Well put it like this: In my most recent game I was 5th in tech. I was playing as English Aquatine and had about 53 techs. Kong way ahead at 64, Australia close behind at 62. Once I got Bombers, it was GAME over for them. They simply couldn;t do anything. They didn't build any anti air defences despite me taking several of their cities, they didn't destroy my airfields, they didn't do a damn thing. Then of course once I took their capitals, there was an emergency called on me. And I was able to simply ride out the turns. Not ONE civ tried to attack me or provide any sort of offense. how can this be right?
Well put it like this: In my most recent game I was 5th in tech. I was playing as English Aquatine and had about 53 techs. Kong way ahead at 64, Australia close behind at 62. Once I got Bombers, it was GAME over for them. They simply couldn;t do anything. They didn't build any anti air defences despite me taking several of their cities, they didn't destroy my airfields, they didn't do a damn thing. Then of course once I took their capitals, there was an emergency called on me. And I was able to simply ride out the turns. Not ONE civ tried to attack me or provide any sort of offense. how can this be right?
Eliminator_Sr
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2016
- Messages
- 566
Bummer - based on this and some other threads I probably won't purchase the expansion. The game got quite boring after awhile due to lack of challenge and it doesn't appear that they've done much to address it. The additions really just seem like bells and whistles to me if the AI still can't pursue victory any more effectively. I certainly don't expect custom AI for each difficulty level but I'm an old school civ player and it is a strategy game so I would like to see some actual strategy from the AI. They've certainly accomplished it in previous iterations where I lost many games. I can probably count on one hand the number of civ 6 games I lost and I have logged well over 500 hours of game play.
glider1
Deity
You nailed it. To put it simply, there is a trend at the moment for Firaxis to develop games suitable for the new player market at the frustration of the veteran player market. When that strategy bites back at the company depends on when the new player market runs dry. At that point you will definitely see a resumed focus on better AI, better strategy and graphics more suited to veteran tastes. I suspect they are trying to tap into the new player market in countries of growing population and wealth. When that stops, they are going to have to focus on civ games that bring veteran players along with the evolution rather than making them expendable as they are now. Actually they are clever, the die hard veteran just play old modded versions of civ and wait in the wings..... Problem is that when the new player market dries up, they are going to face two problems, declining profits and having to expend more development costs to make a deeper more challenging strategy game to entice the veterans back. But by then a lot of the veterans will be too old to play or moved on to other titles and games.
No it's not impossible. Brad Wardell coded exactly that into Galciv 2 and it worked very well. He coded the AI algos so that only at the highest difficulty levels all full algorithms for the AI would be active, while gradually decreasing the chance of each algo to trigger the lower the diff level. You could even "feel" the effect of that during gameplay, and it was the opposite of immersion ruining.
I.e.: you build up in the border with a hostile (or target) civ; if the AI civ had "vision" on your build up, on higher diff levels they would come to you and tell you something in the line of "I know what you are doing", and then immediately start their own build up in the area. In lower diff levels, sometimes they would notice, and react, and sometimes they would not. At the lowest level, they would not react most of the time.
Many more examples like that. It can be done, it has been done, and it can be very immersive (and effective, GC2's AI is still considered the best of the series today, even with its flaws, and of course it is eons ahead of civ 6's).
That's nothing. Yesterday I saw a Flood Barrier on a two tile Wonder lake.
I agree. I'm not a programmer, but with my meager tinkering I could code behavior to be different based on difficulty level.
I think the biggest issues are resources being thrown at the ai, and that the devs are not experienced enough.
Council 13
Chieftain
At the end of the day, this is supposed to be a strategy game, not a civilization growth simulator. If the AI is unable to challenge you and adapt to your strategy, then the game quickly becomes pretty bland. How do you manage to make the AI WORSE in a new version that is now 3 years old and 2 expansions deep? Its a huge disappointment if I am to be honest. I'm not going to sit here and say I'm going to uninstall the game, this is the worst game ever.. etc etc. But I no longer can play Civ as a serious strategy game.
_ViKinG_
BERSERKER
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2013
- Messages
- 327
Ive stopped playing after every release now. Waiting and waiting for challenge and strategy. Just not fun. First vanilla then RF and now GS that i play short games of. Gets boring fast. (And i have over 4000 hours with civ v). I like the game with building up and all the stuff in it. but with no challenge from AI in wars it makes me play other games than civ vi. Its not a quick fix as it has been out for many years now.
Halfdan Helgrim
Chieftain
I totally agree with this. There is no challenge at all even on Diety. I remember Civ5 with two expansions, where Immortal could be tough and Diety you were not sure to win unless you played optimally and used Diplomacy to your advantage. So regret having spent money on GS, but do hope the money go to improving the challenge levels for at least Immortal and Diety. What is left is GOTM, where the challenge is just to have a very fast time and AIs are like Barbarians.
