Steam installieren
Anmelden
|
Sprache
简体中文 (Vereinfachtes Chinesisch)
繁體中文 (Traditionelles Chinesisch)
日本語 (Japanisch)
한국어 (Koreanisch)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarisch)
Čeština (Tschechisch)
Dansk (Dänisch)
English (Englisch)
Español – España (Spanisch – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (Lateinamerikanisches Spanisch)
Ελληνικά (Griechisch)
Français (Französisch)
Italiano (Italienisch)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Ungarisch)
Nederlands (Niederländisch)
Norsk (Norwegisch)
Polski (Polnisch)
Português – Portugal (Portugiesisch – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (Portugiesisch – Brasilien)
Română (Rumänisch)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Finnisch)
Svenska (Schwedisch)
Türkçe (Türkisch)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisch)
Українська (Ukrainisch)
Ein Übersetzungsproblem melden
Diskussionsregeln
Diesen Beitrag melden
Ideally, we'd want an AI that is able to play better. Easy to say, difficult to do. What goals specifically? This is going to be Civ6-specific, but would obviously vary for 7 to reflect its game design and rules:
Essentially, we want an algorithm that will think a bit like a human player. We could design it with high level goals, mid level goals, and then explicit algorithms for choosing this or that decision. We could, for example write an algorithm for how to optimally choose a city site based on values for each terrain tile and certain priorities for map features. Civ 6 does this now. But you'd need a higher level of processing that determines when to build the settler and try and grab that new city. Do you have a military unit to escort it? Do you have enough luxuries to avoid happiness penalties when settling the city? Do you have other more important priorities like defending a war, preparing for war, or building a wonder?
I know it's incredibly complicated to ask for, but I also know that clever players who really understand the game's systems well can guide a programmer with specifics in order to write a good mathematical/logical expression of the player's thought process. It's a lofty goal, but one I think Firaxis needs to dedicate some time to after nailing down those core game rules.
Great question. You're right that it's easy to make such requests, but much harder to fulfill them while also balancing the need to keep turn times manageable and the game moving forward at a good pace. This is why I always advocate for simple mechanics that are easier to lean and difficult to master, rather than tacking on all sorts of arcane mechanics that have become fashionable these days. You can't easily model them and they break AIs. Civ is a single player game for the vast majority of us, so a great AI is an absolute must.
I'm going to give a hand-wavy answer here which is that I would prefer an AI which does balance performance and quality, even if it results in a higher minimum requirement for CPUs. Part of that is a business decision because you want your game to be optimized and playable for as many PCs as possible to maximize your potential customer base, while also providing a great experience for the hardcore gamers (who are your influencers, community thought leaders, and streamers who hype your game for free).
I do want to touch briefly on one thing I mentioned before: simple rules, with an example. One of the biggest complaints about Civ 6 is that it's absolutely terrible about managing unit movement: the so-called carpet of doom problem. Civ 6's rule set is based on a decision to put all of the elements of the game on the map to be visible: all the districts, buildings, wonders, tile improvements, roads, trade routes, civilians, religious units, and of course, military units. Meanwhile, they also had 6? different unit types (inf, heavy cav, light cav, siege, ranged + naval and air) all competing for space on that map. Space became a limiting factor. The map itself became a bottleneck.
Solving that problem couldn't be done with better AI. Even human players would run into situations that bottlenecked up their armies, especially getting through terrain chokepoints like mountain passes, swamps, etc. To be clear, that was an intended thing. It made the terrain matter, and it should. But realistically, the better solution is to embrace layers on the map, which Civ 6 did, but also allow armies some ability to stack up. Endless Legend does this in a much better way by allowing you to build armies of a tech-limited size, but making the whole army only take up 1 tile on the map. Realistically to fight a war, you need multiple armies and you'll be bringing in reinforcements so you'll still be occupying multiple tiles to fight major battles. Terrain still matters, but you don't have the problems of having to micromanage every blessed movement of each and every piece of your army (which the AI is atrocious at), and the stack of doom issues are curtailed by limits on army size and appropriate stacking defenses on cities.
The point is that solving the AI issue is multifactorial. We should be thinking about CPU power, the specifics of the AI algorithms themselves, but also the rule set we're asking them to model. All 3 of those factors need to be optimized.
If you want a smarter Civ6, your best bet is multiplayer. Where you compete against other players.
I have no doubt civ7 will have better strategies baked in, but it will never be intelligent.
People just expect way too much from a simple computer. Computers are stupid!
