|
Tree Bucket posted:I usually really enjoyed the 1UPT battles in Civ 5/6; but I bailed on the majority of my games at the thought of the thousands of clicks required to move a late-game army to the other side of the map. I really wish units travelled in something called a march or a convoy that could be infinitely stacked and moved super quick, but unpacked into 1UPT mode to actually fight.  Moving a carpet of units is awful. Makes me miss transport ships, at least it let you move a whole bunch of units as one That Warhammer civ-like as land transport units which are a bless late game. Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Aug 26, 2019 |
#
¿
Aug 26, 2019 12:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 03:07 |
|
|
Panzeh posted:I've not been that impressed with the results of machine learning, especially in the context of games as complex as Civ. Have that been tried yet? I vaguely remember some project was going to try it on Civ 5, but I dont know if it ever got done
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2020 12:37
|
|
|
Thats kinda like the Endless Lengend AI, I guess? Ive been playing it, and at one hand the AI seems braindead, is mostly like playing alone. At the other hand, is hard to keep up with it in science/income/production etc, cause it has some ridiculous bonuses Well, either that or I suck at the game
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2020 12:07
|
|
|
Personally I dont like that at all. Civ is not Doom, is a grand strategy game. Scripted stuff like that gets repetitive fast It kinda works in CK2 (the mongol and the aztec invasions) because they are few and works like endgame bosses. But most of the game is organic narratives emerging from the game world by themselves, which a lot more interesting and keep the game always fresh Paradox games are criticized a lot here lately, but both CK2 and EU4 are very good in having the AI play kinda the same game that the player does, and make decisions that for the most part make sense, and pose a decent challenge Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Feb 27, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2020 13:40
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:And it still barely and/or doesn't function in most circumstances. I think it works well enough. In any case, its incomparably better than Civ AI, thats for sure Most of the time they will attack when it makes sense, they will form alliances and make deals that make sense, they are competitive enough etc WarpDogs posted:But the AI in Paradox games don't have to deal with victory conditions (or even goals in the traditional sense), and that's a huge "advantage" to them. It masks a lot of the problems that other, more board game-like titles have to contend with Yeah, thats true
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Then we shall disagree, friend! I was talking about the ones I have enough experience with: CK2 and the EU series. Stellaris I own but never played enough to be able to judge. I never played Imperator
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
Jeza posted:In my view, it's sort of the opposite. With how they can now make AI learn by iteration, in the not-too-distant future it won't be difficult to make AI that just crushes all human players without any need for bonuses to resources and all that jazz in any 4x or strategy game. To me, the genuinely interesting question is: from a starting point of perfect or near-perfect play, how can they dumb down AI in games to match the 'feel' of human players? And not just have some variable like 'every 10th action make an intentional error'. Supposedly the technology for that already exists. So why we are not seeing that? (genuine question, because I also expected that soon all new wonderful developments from the AI field would leak into videogames, but so far there's seem to be no sign of it) edit: I love Civ 6 but they managed to make an AI even worst than it already was in Civ 5. 16 years later
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
Or because they dont have any choice, like people said here: is bad everywhere, the whole genre is cursed by it I play Civ 6 because it is a fun game, a good 4x, despite the fact the AI sucks. But surely it would be better it the AI was better. People (at least a good number of them) do want a challenge, or they would not be playing in the highest difficult levels. And in the case of Civ, higher difficulties just mean such a absurd initial advantage for the AI players that it becomes kinda of puzzle game to catch up to it, which primarly affects early game. Once you catch up, the AI becomes 100% harmless, which is why late game is so boring no matter the difficult settings
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:I think people also underestimate how much of a bubble they are in with regard to 4x games. The types of people complaining about the AI being braindead are also usually the 1% of gamers who tear things apart and figure out how to exploit things. I dont know, Im not that kind of player myself. I never watched a youtube video to learn how to play a videogame, I dont minmax, I dont exploit the cheat out of games in general, and Im not a specially great player on any 4X. In Civ 6, Im a mild effective player who can win most of the time in Emperor difficulty, but usually with some restarts. So the challenge per se is pretty much enough for me. Still, it bothers me how dumb the AI is. How dumb it is at figthing a war, or even choosing units to build; and how completely clueless it is, and even more unjustifiable, on developing their lands, building their cities and so on Or how everytime I played Endless Legend I fell I was alone in the world because the AI is even worst than Civ and behaves like a dead corpse laying there in the map. Even though I suck at the game, it still bothers me
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
Pyromancer posted:Well you just need to rent a supercomputer to train the neural network AI for a couple of months, playing millions of games to establish the optimal strategy. Then copy over the result and deal with the fact AI turns take several minutes each on home PC, other than that, yes the technology exists. Also if you patch the game balance then you have to repeat the whole process. The solution for that is probably online AI JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I don't expect the AI to meet me toe-to-toe in the battlefield but I do have some very basic expectations, like "build a plane" and "farm the land right next to the capital sometime before 1800" Thats whats saddens me on Civ 6 AI: ok, 1UPT combat is too hard for an AI, I get it. But goddam, programming it to actually use its builders dont seems that hard. Every AI civ late game will have a ton of undeveloped land, but strategic and luxury resources included, and will usually have some builders wandering around doing nothing too;
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2021 11:58
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:The AI plays just as aggressively on lower difficulties, just more incompetently and you spend several hundred years swatting at mosquitos as you coast to a snowball victory. The Civ 6 AI does not do that, though I all my games the civs Ive been friends with for most of the game will stay friendly with me even while I win the game (I am often the one who start declaring irrational wars in late game because Im bored)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 03:07 |
|
|
John Lee posted:It's not necessarily strategic choices, though, it's optimal choices to win the hardest. I've spent a lot of time lurking in the Civ VI thread and there's a lot of "80% of the options should never be picked because they're less efficient." Same. Ive put some hundreds of hours on Civ 6, and thats my experience: I very rarely get attacked late game For whats is worth, I play on Emperor, huge map with 9 civs (less than the default), so maybe is related somehow
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2021 11:42
|
|