Does the AI actually play the game or does it just fake it?

[Lootie]

I just read this article ( https://explorminate.net/2017/07/03/exposition-ai-civilization-vi-edition/ ) in which the author analyzes the game's AI and claims the AI doesn't really play the game but essentially just 'fakes' it. According to him it doesn't build or research anything and instead is gifted techs, units, buildings, etc at regular intervals, only giving the illusion of a real competitor.

Can anyone confirm this?
I'm thinking of buying the game, but if this is true it would be a deal breaker for me.
I'm fully aware that the AI isn't the best and probably gets massive bonuses like in any other 4x game, but if it doesn't even remotely play by the same rules as the player, this game isn't for me.

[travisdead1]

No it doesn't. YOU play the game. It's a computer. It has different rules. it's not like a competive game, the computer isn't REALLY competing with you.

[Big Poppa]

Thanks for the link. You couldn't find a 4x with worse ai than this so giving it a pass would save you a lot of frustration. ed beech is no different than sean murray. Its nice to see someone who tells the truth with about this joke of a game.

[Lootie]

@travisdead1 Thanks for the answer!
Well in Civ V the AI actually does play by the same rules as the player (besides the obvious bonuses). There are tons of videos on YT with AI vs AI matches where it can be clearly seen that it builds and researches stuff on its own and basically acts like a human player. I'm curious whether this has changed in the new version.

[Lootie]

@Big Poppa:
Yeah, I'll probably give it a pass for now. At least until the Ai is a bit more patched up. Thanks for the input!

[Jaerv]

Very interesting article, thank you! The author got alot of things right and the game's AI really is pretty crappy, but his 'dungeon master' theory is complete and utter BS. The AI really plays the game just like in the older versions. There's no 'faking it'. You can actually watch it play for you by activating autoplay in Firestarter just like you can in Civ V.

[Napoleonic S]

Lmao you guys are a bunch entitled stupid ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥...

Even on pure tactical turn based games like xcom2, divinity os, battle brothers, battletech, etc the AI are always stupid and can only provide challenge either by luck, or number advantage or outright cheating...

What make you think any game AI can handle much more complex 4x games? Just see and ask on other such game communities and you will find very similar complains.

[leandrombraz]

From the article:

"Before we go into this, I want to quickly note that nothing I’m saying below is an incontrovertible fact. Firaxis isn’t in the practice of giving me exclusive access to their design documents (yet). However, I feel strongly that this information is correct based on my experience with the game as well as conversations I’ve had with high-level players, modders, other developers, past Civ developers and anecdotes I’ve read and/or heard from people far smarter than me."

So no, nobody can confirm. It's a theory from the author based on his experience and conversations, to which he didn't present any evidence since it wasn't the focus of his article and said himself that it's not an incontrovertible fact. He just used his theory to explain his DM analogy, which stand true whether his theory is a fact or not: The AI function is to provide a "Civ-like experience" to the player, it's not a competitive opponent.

Personally I doubt that's the case. The AI get all kind of advantages to make up for their inability to be as effective as a human player but they follow the same rules, would be redundant to give them all this buffs while letting them play by different rules. You can see that on the way each Civ fail or succeed to use its unique abilities. If the AI playing was nothing but a simulation, Gilgamesh building a lot of Ziggurats wouldn't completely f* him over, just to give an example.

[Big Poppa]

Xcom 2 ai is much better than this. The ai in this game can't use the units that were put in the game 9 months after release. If you want to defend it cool beans this article is pretty telling and maybe just a bit more honest than the reviews on the store page.

[leandrombraz]

Originally posted by Big Poppa:

Xcom 2 ai is much better than this. The ai in this game can't use the units that were put in the game 9 months after release. If you want to defend it cool beans this article is pretty telling and maybe just a bit more honest than the reviews on the store page.

Xcom 2 is a great example of what the article is explaining. Most of the things people perceive as the AI being dumb in Xcom 2 is intended by the developers, the AI isn't trying to simulate a human player, it's playing a specific role to offer a specific experience.

[[TE] Kuraudo]

Civ ai has always cheated from as far back as I can remember; of course it doesn't play the same game.

Moreover, it's time devs stop treating ai in 4x games as glorified bots and instead use them to forge a narative. The schizo behavior of the AI in this installment is the worst I've ever seen in a civ game (and 5 was bad at release); if they instead crafted the ai to act like an obstacle instead of a competitor, the game would be far more interesting in single and multiplayer.


I almost forgot: they need to get rid of one-unit-per-tile. The ai has never been able to grasp this concept and likely never will. There was a reason civ 4 ai is still held up as being the most satisfying to stomp and its because it could put up the illusion of actually waging a war against you.

[Big Poppa]

What is the AI good at? When it has overwhelming numbers in the field (aka, not sieging/defending a city) the game will grind your people to paste. It seems to have a fairly good idea of what to do with cavalry, using speed to pull vulnerable horse units back before you can crush them. This is why the barbarians in Civ VI, especially the horse-y ones, have become so feared. They allow the AI to work to its strengths.

What is the AI not good at? That would be everything else.

From the article

[SamBC]

Given what we can see about AI bonuses from the files, unless you think they are all a complete fake-out, it clearly does play the game - otherwise it wouldn't need discounts, free boosts, etc.

[jonnin]

Its hard to believe the AI is actually trying. I have seen it get rocketry, for example, and build a space port, but never launch a project. I have seen it convert 1/2 the world to its religion, then just... stop. I have seen it take 2-3 other civs out early then.. never take another capital or even attempt it. I have seen it get close on culture, but never slot the tourism civics to secure the win. Its like it is programmed to get 85% of the way to a victory then stop. Has anyone ever actually lost a game to the AI not counting new players losing capital very early on and not counting score victory / turn limit games? I mean really lost it to an endgame victory by AI?

[OTIS]

I remember playing a game of Civ VI where I met a computer player around 5 turns in. I started making more warriors as soon as I met him because I thought it might attack. By the time I finished one warrior they denounced me because I had a weak military. That was around 5-10 turns later. They then attacked with almost a dozen units.

A dozen units in like 20 turns maximum. No player could ever field an army so big in only 20 turns. They take no less than 5-6 turns a piece. So you would get three, maybe four if you are lucky, and if you put all off your resources into military without worrying about infrastructure.

So in my opinion darn straight they were 'gifted' units, because otherwise they could never get that many units to begin with. And I was playing on the lowest difficulty, not the highest. Imagine how many gifts they would get then!

[Shahadem]

Originally posted by TE Kuraudo:

Civ ai has always cheated from as far back as I can remember; of course it doesn't play the same game.

Moreover, it's time devs stop treating ai in 4x games as glorified bots and instead use them to forge a narative. The schizo behavior of the AI in this installment is the worst I've ever seen in a civ game (and 5 was bad at release); if they instead crafted the ai to act like an obstacle instead of a competitor, the game would be far more interesting in single and multiplayer.


I almost forgot: they need to get rid of one-unit-per-tile. The ai has never been able to grasp this concept and likely never will. There was a reason civ 4 ai is still held up as being the most satisfying to stomp and its because it could put up the illusion of actually waging a war against you.

The doomstacks in Civ 4 ruin the game. Moving to one unit per tile in Civ 5 was the best decision the Civ devs have ever made outside of the Civ 2 advisors.