Civilization VI

I just finished my first game of Rise and Fall playing as Nubia (Amanitore). The end game was a slog with long turn times and the general brain drain that comes with managing a large empire. I stopped caring in a sense, but wanted to see thing through to completion. No way could the AI contest either cultural or space victory, and both of those were mine well before the final turns. In fact, I had 230 turns until finish, playing in epic speed.

Furthermore, I was playing on a standard sized map with the default number of civs, yet still there were large empires including my own. I had 13 cities spanning across a vast desert, and admittedly a few of those cities were more space fillers than anything else because Civ 6 doesn’t penalise ICS anymore, a big step back from Civ IV and V. Amenities were well and truly covered with all my cities at happy or ecstatic, populations in my cities ranging from 10 to 28 in size and still happily growing.

My early game advantage was cemented by an early war against China. I had one turn to go before progressing to classical era, so I made good use of that time by declaring war on China. I think the only reason for the war was to try out the Pitali archers that are the unique unit to Nubia. Those things hurt! A group of 3 archers were able to siege down the cities and allow a single melee unit to claim it in my name. Because war was declared pre-classical era, I incurred no warmonger penalty. I don’t know what to say about that.

I don’t want to whinge too much about combat AI. It lacks aggression, it doesn’t read far enough into the future, it is just plain bad. And the gripes have been said over and over again. A classic example was when I had China’s capital under siege with archers and at no point did they choose to send their spearman out to attack my archer that was within melee range. It just camped in the city waiting to die. Another example was Scythia moving Great Admirals around the ocean that I merrily killed off with a roaming battleship during an emergency. Or its lacklustre effort of sending single cavalry to my troops just to die during the emergency.

I had the strongest military without even trying. In fact, I didn’t really bother to build much in the way of new units. So much so that when I had espionage events that saw barbarians rise up in the middle of my lands, I had to rush buy a couple of units just to deal with that threat. It wasn’t much of a threat though as they kept on targeting a holy site that was near useless to me, bypassing rich cities, fertile fields of wheat and productive plantations loaded with bananas.

Good news is that the AI did manage to conquer cities. Scythia knocked out Mongolia over a series of wars. 4 city states fell and I believe an early war between Dutch and Mapuche gave Lautaro another city. I had problems with the AI when first released where it never upgraded units. Thankfully in latter wars I saw modern units on the field. The Cree in fact had a fascination with making armies from helicopters with a few of those buzzing around. For a long time, the AI did seem to be stuck with swordsmen, archers and crossbows, but I think I can put that down to the game pacing where unit upgrades around that time are light. Given the fact I play on epic speed, it does prolong the eras enough to have a true medieval and renaissance era.

Casting an eye over the city development on the map and it looked like distract placement was pretty good. The AI was making good use of adjacency bonuses. Campuses and Holy Sites placed next to mountains, and even positioned to make good use of little nooks in the mountains to maximise their output. Harbour districts would be adjacent to cities and/or commerical distracts, and normally with a fishing resource or two nearby. I did notice that one AI nation beset by barbarians took too long to restore pillaged fields of wheat outside its capital. Too long in this case being around a hundred turns.

I have so many mixed feelings over this Civ. It makes me appreciate what Civ IV did, and also the mechanics in a game like Europa Universalis. I can appreciate that Firaxis tried new things. For instance, Espionage is a marked improvement in Civ VI over Civ IV. Now I want to AI to feel like a threat when it comes to military. I can only hope I suppose?

Cool report, Strato. I’m seeing the same as you: the AI is still weak, but Firaxis has made some improvements in it. I also face upgraded AI units, and yes, the AI can take walled cities now. The diplomatic AI is a little better too, thanks to alliances, which actually mean something now. Usually. And I’m definitely seeing better AI district planning. None of these fixes are stupendous, but things are a little better.

I have found R&F harder than vanilla, but I always make Civ games hard on myself because I don’t warmonger, and I like to build tall. I had to drop back down to Prince for my current game, and it’s still close in the Modern Era. Made all the more interesting because after two straight golden ages, I’ve plunged into a Dark Age.

One question: you said you see no disincentive to ICS. Doesn’t the new loyalty system inhibit you? I’ve found forward-settling to be pretty risky now, and my one overseas colony has loyalty issues (as it should!). Especially in this Dark Age.

Playing on King, I had forward cities during a Dark Age that were in the tiniest danger of flipping. I mucked about with a governor and a civic and that stopped it entirely. It’s a weak mechanic, and is further annoying by the extreme difficulty in using it offensively.

As I see it, it has one purpose: You know how the AI puts a city any damn place it can? With the loyalty mechanic, those cities become gifts to you rather than annoyances, and they don’t need to fix the AI.

However, I find those gifts to be an annoyance- I don’t want free crap from the AI- so it doesn’t really help me.

