I wouldn't enjoy being "crushed" at all. A tough battle that I ultimately lost is acceptable, but I'd at least prefer a fighting chance.Question to people in this thread... How would you feel if the AI completely smashed you in war without any cheating?
The Verge just did an article about how game designers make AI "fun" for gamers not the hardest.
It would seem that modern AI's could be trained to do Civ combat very easily. Likely to the point where it would crush or at least frustrate human players.
I remember I stopped playing chess on my Apple IIe when it would beat me every time. Thoughts?
Winning is not what it is about for me but I do get that victory is a target that makes you think in V.I think this speaks to how differently people approach civ, and how different their expectations are.
Question to people in this thread... How would you feel if the AI completely smashed you in war without any cheating?
The Verge just did an article about how game designers make AI "fun" for gamers not the hardest.
It would seem that modern AI's could be trained to do Civ combat very easily. Likely to the point where it would crush or at least frustrate human players.
I remember I stopped playing chess on my Apple IIe when it would beat me every time. Thoughts?
100% agree, I mentioned the exact same thing a while back. Everyone used to love chess games until they started beating people even on easy levels.I remember I stopped playing chess on my Apple IIe when it would beat me every time. Thoughts?
I wonder how much of these military issues are actually economic issues in disguise.
Especially around amenities, producing more units when they lose them, brutally bad card slotting, that sort of thing. If the AI has growth bonuses it will constantly be running into amenity problems. Other than adjacency, we would expect that this huge emphasis on just having infrastructure would make yield management pretty easy since the AI only needs to place lots of campuses etc.
Their district placement is also bad, though; I wonder if there is a way to improve it. I often raze captured cities because of the poor district placement. Part of it is planning, but perhaps a simple model of "flat land=farm, hill=mine, resource=improve resource" With a tweak for environmentalist civs to use lumber mills. Then you'd know how the terrain will be improved in advance and can,for example, plan IZs.
Stack building may be appealing for Civ4 vets, but dropped into civ6 as is would probably result in stacks dancing in your city strike range instead! The addition of the City as a static unit and ranged units in general, as well as the corps system has, IMO, made stacks "obsolete." Stacks' AI upside is force concentration- simply having much earlier corps/armies in the game would also give them that advantage (because they also have very high unit production bonuses.)
100% agree, I mentioned the exact same thing a while back. Everyone used to love chess games until they started beating people even on easy levels.
The point is there is a large audience out there and only a small number of hard core strategist.
They can fit lots of demographic requirements into the game but hardcore would require its own dll coz it certainly is not compatible with many others.
100% agree, I mentioned the exact same thing a while back. Everyone used to love chess games until they started beating people even on easy levels.
The point is there is a large audience out there and only a small number of hard core strategist.
They can fit lots of demographic requirements into the game but hardcore would require its own dll coz it certainly is not compatible with many others.
I think the core problem is you the AI they give isn't really designed for a tactical challenge.
We all now have to learn AI in my job, been doing it for a couple of years.The better the AI gets,
It's easy to check their placement ability: just capture an AI city. My biggest turn off of conquest is that I inherit city layouts that are sabotage levels of bad. It keeps me peaceful!If their Industrial Zones aren't getting adjacency bonuses, then that is slowing down their production mid-game, and if their Commercial Hubs aren't getting their adjacency bonuses, then the AI isn't going to be able to afford buying or upgrading units.
This is no longer true since VP mod for Civ5 proved 1UPT works on old tech and without redesigning the AI. Firaxis would be at the same level as VP mod if they didn't keep rewriting the game and evolved the game on two separate development branches - a feature branch that remains private in house and AI branch that is open to (EDIT: opt-in) public beta.
100% agree, I mentioned the exact same thing a while back. Everyone used to love chess games until they started beating people even on easy levels.
The point is there is a large audience out there and only a small number of hard core strategist.
They can fit lots of demographic requirements into the game but hardcore would require its own dll coz it certainly is not compatible with many others.
I believe major civ AIs have their military broken into a few "battle groups" and those groups are assigned tasks. Whereas city states just have their one group, and they usually keep them all in one spot.If Major AI's actually used the aggressive AI algorithms of city states, they would do significantly better.
Minors and Majors use exactly the same Behavior Trees. Only Barbarians and Free Cities have their own trees.I wonder if we could easily make the major civ "battle groups" have the same behavior as the city state armies (stay clumped around base of operations, attack target together, etc.)