So apparently, the AI has not been improved

[Trav'ling Canuck]

What features are not used by the AI (apart from the air units)?
But would you want to create that precedent, though? A good AI as a DLC?
I can imagine people getting out their pitchforks for asking money for something that should've been in the basegame.
And even worse: What if it sells well? It'll give them a reason to purposefully leave out a good AI in the next iteration of Civ.

Maybe packaged as "challenge mode" or some such thing. Designed and marketed for people who want a serious challenge well above our already competent and perfectly adequate for the masses AI incorporated in the base game.

 

[Josephias]

For me the AI is not specially good or bad, but highly inconsistent (which makes it look worse than maybe it is). In one of my last emperor runs with Russia, AI brazil was able to surprise war me and push a rush attack that got my second city (lost gov’ plaza among others).

It is true this city was frontier with Brazil because we had been uneasy neighbours since the game star. But due to the same reason it was walled and had defensive forces nearby (they were unupgraded, however, and Brazil’s rush attack took half of them out before I could do anything.

Pedro not-the-first (that was me), then proceeded to move his army towards Moscow and I was already fearing my empire would crumble like a card castle... but somehow he then did not concentrate the attack as he did with Kazan (the city he had taken).

Maybe the one-tile hill mountain pass between the two cities disorganized the Army and AI could not remember then what it was the objective. Maybe the encampmeny of moscow becomin a secondary target was also difficult to handle, but AI forces spread out and gave me time to bring/build/buy reinforcements and end the threat. Nevertheless, this was an scenario in which I saw the same AI do best and worst, so I’m not so ready to say the AI is outright bad, but needs to be tweaked to trigger appropiately.

And, as identified above, the more options you have to do thinghs, the more difficult is to find an answer to what to focus on.

 

[treadwin]

The actual AI bothers me less than the ways they have to change the game to make up for the AI.

So they tend to make Civs a little over-aggressive, so the ones nearest you screw you up, with no consideration to winning a game, so that a civ on the other side of the map has a chance to out-build you. If the AI was stronger Civs could each play for themselves and it would be more sensible. It makes things like cold-war diplomacy, totally out of the question.

I hate the fact that on anything emperor and above, the civs closest to you start whining at you over their agenda before you even have a chance to create a strategy. So 15 turns in Caesar is complaining about your lack of expansion; Cleo is complaining about your lack of an army and so on, and it is amazing how many of them just plain don't like you! Hey! You haven't even got to know me yet, it usually takes people a tittle while to realize I am a bad person!

Also, you can just get those starts where the barbarians out science you, and the neighboring civ out produces you and they seem to wonderfully combine and co-ordinate to defeat you. I'm sure we have all had a game where by the time you have produced a scout and a slinger, you are surrounded by 3 mounted barbarians and 4 warriors from the Zulus all combining magnificently to destroy your capital.

It shouldn't be necessary to give the AI Civs a head start and make the opening so consistently brutal. Having such a repetitive early game meta is all down to the weak AI.

 

[PhilBowles]

They never claimed to have addressed the AI that I heard, so no one should have bought in on that basis - only if you can tolerate the AI as it is now and enjoy the new features.

Yes, the AI being completely unable to use entire game mechanics, especially aircraft, remains a problem, but at least for me it isn't gamebreaking. Then again, as I've noted before (and no doubt this will come across as cynical) I've given up on Civ VI becoming as good as a game as prior Civ games so what I want out of the new expansion is flavour.

 

[AriochIV]

I didn't expect any major AI improvements (especially since none were announced), but I'm very disappointed that things like the AI's inability to even build air units in most cases, which is essentially a bug (and a 2-year-old bug at that), haven't been addressed. Along with the dozens and dozens of other unfixed bugs that have been around for years.

I would say that Firaxis may just be one of those developers like Bethesda that just always releases buggy software and never fixes it... except that the XCOM series doesn't seem to have this problem. So I guess it's just the Civilization team.

 

[Alexadamz]

That brings me back another complain of the players: AI takes CSs too much. On every game I played, the problem is mostly because of the stupidity of the AI for combat - and that is worst for CS. CS build lots of units, and what they do? Keep moving those units every turn here and there. A human player can fortify 3 warriors around his city and it will be really hard to win for the attacker without a couple of ranged units. The AI is terrible mostly at combat, they never focus and attack randomly. Something must be done about that.

 

[Krajzen]

How Firaxis developers are seemingly completely content with trash AI is one thing I could never understand, years pass and it's still a mystery to me, given how they pay attention to almost anything else and are present both here and on reddit forums.

My mind is simply blank how they can be either so blind or so unwilling to significantly invest in this, so AI is capable of using all base mechanics properly.