Hmm, the AI has never forward-settled against me in R&F. I always have a significant no-mans-land between us. Usually my closest neighbors are city states, and there’s a game-long struggle for suzerainty over them.

Well, good! I hope your experience continues that way.

This post triggered me. :) But thanks for the writeup, @Strato!

Player should get a casus beli for catching a spy, or at least if they don’t promiss to stop. I’ve had an alliance with the Cree a long time, relationship maxed. I catch their spy and they won’t promiss to stop.

So hey, apparently Civ VI is sexist now.

The issue centres around Firaxis’ addition of more Hidden Agendas for its various leaders, and a couple of those new Agendas in particular: “Flirtatious” and “Curmudgeon”. The former means a leader will like other civilizations that have leaders of the opposite sex, and dislike those of the same sex. The latter the opposite: disliking the opposite sex and liking those the same as their own.

Not at all. In the few times I settled near another nation, I just placed a Governor if the game said a city was losing loyalty. Normally there was plenty of push coming from behind my established cities to keep the loyalty up on my newer areas of settlement. The other good thing which was a result of the map is that I didn’t have to compete much for city sites. For instance, I built the Statue of Liberty and had 2 settlers wander off and create their own cities well away from the influence of anyone else thanks to the southern part of the map being largely uninhabited.

Like you, the AI didn’t really forward settle near me in this game. The AI certainly did pre R&F, and it was that forward settlement by Montezuma that started off my domination victory game in my game just before the expansion released. Maybe in my next game things will be different and I’ll have those issues once again.

When I was talking about ICS, a big part was going back and filling in gaps with my borders with a few smaller cities. They can still produce districts that contribute overall to my civilization. They had no real role to play in the functioning of my empire beyond offering incremental advantages. Even if it means a commercial or habour district just to get that single trade route slot plus a little extra gold flowing into the coffers. I had room for another 2 cities within my borders that could have become decently sized cities. The end game was slowing down, and I didn’t want to manage another 2 cities is the only reason I stopped. And with the tundra to the south, I could have added another 3 cities leading to another 3 trade routes, so long as I placed the governor who could allow me to construct fisheries on the water. Ack, it is dumb that the Governer has to be present in the city radius in order to construct the fishery improvement.

Would love to know what triggered you! Haha, like I said, this game makes me appreciate all the more what a game like EU IV gets right. Sure, there’s a narrower focus in time with EU, but the mechanisms in place help the AI act like a believable opponent/ally. They might be brain dead on occasion by having a stack of 12 cannons supported by 4 infantry or trying to run a doomstack of 40k troops across Siberia, but as an opponent, I am never left wanting more from what I have to deal with. Moreso, there are measures in place to slow snowballing (aggressive expansion) and diplomatic bonus and penalties degrade over time. Firaxis are on the right track with Civ VI and their alliances, I hope they keep applying a critical look at what they are doing.

A few other points with this game to wrap up my thoughts. I complained about the lack of Hall of Fame for the end of game, and it still bothers me. I have a nice video of my space race victory, and the end game summary that doesn’t tell me the sort of information I’d like to know easily. There’s no map painting video to relive my journey through the ages. The graph is a tiny part of my screen with ample space left unused. If I mouse over the graph, there’s nothing to tell me specifics of how much culture I was making for instance. And for a game that has spanned 500 turns, the scale is woeful. There’s just so much wrong with the information displayed for the end of game.

Firaxis’ refusal to address very basic and longstanding AI issues. It really grinds my gears!

While it can only address some basic aspects since they still haven’t allowed modders full access to the game’s inner gullyworks, this latest edition of AI+ might help (now with full R&F support):

Beyond a lot of general fixes for all AI, the dev has tried to tweak stuff so that each of the civs better play to their unique strengths.

I appreciate what that guy has been doing with the limited tools he has available, but I just can’t financially support Firaxis for two main reasons:

  • Not even bothering with the low-hanging fruit of AI issues. They just put zero care or effort into what I consider a fundamental aspect of a strategy game. I don’t expect anywhere near perfection, just a minimal effort to improve.

  • Their refusal to release full modding tools until they’re done making DLC out of some misguided fear it would cut into DLC sales, just like they did with Civ5. That prevents people who do care, like the AI+ guy, from doing their damn job for them.

I’m not meaning to sound militant or anything, but Firaxis’ behavior in this regard is just so repugnant to me. And that really sucks because Civilization is a franchise that has been really important to me, especially in my early formative years. Playing the first game as a kid was the start of my love affair with strategy games.

Anyway, not meaning to climb up on a soapbox. I usually try to keep my mouth shut and just lurk in this thread because I don’t want to piss on anyone’s good time. I often fail my will save, though. :) Hopefully once the mod tools are out the community can fix the game for Firaxis again.

