So really where is this?

[Valmighty]

This kind of thinking is what makes developers make unfinished game. "Hey if other developers make unfinished game, so can we."

But since you ask, other 4x games that less buggy and doesn't repeat its previous mistake (like Civ6 repeats Civ5 diplomacy/1UPT AI stupidity):
AoW3, Civ4, EL, Stellaris

 

[Roxlimn]

LOL. Civ 4 was less buggy? No. It definitely wasn't. For a lot of player back then, they couldn't play the game. I'm not saying they couldn't stand playing it. They literally could not play the game because it would blackscreen or repeatedly crash the to desktop. I'm not talking about the odd player here and there, either. Large swaths of players were crashing. It was a major issue. In fact, there were so many major issues with Civ 4 that they couldn't fix the functionally unplayable multiplayer for months and months after release. And it was still mostly unplayable after the first expansion!

In fact, the ECONOMIC AI in Civ 4 was so atrocious that the 2nd expansion: Beyond The Sword continued to make basic improvements on functionality. By your argument, that should have been there from the start, and this was two expansions in. Like I said, even after all that, the final improvements that made Civ 4 what it is today was made by participants in the online community of Civ (that would be people like you and me).

Civ 4 also repeats ICS mistakes from Civ 3.

Endless Legend also has performance bugs, and while it does improve upon its Endless Space predecessor, it still can't fully capture the compelling flavor of a Master of Magic. I've played hundreds of hours of it, but it kind of blends together after a while, not least of which because most of the advantages of each faction are not distinctive enough. Roving Clans can pack their cities, but how many people actually do that how often? Not much. Wild Walker get extra production. Yay. Numbers on a spreadsheet. Exciting. Ardent Mages make the most compelling gameplay, but one trick pony much. Necrophages and Cultists, too. There's just not as much crunchy flavor there. So a repeat mistake of their bland Endless Space game.

As for 1UPT, you're never going to like it, and many of us are never going back, so that's not a helpful critique, and more of just a personal preference. Basically, 1UPT AI stupidity to me is more forgivable because 1UPT is more complex. An AI that's incapable of stack combat is just pathetic.

 

[need my speed]

Civ 4 also repeats ICS mistakes from Civ 3.

No it doesn't, for there are a variety of city maintenance costs that can crash your economy.

 

[Roxlimn]

Early in the game, sure. Once you get things going? Nah. Civ 3 has Corruption, so it gets progressively harder to ICS as go along. In Civ4, there's just the maintenance. So long as you can counter that, you can keep going indefinitely. Early in the game, trade routes and Great Lighthouse give you a large leeway in expanding a lot, and once you have Corporations going, you can claim every tile on the map and still keep going.

 

[Gorbles]

The changes made by the Vox Populi team are much more extensive than that.
When the source code for the DLL was released numerous changes to AI functions were closely examined and fixed, even new ones added, so that the core mechanics of Civ V, as played in Vox Populi, are much more than what was released by Firaxis.
I haven't yet seen the code for Civ VI but I will put good money on there being similar, if not identical, AI routines included in it. This is what I am talking about. The core code that defines the AI is in the DLL and a small team over a period of 2 years has produced a much better AI than a fully funded software company has in 5 years with many more coders in their employ.

Assuming they are still coding in C++, and even if they're not, examining the code changes would provide them with all they need even if they didn't take the repo and merge it into their own source. Coding for a game may not be easy but it isn't rocket science either, anyone with a modicum of coding can see what needs to be done and do it, the fact Firaxis hasn't tells me they don't value a working AI too highly.

I didn't mean to diminish the efforts of modders, but modders' efforts is still what they are. It wasn't something that was built from scratch. Examined! Sure. Learned from? Undoubtably. Improved on? Without question.

I have experience in both modding, developing, and iterating on what developers have done myself. Not in C++ (thank the heavens ), a lot of other developers rely on a more virtualised layer (LUA is a common choice) as supposed to the hardcoded constraints of binary files. I get where you're coming from. But you're bigging up Vox Populi while dressing down the developers.

