So really where is this?

[Francis Xavier]

I never said that it was the modders role to "fix" a game - just that the modders have flexibility to focus on micro details or create a cool alternate style of the game where a developer can and often has to be handcuffed to a larger, grander vision of the game. A modder can mod a version of a game that appeals to the ultra-high end and be a resounding success in that community. A developer can't tailor fit the game exclusively to the high end, when the goal and objective is broader appeal. That's even why they took the steps to open up modding even more for Civ VI (I'm not a modder, so I can't speak on how accurate their comment that Civ VI was built to be the most modable Civ in the franchise, I take them at their word about it).

The reality is, Civ VI isn't broken. It's a resounding success at launch by all industry standards, and is an excellent leap forward in the design of the franchise. Especially your average casual gamer (at least the ones that I've had exposure to that're Civ fans) looks at it, has fun and is replaying the game. If anything most of them I've talked to struggle with difficulty past King because of the AI and the mechanics.

The other side of the token here, is that very likely we've all here played a lot of Civ. I've played Civ constantly since Civ III, first getting really hardcore about it in Civ IV. That means that going into Civ VI, I already have a pretty strong grasp and background knowledge of the core mechanics of civ and how to fluidly go through the game without a big learning curve. Playing Civ V on the Deity level, I went in and played Civ VI starting at Emperor and within about two games went up to Deity and yeah, to me the big stack of AI units isn't intimidating because I know they're not going to be very good at warfare. I already know easily by turn 100 in most games on Deity if I'm going to win or not. Winning becomes a question of the world's geography and if I can stop a civ from steamrolling the game or not. I don't exactly have to micromanage a million different elements perfectly to win, and when I noticed early on that there wasn't expansion penalties a la Civ V, I was able to implement the strategy of rapid expansion and early warfare having big bonuses a la Civ III / IV, because I played those games ad nauseum. SO yeah, do I want a more powerful AI? Absolutely. Do I want diplomacy to continue to be refined? Yeah (although it doesn't seem to me as broken as some think it is on diplomacy). Heck, I'd like a vassal state option again! Mostly, I'd be happy with the AI being better / more aggressive in attacking cities in warfare.

But I also do recognize there's a lot under the hood that's new going on between new support unit structure, districting, adjacency bonuses and regional bonuses that I never expected the AI to be good at from the get-go of Civ VI. But those things excite me and at the end of the day I recognize that I'm in the top 1-2, maybe 5% playing the game like that. The vast majority aren't on that level.

 

[Gtdead]

I don't care too much about wonky AI or a few exploits that I'm never going to use. Both will be fixed in time.

But I do care about some basic stuff.

It has the most confusing tooltips I've ever seen.
The UI misses a bunch of very important pieces of information that help in city management that we already had in civ 5.
The civilopedia explanations for units are too vague.
Unit actions, combat damage etc, can only be understood through trial and error or searching for the code.

Stuff like this is not a deal breaker, but come on. This not only feels rushed, but it's pretty much a step back.

 

[Biz_]

RTS games are almost always in a better state at launch

i prefer turn-based games, but most empire-based RTS games are more about 4X than civ5/civ6 will ever be because they focus on strategy instead of sim city

 

[ExpiredReign]

@Gorbles What?!
I think most of us can see that Civ VI has incorporated many aspects from mods that exist for Civ V. All the changes VP has made to the AI and other DLL based mechanics are freely accessible via the GitHub repo so if the developers really wanted to make a challenging AI all they had to do was look at the code.
Time and money constraints do not justify the product released by Firaxis, they must be walking to a different tune to the rest of us.

None of the complaints about AI have any excuses stemming from the new game mechanics, they are all basic errors/design decisions that could easily be changed if they so desired. Clearly they do not! Firaxis are simply making a game that they feel appeals to the majority. Maybe they are right, maybe those of us here in CFC are elitists? Too skilled in a game that is in it's 6th iteration? I personally don't believe that.
If I see a an un-escorted settler trying to forward settle next to an active warzone I think poor AI.
If I see archers massing around a city but no melee unit to capture it I think poor AI.
If I see unsettled strategic resources near to your starting city and a settler in your capital, 200 turns into the game, I think poor AI.
Need I go on?

 

[Ferocitus]

@Gorbles
If I see archers massing around a city but no melee unit to capture it I think poor AI.