It’s ok, thereve been a few post I started and then deleted for similar reasons.

But yeah, the diplo AI in particular just… ruined the series for me. It even retroactively ruined Civ IV for me (sorry Soren!) when I went back and played it.

So I try and watch the thread for interesting news, while mostly being quiet. Because I did really like some of the changes the new version brought in! But I couldn’t buy it unless the diplo AI was fixed. I keep hoping to hear one day is is…

A simple diplomacy system can easily be implemented with 3 scalar values:

  1. like - number goes up based on positive things you do for the AI nation, like trade deals, alliances, cultural alignment, fighting their enemies. Deteriorates gradually over time.

  2. dislike - number goes up based on negative things, similar obvious features. Deteriorates more slowly than like.

  3. clarity - based on your espionage and embassies, how clearly and accurately you can see the like and dislike values and the reasons for them. This value isn’t even necessary except to make the human player happy.

And then all AI diplo actions have minimum like and dislike thresholds, and possibly per-turn probability factors based on exceeding the thresholds.

On the face of it, this could well be how Civ diplomacy actually works. So why doesn’t it make any sense in actual play? Because (I speculate) in the interest of keeping the game “interesting”, designers seem to have set the minimum dislike thresholds for negative actions to close to 0. Any country can declare surprise war on you at any time on a whim or perhaps due to some bribe from another country – but more commonly because you’re so far ahead of it. Which makes the opposite of any kind of sense, because if you’re so far ahead naturally you will annihilate this primitive foe.

Logically if you are ahead of your neighbors they should individually just let you alone; and if you get too far ahead some kind of grand alliance should form against you. But this just isn’t how the game actually plays. Instead random inferior neighbors declare surprise war for no good reason, occasionally in pairs, but practically never more than two of them at a time. Combining this total irrationality with the obnoxious statements and emotional attitudes expressed by the leaders in the diplo animations naturally makes players frustrated. It’s really not a very high bar to come up with some kind of sensible relation between leader attitude and diplo action. SMAC did it just fine, after all. But apparently this is far beyond the Civ designers in the last few generations of the game.

There is a positive and negative number system that does in a sense affect what the AI thinks of you. It is hidden behind one of the diplomacy screens. Compare with Civ IV where I could mouse over the nations on the right of screen and have that information displayed for me. I’d like for that information to be made more obvious. There doesn’t appear to be much in the degradation of negative score though - once a warmonger, always a warmonger really. I miss the simple elegance of the Civ IV diplomacy system.

Also another complaint with the new expansion is emergencies. A fine idea in theory but the systems don’t support it. The last time I saw combat in my Nubian game was to liberate a city state from Scythia. That was fine, I could actually do that one, and the pot of 18,000 gold (!!) was all too tempting. So I signed up. So did Mapuche. I did the hard work, Mapuche offered nothing and we split the pot, 9,000 gold each. It is a system that is too basic. Compare with the projects from previous iterations where the game would reward the nation that contributed the most. They seem to have forgotten that bit.

For 9000 gold, I built a couple of buildings. Gold doesn’t go far in this game.

9,000 gold is worth around 15 settlers or so. Imagine having that at the start of the game… But yeah, not so much later on. For the most part any given Civ game system seems to be meant as an annoying distraction to keep you from paying attention to the defects of all the other ones…

I seem to be the only one here who loves this expansion, and I see more than “minimal” AI improvements. I’m having more fun than I’ve had since Civ 4 (my series favorite) was fully modded. Many aspects of R&F I prefer to Civ 4. (The thing I miss most about Civ 4 is Leonard Nimoy!)

If you hated vanilla Civ 6, the AI fixes and new features in R&F probably won’t sway you, and if you hated Civ 5, you shouldn’t buy Civ 6. I liked vanilla Civ 6 but tired of it after 40 hours or so. I’ve now got 100-plus hours in the expansion and I’m still itching to play more. Some specific comments:

Not even bothering with the low-hanging fruit of AI issues. They just put zero care or effort into what I consider a fundamental aspect of a strategy game. I don’t expect anywhere near perfection, just a minimal effort to improve.

Respectfully, I think they have made more than a “minimal effort to improve.” The February vanilla patch notes, released before R&F, include some important fixes that have made noticeable improvements in my games. My annotations in brackets.