You're making assumption after assumption (that the AI routines in a game with a fundamentally-different engine base are "similar", for the latest one) while dressing down the effort required for games development programming. It doesn't have to be rocket science to be difficult. A working AI is difficult. Do you know how long it took the contributors to Vox Populi to build the AI? To tweak it? To iterate on it? These are the resources they have that Firaxis likely don't - games development is done on incredibly tight deadlines.

And while you may pan this as "not valuing a working AI", a) that's incorrect because the AI functions, it just doesn't function to peoples' likings, and b) it's irrelevant what the developers "value" when game mechanics, render tech and pretty much everything else will take precedence. And unlike larger pieces of content, an AI can more easily be improved, post-release. As can text fixes, UI polish, etc. That's why these things slide down the "priority" list so often. I'm not saying it's ideal, but that's the industry as it stands.

 

[kornelm1978]

Coulda fooled me. They certainly did a lot of shuffling around while I shot them to death. And they did that while also occasionally suicidally attacking invincible positions.

Does that defend the game? Should't that be at least at good at CIV V? Or good as civ5 in the area of war, which s pretty unchanged?

I will tell tyou the rule which exists in all the world for all products. New product is to be better and if not it is strongly criticised. But this rule for many does not work for CIV.

 

[Larsenex]

Korn,

I am enjoying the game. I truly feel that the game is worth every penny of money I paid for it. That is really all that matters. Your opinion that the game is terrible or is not worth the money being asked for it, is just that <your opinion>.

This thread was made because <there is and has never been> any 4x game that has been produced with a great ai, zero bugs and zero exploits flawless on launch day.

I would say just play the game. If you do not like it, do not play it. Not sure if you can return it back to steam but I suppose you can write to them and ask.

Cheers!

 

[need my speed]

Early in the game, sure. Once you get things going? Nah. Civ 3 has Corruption, so it gets progressively harder to ICS as go along. In Civ4, there's just the maintenance. So long as you can counter that, you can keep going indefinitely. Early in the game, trade routes and Great Lighthouse give you a large leeway in expanding a lot, and once you have Corporations going, you can claim every tile on the map and still keep going.

Maintenance that is more expensive as cities are farther away, as there are more cities, as you adopt newer civics, and as you expand onto other continents, yes. That sounds like the perfect system? Expansion should always be profitable in the long-term.

 

[Roxlimn]

Maintenance that is more expensive as cities are farther away, as there are more cities, as you adopt newer civics, and as you expand onto other continents, yes. That sounds like the perfect system? Expansion should always be profitable in the long-term.

It's a mistake. If there are no real downsides to expansion then it's ICS time, baby.

 

[need my speed]

It's a mistake. If there are no real downsides to expansion then it's ICS time, baby.

Which is why Civilization III leads to ICS - no downside; the simply is city made less good by corruption, but less good is still a net benefit - and Civilization IV doesn't; you'd crash your economy and be horribly crippled.

 

[Drakarska]

Civ 4.

The only severe problem I had with it was graphics related, and it's fair to give Civ 4 a pass on that because graphics standards... weren't back in the day.

Actually, Blue Marble mod comp, or VIP's graphic mod comp creates some epic eye candy for such a venerable game.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Yes, in the very late game of Civ IV the city maintenance system broke down a bit and you could basically ICS if you wanted to.

But in the early-to-mid game--basically anything before corporations--trying to ICS in Civ IV is absolutely suicidal. If you planted cities everywhere with no regard for terrain, you would go broke, your teching would stop, your armies would disband, and you would lose. Whereas in Civ III, ICSing from the very beginning of the game was the clear strategy. So I'd say Civ IV's system clearly worked much better than Civ III's, and is by far the best any Civilization game has ever done.

Unfortunately, I think ICS is king in Civ VI, probably even moreso than it was in Civ III. Even the rather ineffective expansion limiting mechanic of corruption isn't there, and amenities are completely laughable as a check on wide play. Now, it's possible (in fact, it's easy) to win the game on Deity without expanding much at all, because the current AI is in deplorable shape. But I think ICSing is the optimal strategy. I actually prefer that to Civ V (anything is better than a 4X game which punishes building an empire), but it's not ideal, either.