The AI Is Still Bad?

[ThERat]

It was with Civ5, and 1upt and then even more so with all the convoluted aspects of city planning, that it deviated from a grand scale strategy game. Soren Johnson is missed badly. Well, I just have to accept that Civ6/7 arent for me for the single player experience as the AI doesn't pose any challenge.

 

[Binkov]

AI is not a player, it's game mechanics, it can't cheat. For gameplay the only thing what matter is challenge and AI provides challenge just fine.

You wish to have multiplayer-like experience in single player is not uncommon, but with 1UpT tactical aspect it's just impossible with modern computers

I don't understant this statement. Did not vox populi mod manage to program a decent tactical AI for civ 5, while faced with the same 1upT issue? Or has the consensus on VP mod changed and now it's not regarded as well anymore?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't understant this statement. Did not vox populi mod manage to program a decent tactical AI for civ 5, while faced with the same 1upT issue? Or has the consensus on VP mod changed and now it's not regarded as well anymore?

Well, I don't have a lot of experience with Vox Populi, but as far as I know, AI there gets the same bonuses as in base game, if not bigger. So, if criteria for decent AI is to compete with human players, it probably fails. As I understand it has more immersive tactical behavior, though.

 

[imperfectpeter]

Well, I don't have a lot of experience with Vox Populi, but as far as I know, AI there gets the same bonuses as in base game, if not bigger. So, if criteria for decent AI is to compete with human players, it probably fails. As I understand it has more immersive tactical behavior, though.

No the AI is definitely significantly more competition in Vox Populi even without bonuses. The Devs can make better AI, they just don't seem to be willing to invest the time. Which is fair if they think most people don't care, but at least make it moddable like it was in V!

 

[sickVisionz]

I don't know of any Civ game that gets released and the AI isn't considered bad or "just cheats" here. Yet whenever the next Civ game comes out, the general consensus is that every Civ but the current one had good AI and Firaxis has ruined it in the latest version.

 

[Arcaian]

I don't know of any Civ game that gets released and the AI isn't considered bad or "just cheats" here. Yet whenever the next Civ game comes out, the general consensus is that every Civ but the current one had good AI and Firaxis has ruined it in the latest version.

Yeah, it's not like the deity AI in civ 4 didn't get 4 free combat units, a free worker, 40% less production needed to build units + 40% less upkeep, 30% more science, 40% less cost for civics and buildings, 20% faster growth, etc. The change to 1-unit-per-tile definitely made the AI struggle at warfare more, and so more bonuses have been needed - no doubt about that. But the AI is looking more competent at core tasks that it struggled with in civ 5/6, and in many ways it is the civ AI with the least major bonuses in the last few games. The combat strength boost is big in civ 7, but the lack of free units is a really big improvement, IMO. In civ 5 and 6, higher difficulty levels are almost always about starting off with a significant disadvantage to the AI and watching the disadvantage disappear as you make up for their advanced start. From what I've seen so far, it's looking like civ 7's AI bonuses aren't hugely focused on a good start (in fact, they might be a little too weak at the start of the game right now), which just allows you so much more freedom in your strategies at the higher difficulty levels. Who knows, there might not even be wonders you just know you'll never get because the AI starts off with 3 cities and you need to do the work to build up that infrastructure before you can start trying to build a wonder

 

[Kwami]

I don't know of any Civ game that gets released and the AI isn't considered bad or "just cheats" here. Yet whenever the next Civ game comes out, the general consensus is that every Civ but the current one had good AI and Firaxis has ruined it in the latest version.

Eh, the AI hasn't ever been good. It's passable in the other games, but it's not good. It'll eventually be passable in this game, too.

 

[stealth_nsk]

No the AI is definitely significantly more competition in Vox Populi even without bonuses. The Devs can make better AI, they just don't seem to be willing to invest the time. Which is fair if they think most people don't care, but at least make it moddable like it was in V!

Ok, to write it down a bit:

1. Overall the goal of being competitive with minimal bonuses is wrong. AI is just one of the game mechanics to provide challenge and how interesting the challenge is doesn't depend directly on whether it's done through more bonuses or more complex logic. So, all those mentions of "good" AI should be made in quotes.

2. What people usually mean by competent AI is what it appears competent. If AI moves units without visible goal, the players are usually frustrated even if there's actual goal. Nut that's part of the immersion, not game efficiency and immersion is a double-edged sword. For example, Civ5 was of often criticized for AI playing to win too much, while players expect it to roleplay.

