|
Diogines posted:So how does this game stack up compared to prior Civ games? I heard the AI was even stupider, is that true? The AI is dumber in both war and diplomacy and if this is a dealbreaker for you then you won't like 6. In all other ways I like 6 more.
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
If you so much as cough in the AI's direction it will hate you with the burning passion of a thousand suns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
MarquiseMindfang posted:Your only cities are six tiles inland, and you meet Harald, who immediately denounces you for not having a mighty navy. MarquiseMindfang posted:Peter declares you a friend for your superior culture and science, and then three turns later accepts 1 GPT and 50 gold up front from Harald to declare joint war on you. MarquiseMindfang posted:Gandhi all but wipes out your religion in every city you own, but because you haven't yet researched the right civic, this is not sufficient reason to declare war on him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
turboraton posted:Lmao at someone not buying the game because some vocal goons claim its bad. Lmao harder at them mentioning Civ5 wasn't mediocre at release. why buy a game now at full price when you could get it later when it's not mediocre at release lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:If you so much as cough in the AI's direction it will hate you with the burning passion of a thousand suns. Yeah. And then it won't do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:It's hard to tell whether the AI is stupider or if there are many more systems that the AI isn't fit to handle. It doesn't do war very well, though. Barbarians somehow are better at war. Barbarians actually have worse AI than the AI players. It's just that they are ruthless and don't care about losses, which makes them more dangerous. That means that once the sdk is available, modders can give barbarian AI to everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
If paradox can make good ai in nearly every game of theirs, why cant firaxis
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:If paradox can make good ai in nearly every game of theirs, why cant firaxis Playing Stellaris has really highlighted the different direction Civ has taken with V and VI. In Stellaris, the AI is still mostly faceroll-tier, but diplomacy with it is generally predictable and worthwhile, because the reasons for their actions are very clearly explained and it's possible to be friends with some people. You know, like in IV. Also in IV, because the combat system is essentially "stacking" with a little rock-paper-scissors unit versus unit, it's both possible to outsmart the AI strategically by countering their build but also still quite easy for a superior AI to overwhelm the player with sheer numbers. The diplomatic AI in V was an inscrutable mess at launch and took a long time to become reasonable, and VI's AI at least shows you numbers but the ridiculous warmonger crap ruins it as well as AI that hates you for playing the game well. And of course the AI is laughable in 1UPT combat, in V but even more in VI somehow. Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Nevermind looks like I'll be waiting to pick this up. Thanks y'all.
Darth Windu fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
I got it on release because I'm compelled to, played a bunch and enjoyed it. But the AI is psychotic and a bunch of stuff is broken. If you don't have a burning desire to play right now I'd wait for the first expansion. I don't think it's a waste to get it now though, it's fun. I don't know that I'll play it again until the expansion but I don't feel like it was a waste to play it on release the way I did with Civ 5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Should I get Civ 6? If you want a chill history-themed empire-building game - yes. If you want a tough strategy game - no.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:The AI is dumber in both war and diplomacy and if this is a dealbreaker for you then you won't like 6. In all other ways I like 6 more. You clearly didn't play 5 at release. That was a broken AI. I still remember how it loved to take unescorted general and great people then run them in circles until they were out of movement right in front of your armies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
Do apostles really have the ability to heal outside your holy district? There's a button you can click to sit and heal, but I don't think it actually does anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Orange Sunshine posted:Do apostles really have the ability to heal outside your holy district? Wondering this too. Mine don't heal in other civs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Orange Sunshine posted:Do apostles really have the ability to heal outside your holy district? No. They need to be on a holy site to heal. They added the rest until heal button in the last patch, but if you use it outside of a holy site your apostle will just sleep forever and never heal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
