I agree. Having something that lets you differentiate your playthrough (even when playing the same civ) would be good. Even if its just something like Galactic Civilizations 3 (which occasionally allows you to pick from one of three different approaches towards a particular technology).
I really hope they won't be using a cheating AI on Civilization VI. I really hate when I drive an opponent Civilization to 0 money or a huge debt and it still comes out with huge armies out of nowhere if they go to war or are able to outbid me when buying support from City-states forcing me to drive my spies from more useful tasks such as stopping enemy spies from stealing my technology.
I really hope they will improve the ai in civ 6 aswell, but i doubt they will do that. Programming a ai that knows what to do in a turn based strategy game is very hard. So the easy way of making the game a challenge is letting the ai cheat a lot
I really hope they will improve the ai in civ 6 aswell, but i doubt they will do that. Programming a ai that knows what to do in a turn based strategy game is very hard. So the easy way of making the game a challenge is letting the ai cheat a lot
Chess is a turn-based strategy game
I think the problems with the Civ 5 AI is a combination of sheer map size and 1UPT. Also one often overlooked factor, is that combats do not end with the destruction of one unit. In Civ 4 you always lose units in war, even if you winning. So there was always a cost to pay. In Civ 5 you can use the damage system and the inability of the AI to handle tactical 1UPT combat to win entire wars without losing anything.
The Civ 4 AI had exploitable weaknesses, but required less boni to compete.
@Ammar You think programming a competitive chess AI is (was) easy?
Even civfanatics are poorer Civ player than Grandmasters are at Chess, especially with all the theory to draw upon. With modern computers having a chess engine beat 98% of human chess players is not that difficult.
Go is another beast altogether. I am still sad that the human now has lost there too.
@Ammar i haven't played civ 4, but if i understand you correctly it sounds to me that the game had less stuff to exploit vs the AI. This doesn't mean the AI was smarter (not saying you said that but trying to make a point haha xd) But yeah maybe they should change some stuff around to make the game easier for the AI to manage with "less" cheating, like they did in civ 4 (i haven't played civ 4 just for the sake of argument i am assuming your right and the game was easier to manage for the AI) Ofcourse changing combat mechanics or other mechanics might make the game more boring or fun so that should also be taken in consideration. In the end though i doubt they will come up with a very smart AI or AI friendly game either way.
Indeed, I have the feeling that the computer being good or bad at it, has only a remote connection to compelling gameplay.
Consider having to nunerically solve complex integrals. The computer will win. Now make the game about identifying everyday objects on photographs. Human wins. Neither is very fun.
@Ammar You think programming a competitive chess AI is (was) easy?
Even civfanatics are poorer Civ player than Grandmasters are at Chess, especially with all the theory to draw upon. With modern computers having a chess engine beat 98% of human chess players is not that difficult.
Go is another beast altogether. I am still sad that the human now has lost there too.
@Ammar Do you realize that chess AI has a history that dates back to mid-70s? Obviously it's going to be easy to develop a chess AI if you draw upon 40 years of previous research.
@Ammar You think programming a competitive chess AI is (was) easy?
Even civfanatics are poorer Civ player than Grandmasters are at Chess, especially with all the theory to draw upon. With modern computers having a chess engine beat 98% of human chess players is not that difficult.
Go is another beast altogether. I am still sad that the human now has lost there too.
@Ammar Do you realize that chess AI has a history that dates back to mid-70s? Obviously it's going to be easy to develop a chess AI if you draw upon 40 years of previous research.
But the research was not the main limiting factor. I just have elementary knowledge of that kind of programming, and I could write a decent chess engine.
And most of the research was not chess specific. For example, the opening databases are important, but not difficult to implement.
I don't care if it's easy or not, if you are expecting people to shell out on yet another version of the game, you had better improve the AI, no matter what it takes.
@Ammar The point is if you were in 1970 developing a competent chess AI would not be easy.
Sure, and in the 17th century differentiating a function or solving a differential equation was also much harder than it is today.
AI theory, programming languages and processing power have all increased since then. But now writing a good (not first class) chess engine is much easier - and the progress that has make that possible is mainly not due to writing complex special chess-specific algorithms.
Explains a lot more new feature like: gossip, agenda (and hidden agendas), justified and surprised war, new civic system, policy cards and government systems, religion (not much change by the sound of it), city states, projects, and wonder placement.
This trailer is disgustingly sweet, in a way such that makes me keen to resume the Black Death project and maybe even reawaken some of the great sea serpents for good measure resembles... the flood er... blood-sucking aliens on their way to Earth right now cute fluffy bunnies. Meadows. Clear blue sky. Carry on.
I have a good feeling about civ 6 i am liking what i have seen so far but... is it just me but do the new civ leaders we have seen so far look so weird? in my opinion the leaders in civ 5 looked way better.
I'll just wait and see. The last Civilization Games only got really good after the release of DLC.
Yeah, instead of taking the accomplishments of the past series and build on that, they go a few steps back first and then, 1-2 addons later, the game will offer the same depth as the predecessors...
But maybe they'll change the pattern for Civ VI ? (doubtful)
Comments
I think the problems with the Civ 5 AI is a combination of sheer map size and 1UPT. Also one often overlooked factor, is that combats do not end with the destruction of one unit. In Civ 4 you always lose units in war, even if you winning. So there was always a cost to pay. In Civ 5 you can use the damage system and the inability of the AI to handle tactical 1UPT combat to win entire wars without losing anything.
The Civ 4 AI had exploitable weaknesses, but required less boni to compete.
Go is another beast altogether. I am still sad that the human now has lost there too.
Consider having to nunerically solve complex integrals. The computer will win. Now make the game about identifying everyday objects on photographs. Human wins. Neither is very fun.
And most of the research was not chess specific. For example, the opening databases are important, but not difficult to implement.
AI theory, programming languages and processing power have all increased since then. But now writing a good (not first class) chess engine is much easier - and the progress that has make that possible is mainly not due to writing complex special chess-specific algorithms.
Part 2
Explains a lot more new feature like: gossip, agenda (and hidden agendas), justified and surprised war, new civic system, policy cards and government systems, religion (not much change by the sound of it), city states, projects, and wonder placement.
disgustinglysweet, in a way such thatmakes me keen to resume the Black Death project and maybe even reawaken some of the great sea serpents for good measureresembles...the flooder...blood-sucking aliens on their way to Earth right nowcute fluffy bunnies. Meadows. Clear blue sky. Carry on.But maybe they'll change the pattern for Civ VI ? (doubtful)