Why do the AI start with extra units at higher difficulties?

Joined
Apr 11, 2015
Messages
438
What is the game design intention for this?

I always use 'No AI Start Advantage' mod, which removes the extra units.
 
My assumption: they want to use the same rulesets for the AI in different difficulty levels, for better and easier maintenance, therefore you differentiate using bonuses like extra yields and units. Early game decisions have a large long term impact, if you give the AI extra cities from the start it will take the human much longer to catch up. I would love smarter AI on higher difficulty, but since we're never getting that, extra units are fine with me.
 
What is the game design intention for this?

I always use 'No AI Start Advantage' mod, which removes the extra units.
The AI has less than three GB of memory to work with to calculate its moves ( the newest iPhone has only 3 Gb of ram) so it needs all the "cheats " it can get.
As with Atari destroying Microprose when they acquired it, so has Firaxis been destroyed by 2K games. Greed and indifference to their customers has made this once excellent franchise into a laughing stock of the gaming industry.
 
The AI has less than three GB of memory to work with to calculate its moves ( the newest iPhone has only 3 Gb of ram) so it needs all the "cheats " it can get.
As with Atari destroying Microprose when they acquired it, so has Firaxis been destroyed by 2K games. Greed and indifference to their customers has made this once excellent franchise into a laughing stock of the gaming industry.

You really think Civilization is a laughing stock of the industry? Come on, man.
 
You really think Civilization is a laughing stock of the industry? Come on, man.
Hyperbole caused by frustration with losing a friend (the Civilization franchise) I have spent thousands of hours with over the last thirty years to dementia.
 
What is the game design intention for this?

I always use 'No AI Start Advantage' mod, which removes the extra units.
The AI is pretty much a decision tree, one that largely remains the same for different difficulties (with some changes). Instead of having significantly different AIs, the creators instead give bonuses/handicaps which provide the different levels of difficulty.

It's pretty standsrd for RTS though, at least in my (somewhat limited) experience; the AIs generally don't fundamentally change, they just churn out units faster (the AI doesn't even strictly speaking use resources). It's far easier to change certain variables in the code to give an advantage and therefore a "false" increase in difficulty than it is to create an AI that has actually different levels of skill.
 
The AI has less than three GB of memory to work with to calculate its moves ( the newest iPhone has only 3 Gb of ram) so it needs all the "cheats " it can get.
As with Atari destroying Microprose when they acquired it, so has Firaxis been destroyed by 2K games. Greed and indifference to their customers has made this once excellent franchise into a laughing stock of the gaming industry.
Just curious... do you still play it?
 
Just curious... do you still play it?
When I'm board with other games, it is still a good time killer if set in Gedmon's second largest earth map with TSL and all my opponents trapped in the Western Hemisphere while I conquer and settle the old world.
Please note this is the only Civ I can beat on higher difficulties but I do not play so much to win as to pass time.
A large % of my complaints about this game are centered on the World Builder and having to be a computer programmer and/or skilled typist to build a scenario.
 
Probably to make the difficulty higher. :crazyeye:
Yes, but an increased difficulty can be achieved by boosting Production/Science/Culture etc, which, in my opinion, is a much more elegant method.

When I play without AI starting units, it does not impede the AI's ability to grow. The game seems to progress very naturally.

There are two possible reasons that I think that the AI may have been given extra starting units:

1) By starting behind, with only one city, it means that if the game's set difficulty level is too easy for the human player, then the game will at least feel challenging for a while longer.

2) To prevent the human player launching an early war and taking out an AI player. Knocking out a neighbouring rival and taking their city so early would make the rest of the game too easy. So the extra units are there to make sure the AI survives the Ancient era and can get going.

Neither of these reasons persuade me to give the AI the conspicuous starting advantage of extra units. Firstly, I think it's intrinsically better to have an AI that can roughly match one's capabilities, rather than one which is slightly worse, but which is given an offset, with the extra units, to compensate. Secondly, I'm not generally very warmongery and so don't immediately set about conquering my neighbour. In any case, my "Tough AI" mod would make it harder to do so.
 
Yes, but an increased difficulty can be achieved by boosting Production/Science/Culture etc, which, in my opinion, is a much more elegant method.

When I play without AI starting units, it does not impede the AI's ability to grow. The game seems to progress very naturally.

There are two possible reasons that I think that the AI may have been given extra starting units:

1) By starting behind, with only one city, it means that if the game's set difficulty level is too easy for the human player, then the game will at least feel challenging for a while longer.

