What does OT think of CIV VI?

[Gori the Grey]

I know I'm going to sound like such a condescending prick, but I honestly played my first game on Emperor, quit midway through because it the AI was a joke and then moved on to Deity where the AI is also a joke. Militarily it sucks and it simply does not execute any victory condition before turn 300. Of course this was like half a year ago, haven't played with all the new patches!

Your way of playing sounds like much more fun/rp'ing than mine though. Not trying to make you abandon it or smth.

No, it's not condescending. If I hadn't settled on this challenge for myself, I would probably have started at level 5, whatever that one's named, counting on my general civ skills to help me be able to compete right out of the box at a above-average setting. Further, I know that in general in Civ games, going for domination is the safest mode, because the AI doesn't handle combat as well as the human player can. That said, in Civ 5, I could only beat deity ten to twenty percent of the time when going for domination (maybe 5 in 10 going for science, which I'm practiced at). I'm not a great warmonger. I know some of what goes into that. Nevertheless, it's on my mind in this challenge. If I really want to beat the game, by my set terms, learning to be a warmonger who can beat up on the dummy AI is probably the safest bet. But setting that specific issue of military domination aside, the fun I have playing Civ 5 on deity is scrapping and scraping every little last edge to catch me up with the advantages the AI starts with. So that's what I'm trying to train myself in in these early games, how to squeeze every last production and gold piece out of a turn. it's proven hard, because what motivates that on the higher levels is sheer necessity of doing so, whereas here that edge doesn't really exist and I get a little sloppy.

No, I don't think you're trying to get me to change. I'm thinking about an even more extreme version of my challenge, where these are the only eight games I ever play of Civ VI. (til a new expansion pack comes out). But I haven't fully settled on that.

 

[warpus]

Civ IV AI is decent, way ahead of its time. Civ V with Acken Mod on Deity is brutal and probably only like three or four people in the entire world have beat it. Definitely the single most challenging Civ game out there imo.

The problem is that the Civ "AI" is basically a fairly simple construct. It works well enough for basic Civ principles (build cities in decent spots, balance expansion with infrastructure improvements, pick what to research) and so the computer is capable of making those singular decisions well enough. But most higher levels of consideration aren't programmed into the system. So once you've figured out how the computer plays, it becomes very predictable. Because sure, some strategic considerations are programmed in, they have to be.. During testing the devs balance this and that and program in strategies for the computer, so that the game is balanced.. but once you figure out the ins and outs of all that, after playing enough, the "normal" level computer will be no match for you. It'll sit there knowing where to place cities and when to expand, but won't see the big picture. It has strategies, but once you know them, it will never surprise you with new ones.

Instead of harder levels of play leading to computer players making better decisions, the human player is instead given handicaps. The way that the whole AI system has been set up, that is probably the only way to do it. Like I said earlier, the computer basically just knows how to do "the basic things". It's got a couple big picture-like strategies programmed in, and the rest of it all relies on handicaps.

As a player and a programmer, that approach doesn't excite me too much. And I'm not saying they need to implement a neural net capable of learning either, but the amount of effort put into Civ AI has always been a joke, from my pov anyway. They have a model they're happy with and they've been sticking to it every single iteration of the game

I found Civ4 AI pretty good for an AI, all the while managing to the rather "role-playish" and understandable.

It knew how to play the game and balance things well, and yeah, Civ4:BTS was the game I've played the most of out of any other game I think (thousands of hours)... But the AI still wasn't that great when it came to combat, it was easy enough to fool the computer during an invasion or during defence. There were issues with diplomacy, and again, the system relying on handicaps to make the computer better at higher levels..

All in all a very good game, but once you figure out how the computer plays the only thing you have to look forward to are handicaps and not (for example) a slightly different approach to the game

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I don't think I'll ever pick it up. Civ6 reminds me of Farmville with military options.

 

[innonimatu]

I found Civ4 AI pretty good for an AI, all the while managing to the rather "role-playish" and understandable.

From this thread, I get the feeling that Civ6 is simply "meh", but long-time fans are trying very hard to like it.
Still not feeling any desire to try it. I think hat Civ5 really killed my interest of the franchise, and any game which is based on it can't lit the flame of my interest.

