The AI Is Still Bad?

[King of Prussia]

Another facet of the AI is should they play to win or roleplay? Should the AI break off its alliances with you if you are doing too well or even backstab you? Should every AI declare war on you as you get close to winning? etc,. This applies to other AIs as well. Some might like it, others might find it really jarring. Right now, i would say the AI is more on the roleplay side.

Of course having options/mods to change it would be good, but idk if we will ever have that.

 

[James_Champagne]

I'm still in my first game (playing as Viceroy) and my AI experience has been . . . odd, to say the least. The continent I started on has 4 other civs on it, and in the first Era I did have some experiences with them . . . like Catherine the Great would occasionally want to be in an alliance with me (and at one point asked me to go to war with her against Isabella), Augustus denounced me once, things like that. But what's weird is that I'm 100 turns into the Exploration Era, and I haven't heard even one peep from anyone on my home continent . . . no denunciations, no alliance requests, no declarations of war (despite the fact I barely even have much in the way of a standing army at all), nothing. It almost feels like they're completely ignoring me.

I guess I can't help but compare it to CIV VI, where the opponents tended to be much more vocal when it came to things like asking for alliances, wanting to be friends or trade for resources, or just commenting on your general actions. But in VII, they seem strangely aloof and inward-looking (at least, in the one game I've played so far).

 

[Ornen]

Another facet of the AI is should they play to win or roleplay? Should the AI break off its alliances with you if you are doing too well or even backstab you? Should every AI declare war on you as you get close to winning? etc,. This applies to other AIs as well. Some might like it, others might find it really jarring. Right now, i would say the AI is more on the roleplay side.

Of course having options/mods to change it would be good, but idk if we will ever have that.

imo there are a few levels:

1. AI is incompetent, failing to do basic things like settle cities
2. AI is competent, getting the basics right, without necessarily competing hard for victory conditions
3. AI is competitive, playing to win & pursuing victory conditions effectively
4. AI is very competitive, playing to win to the extent it will try to stop other players from winning

right now the AI is around level 1-2. in general I'd expect many/most players to enjoy level 3, level 4 a little less so.

there is a smart way to do it though. look at Civ 4 and Old World (both Soren Johnson's games), that have the AI move the chain all the way to level 4 at the highest difficulties

 

[King Jason]

Not to harp on and on about Old World - but love it or hate it, have any interest in it, or not; I think that game pretty flatly dispels the notion of the "no game has good A.I. when it first comes out" type of apologist statements.

Coding A.I. for these games isn't some elusive mythological mountain that can't be scaled. It's very doable because there are games that do it.

Some of the more common criticisms of OW as a game is that it's too hard because people go into the game thinking they can settle a few cities, build a handful of warriors, and then go conquer the world while barely suffering any casualties and the fact of the matter is that you just can't.

The computer player is going to beat you up, and yea it's going to do it in the 1upt system, too.

This isn't to say the game is flawless, or doesn't have its own issues; or that bugs don't crop up - a few months ago there was a weird bug that affected the way computers were assessing attacking cities that led to odd attack patterns.

This type of stuff is normal. But pretty much on day 1, and ever since, Old World has been a solid game with competent A.I. that knew how to play it's own game.

Without someone coming along to do their own community mod, I havent been able to say the same thing about civilization in nearly 20 years.

And virtually the only explanation for this is that competent A.I. isn't a priority for their target audience. The game sells and does well regardless:

Most players play on medium-to-low difficulties and never care to move up to challenge themselves. This is fine, but it's not rocket science why Civ isn't known for great A.I. - it isn't important.

 

[pietro1990]

They denounce you because they want negative modifiers.

to get war support formal war makes sence. But it still doesn't make sence why they want to go to war if i have a bigger army and they are friendly the whole game in previous games leaders had pesonallites here they just randomlly decide lets start a war

 

[d4everman]

I played my first game on Emperor (they changed the name - why? 3rd from hardest) and I crushed the AI in my game. AI sucks. Firaxis actually got lazier, all upping the difficulty does is give the AI huge cheats like + combat strength and + science/food/prod/culture.
1) AI doesn't get how to use commanders and often does not use them. I easily pick off their units... then I find a lone commander to kill.
2) Does not defend its settlers. Independant people, other AI and the player can just kill them.
3) Sits in water, be it ocean or nav rivers and gets picked off by my ranged units.
4) Likes to forward settle just to be a jerk, and will pass up a better spot just for the sake of being an irritation. If you know where the settler is going and put a unit there, the settler will just sit there for the entire age.
5) AI is slow to expand in the ancient era.

