I think what you are asking for is cool…and very hard. If it wasn’t hard, why hasn’t anyone really done it? I mean, every single wargame and strategy game out there pretty much has a laundry list of criticisms around the AI. And while certain games may do better than others, I’d argue as a whole AI has not advanced nearly as much as we thought it would, oh, twenty or thirty years ago when we started seeing the increases in PC performance. More memory, more processor cycles, better programming tools–we thought all of this stuff would lead to killer AI in games. It hasn’t. I have to assume it’s some combination of the market and technical issues, otherwise we’re looking at an industry full of dolts, and I don’t think that is the case.
I was just about to mention that. Like the Star Trek movies, the even numbered ones seem to be the most highly regarded. I remain cautiously optimistic that a) this will be a return to the glory that is Civ, and b)my three-year-old rig can run it.
Given how wide the Civ V audience was/is, I’d be utterly shocked if they weren’t targeting a pretty conservative minspec.
Most game players don’t want an AI opponent to be too strong.
For example, that scenario given of an AI opponent hopelessly throwing unit after unit against fortified defenders - a lot of people will find that to be fun! A desperate last stand against an overwhelming enemy, etc…
This is video game AI, and the top priority is that it should be fun, not perfect.
And fun varies hugely from person to person.
I for one don’t see the AI in Civ as a problem at all. At higher difficulties the AI civs get unfair free production perks etc, and one of the great joys in the game is outmaneuvering them, even if they are fairly simple outmaneuvers. Civ 5 is awesome, just my 0.02 :).
‘Machine Learning’ has made huge strides in recent years, the google machine that defeated the world Go champion is an amazing achievement.
But if you go down the route of ‘machine learning’ AI in video games, I bet that the AIs would evolve to simply exploit game mechanics, min/maxing, imbalances, always making optimal choices for city placement, tile usage etc
That doesnt sound fun at all…
Yeah, I had no problems with Civ V post expansions. The original game was yawn inducing, but once the expansions came out, I perked up and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. And as has been mentioned, the even numbered iterations of Civ have traditionally always been better. Civ 2 and Civ 4 were both brilliant against their predecessors. I don’t think I could look at anyone seriously when they say that they’d rather play Civ I over Civ II. And as for that min-max micro management enthusiasts Civ III, I was glad to see the end of that game when Civ IV came along.
I haven’t fired up either Civ in general for a while now, mostly as I’ve become enamoured with Paradox games for my strategy fix (alongside Dominions). But both Civ IV and Civ V appeal for their own particular reasons and there is no way I could favour one over the other. Sure, I miss the loss of diplomacy and what felt like true personality with the AI based on their weights for valuing different things, some of the niche strategies like Specialist Economy that Civ IV had, but Civ V provided a better experience as far as tech research, isolated starts and even terrain development.
There’s a massive, yawning chasm between Civ5’s inability to handle the basics of the game and machine learning / Alpha Go. It doesn’t take the latter to perform basic things like “A General is not a combat unit, don’t put him on the front lines or walk him around un-escorted while invading another country” or “Attack with ranged units before engaging with melee units” or “If I decide I don’t have the forces to take the city, don’t stand around in range of the city’s defenses while I shuffle units back and forth”. Or, from what I heard of Beyond Earth, “Don’t park march units through toxic hexes, even if it’s the fastest route from A to B”.
So, yeah, you could take things too far. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I just want the AI to be able to play the basics of the game. Just give me Civ4-quality AI and I’m okay. Give me EU4 quality AI and I’m a happy camper, even if it’s not ever going to be perfect.
But again, many people enjoy playing against an AI that gets some ‘cheat’ advantages but makes mistakes. Not everyone wants to play against a perfect or near-perfect automaton opponent.
If imperfect AI were seen as a barrier to sales, have no doubt, game companies would invest more. Atm, it seems ‘good enough’ AI is, well, good enough.
Okay, I’m re-installing Civ 5 to look for this community AI patch.
What’s the name of the patch? I’m seeing a number of AI patches.
We talked about it over here.
RPS link that Mysterio kindly linked.
(and yeah, it sounds pretty awesome. Haven’t messed with it myself yet.)
The lower difficulty options still exist with good AI. GalCiv2 AI had its “guaranteed stomp” difficulty levels.
Civ 5’s AI was so bad that it had to play a completely different game to compete with me, and I’m a mediocre player.
The only way it changes is if bad AI= bad reviews. This is an area where Steam Reviews can deliver some justice.
And that took a super computer in a game that has very limited possibilities each turn.
I’m not sure of the exact breakdown, but I’m pretty sure the vast majority of the computing power was required for the learning/training iterations, not for the matchplay
But I could be wrong
But I was addressing the point about videogame AI not making advances. AI has advanced a long way in the last 20-30 years, its just not a priority in video games, since video games are primarily about fun, not about perfect unbeatable AI
In fact, in videogames, many consider AI mistakes a good thing for this very reason
I’m convinced that a complaint about “shitty F2P graphics” really means “that green you’re using for the grass is too intense.”
I am just gonna say it: This whole Civ thing is tired and boring. They need to rethink the whole idea. I am not trying to troll but … sheesh. How many iterations of the same thing do we really need?
Bor-ING! I even edited this post to reinforce.
Couldn’t disagree more and judging by Steam friends list, most people disagree with you (I have friends with over 2000 hours of gameplay in V). I would love a more advanced version though, maybe an EUIV/Civ mashup. My concern is more about Firaxis, I think they are stale and only concerned with profits. Starships and Beyond Earth did not reflect well upon the company, and even though XCom 2 is very good, I am concerned they are more concerned about cashing in with worthless DLC than fixing bugs like the line of sight issues with walls/ceilings or actually improving the game. I would love a new Civ, but I am worried about who is making it.
Given the popularity of the series, apparently many more.
Tell me, new poster, what are all the things that make Civilization BOR-ing?
I am fascinated. I must know.
I am hoping Mohawk games will come out with a turn based strategy Civ like game next.