Firebug
Not-so Great Engineer
(I've been told i should post this on the Civfanatics website but a user over at Reddit. I realised i should probably do so, just to get your opinion. This is a direct copy and paste from my post over on Reddit)
The problem at the moment isn't the AI. It's the balance.
All the choices the AI has made, the way they apparently chase after eureka bonuses and where they place their districts, has all been good. But the problem is, the player is just a bit better at those things, it will always be the case because we haven't actually invented an artificial intelligence that is more intelligent then humans yet. So to expect Firaxis to make one is ridiculous.
The balance problem comes in when the ability to focus on one thing is far too easy. As Quill18 proves, a science victory is super easy when you just focus on science and then only begin to focus on production when you start the Space Race projects. An AI does not do this focus, they try to advance the eras at a realistic pace from what i've seen.
Another issue is most of the criticisms on /r/civ has been made by people who watched the big youtubers. I for one made a post not long ago based mostly on civ playthroughs i watched. These big Youtubers are, for the most part, very skilled players, with a lot of time playing civ (with it being part of their job and all). They often focus on a certain path and do it efficiently.
Then we look at the less skilled players, TotalBiscuit for example is what you might call the average player. Being a reviewer and a youtuber means he will be looking at the game differently to the average player, but he's one of the closest we've had so far. He actually begun to struggle with the invasion of Rome because the AI has been able to keep up with him tech-wise. He hasn't over-specialised in any department (except depriving the naval side, having researched planes before renaissance boats). This meant the AI was keeping pace, and was able to fight back reasonably well. He actually complemented the AI when questioned on his opinion, saying it made some pretty smart choices. And the more i've begun to watch the smaller Civ playthroughs, rather then these youtubers that try to find the optimal strategy and usually play on higher difficulties where the AI begin with an advantage. Similiarly, we've read articles complimenting Civ6 on how amazing is, written by people who've never played the game before. And if you've never played a civ game before, yet find it super fun, Firaxis did something right.
Of course, there are lots of balancing issues. Techs are too cheap, Eureka's are maybe too strong, production costs seem to high sometimes etc. But changing values in a code is one of the least difficult things. Modders do it all the time, so i can imagine it's even easier for industry professionals.
TL;DR - A hard AI is difficult to create, because you need to make them smarter then a human. The people we've watched play Civ6 have all been "pros". The "average" players we've seen have all enjoyed the game and think the AI is good. Balance is still an issue however.
The problem at the moment isn't the AI. It's the balance.
All the choices the AI has made, the way they apparently chase after eureka bonuses and where they place their districts, has all been good. But the problem is, the player is just a bit better at those things, it will always be the case because we haven't actually invented an artificial intelligence that is more intelligent then humans yet. So to expect Firaxis to make one is ridiculous.
The balance problem comes in when the ability to focus on one thing is far too easy. As Quill18 proves, a science victory is super easy when you just focus on science and then only begin to focus on production when you start the Space Race projects. An AI does not do this focus, they try to advance the eras at a realistic pace from what i've seen.
Another issue is most of the criticisms on /r/civ has been made by people who watched the big youtubers. I for one made a post not long ago based mostly on civ playthroughs i watched. These big Youtubers are, for the most part, very skilled players, with a lot of time playing civ (with it being part of their job and all). They often focus on a certain path and do it efficiently.
Then we look at the less skilled players, TotalBiscuit for example is what you might call the average player. Being a reviewer and a youtuber means he will be looking at the game differently to the average player, but he's one of the closest we've had so far. He actually begun to struggle with the invasion of Rome because the AI has been able to keep up with him tech-wise. He hasn't over-specialised in any department (except depriving the naval side, having researched planes before renaissance boats). This meant the AI was keeping pace, and was able to fight back reasonably well. He actually complemented the AI when questioned on his opinion, saying it made some pretty smart choices. And the more i've begun to watch the smaller Civ playthroughs, rather then these youtubers that try to find the optimal strategy and usually play on higher difficulties where the AI begin with an advantage. Similiarly, we've read articles complimenting Civ6 on how amazing is, written by people who've never played the game before. And if you've never played a civ game before, yet find it super fun, Firaxis did something right.
Of course, there are lots of balancing issues. Techs are too cheap, Eureka's are maybe too strong, production costs seem to high sometimes etc. But changing values in a code is one of the least difficult things. Modders do it all the time, so i can imagine it's even easier for industry professionals.
TL;DR - A hard AI is difficult to create, because you need to make them smarter then a human. The people we've watched play Civ6 have all been "pros". The "average" players we've seen have all enjoyed the game and think the AI is good. Balance is still an issue however.