Whatever they do I hope the AI is substantially upgraded

[steveg700]

Having civs that start at different levels is a very interesting idea.

It's not a fresh idea, though.

And that's the thing about cutting Firaxis slack because of some notion that we have unrealistic expectations for a small publisher. 4X is not the empty space it once was. True, there's not much competition is this particular style of 4X, but space 4X is positively lousy with complex games that receive frequent improvements. And none of them are bigger than Firaxis, I'd wager.

Which suggests to me that the success and prominence of the Civ franchise creates the real obstacle: lack of impetus, not feasibility. Ubisoft was content to let the Assassin's Creed franchise descend into rote formula as long as it continued an upwards trajectory. Now that game's better than ever.

So resources go to expanding it to more platforms, especially where players will have lower expectations. Most people playing Civ--including most reviewers, it seems--don't register the bad AI behavior. They just think the game moves in mysterious ways and feel good about their ability to pummel the AI when it marches a lone bombard up to their door.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

3. You can’t lose, absent losing all your cities or someone else which is fairly extreme. So, you’re never under pressure, you can always grind out a victory, and you never get any feedback on how well or not you’re playing.

This might be by design. I seem to remember an old interview with Sid about designing civ where he said that he wanted the game to be an ever rising empire, never falling because he wanted positive reinforcement for the player and nothing that might discourage the player. So it was part of civ's core design from the beginning that the player would always get an ever bigger, better empire.

 

[acluewithout]

This might be by design. I seem to remember an old interview with Sid about designing civ where he said that he wanted the game to be an ever rising empire, never falling because he wanted positive reinforcement for the player and nothing that might discourage the player. So it was part of civ's core design from the beginning that the player would always get an ever bigger, better empire.

I may need to make a longer post about this one day, but the kind of losing I’m talking about is different to what Sid is talking about.

FXS seem to have been avoiding a situation where you empire gets damaged, becomes hobbled as a result, and you’re then never able to catch-up. Because that’s seen as not fun.

And, you know, they’re right. It’s not fun. You don’t want a game where you’re basically losing turn after turn. Sure, you could maybe fight your way back, but many people won’t bother.

What I’m talking about is something happens and you actually lose - get kicked out of the game. That’s very different. Provided you can see that loss coming, and can do something about it, you now have tension in the game.

Civ really doesn’t do this. First, because the AI can’t win. But second, more fundamentally, even if the AI is going to win it’s too far in the future. In principle, youre only at risk of losing just before someone goes to Mars, so there’s no tension before that point, and no real tension at that point because you may not be able to do anything about it.

To me, Civ needs a structure where every Era you need to be in, say, the top 25%, otherwise you’re basically locked out. So, you’re constantly under pressure to survive.

Now, you could play around with this a little. Maybe you’re only locked out of one particular victory type (eg Cultural). Maybe you get one chance to make it back into the top 25% next era (but now you have to risk more to make it back). Maybe you just get the One More Turn option. But the core idea is you should be constantly and repeatedly under threat.

Actually, Eras seem designed to give you this, what with their countdown timer and increasing point goals. But they don’t do a good job of creating tension because Dark Ages are not a punishment (they’re actually better than a normal age - which Iike), and it’s not well implemented otherwise (eg there’s no way to reduce someone’s Golden Age points).

 

[Pietato]

Artillery exists in this game?

 

[oedali]

Even though it's beating the dead horse I like when AI threads resurface because it keeps the topic current and top of mind for the devs (hopefully), as it is such a priority topic for a select subset of players including myself.

We need a sticky post of community wish list of specific AI improvements that is kept up to date. Because then it's not just complaining but asking for something tangible that the devs can actually pay attention to when they are ready. Has anyone done this already here or other big forums?

Not just items like "AI sucks at war” but with more specifics like “doesn’t use air units”, “apostles suicice attack”, “struggles to capture walled cities in x era", "doesn't always protect settlers" etc. We need a categorized list. I am tempted to start but don't want to reinvent the wheel if it already exists somewhere.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

But once you learn that one trick from them it's easy to side-step, and if you get through the first 50 turns not much else is going to get in your way.

Thanks for the advice and encouragement, I do appreciate it! I'll be sure to learn and improve.

 

[Pietato]

Better AI and fewer stupid bonuses would be nice.