3. In general yes, it's possible to make AI more effective in terms of providing bigger challenge with less bonuses (but again, with as complex tactics as in Civ you can't do it without bonuses at all). But it's not just a non-goal (see point 1), but also requires significant developer resources which could be spent elsewhere. It's wise for software development company to prioritize those things.

4. Another important thing is - if you want AI which would look smart utilizing other game mechanics, it needs to be written after they are finished, but in game development all mechanics are developed in parallel, so you can't fine-tune AI with the latest state of the game and you have to make AI more generic or spend additional resources to sync those mechanics. That's a huge advantage modders have - they could polish their mods years after last patch of the game.

 

[TheGrayFox]

AI is not a player, it's game mechanics, it can't cheat. For gameplay the only thing what matter is challenge and AI provides challenge just fine.

You wish to have multiplayer-like experience in single player is not uncommon, but with 1UpT tactical aspect it's just impossible with modern computers

BTW, Civ4 "cheated" even more, but without 1UpT it may appear to you like less "cheating". But technically, AI which produces twice as many units in stack of doom setup, is the same as AI having strength bonus in 1UpT.

The AI in IV wasn’t that impressive either but it could at-least handle stacks. I don’t think anyone is asking for a multiplayer-like experience when they ask for the AI to be improved. Both Vox Populi and Old World exist the show you can design an AI capable of playing competently using 1UPT and providing players with challenge even without huge difficulty bonuses, so Firaxis has little excuse at this point

 

[Krikkit1]

I don't know of any Civ game that gets released and the AI isn't considered bad or "just cheats" here. Yet whenever the next Civ game comes out, the general consensus is that every Civ but the current one had good AI and Firaxis has ruined it in the latest version.

No general consensus is always 1UPT AIs (5,6) were bad (start very bad then improve sometimes decline with additional game mechanics)
Civ 1-4….hard to find any record of what consensus was. But certain bonuses/cheating was less obvious.

 

[Kwami]

Civ 1-4….hard to find any record of what consensus was. But certain bonuses/cheating was less obvious

I don't know about 1-3, but the AI in 4 had massive bonuses at higher levels and they were very obvious.

 

[imperfectpeter]

Ok, to write it down a bit:

1. Overall the goal of being competitive with minimal bonuses is wrong. AI is just one of the game mechanics to provide challenge and how interesting the challenge is doesn't depend directly on whether it's done through more bonuses or more complex logic. So, all those mentions of "good" AI should be made in quotes.

2. What people usually mean by competent AI is what it appears competent. If AI moves units without visible goal, the players are usually frustrated even if there's actual goal. Nut that's part of the immersion, not game efficiency and immersion is a double-edged sword. For example, Civ5 was of often criticized for AI playing to win too much, while players expect it to roleplay.

3. In general yes, it's possible to make AI more effective in terms of providing bigger challenge with less bonuses (but again, with as complex tactics as in Civ you can't do it without bonuses at all). But it's not just a non-goal (see point 1), but also requires significant developer resources which could be spent elsewhere. It's wise for software development company to prioritize those things.

4. Another important thing is - if you want AI which would look smart utilizing other game mechanics, it needs to be written after they are finished, but in game development all mechanics are developed in parallel, so you can't fine-tune AI with the latest state of the game and you have to make AI more generic or spend additional resources to sync those mechanics. That's a huge advantage modders have - they could polish their mods years after last patch of the game.

But then we're in agreement right? The devs, rightly or wrongly, have decided that most people don't care about playing against a competitive AI. That's fine, but at least give modders the tools to effectively be able to optimise the AI. That never happened with Civ 6, and I'm worried it won't happen with Civ 7 either.

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

I don't know of any Civ game that gets released and the AI isn't considered bad or "just cheats" here. Yet whenever the next Civ game comes out, the general consensus is that every Civ but the current one had good AI and Firaxis has ruined it in the latest version.

Honestly? This is thanks to the modders that have made the AI (even in 3!) so much better than it otherwise was (prior iteration already being improved before next game was out). However, in Civ 6 the full set of tools was never given. Therefore, I repeatedly beat Deity there when I can barely stay in a game on Emperor in 3 or 4. And 5 I would consistently beat Immortal, but with Vox I have to drop *two* levels to compete.

