Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Hukuma, Dec 21, 2016.
Firing this guy from their AI team would be a good start..
Sorry but I find that rather offensive. I get your frustration but theres ways of calling the dev team incompetent without attacking the mentally disadvantaged.
I viewed this as a parody of arrogant Hollywood actors who shamelessly exploit the mentally handicapped in order to further their own careers. So to me the joke is on the actors not the mentally handicapped. But my utter frustration at Civ 6 AI clearly got the best of me when I made this post.
This habit the AI has of building 6 cities, improving them to death and having a handful of units to defend all it's territory is just crazy.
For me, a fix for AI could include
AI builds and garrison 1-2 ranged unit for every city AI owns
AI builds 2-3 melee and 2-3 ranged for patrol / barbarian purposes
AI builds 1 melee and 1 ranged units to escort a Settler
If AI is going to war, AI builds an additional military force - say (a starting force of 4 melee, 2 ranged, 2 siege) AND (+1 melee & +1 ranged for every city the target opponent owns)
If individual AI unit health > 30% AND on the next individual attack AI will likely survive, AI unit engages, else retreats to heal
AI replaces lost units in keeping with rules above
AI groups units together before sending units to battle
AI only sues for peace / when they have lost a x cities OR has < y military units left
AI upgrades units and improves strategic resources as soon as possible
Ofc there could be some min/max'ing and weightings based on which Civ the AI is controlling.
It's a game... the point of a game is to make it as difficult as possible for the human player to win.
Is it? There are many sandbox and builder-oriented players who might disagree with even that seemingly uncontroversial assertion.
That's nice, but, CIV is not marketed as a sandbox game it is marketed as a 4X/Strategy game and if you want to play a role-playing sandbox... cheats still exist.
The AI is a complete disaster. In Civ5 I used to play defensively more often; now, I can just full on assault anyone I damn please. Long live Theodore Roosevelt.
E.g. give the AI free escort units with zero maintenance every time it builds a settler, perma-linked until the settler founds the city - each 1/6 probability: NO escort / 1 melee escort / 2 melee escort / melee + ranged escort / melee + mounted escort / melee + ranged + mounted escort or so.
There's this mod for a start.
Other solutions are welcome.
If you're proposing a free escort unit for settlers, you might as well go with the simpler solution of just giving settlers a combat strength.
Ok, now the hard part, how to do that? From the top of my head, few things that you might want to consider:
* With city defenses in Civ5/6, early expansion is much easier/safer and more rewarding than in previous civs where you needed a garrison.
* AI would need a risk\reward system. For example building escort when you are alone on Island or with a bunch of pacifist will be a waste.
* What happens at lower difficulty levels, will their expansion be hampered as it waits for the resources to mount an escort? should the expedition turn back if an escort gets killed? etc
* AI would need several strategies. Having all the AIs always play in predictable cautions may be a little bit boring. Sometimes taking chances and playing greedy can be a good thing.
* Does the game handle escort mechanic well? With 1up will your second unit follow the the other two or start running around the terrain due to choke points.
* Does the game handle operational AI well? Can it determine that you have the necessary forces in the area (do they have a threat map?), or will it have to pull units from other missions e.g. scouts from exploration, warriors from the borders or dealing with some threat, or build extra unnecessary units further burdening its economy.
Also don't forget that games have minimum system requirements, if you can't find a simple scheme that would fit within them, you would only be able to see it as part of a expansion/mod.
I am not an expert on AI nor civ6, so I am out of my depth to comment on the specifics, but I like the direction.
Yes, I thought of that, but feel this kind of implementation would be too immersion breaking. Don't we all love the illusion "they" play by the same rules? ... the human settlers are obviously weak, need protection ...
Did you notice, that if the AI has an unescorted settler "it is stupid" and if the human has an unescorted settler slaughtered "it is bad luck"?
I suppose, a 'simple solution' will not be satisfying in the end. So I suggest multiple units, what with 1upt means multiple involved tiles!
I.e. different (but coordinated) behaviour of the different units ... the mounted more loosely, especially if no dedicated scout unit (vanguard) is involved ... the ranged staying behind the melee, probably close to the settler (same tile) ...
The 'settler + protector(s)' team probably needs an agenda like the barbarians now have (scout & report home & come back in strength).
[Remember the drop by drop "attacks" of the oldest versions: you could calculate the production potential of the other civ's city on the # of turns in between arriving units.]
Captured settler turns into worker or disappears. Not like the AI would capture any player settlers anyway.
I'm currently playing GOTM 05 for CiVI and it is at Deity.
When my closest neighbor attacked me (this is well into the game) they only sent three warriors against me. I faced only a handful of units in taking one city and stripping the defenses of another. Whether the AI handled the units well was irrelevant given how few they had. We're talking a Deity level civ with at least 6 cities and it could barely put together a handful of units when it declared war.
In one of my first games at King level before any patches Kongo sent 6 warriors against my capital early on. Indeed, they put it under siege and took it. I had seen the build up, but people had written that the AI can't take cities so I largely ignored it...thanks for that!
Clearly something isn't right.
Well, it's a common assertion that's somewhat hyperbolic. The AI can indeed take cities! It just doesn't happen very often because they will generally prioritize attacking units over cities (so if you have any amount of defense it's unlikely the city will fall), and they don't deal with walls very well (a walled city is significantly safer than an unwalled city). They're a lot more likely to hit a city if it has a unit inside the city, speaking from personal experience, if that same unit is behind the city they'll try to maneuver to hit the unit instead. And the only time the AI tends to take cities/wage war is very early in the game, which leaves them a fairly narrow and specific set of circumstances under which they tend to actually take a city.
And sometimes they do just wander away from a city for no apparent reason, maybe due to warmongering penalties or something. But that's rare early on.
My experience is that the AI is able to take cities by simply spamming units and throwing them at you. That is all it has. Like you said, once you have walls and have survived the initial onslaught the AI doesn't really know what to do.
If you can get past that first wave of fighters then you basically have nothing to worry about for the entire game.
This was pre-Winter Patch. I came back in to figure out if the game has managed to sort out this problem. So far I haven't seen any confirmation of that.
Yeah, AI attacks on unwalled cities vs AI attacks on walled cities are completely different beasts. They can take unwalled cities pretty well, walled cities they basically can't take unless they bring battering rams or towers.
How can the AI be worse if before the latest patch it was non existent ? I don't want elaborate in further but everyone here knows what I mean.
Can pls Ed Beach come here to explain why the human player has to play alone even with 6-7 opponents who are not able to do anything but cheating ?
Ed Beach is not really responsible for AI performance.
Separate names with a comma.