Diogines posted:I read that the AI is spectacularly awful. I asked. Someone said it was. Do you disagree? Diplomacy is less screwy but far easier to wind up in a downward spiral. The AI currently can't take walls, it won't even try, which makes it impossible for it to actually win a protrated war (although it can, in theory, hold you down until a computer wins). Barbarians not named scout lack any sense of self preservation and just throw themselves at whatever they will do the most damage to, which makes them much much better at war than they have been previously. The also receive automatic upgrades based on strategic resources near them once a civ unlocks that resource, so be prepared for better barb units than ever before. City States are way cooler, but the AI only deals with them via conquering (which, somehow, they can take city state walls... probably because it's just a time stamp if you're not there to see it). Each ruler has a standard personality trait they like, which is pretty much the only way to get on their good side earlier, and one other random thing they like. It is entirely possible that they two conflict, so there will be civs you can't buddy up with. Most peoples problem boils down to the warmonger diplomacy penalty, which is negated by not razing cities, giving taken cities back, using a casus belli (just cause for war, unlocked by the new social tech tree, and ending wars quickly... none of which are generally possible they way war works in this game. If you find yourself in war, at all, with anyone, you will have to work at the personality traits of other leaders (and offer them all kinds of nifty stuff they want) to get on anyones good side. This could have been negated by making someone declaring war against you without a cassus belli give you the warmonger reduction, but they didn't. Seriously, though, it's better than Civ V at launch, worse than Civ V after two expansions. Hopefully they'll fix the AI can't take walls before the first expansion, but I doubt it. Diplomacy is probably hosed until the first expansion, which will unfuck what's hosed right now but gently caress up something else because firaxis is bad at diplomacy (and, in their defence, it's hard to make diplomacy system that isn't either somewhat wonky or easily exploitable).
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
The reason I have hope is simply that civ 6 has a lot of good ideas that it just falls a bit short on in execution. We've covered pretty much all of them - district penalties, lovely warmonger system, religious war in general, the AI being straight up schizophrenic. I think a lot of those are fixable. Unfortunately the worst thing, the AI, may not be. It may just be that the game is too complicated to get the AI to properly understand what to do and ends up doing nothing much past the classical era. At least that's what it seems to me. It seems at the start the AI is fine but as soon as it gets a choice in what to do it flounders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
As soon as GMR supports VI it's going to own bones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
JetsGuy posted:Unfortunately the worst thing, the AI, may not be. It may just be that the game is too complicated to get the AI to properly understand what to do and ends up doing nothing much past the classical era. I don't think it needs to be that complicated to at least make sense. Barbarian AI is much better than the Civ AI so they are capable of creating an AI that attacks cities well. It seems like just allowing the AI to sacrifice units would be a huge step forward. Have it calculate the chance of taking out a city with the 5 units it has and if it can do it even with sacrificing 3, it attacks full bore. I think making strategic resources a little more plentiful would make it easier for the AI to upgrade units. The diplomacy which people complain about the most seems the easiest to fix. Just lessen the penalties for certain acts or give more opportunities to get on the other Civs good side. The rest is just tweaking their decisions. When they are going for a science victory have them counterspy on their campus when they are up a lot instead of sending them out elsewhere. Have them counterspy on the Spaceport when that is built. And when it does get blown up, make it #1 priority to fix. These shouldn't be that complicated to put into the game. Heck some modders will do this on their own at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
I'm interested in what the AI calculates for others to meet its agendas. Cleo clearly isn't considering technology level or combined strength of your army when she complains about your tiny dick, so it literally has to be raw unit count. What's ticking in its head for an AI to like/dislike you and how do you tweak that to not be a pain in the rear end?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
According to 80% of the vocal people at the beginning of the thread, AI decision trees for 4x games are super easy and intuitive to write and Firaxis is just incompetent; it's not that it's hard
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Actually what people repeatedly tried to explain to you that (some of) the specific problems/bugs with the AI were super obvious and should have been easy to fix, not that AI decision trees are easy in general. I think the agendas are hard-coded? Not sure. e: Base\Assets\Gameplay\Data\Agendas.xml has a bunch of modifiers, but I think the details like how the AI estimates your army's strength are still hard-coded. Staltran fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Grab AI+, version 9. It's shown major improvement. AI settling is still an issue but if you tweak a couple of values in Core.xml... ListType="DefaultCitySettlement" Item="SETTLEMENT_MIN_VALUE_NEEDED" ListType="DefaultCitySettlement" Item="SETTLEMENT_CITY_MINIMUM_VALUE" ...then new AI cities pop up about as often as you'd see in a vanilla game. Had a game last night where Scythia rolled up to my capitol