On the plus side:
1) AI at least builds units, unlike Civ 6. I actually had a sizeable force come at me in the modern age, though without a commander they weren't hard to beat.
2) AI IS smart enough to cross the ocean and attack an island city of yours, which is a step up from 6. Again... no commander, doesn't bring ships to escort, easy pickings.
3) AI seems to grasp game concepts, like it will go after an economic path or science path etc with some competence. It does build its cities up, something it struggles to do even in modded Civ 4.

Is the AI better than Civ 6? Yes. But it's like.. getting punched in the arm by a strong guy wearing brass knuckles is better than getting punched in the face. Yeah its BETTER but it still sucks. Needs a lot of work.

Also, competent AI IS possible. Stellaris and EU4 can both give me a good run. Civ games just always have bad AI and its unacceptable. Other people can do it so why can't Civ?

Number 4 is what grinds my teeth. Machiavelli travelled half a continent with space for him to occupy just to build a city between my capitol and another city. A space with maybe 3 or 4 usable hexes. There was no other reason to do that except to piss me off.
...and it ruins my immersion. In my latest game I have a few good spots to move into and so does my closest neighbor (Rizal). But O caught one of his settlers moving to a spot directly north of my capitol. The only reason he didn't settle there was because I had a settler there and plopped my town before he could reach it. His settler then turned around and built a city closer to his capitol. I was playing advanced access before the game released and I don't remember the AI doing this. Was it part of the patch? If so they need to fix that. It's ridiculous

 

[Piranga]

This AI settles in some abysmal locations. It seems like a pattern with all AI in my games. They settle two towns near their capital, and then after that they will run settlers 20+ hexes away from their core group of cities.

Every single map, the mini map is a blotchy with different color AI cities dotted randomly across the map. It makes conquering them way to easy and they have no defenses anywhere but just have units travelling to these random cities.

Overall it never feels like the AI is building an empire. Just a bunch of small trading posts everywhere. Has a bad feel to the game because of it.

 

[Calcifer]

it is as though I am playing an entirely different game (this is start of Exploration on Immortal difficulty)

View attachment 719262

I confirm there's something amiss here. Did they spend a lot of time at war with each other?

Spoiler This is my first game, turn 11 into exploration age, deity. We have mostly been at war the entire antiquity age, and I got a couple of settlements from Machiavelli & Rizal. Rizal still did pretty good with legacy paths. :

Spoiler Modern age transition. Rizal still going strong, the others are still lagging behind because they are fighting each other. :

Spoiler 2nd game, still deity, 44 turn into exploration (don't have an earlier save, sorry. Here we had a mostly peaceful antiquity age, you can see how they are more developed. Ibn Battuta (on the distant lands) is even one settlement over the limit! :

Spoiler Modern age transition. I got my ass handed to me pretty spectacularly because I was at war with 4 enemies for the second half of exploration age. Lost 3 settlements and managed to take back one. I was especially impressed by Charlemagne who completed the scientific legacy path in exploration. On a side note, Chevalers on deity hit like a truck and are almost unkillable. :

In conclusion, my observation is that the AI is putting up quite a fight, and it seems better than civ 6 in some areas (adjacencies, producing and upgrading units). Of course there's some strage stuff happening, especially with AI founding settlements on the other side of the continent, but I'm optimist that most of the issues can be fixed with a small effort.