 

[gozpel]

Chefofrats: I'm not the best player in this community, but I'm quite good learning from my mistakes and hope not to repeat them. There are so many ways to beat the game on Prince or King with ease, I m a Deity player ways off from the best players, but winning a game gives me a happy moment.

Sometimes I lose, but that is because I didn't pay attention or understanding enough of the game. So I learn more for every mistake I do, and this is on Deity. Sometimes I revert back to Prince or King, sometimes even Chieftain, just to gain achievements, but as you play don't underestimate the AI. It is stupid, but won't fight you if you are stronger or they are desperate, use this to your advantage!

On a Prince game: settle. Scout. slinger and settler, worker/settler or settler/settler and a couple of slingers/warriors of your choice. The AI can't touch you. Now cultivate your fav win, peaceful Culture or Religious, if you have time you will win Space easy. Make a decision by turn 50 and you have won the game already.

It's fearful not understanding all the rules in CIV, but read and learn. Some good posts in the Strategy Forum. Otherwise just ask more questions, there is not one question to be asked that is bad, you are the fool for not asking that question.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I may need to make a longer post about this one day, but the kind of losing I’m talking about is different to what Sid is talking about.

FXS seem to have been avoiding a situation where you empire gets damaged, becomes hobbled as a result, and you’re then never able to catch-up. Because that’s seen as not fun.

And, you know, they’re right. It’s not fun. You don’t want a game where you’re basically losing turn after turn. Sure, you could maybe fight your way back, but many people won’t bother.

I was not suggesting that the game just arbitrary kick the player in the teeth. That would not be fun. But I would love to see more empire management, as we've already discussed, where the player has to spend some strategy on keeping their empire together. If the player makes the mistake of ignoring, then they should face internal threats that could damage their empire. And I would love to see more geopolitical back and forth where city states or minor civs can pose an external threat to you. I just don't think that getting a bigger civ should be automatic. It should be something that the player has to really work for. And there should be some setbacks, not crippling of course, if the player makes a mistake. Honestly, I think the game would be more interesting if there were some challenges, obstacles and setbacks that the player successfully has to overcome rather than the player just building an ever bigger empire with no obstacles like it is now.

What I’m talking about is something happens and you actually lose - get kicked out of the game. That’s very different. Provided you can see that loss coming, and can do something about it, you now have tension in the game.

Would it be something like you get a warning that a barbarian invasion is coming in 40 turns? you have 40 turns to prepare but then you get hit by a large number of barbarian units that try to take your capital and if you lose your capital, you lose the whole game?

To me, Civ needs a structure where every Era you need to be in, say, the top 25%, otherwise you’re basically locked out. So, you’re constantly under pressure to survive.

Now, you could play around with this a little. Maybe you’re only locked out of one particular victory type (eg Cultural). Maybe you get one chance to make it back into the top 25% next era (but now you have to risk more to make it back). Maybe you just get the One More Turn option. But the core idea is you should be constantly and repeatedly under threat.

I am not sure I am getting this. Are you suggesting if the player is not able to get back into the top 20% that they lose the entire game? That would certainly create tension but I think it might be going a bit too far. I agree about creating tension but I think it should be "organic" from things that happen in-game like revolts, rebellions, barbarian invasions etc...

Actually, Eras seem designed to give you this, what with their countdown timer and increasing point goals. But they don’t do a good job of creating tension because Dark Ages are not a punishment (they’re actually better than a normal age - which Iike), and it’s not well implemented otherwise (eg there’s no way to reduce someone’s Golden Age points).

I definitely agree that Dark Ages should be more punishing.

 

[acluewithout]

@SupremacyKing2 I’m not sure how what I’m suggesting would quite work. I’ve been drafting a longer post about this, but haven’t quite nailed my thoughts down.

Religion is a good model. If you fail to get a Religion you don’t lose the game. But you do lose the ability to get a Religious Victory. I think that makes the race for a Great Prophet really exciting. You’re not just competing for another Great Person - you’re competiting for a Religion.

I think the game should work like that more generally. You can’t just amble along to a victory. You have to hit specific milestones and, if you don’t, you lose the ability to pursue various victory types until the only thing you can achieve is a “draw”.

 

[PhilBowles]

I know, I know. I have nothing to back this up with. No research. Maybe I’m wrong. But I really think that sort of difficulty would drive sales.

