The 1UPT system (as we know it) has to be expunged first, if we want a better A.I

[Abade69]

There is no realistic way Firaxis can make an A.I powerful enough to use the 1UPT as it is now. The reason for this is the computing power needed to simulate all the units moving around a grid: every one having different movement rules, range and terrain, taking in consideration other units specific positions, values and relations around the grid, and mostly because THEY ARE CHANGING EVERY TURN (the A.I is always lagging behind because of this). Problem only becomes worse when the infamous carpets of doom start appearing (around the medieval era).

To prove my point and give you a better idea of the computing power needed for this, just take a look to one of the most advanced A.I's in the world:

youtube.com/watch?v=KsbQ_HNX6Pg

"Go" is a simplier game compared to civilization because of the unique characteristics mentioned earlier, the most important beign the "dynamic grid" (in "go" and chess units are somewhat static). Even if Firaxis made such self-learning A.I or "hardcoded" instrument that checks every possible move for every unit on every turn, just imagine the computing power you would need to run a game.

Realistic solutions (as i see them):

A) Bringing back unlimited stacking as in older Civ games. Limiting stacking to "same unit type thing" may be the new feature.

B) Rebalance the game until the A.I brainless "flood" of zombie units are capable of capturing cities and destroying enemy armies by some arbitrary confluence of factors.

C) Limiting the max number of units in game and thus reducing the A.I incapabilities. Instead of "more", we (and the A.I) would be looking for "better" units. For this the game should be fixed and balanced accordingly (defense building to strong, units not upgrading, etc.)

Forts, encampements, cities, resources, policies, technologies would limit how wide (number of units) and tall (stack size) of your armies. They would do it in such a way it would be impossible to fill the map with units, but still making world conquering possible (for the A.I too).

The idea is to get rid of the carpet of doom in A.I's favour, while limiting stacks from the past games (in player's favour), and keeping the tactical qualities already in place in a controled fashion. I am not buying anything more from Firaxis until this issue with the 1UPT and A.I is fixed (and by that i don't mean more crazy bonus to the computer player).

Reducing unit numbers would bring these benefits:

- Shorter turns.
- A.I makes more direct and efficient attacks.
- Keeps the game tactical qualities around until the game ends.

Tell me what you think about this idea.

 

[Deggit]

I totally agree with this post.

 

[Abade69]

I think Civ5 shows why you cannot have military strategy and military tactics in the same game. To see why they are incompatible consider a case where your civ is invaded by a much larger AI. If a small group of units can hold off an arbitrarily large enemy using the right maneuevers and tactics (Civ5) then there's little point to all the infrastructural effort the AI put in to build his large army. Conversely, if 30 units always beat 10 units (Civ3&4), then there's not much point to modeling all the maneuvering on the battlefield because even the most gifted tactician can't change the outcome.

That is exactly the paradox that should have been fixed in Civ VI (great insight BTW).

The moment I heard Civ 6 was going to be 1UPT I knew the launch would be a trainwreck. But they were simply never gonna do it any other way. Civ 5 sold over 6 million copies and Civ6 has already sold 1 million at launch.

Ever since IV the Civ series has been all about adding complex new subsystems to the game without any regard for whether the AI can handle them.

I thought the same. Firaxis adding so many features to the vanilla version seemed so suspiciously good to be true. Sad it's all about money in the end. And we now got the improvement tile puzzle as you mentioned, and an incompetent A.I hiding behind absurd production bonuses. All of it is true.

I still hope the game will be moddable enough to fix this.

 

[civplay]

Agreed! Though it is great in MP, and makes you feel pretty godly in SP wars, but is probably why wars were so heavily nerfed in civ 5. I mean winning a war by taking a city in civ 5 was probably worse than losing a war (without losing a city or giving up too many luxury resources). I mean I remember taking one city and just my entire empire shutting down on deity.

 

[Abade69]

Agreed! Though it is great in MP, and makes you feel pretty godly in SP wars, but is probably why wars were so heavily nerfed in civ 5. I mean winning a war by taking a city in civ 5 was probably worse than losing a war (without losing a city or giving up too many luxury resources). I mean I remember taking one city and just my entire empire shutting down on deity.

Good thing is local happiness enables the human player to take over entire civilizations (only stopped by warmonger penalties and strong walls). Bad thing is the A.I cannot because of the 1UPT, embarking system, lack of upgrading possibilities and strong walls. The game protects the A.I from beign captured (by other A.I) and inhibits their possibilities for domination at the same time. Capitulation should be still an option (don't know why they removed it from Civ IV).

