With all these games including VI they are not true challenges. Abuses exist and you can find other ways to challenge yourself in the game. For civ it’s not about being beaten but how well you can beat.

 

[hr_oskar]

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.

I'm not convinced. Thing is, every game's AI has slightly different patterns of behavior. We learn to exploit those patterns, often to the point of playing it like a fiddle, making the AI look atrociously stupid. If we go back to Civ4 we'll be unused to its AI and impressed by its unexpected actions. What you interpret as smart strategy by the AI is just a thin semblance of it and as easily exploited as any other AI pattern once you become familiar. When I first played Civ3, I remember being surprised by the AI's actions and thinking "Wow, the AI is so much better in this game!"... it was actually better than that of Civ 1 & 2 (which was terrible) but it also didn't take long for me to master the Civ3 AI and make it look bad.

The way I see it, learning how the AI behaves and eventually mastering it to the point of being able to exploit it is part of the fun! Mastering the game's systems, AI included, is a major part of enjoying a game.

The mechanics of Civ3 and Civ4 allowed the AI to leverage its production advantage at higher difficulties better than Civ 5 & 6 with 1upt. A stack of doom is far more threatening than a carpet of doom. In Civ3 you dealt with doomstacks by using a massive amount of bombardment units that in sufficient quantity allowed you to wipe out an AI doomstack at no cost. In Civ4 things were harder because you had to expend collateral damage units to bring a stack down, so there was a significant cost to be paid. You also risked not having enough to actually defeat the stack. Civ4 offered the most challenging wargame overall. I see Civ6's corps and armies as an attempt to bring a sprinkle of the doomstack feel to Civ5's 1upt system, allowing the deity AI to leverage its production advantage a little better vs the player. It's a good idea but I guess it fails because the overly friendly diplomacy means the peaceful player never needs to face those units, while the warmongering player will match the AI's corps with even better corps.

My point here is that the overall challenge has an impact on our perception of the AI's quality. When we're not really challenged the AI's poor strategy becomes more obvious and we blame that for things being too easy. Civ4 was the most challenging wargame in the series more due to mechanics than anything else.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Another thing to consider is that the PI (Player Intelligence) has increased tremendously over the years. Not only from individuals having played more games, but from the hive mind of forums like this dissecting every little detail and spitting it out for all. That clever little trick you figured out while playing an older civ game in your parents' basement, the one that made you feel oh so special and smart and clever? Today it would probably be pegged as an exploit and patched out in the first few patches.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

I have to add to the record that the AI has improved.
It is in no way consistent but if you get cocky you can be bashed about.
Cities can be taken but is rarer.
With all these games including VI they are not true challenges. Abuses exist and you can find other ways to challenge yourself in the game. For civ it’s not about being beaten but how well you can beat.

I have seen this before where I rush up to bombers before steel.
I don't have many walls and I start a war just a bit too early.
Next thing I know the Mongols are bashing a couple of my cities with 80+ strength units.
Like you say... being cocky lol.

I have also seen where I start the war too early and every Civ declares a 50 turn Emergency against me lol.
That teaches you to plan things out a little better.

 

[AsH2]

Another thing to consider is that the PI (Player Intelligence) has increased tremendously over the years. Not only from individuals having played more games, but from the hive mind of forums like this dissecting every little detail and spitting it out for all. That clever little trick you figured out while playing an older civ game in your parents' basement, the one that made you feel oh so special and smart and clever? Today it would probably be pegged as an exploit and patched out in the first few patches.

I disagree. Most players (today) are not successful (check steam stats). There's a lot that rather try to copy behaviour than actually learn something.

 

[universecreep]

I agree the AI is poor. Poorer than other iterations in my opinion.

The issue with VI is the developers were gun-ho about adding in new mechanics (great) but never really programmed the AI to use them.

Diplomacy is a mess:

The trade offers are ridiculous. The AI dislikes or hates you so they'll offer a bad deal even if they need the item they're asking for or they'll refuse a deal completely if it's something you need even if you throw in everything you've got. Just stupid.

With weather, the AI will keep polluting without a care even as the sea levels rise.

When it comes to war, the AI will ask you to participate in a war even though you're clear across the globe, they hate you and you like the person they want to attack. Yah, like that is gonna happen. What's more is they ask you to go to war but in the deal as you to pay them gold per turn to do so...huh?