with two warriors, a heavy chariot, and three archers, and - get this - they all attacked they city in unison. Also, one AI city changed hands four times by 150 AD. Units were getting escorts. Pillaged improvements were being fixed. Other civs were not offering everything but their capitol after I beat their invasion back. Sometimes they wait until losing 3-4 units to offer peace. Everyone was making trade routes, even the city-states. The drawback to AI+: everyone hates you unless the relationship is about a +20, but is that really any different than vanilla AI? Also there's apparently AI maintenance issues that sometimes pop up in the late-game. Staltran posted:Actually what people repeatedly tried to explain to you that (some of) the specific problems/bugs with the AI were super obvious and should have been easy to fix, not that AI decision trees are easy in general. Crazy Ted fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Actually what people repeatedly tried to explain to you that (some of) the specific problems/bugs with the AI were super obvious and should have been easy to fix, not that AI decision trees are easy in general. game has been out for 2.5 months, where are the mods that fix all this easy specific obvious stuff? the tone was (and remains, among those that don't like the AI) very much 'firaxis is incompetent because in my game *insert one off random situation here*' boar guy fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
I feel like most of the criticisms are from people who have already sank a few hundred hours into the game. I think pre 100 hours in(depending on how much civ 5 you played) you're unlikely to realize how easy/broken the AI is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Ghetto SuperCzar posted:I feel like most of the criticisms are from people who have already sank a few hundred hours into the game. I think pre 100 hours in(depending on how much civ 5 you played) you're unlikely to realize how easy/broken the AI is. the biggest change, to needing districts for improvements instead of everything in one tile, is still a really great idea. but unless you're playing against other people the game does feel very pointless right now
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
I still haven't beaten it on deity and I'm not terrible at it so I don't get why it's pointless...
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Actually what people repeatedly tried to explain to you that (some of) the specific problems/bugs with the AI were super obvious and should have been easy to fix, not that AI decision trees are easy in general. Agendas are not hard-coded and can be modded. Sorta. You can swap around agendas and change them a little bit, and you can even tweak the numbers on them to some degree. For example, in my mod, I programmed a wonder to give you a bonus if your city happiness was high, using the same check that the "Fun-loving" agenda does to do so. But of course there are limits, as in it would be difficult to add wholly new agendas that checked entirely different things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Ghetto SuperCzar posted:I still haven't beaten it on deity and I'm not terrible at it so I don't get why it's pointless... I've played civ since 1994 and never won without gaming the system on anything higher than king and that i can breeze through this on on immortal makes me perceive it as pointless. i really think they went overboard trying to please the majority of people who prefer to play Civ as a wargame by ensuring that the AI is always pissed off at you
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
I like civ 6 multiplayer more The AI is so loving stupid though, holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Efexeye posted:i really think they went overboard trying to please the majority of people who prefer to play Civ as a wargame by ensuring that the AI is always pissed off at you I can't imagine that was the logic behind the choice since that's how it was in vanilla Civ V and everyone hated it there, and they spent a long time changing it. And Ed Beach was there for that process so it's not like he wasn't aware. In regards to the diplomatic AI, at least. Warmongering penalties are, in and of themselves, not a bad idea. The implementation however is simply crazy with the AI hating you forever for wiping out a Civ/taking their cities centuries ago. Warmongering penalties are in theory a good way to help the AI recognize that the player is eliminating them one at a time and allying together to present a credible threat against a power that's gobbling every nation up. But that shouldn't result in an instant denouncement + forever hate because you conquered someone and took their land in the Medieval era. Agendas, likewise, are a good way to give leaders some flavor and give them some predictability. I think a large reason they're not working well right now is the AI isn't actually very good at going for the things it's supposed to go for (the economic AI has never been very good in Civ games but it could be carried at higher levels by bonuses). Agendas are meant to make leaders pursue specific things, like China is supposed to build lots of Wonders and Brazil is supposed to make lots of Great People. My experience however is that even on higher difficulties those two leaders don't tend to actually pursue those goals very well, and thus they hate the player for being better at it than them, even if the player isn't necessarily hardcore going for Wonders/Great People. And then of course there are other problems like Cleopatra getting the paranoid agenda conflicting with her main agenda so she hates everyone. There are other problems too, like the large penalty to relations you get for denouncing a leader. This sorta makes sense, but it creates a problem where if an AI leader denounces another AI leader for not meeting their agenda then they get locked into an endless cycle of hate because they denounce each other every chance they get, just because they denounced each other in the past, even if the situation in regards to agendas has changed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
