The AI Is Still Bad?

[Kwami]

I was just watching this video:

The Ashoka AI sent his entire army all the way across the continent to settle a tiny city, leaving his capital and other cities undefended. The Napoleon AI also settled all the way across the continent in a spot surrounded by other players and with almost no room to grow.

I was hoping that these basic problems were finally fixed.

(And later, Ashoka settled another town really far from his original towns and his other far away town. A hostile independent power immediately destroyed it.)

 

[Roald Amundsen]

Yes it doesn't look good at all. After watching streams Civ7 seems to be completely broken. It might even be beyond repair. My excitement for this game has plummeted. But I'll be optimistic and see if maybe something can be done with patches. Not ordering this game until I see some improvements.

 

[Lord Yanaek]

From what i've seen the AI seem semi-competent when using their armies, which combined with the combat bonus they receive on high level should make them a decent threat to most players on higher difficulties.
Economically, they still receive plenty of yield multipliers on higher difficulties so that should also be OK.
They appear to have a tendency to settle really odd spots but that's probably something FXS can fix relatively easily with some tweaking of a few weights, so i wouldn't worry too much about that.
The AI probably won't be a threat to the best players but i don't think it should necessarily be. The AI isn't an actual opponent, it's not there to win but to make the game interesting. If it forces you to be smart, then it has achieved it's goal.If you can win while rolling your face on the keyboard, then it failed.
Obviously we'll have to see, i had some real concerns at some point, but after seeing more videos and listening to other players, i think it's not that bad. Obviously it's not great but it will improve over time, it always did in previous titles. Hopefully it will be good enough to fulfill it's role, but players looking for an actual opponent should play multiplayer as with previous titles.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

From what i've seen the AI seem semi-competent when using their armies, which combined with the combat bonus they receive on high level should make them a decent threat to most players on higher difficulties.
Economically, they still receive plenty of yield multipliers on higher difficulties so that should also be OK.
They appear to have a tendency to settle really odd spots but that's probably something FXS can fix relatively easily with some tweaking of a few weights, so i wouldn't worry too much about that.
The AI probably won't be a threat to the best players but i don't think it should necessarily be. The AI isn't an actual opponent, it's not there to win but to make the game interesting. If it forces you to be smart, then it has achieved it's goal.If you can win while rolling your face on the keyboard, then it failed.
Obviously we'll have to see, i had some real concerns at some point, but after seeing more videos and listening to other players, i think it's not that bad. Obviously it's not great but it will improve over time, it always did in previous titles. Hopefully it will be good enough to fulfill it's role, but players looking for an actual opponent should play multiplayer as with previous titles.

In Civ 1-4 the AI was an actual opponent and many players prefer it this way. Also, many people, like myself, aren't really interested in Civ multiplayer. I played multiplayer Civ3 extensively back in the days, and while fun, it can also be a quite frustrating, and very different experience. Time pressure is not something I'm often keen on in Civ3 and being able to walk away from the game and return at my own leisure is important to me.

I believe in their eagerness to includeplentiful subsystems and intricate systems the devs have yet again made a game the AI won't be able to play properly and one to easily exploitable for players. Combine this with small maps and 1upt and you have a recipe for steamrolling. I might be wrong. It might get a little better. But it also might not.

 

[Lord Yanaek]

In Civ 1-4 the AI was an actual opponent and many players prefer it this way. Also, many people, like myself, aren't really interested in Civ multiplayer. I played multiplayer Civ3 extensively back in the days, and while fun, it can also be a quite frustrating, and very different experience. Time pressure is not something I'm often keen on in Civ3 and being able to walk away from the game and return at my own leisure is important to me.

I believe in their eagerness to includeplentiful subsystems and intricate systems the devs have yet again made a game the AI won't be able to play properly and one to easily exploitable for players. Combine this with small maps and 1upt and you have a recipe for steamrolling. I might be wrong. It might get a little better. But it also might not.

I'm not saying anyone should be interested in multiplayer, i'm not interested in multiplayer either, but if you want a true opponent that can think like you, use the same trick as you, and wants to beat you : then that's what multiplayer is for. And while the AI in Civ1-4 was arguably harder (i can only talk of direct experience starting with 3 but i'll trust you on 1-2), partially because of stacks of doom, but more importantly because of less mechanisms (as you said in the second part), it was never a "true opponent". It was just a braindead AI capable of spamming tons of units due to to crazy production bonuses at a time when producing tons of units was a good enough strategy to win a war (more or less, slight caricature here).

It's true that the more sub-systems you add, the harder it is for the AI to stay competitive against a human who can see the big picture but, again, i think the AI's goal should be to force you to be smart, not to win. I don't think anyone plays the game with the intent of being killed by the AI. They play the game with the intend of beating it. Some will be happy to beat it easily without using their brain (and that's OK, to everyone their fun), many others want to plan carefully to try and beat it. Some will be OK if they loose some games while learning and becoming better but i doubt anyone plays to get beaten every game, which is why i said the AI fulfilled it's role if it forced you to be smart in order to beat it, rather than if it actually beat you.