So, better AI is possible. I don't even expect it of Firaxis. I only ask for the tools for others to make it.

EDIT: We were channeling each other's posts, @imperfectpeter

 

[stealth_nsk]

But then we're in agreement right? The devs, rightly or wrongly, have decided that most people don't care about playing against a competitive AI. That's fine, but at least give modders the tools to effectively be able to optimise the AI. That never happened with Civ 6, and I'm worried it won't happen with Civ 7 either.

Well, I have a lot of questions regarding using terms like "competitive AI", but I totally agree that some number of players are not happy with the AI they see in the unmodded game and it's good to have modding tools. Not only for this, but for all categories of players not happy with the unmodded game.

And from what I see so far, Civ7 should be pretty good in this regards. Even before modding tools are officially released, we see people doing cool things through scripting.

 

[Kwami]

I think there's a big disconnect here. The point of this thread wasn't to complain that the AI isn't super strong and hard to beat. It's to show that the AI doesn't even seem to be playing the game correctly.

I've gone through two games now and in neither game did the AI get a single treasure fleet. In neither game did the AI get a single 40-yield time. In neither game did the AI settle anywhere close to the number of cities allowed by their settlement limit. In both games, the AI declared war for no discernable reason and then failed to do any damage at all.

I don't actually want some super hard AI that forces me to play on lower difficulty levels. I just want an AI that can play the game.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think part of the problem is the fact that there is a max difficulty level that some players feel unchallenged by.

If they added a “unlimited Difficulty level”…where basically you add a chosen number of “additional standard cheat code per level” onto a Deity level AI….
well if you have 100 or so of those +20% bonuses to yields and +3 to combat strength…..then that is probably theoretically unbeatable (unkillable units, and one turn wonders/civics/techs)

So, since the challenge relies on numerical AI bonuses, allow the player that wants a challenge to say I want Unlimited 1-100 (ie Deity+1-100 levels) and they can set it to a level that Will be a challenge for them. (and a few more levels up they Will lose)

 

[Taefin]

I wonder if FXS would do well to retroactively add AI mod tools for VI now that VII is out. Draw people in, and then when they get frustrated by AI or age transitions “oh here’s a game with a lot of things that feel similar but with great AI mods”. Air and naval gameplay looks like it would be super fun in VI if AI could play it (and upgraded units).

Early AI-adjacent mods I’m curious to see in VII would involve giving commander bonuses to their units globally (e.g. ignore terrain). I recall VI getting better when everyone had +1 movement, and in Old World the AI relies on much longer movement limited only by orders (and training for forced march) to challenge the player. AI in VII appears to focus fire my units, when it has the movement/range to reach them. Players also have ways to avoid terrain (commander abilities/unpacking) and this might play to the AIs difficutly fielding generals. Or even, just give their generals 10-tile command radii (disabled it if they get the AoE promotion).

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's to show that the AI doesn't even seem to be playing the game correctly.

Yes, that's the core point. AI doesn't play the game, it's part of the game.

 

[Ornen]

I think there's a big disconnect here. The point of this thread wasn't to complain that the AI isn't super strong and hard to beat. It's to show that the AI doesn't even seem to be playing the game correctly.

I've gone through two games now and in neither game did the AI get a single treasure fleet. In neither game did the AI get a single 40-yield time. In neither game did the AI settle anywhere close to the number of cities allowed by their settlement limit. In both games, the AI declared war for no discernable reason and then failed to do any damage at all.

I don't actually want some super hard AI that forces me to play on lower difficulty levels. I just want an AI that can play the game.

yes, this is exactly it... we're not even talking about 'competitive' AI, we're talking about basic competence. the AI is not doing its job of making the game even barely challenging, even on the highest difficulty settings. they are unable to do basic things like settle cities appropriately or provide competition for the game objectives.

Yes, that's the core point. AI doesn't play the game, it's part of the game.

I think you are splitting hairs here. challenge and competition are core parts of the game, and to the extent that the AI is part of the game and not a 'player', its jobs are:

• provide competition
• provide challenge
• simulate another player

to that end, I don't really think saying the AI is 'part of the game and not a player' is especially meaningful to this conversation. unless you have another point you want to make on top of that.

 

[Kwami]

Yes, that's the core point. AI doesn't play the game, it's part of the game.

It should be, but right now, it's background noise that doesn't matter.