Tom Chick's take on Civ 6

[Roxlimn]

I'll call BS on the "constraints" of 1UPT right here and now as a failure of imagination on its critics, presumably because you're just looking to hate for no reason.

I assure you, if I program the AI to have units with +100 Strength advantage to make a beeline for your cities and take them, it will take them and you WILL lose. It is trivial to program that. So saying that the difficulty with 1UPT is that you can't program an AI to win it is insane. It is trivial to do so. Anyone can do it. If that's your issue, then it's very easy to solve.

 

[ThERat]

Well, then there's your challenge right there. Disband all your units once all the AI are past Classical. Win with Space. That'll prove your assertion that the AI cannot take cities.

What is that supposed to achieve? We all know that the Civ6 AI is broken. Just because you insist that 1upt is the only way to have fun and civ must be played that way, doesn't mean we entertain your notion. (Btw, I have posted an image of my AW game where the AI had 3 knights in front of my empty city and did not take it, so there you go)

Honestly, I dont understand why people say stacks are easy to produce and whoever has the biggest stack wins.

Precisely. This comes from the same notion that only 1upt can be good, everything else is bad. But at the same time, such people then claim that players lose against the braindead Civ6 AI, while at the same time, proclaiming anyone can win SOD game. yeah, sure.

 

[GhostSalsa]

I'll call BS on the "constraints" of 1UPT right here and now as a failure of imagination on its critics, presumably because you're just looking to hate for no reason.

I assure you, if I program the AI to have units with +100 Strength advantage to make a beeline for your cities and take them, it will take them and you WILL lose. It is trivial to program that. So saying that the difficulty with 1UPT is that you can't program an AI to win it is insane. It is trivial to do so. Anyone can do it. If that's your issue, then it's very easy to solve.

I think a failure of imagination is to leave 20 posts in one thread and never honestly consider what other people are feeling and thinking when they play the game. Tedium might be fun for you but it's not for others. If you don't want other players' standards of fun to take away the enjoyment you get from having to do three things to accomplish one objective, that's fair, but you aren't the only player. And what a waste of all our mental energy for it always to be turned into a fever-dream battle to prove who "understands the cool system." Sending a trade route to make a road is not sexy at all.

 

[HF22]

Well, then there's your challenge right there. Disband all your units once all the AI are past Classical. Win with Space. That'll prove your assertion that the AI cannot take cities.

Easy. Walls & interlocking encampments would manage that.

The war weariness might stop you doing it with a forever war. But with just the wars the AI declares? Its basically what you do for the space victory anyway, given extra units are normally a waste.

 

[HF22]

I'll call BS on the "constraints" of 1UPT right here and now as a failure of imagination on its critics, presumably because you're just looking to hate for no reason.

I assure you, if I program the AI to have units with +100 Strength advantage to make a beeline for your cities and take them, it will take them and you WILL lose. It is trivial to program that. So saying that the difficulty with 1UPT is that you can't program an AI to win it is insane. It is trivial to do so. Anyone can do it. If that's your issue, then it's very easy to solve.

And how many would buy that game? No one. So within the actual constraints of game design, how do you fix it? How do you make it challenging & fun?

Higher strength bonuses would help. Fixing the bugs would help. Increasing AI aggression & willingness to lose units would help. Reducing the range of archers etc to 1 would help. Buffing melee units in general would help.

Is that enough? Don't know. But the developers have not succeeded after how many goes at it now? So evidence suggests its harder to fix than it looks.

 

[Roxlimn]

What is that supposed to achieve? We all know that the Civ6 AI is broken. Just because you insist that 1upt is the only way to have fun and civ must be played that way, doesn't mean we entertain your notion. (Btw, I have posted an image of my AW game where the AI had 3 knights in front of my empty city and did not take it, so there you go)

Precisely. This comes from the same notion that only 1upt can be good, everything else is bad. But at the same time, such people then claim that players lose against the braindead Civ6 AI, while at the same time, proclaiming anyone can win SOD game. yeah, sure.

