|
As a French person I feel like it's my duty to explain strikes to you. - AdrienIer |
|
Civ 6 Release and Update Discussion Thread
|
|
November 29th, 2016, 04:17
(This post was last modified: November 29th, 2016, 04:20 by fluffyflyingpig.)
 (November 29th, 2016, 03:57)HansLemurson Wrote:(November 28th, 2016, 03:34)fluffyflyingpig Wrote: ... Not me, reposted from Reddit. I agree with the findings and have done similar experiments. The ai has no idea how to use any subsystem other than religion. The combat AI is a joke. I don't see any fixes forthcoming for the ai for the next several years. (November 29th, 2016, 03:46)Sirian Wrote: Civ3, the AIs could cross the Diplomatic or Space victory finish lines, because they were simple. Give them enough tech-up speed (also from tech trading, remember) and they posed a threat to win the game, without needing to be all that smart about it. They were good at founding lots of cities, and sometimes good at dogpiling and swallowing opponents to swell their territory, and that was enough to win games (sometimes) or at least pose a challenge at the strategic level (often enough, especially prior to learning every trick in the book). Thing is, Civ5 AI could do victory condition. Yes, it needed deity bonuses to be competitive, but I lost to Sejong launching spaceship in Civ5. As others said, Civ5 and Civ6 follow the concept that the game should be winnable even at the highest difficulty, and the fact is that in Civ4 I remember that one Immportal win (don't even have one on Deity), and in Civ5 I remember that one Deity loss However, the other fact is, Civ5 AI at release could not win for love nor money. And Civ6 AI is apparently significantly rewritten to handle 1upt and other new mechanics (there's evidence of that, as the game definitely behaves differently from Civ5). It doesn't handle them particularly well at the moment, but I say - give it time. I bought XCOM in the meantime, will be away for a while :P (November 29th, 2016, 11:24)yuris125 Wrote: It doesn't handle them particularly well at the moment, but I say - give it time. Time doesn't miraculously conjure improved AI. Sufficiently motivated and talented programmers do. Firaxis has never made any more than incremental AI improvements in any iteration of the Civ franchise. There was that one time they incorporated some brilliant work from a community modder. One time. Unless a new Blake arises for Civ 6 and catches Firaxis' attention, you aren't going to get much. Maybe Civ 6 can be fixed with incremental improvements like getting the AI to settle more. Or maybe the unstacked cities create as intractable a problem for domestic development as unstacked units have proven to be. (Man, I wasn't intending to go all Debbie Downer over and over in this thread, but that's what the sober realism would indicate. Of the previous eight games in the Civ franchise and spinoffs, exactly one ever had what we would call solid and satisfying AI. Maybe two depending on whether you think Civ 3 actually had good AI or just a sufficiently simple design.)
I don't think AI is that bad in the final iteration of Civ5. Yes, combat AI is as terrible as it's ever been, and its desire to buy luxuries despite always being at +40 happiness is baffling, but it's capable of challenging the player and making sure even the emperor difficulty you favour for speed runs isn't completely solitaire experience. Civ6 actually can be played as solitaire at the moment, with AI showing up every 30 turns and denouncing you for interfering with their agenda, but remaining irrelevant otherwise
I have it in the back of my mind that one of the major improvements that Blake made around the city location selection algorithm. I (seem to) remember a long post from him showing the old scoring of city locations (1 off the coast, 1 off a river, etc, etc) and his new version.
I have finally decided to put down some cash and register a website. It is www.ruffhi.com. Now I remain free to move the hosting options without having to change the name of the site.
(October 22nd, 2014, 10:52)Caledorn Wrote: And ruff is officially banned from playing in my games as a reward for ruining my big surprise by posting silly and correct theories in the PB18 tech thread.  Aside from the terrible combat, which will be patched by Firaxis making the AI do a 'zerg rush' strat, AI Civ6's AI is around as good as Civ5's. Due to the "level 2 difficulty" bug Civ6's Deity is Civ5's Emperor. I have no objections to Firaxis cutting Civ5's IMM&Deity because they were a farce. Also Civ4's Noble AI cheated like crazy and the game gave you penalties at higher levels. It was better than 5&6's but you guys are exaggerating. (November 29th, 2016, 11:55)T-hawk Wrote: Time doesn't miraculously conjure improved AI. Sufficiently motivated and talented programmers do. That's what happened with Pandora: First Contact. An enthusiastic modder asked the devs pretty-pretty please could he haz sum source-code, and remarkably they agreed. Now the AI kills noobs. Maybe Firaxis just knows how much people like winning, and so the thought of spending time and effort to make people not win is sacrilege.
If memory serves they did make AI improvements to Civ 4 soon after launch. No where near the overhaul Blake provided but still it was something. Course the lead for the game was also the AI programmer, which might have something to do with it.
Darrell |