I also find it silly that an AI, no matter how weak they are, will demand tribute from you after they start hating you. You think a weak AI opponent would try to fly under the radar and not bother a larger neighbor. It's also ridiculous that after you defeat an AI in a war they'll immediately denounce you. You think again they'd just like to lay low and not get on my bad side again.

The one thing I liked about IV was that the AI acted realistically. If you were powerful, the AI would treat you as such - they'd contact you saying how great you were. If you were weaker, the AI would sometimes threaten you yes but also if they liked you they'd offer you some money or gift.

There are many other examples but diplomacy is the one that irks me the most.

Please Firaxis, before adding any new mechanics, program the AI to use the current ones effectively.

 

[Smity2k1]

I really suggest everyone play a few games in @Infixo mod Real Strategy. Makes things better

 

[Orup The Great]

This is OP here. So having read the entire thread a few times, it seems to me that one can glean a few generally accepted thoughts here:

1. AI for Civ VI is generally looked upon as lacking (at least by the majority of those who have chosen to participate in this thread)

2. While it has not been yet accepted universally, it sounds like there are quite a few of us who look suspiciously at 1UPT as a very big reason for this. (Of course, the issue of Civ VI=1UPT=boring play is actually much, much more complicated and less straightforward than such a statement would suggest. As a for instance, Civ VI also has a very rich layer of gameplay systems (Districts, Amenities, Governmental/Civics decisions, Personalities, Agendas, to name but a few) all of which it must consider, in all of its decisions, including military. But for the purposes of this thread I'm choosing to use 1UPT as shorthand for both of these facts: that Civ VI has a vastly more complicated military structure and landscape to deal with than Multiple Units Per Tile, ON TOP OF having to weigh in all the other complexities of this rich game, and it is THAT that is causing it to fail at being, at least for me, a very replayable game).

3. There is another line of thought, articulated well by Gedemon (but not just by him) that goes something like this: yes, 1UPT has created a new Civ-playing reality that is perhaps a bit more sedate on the challenge side but, look guys: there are marketplace reasons for why this has occured. Simply put: Firaxis went down a new road for them-a road they started on in the early Aughts, with Civ V-that sought to gain more players by essentially making the Civ franchise more attractive to more, newer players. This new approach meant they had to make Civ a game that was easier to play in less time, a game that would be more attractive to casual, "I like to win most of the (wait. Ok, scratch that: All of the) time" type players, players that would like to play Civ on their phone while waiting for the bus. Those guys, (hopefully) as well as the hard-core old school Strategy Gamers-I guess, myself being counted amongst those. The argument goes on further to say that, the economics of Firaxis and the ever-changing gaming world being what it is, we have to understand that writing a "just ok" tactical AI to take up all the military matters of Civ V (and then Civ VI) was, actually, no mistake, as some people like to think. It was, rather, a necessity. Gedemon seems to be saying: if you want an excellent tactical AI that is going to be able to produce an enthralling military dimension to gameplay-one that will regularly imperil the fortunes of the human player-then you're gonna have to be willing to pay for it, 'cause its gonna take many more programmers many, many more work hours to produce such a game, and the games will be refreshed much less frequently. And I get that argument as well, and I agree with it.

So then, the question-for me at least-becomes this:

What are we saying (because we are saying something by weighing in on this thread, in the way that we have)?

Are we saying that we want a new way of dealing with warfare in Civ VII? Probably, it sounds like to me. So what does that paradigm look like? Are we imagining some hybrid between the best things about MUPT (ease of comprehension for the AI) and 1UPT (much better implementation of combined arms; more opportunity to employ tactics)? Are we saying that we need to be able to combine even more units to a single tile, while not going fully back to SOD? Do units need to be able to cross through tiles occupied by other units-while not allowed to come to rest there? Would this perhaps make movement and tactical strategy easier for the AI? Is there a need to look at multiple tiles as a One Tile number (kind of like a small Theatre approach), and mathematically pit that number against another multi-tile Theatre, roll die and divy out the outcome? I know some (or maybe even all) of those ideas might sound wacky or stupid, or unworkable, but I'm just genuinely trying to spitball here. So: what are our ideas?

The cool thing about being a Civ player in this day and age is that we actually have a place to go to and air ideas that will actually be heard, and even implemented, by the designers. Back when I used to play many Civ games per year-back in the '90s and early '00s, I WISHED I had an ability to suggest changes and concepts to Firaxis because, even though I loved all iterations of Civ-from I to IV-I also was always left wanting more done. Now, with this and other forums like it, we actually have the chance to try to help change a situation that-at least most posters of this thread will agree-we'd like changed.

