1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The AI gets a free settler on emperor?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Akbarthegreat, Nov 7, 2016.

  1. JellyRev

    JellyRev Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    which is idiotic. The start should be an exploration and colonization race. war score system needs a major overhaul. I suggest they look to europa universalis for a system that doesn't suck.
     
    Akbarthegreat likes this.
  2. Lucius_

    Lucius_ King

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2012
    Messages:
    806
    I too played Emperor in Civ5. I could win consistently on Immortal, but I did not enjoy it. For Civ6, I played 4 games on King (every VC basically), then moved up to Emperor. I think I tried 3 or 4 starts before I was comfortable. The differences to King aren't extreme. Only change I had to make was early build order to have 3 or 4 more units early. Also, if you want religion you have to focus on it and work for it, sacrificing other stuff early.
     
  3. Valmighty

    Valmighty Warlord

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    122
    They give Emperor free setler because they know their AI is bad.
     
  4. Sascha77

    Sascha77 Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    308
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Whew! And I thought I was the only one ... :D
     
    Akbarthegreat likes this.
  5. Nefelia

    Nefelia Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    458
    Nothing wrong with early war. The problem is that war becomes largely non-existent past the classical era.

    If you want to play exploration and peaceful expansion, Huge or Enormous (available via mod) maps with less Ai than the default would suit your play style.
     
  6. isau

    isau Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,068
  7. Futumch

    Futumch Calm as a Coma

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2001
    Messages:
    557
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    142 E 42 S
    Deity they start with 3 settlers and four melee units of various types. It's the only way they can compete with us "inferior" meatsacks. *grin*
     
  8. Xyriach

    Xyriach Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2016
    Messages:
    99
    Location:
    Channel Islands
    The thing is, in a FPS you can alter levels of accuracy, range of vision, health levels etc. The game becomes harder as you increase those values. In a strategy game, the amount of programming required to come up with levels of AI is unfeasible, so they get bonuses and advantages and play at roughly the same level.

    It makes sense to give them a leg up in city starts, but lets face it, the AI is easily overwhelmed, if it wasn't, then it's a PEBKAC issue.
     
  9. Sascha77

    Sascha77 Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    308
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    From a "realism"-POV I would argue that wars should become more frequent as time goes by. At least until the time of, say, the Napoleonic wars.

    The world fills up with people, resources are scarce and arable land is also limited. So the more people you have in a region, the more likely aggression between different tribes/civs is. Plus you have additional motivators like different religions or cultures. All of which should become more of a factor as civs/cities grow and cultures get more distinct and sophisticated.

    I'm not 100% certain but I would hazard a guess that wars back in the ancient era usually were more about pillaging/plundering your neighbor's stuff than about expansion, occupation and conquest.
    In Civ, it's usually all about grabbing more land. And I can totally live with all of that, since Civ is such an abstract representation of history/military action/politics anyway.

    I just feel that the AI is a bit too keen on early aggro in Civ VI - be it through war, aggro-settling or messing up your developing religion (I'm looking at you, Catherine..thanks again for converting my holy city before I could even build my first apostle.. :mad:). At times it truly feels like the AI is just trying to pi$$ me off and get me to re-roll my game .. :D


    S.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2016
  10. spfun

    spfun King

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    I hate free settlers, free settler on Emperor is awful and says a lot about the current state of AI. I played Immortal the most in Civ 5 simply because it was the last difficulty before free settlers. But King in civ 6 is to easy to even consider playing.

    The AI in Civ 6 plays the game far worse than the AI did at Civ 5 release.
     
  11. Nefelia

    Nefelia Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    458
    Gods no. There was a fair bit of raiding among the lesser villages in the less civilized outskirts of civilization. However, in the more developed civilizations of the ancient era there was more than a fair bit of conquest involved. A brief glance at the early history of civilization along the Euphrates is full of empire rising and falling in rapid succession as military developments destabilize the region and allow new players to make massive headway in war. Ancient China also has a similar story, with several rival nations warring for centuries until Qin Shi Huang ruthlessly subjugated the lot.

    If anything, Civ VI's Ancient and Classical eras are the only realistic ones in terms of warfare. The warmonger penalty really should not be in place until the industrial era at the very least. Even then , I'd prefer to eliminate the warmonger penalty until the Atomic era.
     
    Akbarthegreat likes this.
  12. Akbarthegreat

    Akbarthegreat Angel of Junil

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,806
    Location:
    Erebus
    Just a response to most replies on this thread, which appear to be of the same kind. I'm not suggesting the AI shouldn't be given bonuses on higher difficulties (obviously it should- what else does increasing the difficulty on a strategy game do otherwise?). My point was that giving them an extra settler simply forces the human into an early military spam, which becomes the only effective way to play. Which is pretty poor game design, because even if it is the easiest way to win, many players do not like to play like that.
    The route that the smoother difficulty mod takes seems far better. Give the AI larger passive bonuses, not a bonus city that makes it an unwritten rule to spam archers and warriors and conquer your first city.


    That's because everything is way too interconnected for the AI to handle, and I honestly can't see this getting too much better. While the game is great, I think I'm just going to stick to multiplayer (for the time being at least).
     
    player1 fanatic likes this.
  13. MisterBoomBoom

    MisterBoomBoom King

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    668
    I could not agree with you more. ONE thing that I could see as a helpful FIX for the early curb stomping as we are calling it is to simply have the AI cities gain ancient walls for free early on. It might slow the pain a bit. All my games so far seem to be the same. Conquer the closest two/three civs with early units...then finish the rest of them off with artillery/bombards/muskets. I never even bother to trade or setup anything in the diplomatic realm (no need-expand away )and I have not even bothered to seriously pursue culture or religious. The most efficient course of action seems conquest. Heck- I DID do a trader agreement with Egypt that included open borders <for me> just so I could put my military units into place around her capital ...then strike. Ignoring any diplomatic worries they might have or diplomatic exchanges seems to work just fine.
     

Share This Page