Civ 6 Release and Update Discussion Thread

[Sirian]

Yeah I've read that elsewhere, that there's some obvious holes in the AI with victory condition checks.  

Bugs like that shouldn't happen, but sometimes they do.

I would caution against judging the game, and its AI, on any permanent kind of basis as yet. They deserve a chance to identify and fix bugs, especially big bugs with obvious and crippling effects.


When I worked on the maps (for Civ4, Civ5, and CivBE) I was able to do my own testing and keep the bug rate really low, but all of that coding was in the scripting languages and I could simply run the game, produce a map, reveal it and look it over. I didn't have to compile any code or contend with any other coders who might be introducing something that wasn't shaking hands with what I was doing.

Introducing bugs in to the main game via mistakes made on a scenario sounds plausible -- and a bug like that ought to be fixed in the first patch. (Even a mini-patch, a hotfix, since something crippling the AI might be urgent enough not to want to wait for two months and a formal QA process.)


Some of what was wrong with every Civ game at launch had to do with bugs. I can't remember a Civ game at launch that didn't have bugs and didn't benefit measurably from fixing them.

Might be that after bug fixes there are still major problems, but I do feel it's fair -- and best for players -- if a fresh evaluation is done on the game after they declare they've fixed a list of bugs.


- Sirian

[BRickAstley]

Unless they change the code that the AI actually does something meaningful besides being spectators in my own civ-sim, I am done with the game. What's the point of playing a game you know you will always win (besides some cheesy AI religion spam win).

I am sorry, but who tested this game? Maybe as pointed out, it's all intentional for the 'pokemon go' crowd. No matter what you do, you always win to feel happy?

An aside, I was rolling maps testing out settings getting ready for an Epic 1 game, and one map I played out I was eliminated before turn 50. So it is possible.

[rho21]

Might be that after bug fixes there are still major problems, but I do feel it's fair -- and best for players -- if a fresh evaluation is done on the game after they declare they've fixed a list of bugs.

Absolutely. Sadly the reviewers have already had their say so it won't give them a chance to improve their metacritic score... oh wait.  

[Ichabod]

I've seen some quirky behaviour by the AI, but I don't get the feel it's hopeless. I also think making the AI more able to achieve a victory condition doesn't look like the hardest thing to change.

The AI actually posed a threat to me in my emperor game, by attacking when I had low power. Their attack seemed well planned and all, but they seem to have problems landing the killing blow. I was ready to lose my second city to the AI, abandoning it and making plans for a counter attack after losing it, but the AI suddenly gave up, didn't take the city and just retreated (and after that, it allowed me to pick their units one by one). These random retreats seem to be a pretty common occurance, but it seems fixable. Thei AI attack and initial execution seems interesting, just this random changes of mind are perplexing to see. It doesn't seem to happen that much in AI to AI wars, since I've seen AIs capture quite a lot of City States in my limited experience (by the way, they need to make all strategic resources avaiable to the city states by default, otherwise they always keep limited to warriors and ancient units).

I think it's pretty hard to strike the needed AI balance. The AI needs to be able to lose, otherwise the game becomes stupid. If you make a script where every deity AI rushes for encampments, builds horsemen and attacks the player at first sight, with the big production bonus they have, the game will be pretty hard, but it won't be any fun. We need a challenging AI, not impossible to win against and not just a pushover that doesn't even try to win - that seems really, really hard to put in practice, even if the concept itself is pretty simple.

[Gazglum]

Basically, I think what CIV AIs need is a final boss, as in one or two opposing AIs who can pose a threat in the late game. I've played about 5 games of Civ 6 now, and not actually finished any of them because I have either been defeated early on, or I've got so far ahead that it becomes pointless to continue. That needs AIs Civs who can snowball like the player, through expansion or conquering their neighbours. Not all of them, every game, but hopefully at least one.

[darrelljs]

There was an error in the very first civilopedia entry I looked at, in the first minute of gameplay. At least, I assume it's wrong. Would be pretty silly if it's telling the truth. (I assume they mean 25%.)

It doesn't surprise me the first thing 7 looked up was city growth mechanics .

Darrell

[Commodore]

Basically, I think what CIV AIs need is a final boss, as in one or two opposing AIs who can pose a threat in the late game. I've played about 5 games of Civ 6 now, and not actually finished any of them because I have either been defeated early on, or I've got so far ahead that it becomes pointless to continue. That needs AIs Civs who can snowball like the player, through expansion or conquering their neighbours. Not all of them, every game, but hopefully at least one.

So I guess there isn't any emergent difficulty strata yet for the AI personalities? Your Yangs versus your Miriams, etc?

[Rowain]

I have now played the Adventure and a Monarch game afterwards.

In both games at least 1 AI built a Spaceport and in the Adventure even the Satellite. No AI landed on the Moon or Mars.

About the Military: I guess the AI values its Units too much. It doesn't really know about sacrifices. Once a city has a high defence value the AI will wait for Siege units.

[Brian Shanahan]

One issue with the AI is that it is unable to achieve anything than religious victory. I assume that is a bug that got introduced when creating the Religious Combat Scenario. Seems for that scenario everything but religious is deactivated and probably someone changed a wrong file, leaving the AI with only religious victory for the whole game.

Yeah I've read that elsewhere, that there's some obvious holes in the AI with victory condition checks.  

And this is the kind of stuff that makes me think there was no testing done of the game, at the very least in the final few gos to release form. A minimally competent testing regime would have picked up a gameplay issue that is akin to an FPS AI not shooting back at the player avatar, or a truck racing AI that doesn't start driving at go.

If the company can let something this big slip through the process, then I have little hope of a competent fix to the issues plaguing the game as it stands.

[Molach]

I think 1upt is very very hard on the AI. But they did an okay job on the combat part - The barbs are vicious, the AI is too cautious but not completely braindead in battle. It is sometimes tricky for a player...moving units in correct order, knowing when to hold in place a turn so next move doesnt block a knight/catapult, trying to maneuver past an allied city state's caepet of warriors (which I had to give up once). Maybe all the effort spent here led to certain other lapses - failing to settle a great riverside location despite having the settler at hand...ignoring huts... 

Anyway. 1upt AI will be either dumb or dumber.

We need to make the official RBC6 mod with some form of (limited) stacking, enlist some genius to adjust the AI and be happy. Current bugs, cheap exploits, diplomacy  will surely be fixed by the Firm.