EDIT: Warmongering penalty "fear" also greatly inhibits the A.I domination,

 

[Roxlimn]

Stacking doesn't make a better AI. It just makes a simpler game. Different things. I can make a script that will play tic tac toe reliably well, and it'll run on a wristwatch. Do we want combat in Civ to be tic tac toe? That would "solve" all the problems.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Stacking doesn't make a better AI. It just makes a simpler game. Different things. I can make a script that will play tic tac toe reliably well, and it'll run on a wristwatch. Do we want combat in Civ to be tic tac toe? That would "solve" all the problems.

It makes a simpler game, yes. It also makes a more difficult and rewarding game.

 

[Herakleides]

I raise my hand in agreement.

 

[Roxlimn]

It makes a simpler game, yes. It also makes a more difficult and rewarding game.

What's difficult about stack combat? What's rewarding about it? It's just a numbers game. Prior to the devs fixing the AI to compensate, I was Drafting my way to victories I shouldn't be having, because I was drafting 60 unit stacks easy and even the best Deity AI could only field 40 or 50. By the end, the Deity AIs were fielding stacks literally with hundreds of units. Simpler, equally tedious. Where's the reward?

I honestly don't get what the issue is with SP AI and the carpets of doom. I mean, I could get how that'd be a hassle in Civ V, but in 6, you have at least two mechanics that allow you to basically harvest AI units for gold and culture. Send the carpet in! I need some cash.

 

[civplay]

Stacking doesn't make a better AI. It just makes a simpler game. Different things. I can make a script that will play tic tac toe reliably well, and it'll run on a wristwatch. Do we want combat in Civ to be tic tac toe? That would "solve" all the problems.

By making it simpler it makes it easier for the AI. civ is supposed to be about overall strategy not tactics. Is kind of silly, when you can destroy a horde of AI by having a warrior on a hill and 3/4 archers. Now add city and encampment bombardment. AI just can't keep up. I do really love 1UPT in MP, but AI just can't handle it atm.

 

[Abade69]

Stacking doesn't make a better AI. It just makes a simpler game. Different things. I can make a script that will play tic tac toe reliably well, and it'll run on a wristwatch. Do we want combat in Civ to be tic tac toe? That would "solve" all the problems.

And simplier means better FOR the AI (not necessarily a better AI). As i stated on my first post, it is almost impossible to ask for a good A.I on a grid/coordinate system as you would need a pretty impressive A.I capable of doing a million linear calculations per turn, or one that can learn from real player tactics (both are non realistic solutions). Maybe IT IS a Tic Tac Toe system that we need as you imply (don't see how it takes out the challenge of the game).

Anyways, i am not saying "let's go back to stacks". What i am saying is that it may be possible to make a system that has both wide armies (numbers) and tall (power concentration) without crippling the A.I capabilities, which will only take you to certain limits.

 

[Herakleides]

I don't what is wrong with having a unit supply mechanic that allows for larger stacks based on population and resources. It would be better than having missionaries and soldiers covering the map and damaging the game.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

What's difficult about stack combat? What's rewarding about it? It's just a numbers game. Prior to the devs fixing the AI to compensate, I was Drafting my way to victories I shouldn't be having, because I was drafting 60 unit stacks easy and even the best Deity AI could only field 40 or 50. By the end, the Deity AIs were fielding stacks literally with hundreds of units. Simpler, equally tedious. Where's the reward?

I honestly don't get what the issue is with SP AI and the carpets of doom. I mean, I could get how that'd be a hassle in Civ V, but in 6, you have at least two mechanics that allow you to basically harvest AI units for gold and culture. Send the carpet in! I need some cash.

I could ask the same thing about 1UPT. What's rewarding or difficult about building 4 Archers and picking off literally dozens of AI units without ever taking a casualty? Nothing. It's dreadfully tedious and requires no skill whatsoever.

I agree that the interface for moving stacks in Civ IV could have been better, but it there was still much less clicking and much less micromanagement required to move a 50-unit stack in Civ IV than to move a 10-unit army in Civ V or VI. The new movement rules have only made things worse on this front.

Anyway, with stacks, at least you had to play well economically to win at high levels. You needed to tech well and have good production or you were in big trouble. That's no longer the case. You can be vastly outnumbered and outteched in 1UPT without a problem. That sucks. That takes away the whole point of Civ.

 

[Abade69]

What's difficult about stack combat? What's rewarding about it? It's just a numbers game. Prior to the devs fixing the AI to compensate, I was Drafting my way to victories I shouldn't be having, because I was drafting 60 unit stacks easy and even the best Deity AI could only field 40 or 50. By the end, the Deity AIs were fielding stacks literally with hundreds of units. Simpler, equally tedious. Where's the reward?

I honestly don't get what the issue is with SP AI and the carpets of doom. I mean, I could get how that'd be a hassle in Civ V, but in 6, you have at least two mechanics that allow you to basically harvest AI units for gold and culture. Send the carpet in! I need some cash.