We don't all know the Civ 6 AI is broken. Some of insist that it is, with limited experience, and by specifically denying the experience of others. A City in Civ 5 is never empty. It always has defense, so right there you're wrong about Civ 6 combat. Or Civ 5 for that matter. And one instance of the AI not taking a city is just a single instance of anecdotal evidence. It doesn't prove that the AI NEVER TAKES A CITY. In contrast, a single instance of a player losing a city to the AI is more than enough to prove that it can happen.

I'm not saying ONLY 1UPT can be good, but stack combat is old and passe.

I think a failure of imagination is to leave 20 posts in one thread and never honestly consider what other people are feeling and thinking when they play the game. Tedium might be fun for you but it's not for others. If you don't want other players' standards of fun to take away the enjoyment you get from having to do three things to accomplish one objective, that's fair, but you aren't the only player. And what a waste of all our mental energy for it always to be turned into a fever-dream battle to prove who "understands the cool system." Sending a trade route to make a road is not sexy at all.

Fun is relative. I can quite easily believe that you don't consider the combat fun. So don't wage war? Play some other game? Civ 4 still works. Honestly? Making roads for every single tile was tedium to the max and it looked idiotic. It did from the first Civ until they finally removed it from Civ 5. Good riddance was the general consensus. You really want every tile to be a railroad again?

And how many would buy that game? No one. So within the actual constraints of game design, how do you fix it? How do you make it challenging & fun?

Higher strength bonuses would help. Fixing the bugs would help. Increasing AI aggression & willingness to lose units would help. Reducing the range of archers etc to 1 would help. Buffing melee units in general would help.

Is that enough? Don't know. But the developers have not succeeded after how many goes at it now? So evidence suggests its harder to fix than it looks.

Given that stack combat took 5+ games to reach a state where it was still broken, I'm willing to give a pretty fair amount of leeway to 1UPT. It's only been two games.

 

[HF22]

Its been 6 years & two games. And its no less stale than stacks.

 

[Roxlimn]

Stacks was around for decades. It's way more stale. Maybe not for you young people.

 

[ThERat]

Given that stack combat took 5+ games to reach a state where it was still broken, I'm willing to give a pretty fair amount of leeway to 1UPT. It's only been two games.

Quite condescending to claim that SOD is broken. There are plenty of people who still love a game of Civ3 or 4.
Each has their own supporters. This is a thread about Tom Chicks assessment of the game. You might disagree, which is fair enough. However, you have taken the high ground and claimed to own exclusive rights of 'the only and right' way how civilization is to be designed and played.

PS: More condescending stuff and I found, the new forum still has the great old 'ignore' feature. Great stuff

 

[Roxlimn]

Quite condescending to claim that SOD is broken. There are plenty of people who still love a game of Civ3 or 4.
Each has their own supporters. This is a thread about Tom Chicks assessment of the game. You might disagree, which is fair enough. However, you have taken the high ground and claimed to own exclusive rights of 'the only and right' way how civilization is to be designed and played.

If you can quote any statement of mine saying I own exclusive rights to determine how civ is to be designed, quote it and I will retract it.

 

[HF22]

Stacks was around for decades. It's way more stale. Maybe not for you young people.

Mate, I have been playing Civilization since the first one. Never been very good mind, but I have been around as many decades as stacks.

 

[Ricci]

Not really. They're both about the same. I guess Civ 4 AI looks different if you can't manipulate the AI stack behavior in any way. Or maybe haven't tried? It's fairly predictable.

Basically, they've both extremely stupid and to about the same degree. I can't figure out where people are seeing this Civ 4 AI combat brilliance. It's dumb as a rock and always has been, even with the best mods.

Now I confirm you haven`t tried these MODS I mentioned. I guess you just love bumper cars. Childhood nostalgia?