And regarding being smart, the content creators who waged successful wars against the AI on Deity so far either waged defensive wars (which appear to be much easier, maybe too easy, we'll see), used some very clever tactics (such as using their commander to swap wounded units with fresh ones), were playing some OP leader/civ combo or a mix of those (and then add being lucky with perfectly timed free unit gifts from CSs in the case of Potato), which is why i think it will probably be enough of a threat for the majority of players.

 

[mielony]

Yes it doesn't look good at all. After watching streams Civ7 seems to be completely broken. It might even be beyond repair. My excitement for this game has plummeted. But I'll be optimistic and see if maybe something can be done with patches. Not ordering this game until I see some improvements.

I was also going to buy it, but I'll hold off. Playing against weak AI is not acceptable.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

I'm not saying anyone should be interested in multiplayer, i'm not interested in multiplayer either, but if you want a true opponent that can think like you, use the same trick as you, and wants to beat you : then that's what multiplayer is for. And while the AI in Civ1-4 was arguably harder (i can only talk of direct experience starting with 3 but i'll trust you on 1-2), partially because of stacks of doom, but more importantly because of less mechanisms (as you said in the second part), it was never a "true opponent". It was just a braindead AI capable of spamming tons of units due to to crazy production bonuses at a time when producing tons of units was a good enough strategy to win a war (more or less, slight caricature here).

It's true that the more sub-systems you add, the harder it is for the AI to stay competitive against a human who can see the big picture but, again, i think the AI's goal should be to force you to be smart, not to win. I don't think anyone plays the game with the intent of being killed by the AI. They play the game with the intend of beating it. Some will be happy to beat it easily without using their brain (and that's OK, to everyone their fun), many others want to plan carefully to try and beat it. Some will be OK if they loose some games while learning and becoming better but i doubt anyone plays to get beaten every game, which is why i said the AI fulfilled it's role if it forced you to be smart in order to beat it, rather than if it actually beat you.

And regarding being smart, the content creators who waged successful wars against the AI on Deity so far either waged defensive wars (which appear to be much easier, maybe too easy, we'll see), used some very clever tactics (such as using their commander to swap wounded units with fresh ones), were playing some OP leader/civ combo or a mix of those (and then add being lucky with perfectly timed free unit gifts from CSs in the case of Potato), which is why i think it will probably be enough of a threat for the majority of players.

But some play to loose! For me the most fond Civ games were struggles that were lost. I think I'm not alone here. The moment I feel I'm in a winning position I lose interest in the game and start a new one.
I've actually been playing Civ3 a little recently. The huge sprawling maps, the tension of worker and unit management is exctiting. The graphichs and game states are clear, informative and to the point. Huge AI bonuses are OK for me. LEt them start with two settlers!

I know Civ has departed from this game philosophy more and more over the years, and maybe it's not for me any more. I really like Old' World's take on the 4x genre, it fixed so much about what I feel is wrong for me with civ these days, however I miss a "stone-age-to-modern"-game that is new and I haven't played to death!

 

[Roald Amundsen]

I was also going to buy it, but I'll hold off. Playing against weak AI is not acceptable.

Also it seems like the plethora of subsystems are not that thought out and the game seems highly exploitable. I would prefer a tighter design. But I'll follow the development. Maybe go for a purchase if the game seems to improve (and waiting for a discount) Having fun with Civ3 and Old World at the moment. Still have not been able to beat Old World or Civ3 at highest difficulty.

 

[beorn]

Another difference between the early Civs and later Civs is that back then, the word about specific exploits didn't spread as quickly or widely.

But my guess watching this pre-release is that people who play builder-style Civ and favor roleplaying their nation will find lots and lots of entertainment here.

Those that want a really competitive war game (and those who research all the strategies and exploits online) will be disappointed. Unless they play multi-player.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

Another difference between the early Civs and later Civs is that back then, the word about specific exploits didn't spread as quickly or widely.

But my guess watching this pre-release is that people who play builder-style Civ and favor roleplaying their nation will find lots and lots of entertainment here.

Those that want a really competitive war game (and those who research all the strategies and exploits online) will be disappointed. Unless they play multi-player.

I try to stay away from strategic forums and theory craft regarding civ games. I think some of the fun is finding it out for your self. Guess this is why I've never beaten civ 3 on Sid difficulty. It's quite obvious to me you have to play in a very specific way to be able to beat it.

 

[Kwami]

The loyalty system in VI was kind of annoying, but it did a lot to prevent these random distant settlements from the AI. Maybe the AI needs a new hidden modifier to achieve the same result.

 

[AriochIV]

From what I've seen, the AI seems to offer a reasonable challenge, which is the most important thing. It appears to do so primarily by cheating (it gets some pretty nutty bonuses including a +8 combat strength on Deity level), but that's not terribly surprising.