Does that suggest that the AI is possibly weighing warmonger penalties for capturing the city
against denying the city resources?
(Of course, that weighting might be very inappropriate at the moment, but that is something
that should be adjusted after Firaxis collect the various .txt files and process them.)

 

[ExpiredReign]

I wouldn't think so. If Firaxis added weighting like that into their AI code but skimped on the more basic stuff, that to me is more reason for concern. In my opinion it is simply the AI is using the most powerful unit it has at the time, or the units it had standing around when war was declared. Also I see this when the AI has declared war so they already have taken a diplo hit with warmongering, why not take the city and have it ceded to them?

 

[Ferocitus]

I wouldn't think so. If Firaxis added weighting like that into their AI code but skimped on the more basic stuff, that to me is more reason for concern. In my opinion it is simply the AI is using the most powerful unit it has at the time, or the units it had standing around when war was declared. Also I see this when the AI has declared war so they already have taken a diplo hit with warmongering, why not take the city and have it ceded to them?

That depends. What's the hit for taking the city? (Including all the penalties with the other Civs they interact with.)

 

[kornelm1978]

Does that suggest that the AI is possibly weighing warmonger penalties for capturing the city
against denying the city resources?
(Of course, that weighting might be very inappropriate at the moment, but that is something
that should be adjusted after Firaxis collect the various .txt files and process them.)

Sorry, but isn't it bit naive to think that AI does that (pretty decent "thinking"), while it cannot uprgrade chariots in modern era (most basic thing)? Let me think, maybe there is also hidden logic behind having chariots in modern era? Maybe AI is tricking player that they are not advanced when they really are and suddenly launch rocket to cosmos? Maybe to satisfy hidden agenda of another AI which is: have a lot of chariots. Maybe it is plannig to get a card with 50% discount on uprgades (while saving on uprgades and maintanace for long time), upgrade everything to tanks and wipe all others? Sorry, I could not stop myself.

 

[Menzies]

Do explain, because that is really not true. You're probably speaking of Civilization V, what with mentioning a community patch.

I'm guessing you weren't around during Civ IV's release cycle. It most certainly was the case. Solver and Bhruic's patches weren't only what made BTS actually playable, but their changes were incorporated into an official patch.

Civ V after one expansion was already far less broken than Civ IV, it was just that enough time has passed that most of those concerns have melted away and been replaced by nostalgia. As good a game as Civ IV is, that doesn't change its past.

 

[Ferocitus]

Sorry, but isn't it bit naive to think that AI does that (pretty decent "thinking"), while it cannot uprgrade chariots in modern era (most basic thing)? Let me think, maybe there is also hidden logic behind having chariots in modern era? Maybe AI is tricking player that they are not advanced when they really are and suddenly launch rocket to cosmos? Maybe to satisfy hidden agenda of another AI which is: have a lot of chariots. Maybe it is plannig to get a card with 50% discount on uprgades (while saving on uprgades and maintanace for long time), upgrade everything to tanks and wipe all others? Sorry, I could not stop myself.

Not at all.
Some parts of the AI might appear to be more sophisticated than others, some might be working as designed, and others very clearly are not.
But nobody here knows for sure without the source code.
You're making the naive assumption that all parts of the AI are somehow wrong if other parts (e.g. upgrade paths) are.

I'm not arguing that the AI doesn't need fixing.

The question is: What are the penalties for taking a city, including all the penalties from that Civs interactions with other Civs?
Don't know? Nor do I.

 

[Roxlimn]

Menzies has the right of it. Many of you either do not remember what Civ IV was like before Warlords, or have such rose-tinted glasses that you can't remember. Civ IV was a buggy mess when it released, with all kinds of UI issues and CTD bugs. AND it was ridiculously unbalanced. People here were looking for Companion Cavalry crap because it happened before - with Civ 4. In Civ 4, the broken rush was Axemen, which weren't a UU which meant that you could do it with any Civ.

Civ IV AI on release was so bad that you could have cities in the 1500s without a single improved tile in its radius. It was so bad that it FAILED AT STACK COMBAT. Imagine how bad an AI has to be to fail at stack combat. Now make it worse. Civ IV AI on release was worse than that. The unit balance was so bad that you only made Axemen because they were the only unit worth making. Maybe a Spearman on the odd chance a Horse appeared, but even then an Axeman was still a good choice.