I will concede though, beneath the relentless stubbornness you have some sort of a point. In IV AI made many stupid things as well (much less with the AI mods, but still), combat wise specially. I guess It wasn`t every time, but somehow it managed to pose a real and nice threat (given you were playing the appropiate level for you), all of which in the last two games it fails to do.

Mnmnmn... maybe it just needs even more buffs and bonuses as it was suggested. The fact remains, why wasn`t it done already?? Can it be done at all without making combat even more ridiculous and lame???

 

[Acken]

Someone that hates 1UPT and buys civ6 should question that decision...

 

[Roxlimn]

Ayup. Definitely.

Ricci:
I got BTS man. Paratroopers help in one-turn wars. You want a Steam screenie or something? The most brilliant thing I've HEARD the AI do with all the mods is to actually pillage tiles and use Paratroopers in the most elementary fashions. Nothing you can't anticipate if you know how one turn wars work, but okay, I guess?

 

[Roxlimn]

Mate, I have been playing Civilization since the first one. Never been very good mind, but I have been around as many decades as stacks.

Cool. So 1UPT is 6 years. Stacks are decades. Stacks are way staler. Glad we agree.

 

[Ricci]

Ayup. Definitely.

Ricci:
I got BTS man. Paratroopers help in one-turn wars. You want a Steam screenie or something? The most brilliant thing I've HEARD the AI do with all the mods is to actually pillage tiles and use Paratroopers in the most elementary fashions. Nothing you can't anticipate if you know how one turn wars work, but okay, I guess?

Yeah, I know you must have. I edited that unnecesary sentence out. Not quite in time though.. ups.


Anyways, K-MOd did some more than effective pillaging, by a stretch. But those were mods. Let`s keep them away. In order to mantain some meaningful argumentation here you must aknowledge that even BTS was, in a true sense, way more difficult to get along (win or survive) than these two latest iterations (given the right level for each player). Then we might talk about how much 1UPT is to blame. If more bonuses might actually do more good than harm, and the sorts.

 

[Roxlimn]

Now I confirm you haven`t tried these MODS I mentioned. I guess you just love bumper cars. Childhood nostalgia?

I will concede though, beneath the relentless stubbornness you have some sort of a point. In IV AI made many stupid things as well (much less with the AI mods, but still), combat wise specially. I guess It wasn`t every time, but somehow it managed to pose a real and nice threat (given you were playing the appropiate level for you), all of which in the last two games it fails to do.

Mnmnmn... maybe it just needs even more buffs and bonuses as it was suggested. The fact remains, why wasn`t it done already?? Can it be done at all without making combat even more ridiculous and lame???

That's really the question here. I mean stacks have been done and done to death and the most that could be done was to just give the AI larger stacks and it was still pretty stupid. I mean, sure, an AI with a stack 10 times larger than yours could be dangerous and scary if you somehow couldn't collateral it to something nonfunctional, and also couldn't control it some other way. It's rather farfetched given how just changing your government makes the Civ IV AI your bestest friend.

So why hasn't the Deity AI been given literally +100 Strength bonus? I get the feeling that players might find that kind of offensive.

Let's presume that the AI can't do brilliant tactical hex combat. It's a script, not true AI, so it's kind of hard to make it perform well given that it also has to be fast (can't make it think very long). If you want it to be a threat, just boost the Strength the way AI stacks just have more numbers on their side. By how much Strength is fair for which difficulty levels?

I don't think we can know that until other problems are fixed. Right now, I CAN (and do) wage war without taking cities. I do it for the district pillage and if I'm Gorgo, I do it for the culture. In fact, I DO wage war against one-city Civs sometimes just to farm it for unit experience. Not sure you'd have made sense of that, but I do it and it works for me. It's hard to make something that looks human, so even in Civ 4 I give them the benefit of the doubt and squint my eyes a little.