They know us well enough to include Tamar of Georgia mainly because of its meme status among the fanbase. They included Brazil, Canada, Australia, Poland and Hungary in no small part thanks to popular demand and having a lot of fans from these countries. They add canals because people demanded them for years. They add Hall of Fame. They fill cavalry unit gaps. Yet they just won't ever touch the goddamn artificial intelligence.

Remember how just before the release of version 1.0 Civ6 they specifically did "AI observer timelapse" and seemed as surprised as us regarding braindead AI? Is this some joke at this point?

 

[uppi]

When in doubt, let the AI zerg, I say, who needs subtleties, where large enough unit numbers would create desired impression.

Part of the problem is that the design decisions of VI compared to V have made zerging much harder. Especially, the reduced mobility of units requires a lot of coordination to overwhelm strong position and without that, the assault gets reduced to a slow and easily defeated trickle of units. Which is good game design in principle, but makes creating a challenging AI much harder.

 

[Victoria]

but twos expansions and twos years later!?

Yes. Amd we are OK with this because we adapt. Winning on deity on civ games is about being efficient... just play to win faster, it is as much of a challenge, just not a wargame. But then 1 UPT will not be a decent wargame because there are too many possibilities, no AI memory and... why the crap am I replying AGAIN TO ANOTHER REPETITIVE AI THREAD THAT SAYS NOTHING BUT WHINGES.
God sake, get them in their own forum so they can get the proper support from each other they crave.

 

[Aristos]

Yes. Amd we are OK with this because we adapt. Winning on deity on civ games is about being efficient... just play to win faster, it is as much of a challenge, just not a wargame. But then 1 UPT will not be a decent wargame because there are too many possibilities, no AI memory and... why the crap am I replying AGAIN TO ANOTHER REPETITIVE AI THREAD THAT SAYS NOTHING BUT WHINGES.
God sake, get them in their own forum so they can get the proper support from each other they crave.

"they"? This is a community, and we share the same hobby. We are on the same side. We want civ to be the best it can be. If you disagree with the AI threads, or denouncements, the solution is easy: do not enter them.

I don't think it is a good idea to "hide" the elephant behind a subforum, or a monster thread, or anything similar. The AI is THE biggest (only?) failure of civ 6. I still will play it, but that will not stop me from acknowledging the problem. The more exposure it has, the more chances (although slim) we have for FXS to maybe listen, one day... maybe. Reactions such as yours do not help the main cause here, about which I am certain we all can agree:

That civ becomes the best it can be.

 

[tedhebert]

Reactions such as yours do not help the main cause here, about which I am certain we all can agree:

NO !

The main cause is we enjoy the game and like to talk about all it's side's and quirks, be they good or bad...

We do NOT agree that hitting on the one nail time and time again, thread after thread, is something we ALL want... That's YOUR dada, not ours...

You are right, it must be said, mentioned. Strongly.

But we are also right. It seeming to become the ONLY topic in these forums is becoming highly annoying... Enough to make me wonder if I really want to come in and read all the whining !

 

[Aristos]

You are right, it must be said, mentioned. Strongly.

But we are also right. It seeming to become the ONLY topic in these forums is becoming highly annoying... Enough to make me wonder if I really want to come in and read all the whining !

First, I don't "whine", I report and sometimes try to explain/suggest/recommend... cannot talk for others, but will never say "whiner" about anyone that is trying to report something he does not like.

Second, I don't see anyone forcing you to enter the AI threads. If you already "know" what to expect inside them, why are you here? It's a simple question; nothing personal. I do not enter threads that I expect to dislike, and I don't ask for them to be silenced/removed/hidden... it's really simple.

 

[tedhebert]

First, I don't "whine", I report and sometimes try to explain/suggest/recommend... cannot talk for others, but will never say "whiner" about anyone that is trying to report something he does not like.

Second, I don't see anyone forcing you to enter the AI threads. If you already "know" what to expect inside them, why are you here? It's a simple question; nothing personal. I do not enter threads that I expect to dislike, and I don't ask for them to be silenced/removed/hidden... it's really simple.

We'll just say that "to whine or not to whine" is a matter of perspective and leave it at that.

I hop all over the boards and read a lot of interesting stuff, including by you honestly ;-)

It's just that really, lately, I feel like the last 20-30 posts you've written seem to be on this subject. They're well written, but I just don't believe, like you do, that repeating it over and over again will have an impact on Fireaxis's plans.

Anyways, it's not personal for me either, I've always enjoyed reading you... I,m just not a fan of repetition ad nauseam

 

[Archon_Wing]

I don't really expect an improvement until the next major patch. Never really did.