I could ask the same thing about 1UPT. What's rewarding or difficult about building 4 Archers and picking off literally dozens of AI units without ever taking a casualty? Nothing. It's dreadfully tedious and requires no skill whatsoever.

Again, it's not about going all on stacks or all on carpets. If game controls the number of units the player or the A.I can have (number and stack limit), you keep the tactics, and the strategy aswell, you can concentrate power AND use tactics, without filling the map with units.

Imagine you make a specialized unit for pillaging/harvesting, does it makes sense to flood the land with units for that? If there was a carpet on the other side you would have to get rid of it, and if you already get rid of it, does it make sense to NOT capture the cities? (as there is no longer a carpet on the other side).

Having supply limits also makes you plan ahead as you would need to have an infrastructure to keep your armies (forts, encampments, policies, population, etc.). The other way you would just build enough units to resist a surprise invasion and keep flooding the map with them into the chocke points (unrealistic and not fun).

 

[Roxlimn]

Abade69:

Nah. You're thinking of real AI. If we were talking real AI, that would be impossible in any game, though Go is really far more complex than Civ. The only thing you need for Civ is to have a script - like a Tic Tac Toe one, only one that was composed by a player who can algorithm his way into tactical competency. You need someone who is both tactically sound in Civ 1UPT AND can translate that into a simple script. That's all. You don't need to consider every single possibility. And frankly? I've caught people doing stupider things.

I could ask the same thing about 1UPT. What's rewarding or difficult about building 4 Archers and picking off literally dozens of AI units without ever taking a casualty? Nothing. It's dreadfully tedious and requires no skill whatsoever.

I agree that the interface for moving stacks in Civ IV could have been better, but it there was still much less clicking and much less micromanagement required to move a 50-unit stack in Civ IV than to move a 10-unit army in Civ V or VI. The new movement rules have only made things worse on this front.

Anyway, with stacks, at least you had to play well economically to win at high levels. You needed to tech well and have good production or you were in big trouble. That's no longer the case. You can be vastly outnumbered and outteched in 1UPT without a problem. That sucks. That takes away the whole point of Civ.

I guess that brings us to the question of what the point of Civ is.

What's rewarding about moving a bunch of virtual soldier toys around on a map? That's actually it's own reward. It doesn't need to be good. You just need to be able to move little toy soldiers around. Preferably pretty ones. That's it. That's the whole thing. You need an AI present you with something vaguely moving in order to kill. That's it. If the AI were actually good, people would hate this game. This tactical game is based off Panzer General, and if you're really good, you can blitz a city or two in a single turn. That's actually not fun if you're on the losing side of it. AI declares Surprise War and you lose two cities in the same turn without being able to do anything? Yeah. Not fun.

The only reason you need economic advantage to win at high difficulty levels in Civ IV is because you're handing the AI insane economic bonuses. And most of that economic advantage is done by judoing the AI bonuses to work for you! That's just fancy circle-jerking. You might as well just give yourself the insane bonuses and be done with it.

Stacks are old. If you want stacks, you can play Civ IV. Time to move on.

 

[Roxlimn]

Having supply limits also makes you plan ahead as you would need to have an infrastructure to keep your armies (forts, encampments, policies, population, etc.). The other way you would just build enough units to resist a surprise invasion and keep flooding the map with them into the chocke points (unrealistic and not fun).

In fact, Civ VI already has Supply - that's why Conscription is a policy. With a big enough army, you bankrupt yourself. Limiting the AI's armies is as simple as increasing their maintenance in accordance with the difficulty bonuses, and then scripting them to stop making units once their bank is low.

 

[civplay]

Having supply limits also makes you plan ahead as you would need to have an infrastructure to keep your armies (forts, encampments, policies, population, etc.). The other way you would just build enough units to resist a surprise invasion and keep flooding the map with them into the chocke points (unrealistic and not fun).

Hmm maybe some sort of supply line system? Every city can support 1 supply unit. You can keep as many units as you'd like with the supply unit, but every 2 units use 1 food and production from the city (you can stack supply units to disperse the cost). between the city and the supply unit there must maintain a supply route (similar to how trade routes are). The supply route can be pillaged for gold by enemy units. The army would lose half its units every turn until the supply route is rebuilt.

It would make combat more complicated for us, but more simple for the AI. The carpet of doom is really hard to flank. Also this would make warfare more historically accurate. I mean in ancient times you would basically try to cut off your enemy from supply and starve them out. I think this is a pretty good solution. Makes the game more tactical for us, but less for the AI. Carpet is hard to flank, and the stack would be hard to fend off. Sounds like AI could actually pose a scary attack, and would defend against us much easier. Less units makes us easier to flank and the stack would be hard for us to maintain.