Stacks at Civ IV release? You guys have no idea. Back in those days, stacks were maybe 10 units - so Civ VI's 4 unit virtual stacks at late game are actually a fair approximation. The AI didn't go much beyond that. Why? Because it didn't understand drafting and it didn't understand stacking. Heck, I remember obliterating a sorry string of 2 stack armies in a trail from Monte back in the day. I was killing them with a 30 unit stack army - because I knew how to Draft.

And GalCiv2? No 1UPT? Clearly, you don't play that game. GalCiv2 is absolutely 1UPT. GalCiv's units are fleets. You make ships that go into fleets. The fleets are limited based on your tech level. You can't put as many ships in the game in a fleet early as you can later, but you absolutely can only have 1 fleet per tile.

When I say that Civ 6 is the best release of a Civ game ever, that includes all the games in the series. Heck, Civ IV AI was so bad, even AFTER all the dev patches that the community had to step in and give code. It was that bad. No, it wasn't Civ V. It was Civ 4. Vaunted Civ 4.

 

[kornelm1978]

Not at all.
Some parts of the AI might appear to be more sophisticated than others, some might be working as designed, and others very clearly are not.
But nobody here knows for sure without the source code.
You're making the naive assumption that all parts of the AI are somehow wrong if other parts (e.g. upgrade paths) are.

I'm not arguing that the AI doesn't need fixing.

The question is: What are the penalties for taking a city, including all the penalties from that Civs interactions with other Civs?
Don't know? Nor do I.

If I knew, I would just say that he is wrong. Saying naive I meant, that having in mind all the other AI flaws it is really hard to believe that it it so "wise" in this area. But we cannot be sure of that, like we can also believe in mysterious strategy and logic in having chariots in modern era.

Tell me which parts of AI seem to be more sophisticatted?

 

[kornelm1978]

Menzies has the right of it. Many of you either do not remember what Civ IV was like before Warlords, or have such rose-tinted glasses that you can't remember. Civ IV was a buggy mess when it released, with all kinds of UI issues and CTD bugs. AND it was ridiculously unbalanced. People here were looking for Companion Cavalry crap because it happened before - with Civ 4. In Civ 4, the broken rush was Axemen, which weren't a UU which meant that you could do it with any Civ.

Civ IV AI on release was so bad that you could have cities in the 1500s without a single improved tile in its radius. It was so bad that it FAILED AT STACK COMBAT. Imagine how bad an AI has to be to fail at stack combat. Now make it worse. Civ IV AI on release was worse than that. The unit balance was so bad that you only made Axemen because they were the only unit worth making. Maybe a Spearman on the odd chance a Horse appeared, but even then an Axeman was still a good choice.

Stacks at Civ IV release? You guys have no idea. Back in those days, stacks were maybe 10 units - so Civ VI's 4 unit virtual stacks at late game are actually a fair approximation. The AI didn't go much beyond that. Why? Because it didn't understand drafting and it didn't understand stacking. Heck, I remember obliterating a sorry string of 2 stack armies in a trail from Monte back in the day. I was killing them with a 30 unit stack army - because I knew how to Draft.

And GalCiv2? No 1UPT? Clearly, you don't play that game. GalCiv2 is absolutely 1UPT. GalCiv's units are fleets. You make ships that go into fleets. The fleets are limited based on your tech level. You can't put as many ships in the game in a fleet early as you can later, but you absolutely can only have 1 fleet per tile.

When I say that Civ 6 is the best release of a Civ game ever, that includes all the games in the series. Heck, Civ IV AI was so bad, even AFTER all the dev patches that the community had to step in and give code. It was that bad. No, it wasn't Civ V. It was Civ 4. Vaunted Civ 4.

Sorry, but what is fleet in Galciv? Fleet is stack of multiple ships in one place. And this stack fights. Clearly not 1 upt. 1upt would be if you had each single ship separatelly. Obviously the stacks were limited in number, but sitll were stacks. I cannot believe what I read.

 

[Roxlimn]

By that argument , Civ 6 Armies are stacks, too. You tailor the stats of your units in GalCiv , but they each function as a single unit .

A stack is a bunch of individual units that each combat in isolated events . GalCiv ships do not perform like that.