So, what are we really saying we want Civ VII to be like?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I am not sure I agree that civ 6 is "easier" than civii or III or AC or most of the rest of the series. IV could be, but that was almost solely due to SOD

 

[Orup The Great]

I am not sure I agree that civ 6 is "easier" than civii or III or AC or most of the rest of the series. IV could be, but that was almost solely due to SOD

Well, I wouldn't actually phrase my beef with VI by saying that "VI is easier than IV". What I personally would say is: I just want AI in VI to be much more Aggressive. And Aggressive doesn't mean Mad at me more-and for no good reason. Aggressive means: trying to win-mercilessly-ALL THE TIME.

That's really the only reason why I cite Civ IV as a model (or any of the other iterations that came before it): those AIs had waaaay less to have to worry about in the way of game mechanics (I'll include even IV into this category, even though IV was a really complex platform), but-Man: those AI were AGGRESSIVE! On Prince/King level! I never felt a need to go up to Emperor, because I was always having so much fun in the mid levels. The AI in those iterations always played to win, they always played to hobble your ability to succeed-whenever and whereever they could. Any weakness you had-any back door you mistakenly left open, if you didn't close it soon-real soon-you could bet, one or more of the AI would show up and exploit that mistake.

 

[hr_oskar]

1. AI for Civ VI is generally looked upon as lacking (at least by the majority of those who have chosen to participate in this thread)

I don't argue against that but from my experience playing various strategy games since the early 90's I say all games have "bad" AI. In the sense that a human player soon enough learns to exploit the AI's predictable behavior. I don't think there's any magic solution to that available today.

2. While it has not been yet accepted universally, it sounds like there are quite a few of us who look suspiciously at 1UPT as a very big reason for this.

Agreed, except I like 1UPT and see it as a positive development for Civ.

Also, I don't think the issue with 1UPT is entirely that it's too complicated. The AI wasn't actually smart with its doomstacks back in Civ3 & 4. It's just that it didn't need to be because a stack of doom is simply more challenging for the human player to deal with than a carpet of doom by virtue of the game mechanics. The doomstack was like a big scary zombie hulk -- being able to predict its actions didn't help if you didn't have enough units to take it down. The carpet of doom is more daunting than scary. So the point is that current 1UPT mechanics make it harder for the AI to leverage its production advantages compared to Civ 3 & 4. With the correct adjustments to the mechanics I believe this could be fixed.

3. There is another line of thought, articulated well by Gedemon (but not just by him) that goes something like this: yes, 1UPT has created a new Civ-playing reality that is perhaps a bit more sedate on the challenge side but, look guys: there are marketplace reasons for why this has occured. Simply put: Firaxis went down a new road for them-a road they started on in the early Aughts, with Civ V-that sought to gain more players by essentially making the Civ franchise more attractive to more, newer players. This new approach meant they had to make Civ a game that was easier to play in less time, a game that would be more attractive to casual, "I like to win most of the (wait. Ok, scratch that: All of the) time" type players, players that would like to play Civ on their phone while waiting for the bus.

I'm cool with that. I probably belong in the "hardcore" group since I want to be really challenged by the games I play. On the other hand I'm all for streamlining games to not take so damn long. I often feel standard speed is too slow and play quick speed every now and then. I can not for the life of me understand what motivates players to play huge maps on marathon speed.

Are we saying that we want a new way of dealing with warfare in Civ VII?

I think the designers were trying to move towards this with Civ 6. Consider corps/armies and the "stacking" of different unit types (military + support for example) in one tile. I think they're on the right path there but need to push it further. Find ways to let the deity AI leverage its bonuses to create scary "doom corps" to challenge the player earlier than now (renaissance era perhaps). Expand the support unit category. I also think ranged units are still too powerful (though weaker than Civ 5), which favors the human player over the AI.

But yeah... identify what was enjoyable about Civ 4 warfare and see if it can be used in Civ 7. I loved that tense moment, be it in my own games or in a Youtube Let's Play, when a really scary stack of doom emerged out of the fog of war...