 

[Abade69]

In fact, Civ VI already has Supply - that's why Conscription is a policy. With a big enough army, you bankrupt yourself. Limiting the AI's armies is as simple as increasing their maintenance in accordance with the difficulty bonuses, and then scripting them to stop making units once their bank is low.

Good you bring the gold supply system to the table because it is not doing a good job on keeping the carpets away (and crippling A.I domination capabilities). I think you are missing the point here:

Is there a way to have a better performing A.I, faster turns, strategy from both stacks and tactics at the same time? I think it is. But Firaxis is keeping the old 1UPT, not improving over it for whatever reason. The "A.I" of this game is incapable of domination victory but humans can (and will in most cases), is that ok and fair enough for you?

That's actually not fun if you're on the losing side of it. AI declares Surprise War and you lose two cities in the same turn without being able to do anything? Yeah. Not fun

. A game where you cannot lose is no fun either (for me). Maybe Firaxis should add a "win" button for people who do not like to lose wars. Or you could always, you know, lower the difficulty.

 

[Roxlimn]

Firaxis has ALREADY changed the 1UPT system. Corps and Armies allow you to stack up to 3 units in the same tile, but without the brokenness of Civ 3's Armies. The main question really is why would I want the AI to stop sending me scads of units when I gain so much gold from killing them? Right now, Native Conquest and Gorgo's culture harvest abilities are worth a lot because you have a lot of units to kill. With less units, those will need to be adjusted as well.

The AI in the game is currently incapable of domination - because if it were, it would regularly gobble up Civs and you'd have a runaway AI in every game. So every late game turns into one massive empire against you, or two massive empires battling each other for dominance.

EVERY SINGLE GAME.

Is that interesting?

. A game where you cannot lose is no fun either (for me). Maybe Firaxis should add a "win" button for people who do not like to lose wars. Or you could always, you know, lower the difficulty.

The point isn't whether you lose or not. The point is that with a truly competent AI, people would be randomly losing cities to surprise blitzkrieg wars. If you like, you can make a poll and see whether players here think that randomly losing cities in the mid or late game would be fun.

 

[Abade69]

Hmm maybe some sort of supply line system? Every city can support 1 supply unit. You can keep as many units as you'd like with the supply unit, but every 2 units use 1 food and production from the city (you can stack supply units to disperse the cost). between the city and the supply unit there must maintain a supply route (similar to how trade routes are). The supply route can be pillaged for gold by enemy units. The army would lose half its units every turn until the supply route is rebuilt.

It would make combat more complicated for us, but more simple for the AI. The carpet of doom is really hard to flank. Also this would make warfare more historically accurate. I mean in ancient times you would basically try to cut off your enemy from supply and starve them out. I think this is a pretty good solution. Makes the game more tactical for us, but less for the AI. Carpet is hard to flank, and the stack would be hard to fend off. Sounds like AI could actually pose a scary attack, and would defend against us much easier. Less units makes us easier to flank and the stack would be hard for us to maintain

.

I think this is a very nice idea and tactic, but i think it would slower turns a bit, who knows (by creating a route every turn). Maybe adding a special ability to create an area around a unit (similar to the zone of control, or using the zone of control by itself).

I agree that the carpet of doom is really hard to flank, and it also kills the purpose of having tactics in the late game.

The AI in the game is currently incapable of domination - because if it were, it would regularly gobble up Civs and you'd have a runaway AI in every game. So every late game turns into one massive empire against you, or two massive empires battling each other for dominance.

So you DO notice it is incapable of domination. What's the point on building armies then? Lets all play Civ Tycoon on our safe sand box. I think your assumption on having a runaway civ on every game is a little far fetched but possible nonetheless (that's the fun part). I think that would hardly happen because a functional A.I would notice this and build a defensive position, and also by telling his neighbours, join wars, you know (in a world with no dead passive A.I's). It would be a nasty surprise to find a runaway civ on a faraway continent indeed, but i don't see this happening without notice in most maps (pangea, archipielago).

Firaxis has ALREADY changed the 1UPT system. Corps and Armies allow you to stack up to 3 units in the same tile, but without the brokenness of Civ 3's Armies.

I know, but this comes mid-late game and doesn't prevent carpets of doom in any way, it seems like a pretty peripheral change if you ask me.

The point isn't whether you lose or not. The point is that with a truly competent AI, people would be randomly losing cities to surprise blitzkrieg wars.

Unless you were not building defenses yourself, listened to the intrigue telling you about a big troyan horse moving near your cities, heard your neighbour denounces, checked "military power" on the info screen, not checked your diplomacy status with such civ, or your spies, QUITE NOT RANDOM defeat i would say dude.

In other words, you like the A.I to be incompetent because you hate losing and other players hate that too, am i correct?