 

[Cruor]

Number 4 is what grinds my teeth. Machiavelli travelled half a continent with space for him to occupy just to build a city between my capitol and another city. A space with maybe 3 or 4 usable hexes. There was no other reason to do that except to piss me off.
...and it ruins my immersion. In my latest game I have a few good spots to move into and so does my closest neighbor (Rizal). But O caught one of his settlers moving to a spot directly north of my capitol. The only reason he didn't settle there was because I had a settler there and plopped my town before he could reach it. His settler then turned around and built a city closer to his capitol. I was playing advanced access before the game released and I don't remember the AI doing this. Was it part of the patch? If so they need to fix that. It's ridiculous

I am playing a game now with the AI mod and I have not seen them forward setting. You can find it in creation and customization for Civ 7 in the AI thread. Yeah it drives me berserk too, I can't stand it. Also can't stand them smooshing cities in 3 tiles apart. IU want to up the spacing to 4 min. I tried looking for the city spacing (I fixed it in Civ 3, 4, 5 and 6) but I just can't find it now. Need a modder smarter than I am.

As for replies on cheating AI, no, Civ 4 does not cheat more than 7. 2X as many units as I can build is not nearly the same as +8 combat strength, and here is why: In Civ 4, I can pick a defensive position and bait the AI to attack me there even if its 2:1 odds. With high defensive bonuses I can survive and counter attack. On the other hand, if my melee unit is 25 and theirs is 33, AND I can't even war support myself because they have 2X my influence, then I can't counter attack. Sure, I can still find a way to win but it's painful and not fun. If My ship meets thier ship out in the ocean, I have ZERO chance of winning, even if my ship is 1 tech level ahead. That isn't fun, its lame. So once again, I am ok if it costs them 50 to build a unit that costs me 100. I am NOT ok with them having a massive +8 advantage over me. ULTRA lame. I already fixed it myself so it's a non issue now. Also, Civ 4 can actually take a city from me now and then. I never lost cities in Civ 5 and 6. The AI might be cheating so hard I can't build a damn wonder or be ahead in science/economy, but they can't take a city. 1UPT was the WORST choice ever made for the franchise. I am honestly amazed they kept it in. Sadly, as others in this thread have said, the game isn't made for me. It's made for the casuals who want to win with no effort. I still dream that some day someone will make a Civ-like 4X that goes from ancient times-modern but has complex systems and takes a while to learn and master (feels so good when you do in those games) isn't over simplified and has good AI. I can hope.

I think EVERYONE agrees the AI is better than Civ 6, but that is an INCREADIBLY low standard. Again, it's like being in a WW2 German PoW camp is better than being in a Japanese PoW camp. Like its BETTER but uh... still horrible. That said, I think with Firaxis working on it + mods it might be pretty good decently soon.

 

[Lebo44]

I found this interesting thread in Customization subforum:

Thread 'Random AI thoughts from FireTuner Autoplays'

Feb 9, 2025

Settlers really wander aimlessly. Really great settle locations, and settlers will just not settle, and move around in loops at times.

• notque
• Replies: 70
• Forum: Civ 7 - Creation & Customization

• 

A guy is volunteering his time after work to fix AI, focusing on irrational settler behavior. He's already resolved some issues in just few days. I'm curious about what Firaxis is working on these days.

 

[pietro1990]

I am watching quilt 18 playtrough of Tecumseh and it clear the AI is just random and starts war for nothing even if they are not close to you

at 4:52 by josé who is not a close neighbour but also not far away and has no reason to declare war. he has also zero units atackin force to the player

then at 8:00 the green player also atacks who is litterly on the other side of the map and has zero reason to atack!! Why would he start a war against the player?

Why in gods name would the AI atack the player like that ? What happened to positive and negative modifiers relationship status? And certain AI leaders who are more warmongering and peaceful personalities they all seem like bi jerks to me in this game.

I feel like the current diplomacy system is just a big spit on the face of the other civ game's where the ai actually tried doing some diplomacy.

 

[Kwami]

I think EVERYONE agrees the AI is better than Civ 6, but that is an INCREADIBLY low standard.

I don't. The AI hasn't bothered to play at all in my first two games. They got almost no legacy points in any age.