Wizard-Bob
Always remember to Find Your FUN!
I don't agree. I am loving Civ VI - the "FUN" factor (for me) is as good as ever for a Civ release. YMMV, of course! Anyone with 1000's of hours in the Civ series should know what to expect 
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,902
Of course it is, you chaps just have winning goggles on so cannot see the alternates behind the finishing line tape.
Play a deity game to finish an SV in under 180 turns or a CV in under 120. It is a challenge that requires strategy. To me a Dom victory is just beating everyone up, no eloquence at all, but fast times require a LOT of thought.
Play an MP game.
Life is what you make of it.
Last edited:
We shouldn't have to come up with our own rules just for the game to be a challenge. That's what difficulty settings are for, and at present they fail at their job because the AI is fundamentally flawed. I'm 100% sure improving it wouldn't be hard if Firaxis bothered to make the correct priorities for the quality of the game rather than for what they think will milk the most money out of players from cheap tagline selling points.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,902
It is no longer a game written by teams of programmers, much of the money is on artwork, design, on appeasing the online pressure groups... and so the list goes on. Writing a few grumpy posts you have the right to but I doubt it will change before quantum computers are the norm.
The trouble is it has all been said in plenty of posts too many times
Mods, we really do need an AI forum
The trouble is it has all been said in plenty of posts too many times
Mods, we really do need an AI forum
Wizard-Bob
Always remember to Find Your FUN!
Indeed
And it clearly needs to be said many more times so that Firaxis will take notice and design a competent game. Your comment about quantum computers is way off the mark since developers had no problem implementing decent AI in the past. I and many others refuse to meet regression with quiet acceptance. You aren't wrong in what you say about how the game has evolved, but the direction itself is wrong and must be fought teeth and claw. That is how change is made.
As for an AI forum, what you are suggesting is an echo chamber containment zone. Posting in such a place would be pointless, since complaints wouldn't be heard outside of it, least of all by Firaxis staff.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,902
They could go in and count the posts, not sure what other value they give. You just owned up to being a pressure group person which is why our nice forum is now spammed with repeats
It's only one thread on the front page at any one time, which is the least it should be for the game's largest flaw by far. If you want a total circle jerk, r/civ on Reddit is right over there.
Ya I agree with some of you Civ 6 GS is just not engaging enough to play anymore. I’ve tried modding so many files and giving them so many units it just doesn’t matter. If people think 1 UPT is so difficult, maybe Firaxis should play battle brothers and get tips on how efficient the AI can be.
Trav'ling Canuck
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2018
- Messages
- 3,488
Anyone with 1000's of hours in the Civ series should know what to expect
But that's the thing. I've played every version of Civ, from Civ 1 onwards. Other than having "Civilization" in the title, the game design approach to Civ 6 is so different that it doesn't feel, to me, like any past version of the series. I thought I knew what to expect, based on a long history with Civ. Civ 6 isn't it.
I understand some people enjoy Civ 6 and I'm happy for them, but to me it doesn't offer the same experience that past versions of the series offered.
Aristos
Lightseeker
I will tell you what happened with civ 6. They went uber builder with it, to the point of almost ignoring the military aspect of the game (especially AI). The paradox of this design philosophy is that it made it even easier for the warmonger crowd to defeat the game; the military solution is always the "last" resort even if the player develops a very bad overall game. Thus, while the builder aspect of the game is as rich as ever (which I celebrate because I am a mixed builder-conqueror), the military arm became dull and an easy solution for a bad strategy (which I condemn, as I am a mixed builder-conqueror).
The irony is that "only" one factor makes the difference between a dull military aspect and an engaging military game: the AI.
That's why we care.
OBS.: truth be told, I find the military AI a bit better after GS, the diplomatic AI better than before, and the strategy AI considerably better (at least on Deity).
Council 13
Chieftain
Knowing what to expect is par for the course. This AI is below expectations, even by Civ standards.I don't agree. I am loving Civ VI - the "FUN" factor (for me) is as good as ever for a Civ release. YMMV, of course! Anyone with 1000's of hours in the Civ series should know what to expect
The AI poses nearly no threat at any difficulty level, which means that you have to challenge yourself to play a certain way for the game to be engaging. That is not a good strategy game then. Thats like saying lets play chess against the AI but don't play to win so the match is interesting. My point is, I'm not saying the game is not fun or interesting. But its a very poor strategy game at the moment all due to the AI incompetence which is at epic levels of low, even by Civ standards.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,902
Play multiplayer then it is a good strategy game. What are good strategic SP turn based games now, that it is hard to beat?
You have placed your own value on the victory condition being the goal. If you make something else the goal and that makes the fun strategically to play then it’s a winner as far as I am concerned... victory conditions are rubbish anyway.
Play civ IV, enjoy. Civ VI is not going to change now. 2 years of pressure groups and what has changed? Nada, nicht, none.
Similar threads