AI
Fixed an issue that was causing the AI to send multiple spies on the same mission. [Hard for me to assess this one.]
AI will look at graphic change on spaceports, and can target their spies to spaceports that are performing their science victory projects. [The AI is certainly diligent about this now, but then it was before, as I recall.]
Improved opportunity cost considerations for district placement. [I’ve seen the AI purchase land near mountains for campuses, and I see less of it building districts in dumb places. Not perfect, but much better behavior. I know Korea is overpowered, but I find it hard to keep up with Korea on science even on Prince. If there are a lot of civs in the game, there will be at least a couple that outpace me in everything. If there are fewer civs, I will eventually prevail, but not until the later ages.]
Improve ability to place / use aqueducts. [Haven’t tracked this, but AI cities are plenty big.]
AI knows to move builders back into their territory if they get caught outside. [I haven’t seen an unescorted builder once. In fact, I’ve hardly seen any enemy builders at all.]
AI will not complain about stealth units it can’t see being too close to its border. [True. I’ve got submarines buzzing China now.]
AI is much less likely to trade its cities away as part of a peace deal. [True.]
Improved resource trading, AI considers luxury resources it is currently importing. [True. I have not gotten one lopsided or crazy deal. The AI does seem anxious to ransom back its spies, but I’m never quite sure what to do; they’ll typically offer 100 gold and a luxury for 30 turns, and I usually say no.]
Improved new city placement, also fixed issues where the settler would try to travel through hostile territory to get an escort. [I have seen only one unescorted settler, during peace, and it was joined a turn later by a melee unit. During one war, I did encounter an enemy settler escorted by a crossbowman rather than a melee unit, but I do that too. Reportedly the AI still does use unescorted settlers outside the view or range of the player, to help the AI expand.]
AI prefers garrisoning ranged units over melee. [True.]
If the AI can capture, or significantly damage, a target city, it may ignore hostile units nearby to do that. [Definitely true. The AI often beelines to cities now. It can take walled cities now. It brings catapults, battering rams, and modern versions of these things. It couldn’t do that a year ago. Admittedly, it often does get distracted, e.g. to pick off one of my units. I don’t deny that it still does dumb stuff. I’m just asserting that the devs have made more than “minimal” effort to improve it.]
Fixed coordinating ranged attacks. [True. Also, the AI now upgrades its units. In my current game, my infantry are facing enemy infantry. My naval units are outclassed.]

Their refusal to release full modding tools until they’re done making DLC

I’m as eager for them to do this as you, because even though AI matters less to me (being a builder and not a warmonger), I recognize its importance. With a Vox Populi AI mod (and an R&F version of CQUI), CIv 6 will be awesome. But I assume Firaxis’s position reflects concern about security of their code, which doesn’t strike me as so unreasonable. It’s consistent with how they handled Civ 5. I agree with you that the game will be better once they make the source code available. In the meantime, I’m going to try the new version of AI+.

But I couldn’t buy it unless the diplo AI was fixed. I keep hoping to hear one day is is…

Please don’t buy it, because I don’t want anyone blaming me! But I’ll just tell you my experience. If you make an alliance with an AI now, it actually seems to mean something. My alliances are stable, both sides benefit, and the alliances “level up” – albeit way too slowly. (Only to level 2 so far in my games.) In my games, my allies don’t DOW me (although I did just read a guy on Civfanatics complaining that his ally backstabbed him).

Yes, the game now openly displays the numbers indicating why the civ likes or dislikes you. It’s not hidden; you click on the portrait of the person, then click the “Heart” icon, and there they are. (I wish the game had the "circle of relationships that Civ 3 or 4 had, but even that iteration had to use two pages’ worth of circles. Maybe Endless Space’s UI would work.)

The choice of alliance is interesting now. I avoid science alliances with my science rivals, I avoid culture alliances with my culture rivals, etc. I’ve had “formal declarations of war,” always by two or more states, against me, and occasionally a friendly state will abruptly DOW me. But things are less arbitrary than they used to be. The AI has never made a stupid trade with me in 100-plus hours. These things all seem like significant improvements over vanilla. I’m not saying it’s fabulous, but I find it better than any Civ’s diplo AI, ever. But please don’t buy it!

On loyalty: someone earlier said they thought the system was too weak. I think I agree with this. It’s a great idea – it just needs to be beefed up. They need to make loyalty tougher to get in all ages, dark through heroic. Still, I think loyalty has helped the AI by making its behavior more rational and state-like: it doesn’t forward-settle like a maniac now.

Personally, I think the AI has improved much more than the UI. The UI is still a hot mess! Just one little example: the list of cities is not sortable in any way, and it’s cluttered. I could multiply that example by 50. At least autohotkeys helps me with my biggest complaint (e.g., by enabling WASD). I can’t wait for the R&F version of CQUI to release, though.

Thanks for renewing my faith in Civ6, Mr. Spock.

Heh, you’re welcome!

Sorry for that wall of text, lol. I got a bit carried away. TLDR; the AI has improved, though it’s admittedly still got a long way to go. The UI is a mess.

Thanks for the welcome positivity. I bought the expansion, have not had time to play it yet. Looking forward to it now! ;-)