EDIT: Forgot to quote your comment about AI aggression. Totally agree about that. Civ 6 diplomacy is far too easy right now. They've got good mechanics (e.g. grievances) but everything (military included) is made irrelevant by the AI's willingness to be allies-ever-after even when it's got a huge army and supposedly wants to win by domination! An "aggressive AI" option would be a nice option for the game settings to make sure peaceful builder players can still have the friendly AI they like.

 

[Kruos]

What are we saying (because we are saying something by weighing in on this thread, in the way that we have)?

Are we saying that we want a new way of dealing with warfare in Civ VII? Probably, it sounds like to me.

Yes, a new system.

Why not a hybrid one, taking the best of both worlds? A Multiple Stack per Tile system. With limitations. Like, we would have a max number of stacks per tiles, and this number would be dependant of the tile type (less in moutain than in plain for example) and we would have max number of units per stacks, and this number would be improvable through doctrine or tech for example. In substance it would be a come back of the SoD principle, but with limitations and subtilities, the AI coding would be probably more efficient. If I remember well Call to Power had a nice similar system.

It would not be so complicated to assimilate, the average joe audience would be happy and the old-school one too.

/My2cents

 

[ghost88]

I'm cool with that. I probably belong in the "hardcore" group since I want to be really challenged by the games I play. On the other hand I'm all for streamlining games to not take so damn long. I often feel standard speed is too slow and play quick speed every now and then. I can not for the life of me understand what motivates players to play huge maps on marathon speed.

We that play this way are not big into instant gratification and are usually role playing and killing time, at least I fit this description.

 

[Chefofrats]

I totally do not get the Stack of Doom nostalgia. I was so glad when they removed that ridiculous "feature" in Civ V. If it were to return in any form, I would probably say goodbye to the Civ series after almost 30 years of play.

 

[ghost88]

I totally do not get the Stack of Doom nostalgia. I was so glad when they removed that ridiculous "feature" in Civ V. If it were to return in any form, I would probably say goodbye to the Civ series after almost 30 years of play.

Even like in Age of Wonders that allows "Armies/Fleets" of up to 6 units?
I could live with this if it helps the AI, although I would not want a GG or GA considered a unit but could stack on top of the other units.
In AoW builders and settlers count just like Combat units so all non Great Person and non Religious units should count towards this limit with GP & religious units limited to 1UPT.

 

[Kruos]

I totally do not get the Stack of Doom nostalgia. I was so glad when they removed that ridiculous "feature" in Civ V. If it were to return in any form, I would probably say goodbye to the Civ series after almost 30 years of play.

SoD is linked to Mupt game approach, which emphasis strategy over tactic. The 180 curve made with Civ5 completely changed this, and alienated the serie. And we have all seen the damages to the whole game structure now : AI, scaling, logistics, etc etc..

For what gain? A tactical layer that is totally off topic in a Civilization game, and the faculty to see a carpet of beautifull units.. so great! ^^

 

[Orup The Great]

For what gain? A tactical layer that is totally off topic in a Civilization game

Kruos really sums up well what I think is a really important thought about Civ: it has always been-at it's core-a strategy game. It did-and still does-feel to me that Civ V's evolution into a tactically-oriented warfare platform was an unnecessary attempt to become something that it was ill-suited to do.

I remember when Civ V first hit, the forums immediately lit up with a months-long, hyper-polarized debate, with many who were confused and unimpressed with the move to a tactical platform, and saw it as an ill-considered appeal to a whole new audience of gamers. Gamers who, the powers that be thought, would migrate over to the Civilization series if only it had a tactical warfare element to it. I remember a LOT of comments from people of the unimpressed cohort, who threw their gloves angrily to the ground and threatened (or notified) the Civ biome that they were ready to leave for good if this state of affairs continued. Many, I'm sure, did (after trying about 10 games of it, I finally left for the entirety of Civ V). And yet, Civilization just chugged on without us. Did it, in fact, gain new cohorts of players-with different tastes and desires? Yes, I think that is without a doubt. Did it also lose great amounts of dedicated "Old Timers"? Yes-I'm sure they did.

I ALWAYS missed Civ, however. And that's why I have tried to give Civ VI (and a few days ago-for the first time-Civ V Vox Populi) a try. Having done so, I will say that my opinion of 1UPT has evolved somewhat.

The short of it is: I actually don't mind the concept of 1UPT.