I would like a break from civ IV, it gets repetitive to the point I seldom play anymore (though your mod helped a lot when I first discovered it!). But V's game mechanics also did not appeal to me.

I don't think I'll ever pick it up. Civ6 reminds me of Farmville with military options.

 

[Lexicus]

If civ VI is anything like the oh-pretty-graphics bog-slow Beyond Earth, I'll never even try it. Was very much disappointed with how crappy the trade-off performance >-> fancy graphics made that game.

I might get it and all expansions (hypothetical future expansions, obviously) if they were all available for less than $30 total. Otherwise no.

 

[Akka]

I would like a break from civ IV, it gets repetitive to the point I seldom play anymore (though your mod helped a lot when I first discovered it!). But V's game mechanics also did not appeal to me.

I hate to decline compliments, but I'm afraid you're confusing me with someone else, the only mod I made was for Civ3 ^^

 

[innonimatu]

Ah yes, I had you associated with one mod I used, but mixed them up. It has been a few years since I've looked for mods, perhaps I should check that portion of the forum again!

 

[Acken]

The problem is that the Civ "AI" is basically a fairly simple construct. It works well enough for basic Civ principles (build cities in decent spots, balance expansion with infrastructure improvements, pick what to research) and so the computer is capable of making those singular decisions well enough. But most higher levels of consideration aren't programmed into the system. So once you've figured out how the computer plays, it becomes very predictable. Because sure, some strategic considerations are programmed in, they have to be.. During testing the devs balance this and that and program in strategies for the computer, so that the game is balanced.. but once you figure out the ins and outs of all that, after playing enough, the "normal" level computer will be no match for you. It'll sit there knowing where to place cities and when to expand, but won't see the big picture. It has strategies, but once you know them, it will never surprise you with new ones.

Instead of harder levels of play leading to computer players making better decisions, the human player is instead given handicaps. The way that the whole AI system has been set up, that is probably the only way to do it. Like I said earlier, the computer basically just knows how to do "the basic things". It's got a couple big picture-like strategies programmed in, and the rest of it all relies on handicaps.

However, a lot of players are fine with the concept that challenge will come from bonuses. Or at least accept it. What player are not fine with is when the first part of what you said is actually not working: "It works well enough for basic Civ principles (build cities in decent spots, balance expansion with infrastructure improvements, pick what to research) and so the computer is capable of making those singular decisions well enough. "

That's why Civ6 is such a disapointment. The AI doesn't do the basics right especially everything combat related. Otherwise, such crazy bonuses on deity like 2 free settlers should be able to provide a challenge. Hell, if this time they decided to make the AI start with 3 settlers on deity it should be a good hint of how confident they are in their AI...

There is also another issue with Civ6 is that the diplomacyAI is just crazy and breaks the immersion imo.

Also balance is part of the issue in these games. The AI is not programmed to know what is good or bad choices (or learn it through machine learning as you said). The player learn however and if you never bother to balance choices to a minimum there is no hope for the AI. I've always held the belief that only balance+AI improvement (patch or mod) can provide better challenges while only focusing on one aspect will always feel half complete. Last time I played Civ6 it was still about the dozen of techs and policies that are key and everything else being noob traps the AI swims into.

 

[warpus]

However, a lot of players are fine with the concept that challenge will come from bonuses. Or at least accept it.

I accept it because otherwise I wouldn't get to play any civ. Plus I'm sort of a causal gamer, so it takes a while for these dynamics to really start bothering me. What bothers me the most is usually the combat AI and the diplomacy, but I haven't even played Civ6 yet. If diplomacy is as bad as I keep hearing, I'll be in no rush to pick it up.. Tons of other games to keep myself busy with, until civ6 comes out with some DLC and eventually gets sold on the cheap

 

[Paul in Saudi]

I am fed up. I click on a unit to move and it selects a path all over the place, or sometimes does not respond to my clicking the "move" arrow at all. My computer is a year old and yet Civ VI seems to want something a little better.

 

[ThERat]

Civ 6 is only interesting when played against other humans. PBEM is actually pretty good and intriguing. The AI is a joke, so is the subpar UI.