This is a dodge. The game is a single player game. The response to "the AI isn't providing me a challenge without cheating" is not, "well, just don't play the game unless you can get a buddy to play against." That's a non-answer.
Look at the game as a math problem. After all, it's just a mathematical model in the first place. So, write an AI that solves the problem. That's not unreasonable to ask. We do it for chess, so why couldn't we do it for a game with a different rule set? No, we don't have to write a "Civ 6 Grandmaster" AI with 20-turn statistical predictive capability. As GrognardGary suggests, the CPU demands would be so high turn times would be too long. But we can write a simpler solver that does a reasonable job, thus providing the player with a reasonable experience of challenge. That's not too much to ask.
That's not a non-answer, that's how games work since games exist. Games exist since humanity exists. Bots exists since... a bucnh of years. Were chess or go made for playing against bots ? No. They were made for people to play with/against people. It's not a game where you jump on turtles or kill bunches of enemies being a super soldier ; it's a symetric game. Of course it's core mecanisms are designed for pvp in their spirit. Since the first of the series. Of course in the 90s, internet wasn't a thing and it was complicated to play against people, and bots are totaly OK for training purpose, but you just can't say this is a solo game, it's not. Like Starcraft is not or AoE is not. Like all games with symetric starts in fact. And it's something that can't be ignored in 2024.
And it's really disrespectfull for the 50k to 100k online player community that play each day and make the game live so long. Especially at this time, in the middle of the 9th Civilization VI World Cup. By the way, There's two playoff games tonight, ulyss vs dshark and CoC vs HoH. maybe you should give it a try ?
Who is we? LOL Has any modders attempted a better AI mod already? I assume there must be several mods for this by now.
I still say that the real answer is play against other players, just like chess. I mean taking cheating out and adding minor AI is going to be a worse scenario without decade of development on an already 9-year old game.
MP is somewhat, quick and easy. I joined a clan once for Everquest II a couple decades ago. Other players played Civ MP and I joined a few sessions. It was a refreshing challenge and a totally different game.
But I wish you luck in your AI development for this game.
The free units? A number of warriors (or UU replacements) based on difficulty, all at once. Workers and settlers one at a time, on founding cities.
Any tech advantages the AI gets come form their bonus to yields and their higher population from having more cities. Any later units they get come from those same advantages applied to production.
False. That message is never triggered by units in your owned territory. No matter how close it is to their borders, your units in your own territory are fine.
Though it's a bit unfair you can't demand the same empty promise from the AIs. They parked a horseman right next to my borders and are clearly planning an attack - why can't I call them out on it and hit them with either a diplomatic penalty or an early war declaration?
(Though having my first industrial zone, as Abraham Lincoln, finish just a turn or two after the "surprise" war declaration, was an excellent consolation prize)
The AI do get free techat the start, absed on difficulty, otherwise it is impossible for me to have a quadrireme on turn 17 outside my coastline and i cant do jack squat about it because the ai have shipbuilding unlocked, allowing brbarians to spawn the unit. Same crap happened in the early mid game when i had neglected my sea tech and i had a CARAVEL ruining 15 fishingboats and more and i could not touch it for atleast 20 turns because i needed to tech to cogs AND caravels.
And im fairly sure the AI gets free ♥♥♥♥ on timers, including settlers, thats my complaint.
when i mean free techs i mean the ones they start with, that causes the quadrireme problem i mentioned before.
and i find it really annoying taht you have to come in here with a stupid smile on your face to "dunk" on my anger and misfortune, my archer on the borders example is of course such that they are standing on good terrain, Hills in this case, on the ONE line of neutral tiles outside my default city border, and on the turnt he AI plops down his lyalty pressure immune forward settler because of difficulty he accusses me of invading him by the ultimatum, you are being disingenious to Dunk and feel good to debunk something that does not matter . It's a stupid feature, and i wanted to highlight that, that everything the AI does is to annoy the player, its coded into it, and its NOT FUN.
example: this game im currently on i had a lone start for once, and outside some barbarian bullcrap i am established, yet the AI STILL ALWAYS settle towards you, in a line, and while their at it they also attack your close by city state for good measure.
this time it failed miserably because i actually had those 40 turns to breathe.
My entire point in my rant is that the coded ai to be as annoying as possible to the player, plus the bonuses of getting free things on a timer, no build, no purchase.
I will never forget how an AI squeezed out ancient walls in a near zero prdocution floodplain city wheni began to attack it with archers, it took him about 2-3 turns, THAT is my issue.