I have pinpointed what irks me about Civ6. It's the art style. Ultimately, Civ is a serious game, and a more serious tone serves it well. The art style of Civ 5 is pretty much my favorite of all time, and I kinda wish they'd continue that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Efexeye posted:game has been out for 2.5 months, where are the mods that fix all this easy specific obvious stuff? the tone was (and remains, among those that don't like the AI) very much 'firaxis is incompetent because in my game *insert one off random situation here*' No-where, which isn't surprising because I'd be surprised if a lot of the AI stuff that was complained about was moddable. Modding seems to mostly be limited to fiddling around with xml files for now. The AI+ mod does significantly improve the AI from what I've heard, I haven't found the time/inclination to play lately unfortunately. Also the last patch apparently had noticeable improvements on AI as well. I think that's all mostly subtler stuff though, improving AI evaluation on what to build and when and whatnot. Possibly also related to the balancing changes. To contrast, Firaxis gave a modder access to Civ 4's AI source code, and later incorporated his improvements to BTS. Unfortunately I doubt today's Firaxis is willing to do that, limiting how much modders can improve the AI. Magil Zeal posted:Agendas are not hard-coded and can be modded. Sorta. You can swap around agendas and change them a little bit, and you can even tweak the numbers on them to some degree. For example, in my mod, I programmed a wonder to give you a bonus if your city happiness was high, using the same check that the "Fun-loving" agenda does to do so. But of course there are limits, as in it would be difficult to add wholly new agendas that checked entirely different things. Yeah I found the file after I posted, Base\Assets\Gameplay\Data\Agendas.xml for the record in case anyone is interested. Looks like all you can do is add a part of an existing agenda, remove a part of one, fiddle around with a single number, or do something like switch an agenda based on your army to gauge the strength of your airforce instead. Changing how the strength of the army is determined seems to be impossible unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Efexeye posted:the biggest change, to needing districts for improvements instead of everything in one tile, is still a really great idea. but unless you're playing against other people the game does feel very pointless right now Vahakyla posted:I have pinpointed what irks me about Civ6. Magil Zeal posted:Warmongering penalties are, in and of themselves, not a bad idea. The implementation however is simply crazy with the AI hating you forever for wiping out a Civ/taking their cities centuries ago. Warmongering penalties are in theory a good way to help the AI recognize that the player is eliminating them one at a time and allying together to present a credible threat against a power that's gobbling every nation up. But that shouldn't result in an instant denouncement + forever hate because you conquered someone and took their land in the Medieval era. They don't take into account a common foe or joint war They don't take into account you whipping someone's rear end because they invaded you and overestimated your power They don't take into account AI's relations with each other Crazy Ted fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:MUH 16.7 MILLION SHADES OF BROWN
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
The art style is a significant improvement. Crazy Ted posted:Grab AI+, version 9. It's shown major improvement. AI settling is still an issue but if you tweak a couple of values in Core.xml... I'm going to have to check this out. Everyone hating you is part of the base game anyway so I don't see much of a sacrifice there. AI actually attacking cities would literally be a completely different game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Does anyone have one of those fancy Logitech mouse or keyboard setups where the game makes it change colors? I usually laugh at that stuff but reading the description on Reddit from people who have it makes it sound like Civ is the perfect game it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:Does anyone have one of those fancy Logitech mouse or keyboard setups where the game makes it change colors? I usually laugh at that stuff but reading the description on Reddit from people who have it makes it sound like Civ is the perfect game it. The alien face on my Alienware turns red during Alien Activity in XCOM. Neat pointless thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
The dumbest thing is getting a city in a peace deal and being unable to raze it. I should be able to raze any enemy city at any time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:I should be able to raze any enemy city at any time. Majestic post/avatar combo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 21:43
|
|