 

[kornelm1978]

By that argument , Civ 6 Armies are stacks, too. You tailor the stats of your units in GalCiv , but they each function as a single unit .

A stack is a bunch of individual units that each combat in isolated events . GalCiv ships do not perform like that.

That's not definition of stack. Stack is multiple units at the same tile or place which fight together. I will prove that indirectly. What is the main objetcion of those which prefer 1 upt. That the mass of units is more important than tactics. And that clearly the Galciv approach. You do not send one figher to fight another again and again. You fight wiht whole fleets (just two of them) at the same time. And battle is solved.

 

[MyOtherName]

There's really nothing broken in the game as it is now. The game is polished and is fairly-much bug free. It's almost literally saying the wrong thing to say it has so many bugs. There's no key or minor feature advertised missing.

Polished is very much the wrong word. A polished game would have units cycle in a natural manner, in-game options menu for options people would like to set (like disabling unit cycling), information displays that present the information people want to see, and in a way that's usable, a responsive interface that doesn't cause selection problems due to lag, the little convenience features that make the gameplay smoother like a selected unit displaying it's path of travel, or a sentry action to wake up units if an enemy unit comes near, or a fortify command that doesn't immediately consume the units movement points so that you can change your mind later in a turn. And those are just off the top of my head and without going into things like actual bugs or balance issues.

All those things that make the game rough around the edges? That's the opposite of polish.

 

[Menzies]

Polished is very much the wrong word. A polished game would have units cycle in a natural manner, in-game options menu for options people would like to set (like disabling unit cycling), information displays that present the information people want to see, and in a way that's usable, a responsive interface that doesn't cause selection problems due to lag, the little convenience features that make the gameplay smoother like a selected unit displaying it's path of travel, or a sentry action to wake up units if an enemy unit comes near, or a fortify command that doesn't immediately consume the units movement points so that you can change your mind later in a turn. And those are just off the top of my head and without going into things like actual bugs or balance issues.

All those things that make the game rough around the edges? That's the opposite of polish.

The game isn't polished, it certainly has the rough edges, but it equally can't be called broken.

 

[Roxlimn]

That's not definition of stack. Stack is multiple units at the same tile or place which fight together. I will prove that indirectly. What is the main objetcion of those which prefer 1 upt. That the mass of units is more important than tactics. And that clearly the Galciv approach. You do not send one figher to fight another again and again. You fight wiht whole fleets (just two of them) at the same time. And battle is solved.

Ships in GalCivs do not exist by themselves. They are always in a fleet, even if it's a fleet containing only 1 ship. A stack in Civ 4 (at release) most assuredly did not fight together. They fought individually, and each fight was resolved individually. It just happened to be on the same tile.

You show that you don't really understand or play GalCiv2. GalCiv2's space is largely featureless with only obstacles. But that could be altered with Space Stations. Military Space Stations can create regions with better or worse movements and better or worse adjustments. So it does matter where your fleet is, and it you broke apart several fleets into individual ships, you could bog down and use up all the movement of an approaching enemy fleet without actually winning a single battle - because only one UNIT can occupy a single tile. That unit is the fleet. Play GalCiv2 before you speak of it.

 

[Biz_]

Menzies has the right of it. Many of you either do not remember what Civ IV was like before Warlords, or have such rose-tinted glasses that you can't remember. Civ IV was a buggy mess when it released, with all kinds of UI issues and CTD bugs. AND it was ridiculously unbalanced. People here were looking for Companion Cavalry crap because it happened before - with Civ 4. In Civ 4, the broken rush was Axemen, which weren't a UU which meant that you could do it with any Civ.

your assumption that this was "broken" shows how little you understand civ4

civ4 is a game about economic dominance.
whatever the go-to unit of the era happens to be is just a way to exert that dominance.
it's a lot like the RTS games from 10-15 years ago (eg. starcraft / age of empires / rise of nations).
you're basically making the obvious stuff, but whoever makes more of it wins. the skill is about timing and prioritization because they're competitive games and not every player can be the best at making the most

their attempts to make civ4 more tactical in expansions failed because they just created balance problems.

 

[Roxlimn]

Joined 2010? Maybe didn't play the release version of Civ 4? I did. It was nothing about economic dominance.