I'd rather the game were harder - I can't play Civ VI below Deity, where it feels maybe slightly harder than Emperor in Civ V (I admit I had a close game that ended last night, with three other civs closing on victory at the same time - and I had to transition to science because I wasn't winning with my planned culture in time, and likely not at all as America stayed further ahead). But I doubt a higher difficulty would drive sales - Civ games are extremely long, and players will be discouraged if they make it to the late game only to lose after putting a day or more in.

That said, the game has a lot of difficulty settings - why should Prince be the 'Settler' difficulty instead of, well, Settler? When tutorials for new players are encouraging people to play on Prince, the third lowest difficulty, I wonder what the point of having two easier settings is.
Core problems include:

1. Your opponents all start at the same time as you. This is the source of the whole snowball problem. Can you imagine any other game where you’re opponents basically never got more powerful. This is, more or less, how the game currently works absent some isolated Civ running away with the game. The game would be much more interesting if you started with some Civs already ahead of you and established (ie you’re the new guy on the block), and then later you had new Civs, some behind you (like you were) and some that rapidly expand (like America).

2. You’re never required to actually manage your empire. Your only threats are external.

3. You can’t lose, absent losing all your cities or someone else which is fairly extreme. So, you’re never under pressure, you can always grind out a victory, and you never get any feedback on how well or not you’re playing.

These are all fundamental parts of what Civ is as a game. It's always had the weakness that it's extremely noninteractive - you and your opponents are each racing for their own victory conditions, and short of warfare there's practically no way to stop whoever's in the lead and there aren't very many mechanisms that allow you to catch up. Civs V and VI were both an improvement in this regard over older entries - indeed in my last game Kongo had their empire disintegrate during a particularly bad Dark Age, which pushed them out of the running for culture victory (though as a testament to how limited these factors are, they were still a module away from science victory at the end).

The game is designed like Monopoly. Once you’re established, there’s no one that can stop you.

Basically. That's been the case from the start - the notorious stack of doom masked it in older versions of the game because it could always potentially beat you out of nowhere however well-established you were if you prepared for it inadequately or were caught out of position, but it's a core part of what Civ is.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

@SupremacyKing2 I’m not sure how what I’m suggesting would quite work. I’ve been drafting a longer post about this, but haven’t quite nailed my thoughts down.

Religion is a good model. If you fail to get a Religion you don’t lose the game. But you do lose the ability to get a Religious Victory. I think that makes the race for a Great Prophet really exciting. You’re not just competing for another Great Person - you’re competiting for a Religion.

I think the game should work like that more generally. You can’t just amble along to a victory. You have to hit specific milestones and, if you don’t, you lose the ability to pursue various victory types until the only thing you can achieve is a “draw”.

Interesting ideas. I appreciate you sharing them. Religion does give me a good idea of what you are talking about. There are plenty of civ6 games that I've played where I never intended to go for a religious victory so losing the ability to get a religious victory does not bother me at all. So I do think that the milestones should relate to the victory that the player is pursuing otherwise they won't care if they miss the milestones. Or the milestones themselves need to be something that the player needs to care about. They should not be something that the player can skip without consequences. In civ6, I often skip religion in my games with no consequences.

I do think your idea of milestones would fit nicely with my idea of a "unified victory" that combines all the victories into a single victory type. Each milestone could give victory points towards the single victory. There could be science milestones, religious milestones, culture milestones, military milestones etc... That way the science minded player could pursue science milestones but they would still need to get some milestones in other areas to win. Just focusing on science milestones alone should not be enough to win. The civ with most milestone points at the end of the game, would be declared "greatest civ of all time". And if you increased the value of late game milestones, it would make the late game more meaningful since players who were trailing in milestone points could still catch up if they achieved milestones late in the game.

 

[Kamino]

There is no such thing as an AI in this game. There can't be. It took decades to build a good AI to play chess, and one more decade to play go. Civ complexity is several orders of magnitude beyond the possibilities of current AIs. 1UPT is a good example of something the computer cannot manage.

Civ 6 is a sandbox and GS will provide additional toys, not better "AI".

@SupremacyKing2 I like the idea of scoring all along the history. Winning "at the end" is a non sense from a civilisation point of view. Greece, Rome had incredible achievements making them TOP5 all time and they haven't won the space race...