2) To prevent the human player launching an early war and taking out an AI player. Knocking out a neighbouring rival and taking their city so early would make the rest of the game too easy. So the extra units are there to make sure the AI survives the Ancient era and can get going.

Neither of these reasons persuade me to give the AI the conspicuous starting advantage of extra units. Firstly, I think it's intrinsically better to have an AI that can roughly match one's capabilities, rather than one which is slightly worse, but which is given an offset, with the extra units, to compensate. Secondly, I'm not generally very warmongery and so don't immediately set about conquering my neighbour. In any case, my "Tough AI" mod would make it harder to do so.
A wonderful topic that comes up every so often on here...
They do get boosts to production/science/etc. Up to like, +80% on deity. But this doesn't really matter because they are not capable of playing the way humans can - namely we know to rush certain things and what to skip. For example, many players on higher difficulties will either commit to religion or ignore it entirely, and thus not waste precious early hammers on holy sites. The Ai doesn't know about this, so they spend a ton of time on holy sites. One civ that is almost always very strong on any difficulty is AI Korea, and even though they can't use Seowons (they will fill districts around them) Seondeok can easily run away with the game because her Ai is weighted to build seowons everywhere. AI Korea is actually an amazing case study because it shows that if the computer was programmed to follow a more "meta" strategy then they would be much more fearsome.

Consider looking up that mod that bans the AI from engaging in holy sites and see how much better they do.

As for why they get extra units instead of even higher boosts, that is to make these high difficulty AI extra fearsome at the start. You literally start far behind them. This is part of the point of high difficulty - to be unfair. The extra settlers, though, is what almost always makes players who aren't used to it either quit a game or like you, mod it out - it only takes a short amount of time to overtake them even with that advantage, but the psychological factor is definitely there and works by virtue of that mod being used. So that matches up with your #1 and #2 quite well. But one risk of having really high boosts is that you can accidentally create runaway conditions where an AI player begins engaging in some action that makes the game unwinnable - imagine a 200% production boost combined with a neighbor constantly throwing warriors at you from turn 10. And that's not a good thing.

Of course, everyone would love a more competent AI opponent, but they simply haven't made one. When they release access to the core files once they are done with content for the game (which they traditionally do anyways) I am pretty confident it won't take long for very scary AI overhaul mods to pop up. Because it's literally just weighting that keeps every AI from being as scary as korea on tech and Pericles on culture. And if they ever figure out how to make it so they keep producing units during wars, then it'll be really freaking hard.
 
The AI has less than three GB of memory to work with to calculate its moves ( the newest iPhone has only 3 Gb of ram) so it needs all the "cheats " it can get.
As with Atari destroying Microprose when they acquired it, so has Firaxis been destroyed by 2K games. Greed and indifference to their customers has made this once excellent franchise into a laughing stock of the gaming industry.
I’m pretty sure RAM is used to put files in for quicker access. All files you are working with are loaded into RAM.
The CPU is used for calculations instead.
Also, the speed of the RAM and bus are more important than the size. Or at least equally important.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
 
The paradox is often that it can turn out to be an easier game to play for the human in Civ 6. I had a game recently where Sweden settled her second city 4 tiles away from my capital borders.. I just went military production and took her two cities within few turns.. Gives you a huge boost to have 3 cities so fast that it almost feel like cheating ,taking the AI's city in the very early game.
I think the solution is kinda broken, when playing standard maps sizes and below since you end up too close to your neighbour.
 
A better solution would involve decreasing the value of conquered cities somewhat. Right now invading your neighbour and getting 2-3 cities means that those will start to work for you as if they were settled by you, but with districts and more population. This is just unfair imo.

I remember in V there was at least a period in which new conquered cities would not produce anything and would give extra unhappiness. This would also be an indirect buff to ammenities usefulness. Making militarly conquest less op would force us to compete with AI in more even fields, like science and gold.
 
there was at least a period in which new conquered cities would not produce anything and would give extra unhappiness.
A captured city starts at half loyalty and this means it does not produce that well. Sometimes it can take 20 turns to recover up to full production/growth. The war weariness side is a little lame.
If they gave governors 12-difficulty level loyalty in cities I feel this would improve the situation on high levels and limit the frustration on lower ones but may be too extreme for some.
 
The paradox is that deity is osten easier than immortal. More settlers = more cities to take and less barbarrian space, not to mention AI units help with barb protection.

It creates some starts impossible to win due to early AI agression, especialy deity/marathon, but who cares if AI is crazy dump
 
Back
Top Bottom