 

[tedhebert]

I don't really expect an improvement until the next major patch. Never really did.

You believe they concentrate on internal stuff and improvements more when doing patches than expansions then ? Just wondering... It does make some kind of sense, just wondering if you got that belief from any RL experience, or just a feeling ?

 

[Aristos]

It's just that really, lately, I feel like the last 20-30 posts you've written seem to be on this subject. They're well written, but I just don't believe, like you do, that repeating it over and over again will have an impact on Fireaxis's plans.

Anyways, it's not personal for me either, I've always enjoyed reading you... I,m just not a fan of repetition ad nauseam

Thanks. Quick observation: if you look carefully, I have not been participating in the last 2-3 threads (I think) on this subject, but for this specific occasion, where as you can see, I am not talking about AI but defending the right of the people who are doing it to do so. I know the chances are slim for FXS to listen, but the pressure may well have an indirect desirable effect: the earlier release of the DLL, or even the release at all (there are rumors they are not willing to do so this time, so pressure for the AI may result in them releasing it after all, and letting us solve the AI once again).

Bottom line: pressure is good. It may produce good side effects (DLL release). Even if repetition is tiresome, the final effect may benefit all of us. Let the "whiners" state whatever they want, ignore their threads if you don't feel like it. That's it.

 

[pgm123]

Part of the problem is that the design decisions of VI compared to V have made zerging much harder. Especially, the reduced mobility of units requires a lot of coordination to overwhelm strong position and without that, the assault gets reduced to a slow and easily defeated trickle of units. Which is good game design in principle, but makes creating a challenging AI much harder.

To be fair, V had those problems as well. I feel like now the AI can take cities without walls pretty easily, but struggles mightily with walls. I thought the AI was just generally bad at taking cities in Civ V. (I have never played VP and none of my comments are based on it)

 

[leif erikson]

Bottom line: pressure is good. It may produce good side effects (DLL release). Even if repetition is tiresome, the final effect may benefit all of us. Let the "whiners" state whatever they want, ignore their threads if you don't feel like it. That's it.

Moderator Action: Pressure may be good, but we are no going to allow these forums to become only about AI complaints. We are discussing how we are going to handle this because there are too many threads being started about AI when there are so many that can be used. There are good things happening too that players want to know about and those things do not deserve to be drowned out. Just so you know if we start consolidating AI threads.

 

[Aristos]

@leif erikson : then, if may suggest, the least of all "evils" would be to dedicate AI to its own subforum, as some have suggested here. That way, we can not only have all complaints/reports there, but also threads about fixes, ideas, and when/if the dll is released also mods and solutions. OTOH, the worst of all evils is a single monster thread, because it will kill the topic. You tried that with Civ 5, and it did not work so well. I remember.

Just a suggestion.

 

[Gorbles]

The issue isn't even "putting pressure on the developer", or any argument vaguely equal to that. There are two central conceits here:

1. That the Civilisation team are somehow content with the AI performance, or have zero desire to improve it.
2. That putting any kind of written pressure (CFC, reddit, anywhere) is going to actually help improvements to the AI happen.

I don't even have to be idealistic to prove 2. Folks seem to have a general agreement that they read places, including reddit, including here, including social media. We see them including nods and tips to common jokes and references throughout the game and marketing material. Therefore, they have to be aware of AI complaints. Literally, have to be. Therefore, the amount of feedback already given isn't helping. Or at least isn't having an observable effect.

1 comes down to a very simple argument. If the power is with the Civilisation team to improve the AI, and despite the multitudes of public feedback about it, then whoever manages them will see that they're not doing it. This assumes that this amount of public feedback is an important argument to the people managing the team, because if it's not then it's not the team's fault regardless.

The problem with this is people respond with "so what you're saying, that we should never complain about the AI again?!" or similar arguments. It's hard to accept that a developer cares about something but for reasons we don't know can't action that thing. But no, I'm not saying folks shouldn't complain about the AI. But making arguments that the developer doesn't care, that the developer is incompetent, that the developer doesn't care or is okay with the way things are . . . these aren't that. The same goes for "putting pressure" on the developers. We've already established the developers read posts, that they have at least a finger on the general Civ. community (and this ain't the only place that criticises the AI).

It's why recently I was asking modders and other folks specifics (lack of modding access, exactly how to break down issues in high-level player / AI play). I feel those kinds of things are super-useful, heck, for me personally if nobody else (knowing why people have grievances is far better than just reading said grievances). I'm not here to say "this is exactly what you should say", that's a ridiculous thing to do. I'm just trying to contribute in the way I best see fit, and here I am arguing against ways that I don't think help.