 

[timmychompchomp]

After 4 full Antiquity Age play throughs, 2 Sovereign and 2 Immortal, the AI seems bugged to me. On sovereign, 1 game was competitive with the AI declaring war, achieving legacy milestones, using the commander well, and meeting the settlement cap. The other sovereign game was a dud. 1 Immortal game was slightly better than a dud, and the 2nd Immortal game was a blast. The 2nd Immortal game was extremely competitive. Multiple wars, almost lost two cities, all but one AI surpassed their settlement cap and I was tied for 2nd in achieving legacy milestones. I played the same Leader and Civ in all 4 games. Wildly different experiences. This might indicate an AI bug that disrupts the chain.

 

[Piranga]

Why don't AI in the new world bother to grab goody huts?

Exploring the map (when you can cross oceans) to find strong or weak civs has always been a fun part of the civ series. Now we get civs that were just spawned into the game in the exploration era and don't even try to win.

 

[pietro1990]

I am playing a game now with the AI mod and I have not seen them forward setting. You can find it in creation and customization for Civ 7 in the AI thread. Yeah it drives me berserk too, I can't stand it. Also can't stand them smooshing cities in 3 tiles apart. IU want to up the spacing to 4 min. I tried looking for the city spacing (I fixed it in Civ 3, 4, 5 and 6) but I just can't find it now. Need a modder smarter than I am.

As for replies on cheating AI, no, Civ 4 does not cheat more than 7. 2X as many units as I can build is not nearly the same as +8 combat strength, and here is why: In Civ 4, I can pick a defensive position and bait the AI to attack me there even if its 2:1 odds. With high defensive bonuses I can survive and counter attack. On the other hand, if my melee unit is 25 and theirs is 33, AND I can't even war support myself because they have 2X my influence, then I can't counter attack. Sure, I can still find a way to win but it's painful and not fun. If My ship meets thier ship out in the ocean, I have ZERO chance of winning, even if my ship is 1 tech level ahead. That isn't fun, its lame. So once again, I am ok if it costs them 50 to build a unit that costs me 100. I am NOT ok with them having a massive +8 advantage over me. ULTRA lame. I already fixed it myself so it's a non issue now. Also, Civ 4 can actually take a city from me now and then. I never lost cities in Civ 5 and 6. The AI might be cheating so hard I can't build a damn wonder or be ahead in science/economy, but they can't take a city. 1UPT was the WORST choice ever made for the franchise. I am honestly amazed they kept it in. Sadly, as others in this thread have said, the game isn't made for me. It's made for the casuals who want to win with no effort. I still dream that some day someone will make a Civ-like 4X that goes from ancient times-modern but has complex systems and takes a while to learn and master (feels so good when you do in those games) isn't over simplified and has good AI. I can hope.

I think EVERYONE agrees the AI is better than Civ 6, but that is an INCREADIBLY low standard. Again, it's like being in a WW2 German PoW camp is better than being in a Japanese PoW camp. Like its BETTER but uh... still horrible. That said, I think with Firaxis working on it + mods it might be pretty good decently soon.

The Ai in civ 6 at least tried diplomacy. Yes it got mad pretty fast because of the agenda's but you know why it was mad.

 

[notque]

I released an AI mod. I think it's quite good.

 

[tedhebert]

For all those claiming the AI is incompetent, that it doesn't build cities, that it doesn't compete in the legacy paths etc...

This is my second game on sovereign, and for the 2nd time, I'm getting my money's worth of competition. Now I know I'm not the best player around, but after close to 7000H on both V and VI who played almost always at Immortal and could beat deity, I think I can hold my own.

This game's AI IS competitive. Not perfect, far from it, but very competent.

PS I'm Ben BTW

PPS this is the last turn of exploration age

 

[Lebo44]

I released an AI mod. I think it's quite good.

Thank you for your work!

 

[Kwami]

This game's AI IS competitive. Not perfect, far from it, but very competent.

It seems that it's competitive in some games and not at all in others. It definitely wasn't competitive in mine. It wasn't doing anything at all, really.

 

[Melkus]

My experience on Sovereign as well, @tedhebert (in fact, Amina does almost too well there for turn 107). There must be something that throws the AI off in some cases, could be contraintuitive - maybe higher difficulties, a certain map type, whatever.