I know I rag a lot on Civ 4 AI here, but I had fun with it and it's okay enough. Outside of unfavorable comparisons with other games of the same lineage, I'm pretty okay with it. All of the Civ AIs are dumb compared to GalCiv AI, for instance, but GalCiv is built around the AI, not the other way around.

 

[Roxlimn]

Yeah, I know you must have. I edited that unnecesary sentence out. Not quite in time though.. ups.


Anyways, K-MOd did some more than effective pillaging, by a stretch. But those were mods. Let`s keep them away. In order to mantain some meaningful argumentation here you must aknowledge that even BTS was, in a true sense, way more difficult to get along (win or survive) than these two latest iterations (given the right level for each player). Then we might talk about how much 1UPT is to blame. If more bonuses might actually do more good than harm, and the sorts.

Hm. I dunno.

I played Emperor in BTS and now I'm playing King in 6. Both of those are turn 1 win levels. I don't expect to lose any of my games, even with a fair amount of dicking around and fairly hellish starts. Some of my worst starts in Civ 6 recently are Spain on King in tundra, and Gilgamesh on King in the middle of Marsh and Desert. I had one tile with cogs on it. That was it. Fairly rushed to Lady of the Reeds and Marshes on that one.

Managing the AI stacks was never very difficult for me in 4. I tried never to wage war on the AI in 4 because I knew it would be unfair and I knew I would win handily. And upping the diff didn't help because all that meant is that I would have more stuff to take and far greater incentive to take it (because I couldn't build my way to victory). It truly wasn't more difficult for me. The truest test of the pure AI is at the even levels - Prince currently and Noble in 4. Prince right now in 6 is far more challenging (but still very stupid). I can actually lose units. I don't lose units on Noble in 4. Not even one.

 

[Ricci]

Hm. I dunno.

I played Emperor in BTS and now I'm playing King in 6. Both of those are turn 1 win levels. I don't expect to lose any of my games, even with a fair amount of dicking around and fairly hellish starts. Some of my worst starts in Civ 6 recently are Spain on King in tundra, and Gilgamesh on King in the middle of Marsh and Desert. I had one tile with cogs on it. That was it. Fairly rushed to Lady of the Reeds and Marshes on that one.

Managing the AI stacks was never very difficult for me in 4. I tried never to wage war on the AI in 4 because I knew it would be unfair and I knew I would win handily. And upping the diff didn't help because all that meant is that I would have more stuff to take and far greater incentive to take it (because I couldn't build my way to victory). It truly wasn't more difficult for me. The truest test of the pure AI is at the even levels - Prince currently and Noble in 4. Prince right now in 6 is far more challenging (but still very stupid). I can actually lose units. I don't lose units on Noble in 4. Not even one.

Ok

 

[kornelm1978]

Did it ever occur to you that single units just resemble armies? I mean could be, uh?

No, it never occured to me. Army is a collection of units, single unit is single unit. I really cannot imagine army of field guns, archers, etc.

Generally speaking this discussion as a whole (not only you, kornhelm...) seems to underestimate the degree of abstraction needed for a game like civ to work. Let me guess: One archeological museum is ONE archeological museum, right? One horseman is ONE horseman! Seriously, C'Mon!

I imagine abstraction. Multiple units per tile is simpliefied abstraction of army. I do not now what is one upt abstraction of, explain me please.

Your 2nd point is just silly and lacks argument - it's just a try to discredit what Roxlimm meant - (and you know he didn't mean what you made of it). Personally I'm against supply chains or anything in that regard - maybe just because I cannot see any advantage except making the game even harder for the AI to understand. So maybe I'm wrong here...

Yes, it is absurd way of presenting the argument of Roxlim in exagerrated form.

And we know you don't rate CiVI as a strategy game for whatever reason (don't start this discussion again, please). I disagree wholeheartedly!

The forum is to discus, I am sorry, not just only to say how the great game is.