So they still haven't fixed the AI with regard to war.

[Haig]

I've had more fun with Civ 6: GS than with any other Civ game, two times had to restart two Emperor games when I had neglected the military and got declared joint-war. I've seen actual fleets and AI joining emergencies with big forces and even succeeding.

Yeah the tactical combat is Civ 5 level = not good, but I'm still having fun. They have done improvements like now AI can move and shoot on same turn (unlike Civ 5) but sometimes AI attacks with obsolete troops, probably has to do with strategic resources.
(For higher levels I would recommend giving them free strategic resources so they can have up to date troops)

Every patch has had constant improvements for combat AI but it's not easy to create a great AI, it's not about Firaxis being greedy or lazy. Paradox games like EU4 and HOI4 have a bad AI that gets huge bonuses like no upkeep for forts in EU4, and those games dont even have amazing graphics that Civ games have.

 

[Krajzen]

Your comment about quantum computers is way off the mark since developers had no problem implementing decent AI in the past.

Could you provide me several examples of games with complexity level comparable to civ having good AI? Non sarcastic, genuine question. In every "big" strategy game I've even played AI was either mediocre, stupid or making the game borderline unplayable.

It would be perfect if some of those games had military system roughly as chaotic and messy than civ5-6 "one unit per tile with brutal movement and brutal punishment".

 

[Infixo]

@Krajzen XCOM.

 

[Karmah]

@Krajzen XCOM.

While I agree, I'm not sure I'd compare choices on a tactical battlefield to the complexity of civ6 where fights and economy depends on one another. Not saying there is no room for improvement at tactical level for civ6 AI.

 

[Infixo]

@Karmah Imo, 90% of complaints about Civ6 AI is related to wars and tactical subsystem. XCOM is mostly tactical, hence the choice. Tactical AI in XCOM is pretty good, i would say that vanilla game is made easy mainly on the strategic level which allows the player to launch mission with better teams and equipment.
Then, if you play LongWar, and suddenly strategic advantage is gone, the tactical level becomes really tough. AI is unforgiving, relentless and punishes your every mistake.
Edit. LW changes strategic level, but tactical is mostly the same, few errors fixed. That is why I didn’t put Vox Populi here because it has a tactical level hugely changed and updated.

 

[Krajzen]

@Krajzen XCOM.

XCOM is imo definitely not comparable with civ, and yeah I've played it and enjoyed it greatly. It is tactical game about small fights. Human player has tons of options and toys, but AI has very simple job. It has preset number of like a dozen units on a small map, with incredible freedom of movement compared to civ, those units have like 1 or ar best 2 special abilities and there are only few types of them, they usually camp and wait until you attack them... On top of that, in xcom unlike in civ AI doesnt have to pretend to be equal with human player and is always blatantly in much better be position than human and nobody complains because it fits in the setting. And once firefight starts, AI units run to cover and shoot.


Meanwhile in civ several AI need to have as fast turn loading times as one ai in xcom, while having a **** ton od units, hundreds of unitd on the map, while having to manage a lot of other subsystems and mechanics, while having to pretend its equal to human (on normal diff) and roleplay immersive often irrational personalities... With extremely punishing movement system where going anywhere is painful as hell and with "fragile ranged" and "strong melee" units but practically no possibility to move them in formations (because of general chaos).

With economic system that now also is "1UPT". With crazy amount of factors. With lack of meta knowledge of human players that allows them on OP combos.

IMHO civ6 is a game with mechanics that make it a perfect nightmare regarding programming competent AI.

 

[Infixo]

@Krajzen
Each operation in Civ6 is handled separately, AI never has to deal with more than 10-15 units at a time, mostly 6-8.
And what choices a unit has? Move, fortify/heal and attack.
Complex movement? XCOM has a 3-dimensional map which accounts for angles of shots, and holes in walls. I’d say that pretty much balances with hexes and Hills.
And please, don’t mix strategic layer with tactical subsystems. They are separate and work separately.

 

[Aristos]

2 years of pressure groups and what has changed? Nada, nicht, none.

Not completely true. The AI is way better than 2 years ago by now, and to me the improvements after GS are noticeable. It may not have happened without us the "pressure groupers"...

 

[glider1]

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.

I respect your opinion just want to clarify something. It is not a pressure group but a legitimate concern. It isn't the victory condition per-se that experienced players are concerned about.

The problem with the game is an aesthetic problem which is a deeper problem than other potential aesthetic problems like a bad user interface or poor artwork/graphics. The AI needs to put on a "show" good enough that the experienced players can enjoy it.

The "show" is entirely aesthetic I admit that. The AI is effectively a play actor that tries to do the best job at acting intelligent and even veteran players don't really care if the AI is intelligent or not so long as it puts on a good "show".

The difference though is in the type of aesthetic. With bad graphics or a bad UI the player can turn a blind eye to it because the graphics and UI don't change. The aesthetic is static and you can learn to ignore it.

But a bad AI is a big problem because the aesthetic "ugliness" of bad AI decisions are random and so it is not possible for the experienced player to turn a blind eye to it because you cannot learn to get used to random ugliness.

Do you understand now why there are so many complaints about the AI? I hope I have explained it well enough. Because the AI represents a random aesthetic ugliness that cannot be ignored, AI complaints will be ongoing and it isn't a pressure group but a design problem with the games aesthetic conception.

And here is the crunch of the matter that is so weird I can't explain FXS attitude on this. FXS have a solution to this problem they could implement - right now.

They just would have to admit there is an aesthetic problem with the game (which they are in denial of right now) and then create a voluntary opt-in beta release program on steam for regular updates to the AI. They just have to make sure that the beta releases focus entirely on AI mechanics nothing else.