 

[Stringer1313]

I'll keep saying this until I'm blue in the face: This game could use better AI, yes, but it needs to create more internal and external obstacles *that are not dependent on AI civs*. So all the empire management stuff someone mentioned above, more internal loyalty threats, victory obstacles (I wouldn't call them "milestones" but when you reach 50% victory you should be given a difficult obstacle to overcome). I like the barbarian horde idea someone mentioned above - maybe during Ancient to Renaissance periods, you are under threat of a massive barbarian invasion the higher your score or the more cities you have. The more trade routes you have, the higher the risk of plague (or there's always a risk of plague, and if you have trade routes then it will spread rapidly), and can only be countered with quarantines + science + waiting it out. Cities you conquer have the risk of suffering massive loyalty dips when the conquered peoples rediscover their old identities (I really like the assimilation model in Civ 3). Have too many markets and you'll suffer inflation (e.g., massive dip in gold reserves). Too many holy sites and minority religion populations may be killed.

I think they are taking steps in the right direction with GS -- that's what the natural disasters do, and hopefully the world congress resolutions can set you back. But i'm not confident that these systems will be implemented in a way that creates real obstacles.

 

[Aristos]

Keep in mind that the developers of VP have had the benefit of modding a base game that has not changed in four years (last Civ V patch I recall was Oct. 2014). Those who work in AI (certainly not me ) have repeatedly made the point that it is well-nigh impossible to fine-tune AI for a game whose systems remain in rapid development.

If the system they implemented is inflexible, that is true. And the system they implemented is highly inflexible (BTs), that's why it's mostly considered obsolete... yet they went for it (why? my reading between the lines is, sadly, that they "could not afford anyone better" or did not want to, so they brought in the guy whose expertise was Starcraft AI... and that is what we got: a zerg rusher AI incapable of even short term "planning").

Which is exactly why I am pessimistic about a fix for the AI (because to fix it, they would have to change models). Everyone here keeps talking about motivations, and the suits, and what not, but the truth is, the model is broken, because it is obsolete due to inflexibility, and the worst fit for TBS (a somewhat acceptable fit for RTS).

 

[Giskler]

I just noticed the forum has this emoji:

LOL

 

[Socrates99]

I just noticed the forum has this emoji:

LOL

Probably designed for this thread.

Personally my bar is pretty low at this point. I'd be happy if the AI could crank out units on deity like it did in V. At least then it took more effort to roll over a civ even if they used those units ineffectively. Too often I DoW an AI and meet little to no resistance. I'll take incompetent resistance over no resistance.

I'd also be happy if the AI focused harder on a specific VC rather than just kinda going for all of them. It's stupid that Seonduk will fork over a fortune for a painting if she's obviously going for an SV.

Religion is another problem area. Kongo is a strong AI competitor and I believe its specifically because he doesn't dump a ton of resources into getting a religion early game. Non religious AI waste too much time early game on sub par religions and lose because of it.

Simple stupid tweaks are all that's necessary to increase the AI competence. Might not please everyone here but itd make a big difference nonetheless.

 

[bbbt]

I'll keep saying this until I'm blue in the face: This game could use better AI, yes, but it needs to create more internal and external obstacles *that are not dependent on AI civs*.

Its interesting reading an interview with Soren Johnson about the 10 crowns game hesh developing - he was saying he was playing/developing the game to be a challenge before even adding in AI opponents.

I agree that's something civ is definitely not designed as. And any concerns like "players will quit if dark ages are too punishing" can be alleviated by making such things difficulty dependent.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Its interesting reading an interview with Soren Johnson about the 10 crowns game hesh developing - he was saying he was playing/developing the game to be a challenge before even adding in AI opponents.

I agree that's something civ is definitely not designed as. And any concerns like "players will quit if dark ages are too punishing" can be alleviated by making such things difficulty dependent.

Adjusting Dark Ages could be one way to change the higher difficulty levels without impacting people who prefer Prince to Emperor. Era Score thresholds could be higher and the impact of Dark Ages made more punishing on Immortal and Deity.

The Climate system is another candidate. The negative impacts of Drought, Floods, etc. could be ramped up for the player on Immortal plus.

The key thing is to create game long challenges rather simply continuing to bump up the difficulty of surviving the initial AI Warrior rush.

 

[Pietato]

Yeah, even people on here constantly whine about everything needing an upside in the game. It seems like negative events are somehow the gravest sin to modern civ players.