However, it does some noticeably silly things which I hope Firaxis will work on, as the both hurt the AI's ability to challenge the player as well as break immersion. Chief among these is the forward-settling mentioned aboive. This is not only ineffective, it's extremely irritating to the player. Unfortunately in the past, Firaxis has not seemed to place improving the AI after release as any kind of priority.

The AI didn't do this in Civ6 (at least, not with its early cities), so this is a change and not for the better.

 

[Acken]

We'll see. Very poor behaviour like that could get fixed over time. And anyway civ games usually have aged well with release often being the worst version of the game as well as the most expansive so sitting out until it gets better is a perfectly viable course.

 

[Taefin]

I’d echo a post above, I see settlement location as a pretty isolated part of the AI to be tuned, and am not reading anything into it about the AI challenge overall (not every AI destroys itself doing this in the games I watched).

I suspect some bonuses will be reduced in an early balance patch. Just watching the multiplayer livestream, it was possible to boost combat strength by +9 in distant lands with two policy cards. Add in generals giving comparable boosts, and it’s too easy to get past the AI’s +8 difficulty bonus (or for them to get to +20 on you if you aren’t using bonuses).

In the AI’s favor, for making tense end-games, the victory projects are super easy to complete, not requiring any planning beyond starting the project in your highest production city, or stopping spending gold or influence on anything but establishing the world bank. That said, it seems the AI struggles to get started on the legacies, even on deity (but there the streamers struggled to get started as well).

 

[ThunderLizard2]

Yes it doesn't look good at all. After watching streams Civ7 seems to be completely broken. It might even be beyond repair. My excitement for this game has plummeted. But I'll be optimistic and see if maybe something can be done with patches. Not ordering this game until I see some improvements.

Has this turned out to be true?

 

[Kwami]

Has this turned out to be true?

It's pretty bad so far.

I played my first game on Viceroy, so it wasn't the AI at its best. Still, I expect the AI to play the game. In the exploration and modern ages, there were two legacy paths with no AI points at all. They didn't get a single treasure fleet or railroad tycoon point. They didn't have any 40-yield tiles or do any space race projects. And the AI wasn't very competitive on the other paths, either. I dug all of the exploration age relics on 3/4 continents and had already dug up a few antiquity relics before the AI bothered to build an explorer. They didn't get ideologies until the last 10 turns of the modern age, so I enjoyed all of the benefits of communism without any drawbacks.

I was beat to a wonder once in the antiquity age, but the AI barely built any others. They declared war on me twice, but never presented a real challenge. I did lose a unit during the modern age war, but that's only because the enemy had invisible ships. There were ships of the line present, but no graphics! I only found them after my unit died. In the modern age, they had a lot of ships, but I didn't see any airplanes. I suspect that none of them got far enough into the tech tree to make aerodromes.

They were pretty competitive with religion, though. They would not stop converting my cities. They just never, ever, ever stopped. I was constantly buying more missionaries to fix the problem. Very tedious.

I don't know. Maybe the AI is much better at higher levels!

 

[TrailblazingScot]

I don't know. Maybe the AI is much better at higher levels!

I'm pretty sure that the AI is the AI. All that changes is the bonuses the AI receives.

 

[Gedemon]

I've watched a few autoplay games, and yes, there was some strange decisions

I've uploaded 2, on the end of the first one you'll follow a settler going back home from what seemed a reasonable region to settle then going on the opposite side of the continent (at least it was escorted)

(note that one of the problem with just watching is that you don't have the information the AI has, you have more visibility, but nothing on relations for example)

 

[StargazingDog]

I played my first game on Viceroy, so it wasn't the AI at its best. Still, I expect the AI to play the game. In the exploration and modern ages, there were two legacy paths with no AI points at all. They didn't get a single treasure fleet or railroad tycoon point. They didn't have any 40-yield tiles or do any space race projects. And the AI wasn't very competitive on the other paths, either. I dug all of the exploration age relics on 3/4 continents and had already dug up a few antiquity relics before the AI bothered to build an explorer. They didn't get ideologies until the last 10 turns of the modern age, so I enjoyed all of the benefits of communism without any drawbacks.

My first game at standard difficulty was the complete opposite. They were raking in the relics from the start and had treasure fleets. I saw explorers all over the place. One AI had communism rather early.

I admit most of the AI did have overall few legacy points. I won (via score) and one AI was right behind me. The rest were at half or less.

Maybe it's just the way your game turned out!

 

[bumpyglint]

If they won't improve the AI this game will die. At the moment is better than Civ VI (this wasn't difficult to achieve), but still definitely not enough.
As always, the main problems are stupid random wars that it can't handle, units not correctly used (usually they run away for no reason and I feel like the AI doesn't produce a lot of units during wars), peace deals definitely too generous and victory condition that it can't handle (expecially when related to colonizing the new world, that the AI can't usually reach properly).

I hope they will focus on improve the AI.