THEN you could create a separate AI forum on CivFanatics because there would be a clear motivation for an open channel of goodwill between the players and the beta AI developer (it only needs one undergrad student with experience in civ to improve the AI and get some work experience to boot).

Yeah I hear the old line that you can't improve the AI because the game is constantly changing. That is bogus frankly. You have two different branches of development. One for game features and expansions and one for the AI. The AI branch is always behind the main branch but with only a bit of extra work it gets folded into the main branch when the expansion beta is underway.

 

[Victoria]

I never said anything about a changing game, that’s no excuse.
Seriously, you expect them to release the dll? Like that happens.
What really makes me laugh is when I go back and try and play V. It is so dull and simple is comparison. Same old strategies. Then you remember how bad the AI was, the archers could not even move and shoot. And yes, it took someone externally a lot of time to make it better, I fully understand Firaxis has to invest a larger % on artwork etc.
I can understand where Firaxis is and why. I can even understand they may be as frustrated as you
All these posts, feels a waste.

Personally @Haig has the best opinion here.

 

[Infixo]

And here is the crunch of the matter that is so weird I can't explain FXS attitude on this. FXS have a solution to this problem they could implement - right now.

Are you an employee of Firaxis with access to the development information?
If not, could you please share with us the source of such an excellent news?

 

[Takfloyd]

Could you provide me several examples of games with complexity level comparable to civ having good AI? Non sarcastic, genuine question. In every "big" strategy game I've even played AI was either mediocre, stupid or making the game borderline unplayable.

It would be perfect if some of those games had military system roughly as chaotic and messy than civ5-6 "one unit per tile with brutal movement and brutal punishment".

For overall strategy, Civilization IV. Extremely challenging even with minor bonuses. But that game isn't one unit per tile.

For tactics, there are plenty of examples. XCOM has already been mentioned, but I like to refer to the Advance Wars games, because they were on an old handheld system with little processing power and still had an AI that was threatening even on completely balanced maps where it had no advantages. It knew what to build and could react to and counter the player's choices, such as building anti-air if the player builds air units. It knew to keep its ranged units behind its melee ones and at maximum range from the target, it could use transports of all kinds, and the games had complexities such as requiring you to refuel and resupply every unit individually, which the AI could also handle. You could only take cities with infantry, the weakest units in the game, and the AI still managed to do so. You'd think matching a Gameboy Advance game in terms of AI would be a minimum expectation for a game in 2019. But Firaxis apparently can't manage that.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

What really makes me laugh is when I go back and try and play V. It is so dull and simple is comparison. Same old strategies. Then you remember how bad the AI was ...

I think this speaks to how differently people approach civ, and how different their expectations are.

I'm back to playing Civ 5 because choices matter, victory is not assured, my decisions have to vary based on the map and who my neighbours are (rather than because "I want to win a culture game using Eleanor's flip tactics this time …" etc.). Yes, the AI is tactically very poor, yet still offers a much greater threat than Civ 6 so you can't just ignore what the AI is doing (I recently finished a slugfest game with Shaka as a neighbour who hit me continually and regularly with invasion waves the Civ 6 AI would never mount or launch).

I do understand why some people prefer Civ 6 over Civ 5 or Civ 4. They're quite different games and provide very different experiences. Clearly the dev team did something right with Civ 6 for it to appeal to as many people as it does. It's a very different experience than Civ 4 or Civ 5, though.

 

[Aristos]

Seriously, you expect them to release the dll? Like that happens.

Where were you the last 15 years? Soren Johnson broke through with his vision of openness and transparency, and Civ 4 released the dll even before the last expansion. Civ 5 followed through probably because the precedent was too powerful to ignore, only to see a couple of enthusiasts put them to shame in their spare time. Now is another story, that openness inaugurated by Soren may well be in jeopardy...

 

[Infixo]

2 out of 5 (or more if you count various spinoffs). The odds are still against us.

 

[Aristos]

2 out of 5 (or more if you count various spinoffs). The odds are still against us.

The last two, so anything different would be a regression and they would have to explain (or risk losing even more goodwill from the base).

 

[Infixo]

@Aristos I don’t consider events that happen 2, 5, etc. times as statistically meaningful. Because they are not.
Unless a company oficially released a statement that publishing their IP is a company policy - then it is not.
They will make a decision and I am convinced that any post on any forum will not influence that decision. Because this is not how big companies make decisions about their core IP.

 

[Aristos]

@Aristos I don’t consider events that happen 2, 5, etc. times as statistically meaningful. Because they are not.
Unless a company oficially released a statement that publishing their IP is a company policy - then it is not.
They will make a decision and I am convinced that any post on any forum will not influence that decision. Because this is not how big companies make decisions about their core IP.

It's debatable that they would consider the dll source code their IP. The last two iterations have proven otherwise, and that they consider the game engine their IP (obviously), but the dll a support of said engine (as it really is). Take a look at the civ 5 dll source code, and you will see that there is hardly anything there that may be considered FXS "unique" development, quite the opposite; all methods used in there to drive the AI are known methods, most of them open and public.

 

[Infixo]

@Aristos Source code is „debatable IP”?... Let’s agree to disagree.

 

[Aristos]

@Aristos Source code is „debatable IP”?... Let’s agree to disagree.

That's what I am doing: disagreeing. Source code in general is obviously IP, but in the case of the civ dll, I am not so sure; just take a look inside and you will see what I mean. In any case, it is their call, obviously, as you pointed out. No sense in debating it anyways.

We can surely agree on the fact that if they do not release it, it would be a mistake, given their history with AI and also the history of modders making it better (civ 4 BTS AI dll was basically the Better AI mod from Blake, such thing would have never happened if it weren't for Soren's openness in regards to the dll).