I can see how it actually has the chance to enrich my gaming experience. As I've said before, it gives the chance to experience Combined Arms, and some tactical experiences that surely will be fun, perhaps even downright enthralling. My problem with it is: I am just really, really suspicious that it is just not working when taken in the context of such a complicated game as Civ VI. Because there are just so many other systems that the game has to deal with.

Having said that, I will now say that: I am actually fully open to accepting a future that never again includes MUPT. AS LONG AS . . . : it is able to produce a Civ playing experience that is not so boring that I'm having to jostle myself into wakefullness every 3 minutes or so, only because at the game's beginning I made a deal with myself to see this ongoing game through (happened many times with VI). That NEVER happened with any pre-V iteration-NEVER. Were there moments of lull in pre-V iterations of Civ? Of course there were (who likes scrolling through scores of unit moves in late game, or changing production queues ranging over a huge, late game global empire? Uh . . . nobody?) But even in those moments of lull, whether it was that moment of ever-present peril coming from the remaining AI players, or the knowledge that I was moving from a place of lull-populated by Cannons, Frigates and Grenadiers, soon to an era of Tanks, Battleships, and Nukes-whatever the reasons were, the simple fact is that I considered those lulls to be tolerable. Probably because I knew those moments would, in a few more turns, produce new game moments that were gonna be Hairy. Hairy and worth the wait!

Who knows why there were moments of lull in pre-V Civ that were forgivable to me? All I can tell you is that they were. Constantly. Clearly they were, because I kept on coming back to play the game. Over and over again. I am just not moved to play Civ VI over and over again. I want to want to play it over and over again-very badly, actually. But it has just not yet moved me to do so.

And, as I've said before, I think the culprit is the Tactical Warfare component of the game, which is ill-matched to a game that has become so complex, coded by a company that just can't afford the Person-Hours it would take to properly code for this tactical layer. So I say: it's time to come up with a new system. It doesn't have to be a return to MUPT or Doomstacks-I am not married to either. I think many of us who cite Civ IV as a Gold Standard would agree. I just want for Civilization to become an enthralling, hyper-repeatable game for me again. I actually don't care WHAT their military solution is, as long as it makes the game exciting again.

 

[Gedemon]

I totally do not get the Stack of Doom nostalgia. I was so glad when they removed that ridiculous "feature" in Civ V. If it were to return in any form, I would probably say goodbye to the Civ series after almost 30 years of play.

a "Stack of Doom" starts at which number of units per tile ?

between 1UPT and ∞UPT there is an infinite number of stacking rules, and a lot of those can prevent SOD.

For example, 3 to 6 would already help the AI to benefits from its production bonus, without requiring any AI coding.

 

[mitsho]

Yes, a new system is needed that is „easy to learn, hard to master“, allowing casual players to intuitively understand it and the AI to use it, while still allow hardcore gamers to enjoy it.

Easier said than designed of course.

My favourite is to do away with units completely. Instead have armies (mobile) and garrisons (immobile) as well as navies. With only 2 to 20 „units“ to manage at all time, you cut down on computational time, movement calculation is easier as well and you still can add micromanagement optimization via the composition of the armies (here, our classical known units can factor in).

So simply put: Besides the amount of units on a tile (y-axis), there‘s also the factor of how many units there should be in-game (x-axis).

 

[Orup The Great]

My favourite is to do away with units completely. Instead have armies (mobile) and garrisons (immobile) as well as navies.

I find that an interesting idea, especially given my thoughts on the military side of the Civ franchise. I’ve always sort of looked at the warfare side of it as a bit metaphorical. All the other aspects of a Civ game (the modeling of governance, scientific development, economic development, religion, etc.) have always been the parts of the game that have held my deepest interest-even though I have also always appreciated the need for a robust representation of military struggle.

It might sound counter-intuitive to many, but I feel that this reflects how real life works. Despite the fact that there have always been wars-big ones, small ones, devastating ones, etc-I don’t think human society and achievements revolve around warfare. It might look like that, but I actually think Warfare is a reeeeaally big and prevalent side-show to the main event: all the other peaceful pursuits that I mentioned. I look at it this way: we don’t work and live in order to war, we war in order to work and live. In order to work and live in a certain way-the way we want to work and live.

Having said all that, I will also say I can hear the screams of protest from so many, in my ears right now, were the military layer of Civilization abstracted down to such a level.

Even I think that the answer lies somewhere between the way things are now and the way things would be with your proposal.

But I like your general idea though.