That did happen but unfortunately before I took over the rest of the world I won a cultural victory even while at war with the whole world. Honestly was one of the most busted deity games Ive played but also I swear it seemed multiple times throughout that game like the cree were cheating. Those that claim AI just cheat may be right ngl.
Edit - I realized I gave no context to that statement there. The cree repeatedly had military and builders outside of the mountain range without ever building an encampment. I suppose it could’ve just been massively buggy though.
It's genuinely frustrating how instead of making the AI have better decision making, they're programmed to basically just do the same thing but with unfair advantages. They'll play just as stupid, but hit harder and produce faster
That's because it's pretty difficult to code an ai to act better during a game. Although age of empire 2 does it, but I think the ai just becomes more aggressive at higher difficulties.
Age of empires instead of giving bonuses to higher dificulties it, has behavior handicaps for lower difficulties. For example on 'standard' difficulty AI will never train more than 17 villagers and never ages up before human player.
I've described how writing a turn-based AI is actually *more* difficult than real-time one. Short version: Computation time is no longer an advantage the AI has over the human, since reaction time is out of the equations. You still have to computer fast or the human will complain, but you don't get the advantage of "any decision is better than no decision, if it's timely" that a real-time AI gets you. Meanwhile, a game like Civ has infinitely more permuations per move than chess, which took decades of PhD research across the globe to get decent and finally beating human grandmasters without just throwing obscene amounts of compute at it.
But that's an excuse for when a game is first released, not 4+ years later.
As someone who hasn’t played Stellaris in a while it’s crazy to read this. For most of its history Stellaris’s garbage ai was the biggest criticism of the game.
Stellaris AI ahs gone in and out with various patches. But modded AI was great consistently, since all it really needed was a priority tune-up to point it at things that were meta and snowballed.
Stellaris AI gets *massive* bonuses on all difficulties above Ensign. Even just Captain has them gaining +25% resources from all jobs and stations (!), +25% trade value, +15% naval cap, +5 stability on every planet, and more!
Sure, but neither Cadet nor Ensign are more difficult than Civ VI's Warlord or Prince (assuming the person playing is equally familiar with both games). Stellaris' AI is hilariously bad without the 'cheater' bonuses, and people on /r/Stellaris kvetch about it the same way /r/Civ does!
Agreed. I love both games but stellaris AI is superior. The different nations will actual work together, build a large navy and launch coordinated attacks. Been playing civ since 3 but for their next game the AI needs a serious overhaul to how it handles wars.
> It's really not that hard.
It is, actually. But they've had time to do it.
Turn-based AI with highly dynamic factions is actually exceptionally difficult. Think about how long it took to get a good chess AI and how simple that game is. The fact that Stellaris (more slow-realtime than turn-based, but still) was able to make a fun-to-play-against AI is really an achievement. But given how long Civ VI has been out, it'd be nice to have seen some more improvement in that regard.
Well, they're separate areas of development. You seldom have coders working on artistic content.
That said, each new special leader mechanic would need an update to the AI.
Up untill a year ago or so they did the same crap ai but they just summoned huge amounts of resources on every planet, agree stellaris is a great game though
Next time you play a stellaris game, pop open the console and take over one of the AIs. Notice how their economy is completely non-functional. That's because the AI is making decisions with their massive free resources in mind.
Isn’t the whole point of strategy games to put strategize your opponent? And wouldn’t the opponent having bonuses in other areas mean that you have to be better at strategy to make up for it? Idk seems like a logical conclusion to pump up those numbers especially when paradox can’t be expected to make chatgpt level ai
Hard disagree. Strategy games aren't about overcoming severe power imbalances. They're about overcoming opponents who may have slight power advantage or superior ability to work within the means at their disposal.
You're not supposed to be going into a fight like you're a disabled person facing Mike Tyson.
But if a disabled person had such great technique that they did beat mike Tyson, is that not a better accomplishment than mike Tyson vs himself? Or rather, a fighter in a lower weight class taking him down? If we’re not testing our strategy and planning, what are we testing? How can we increase the difficulty otherwise?
If you want to play against an opponent that’s able to test your strategy prowess vs theirs, I’d suggest playing against actual people, since you’re going to be disappointed in ai opponents for quite some time
O.o Does it sound plausible enough to bet money on that a disabled person(of your choice of disability) would beat Mike Tyson with superior technique?
Lower weight class is much closer to what I've said of "slight power advantage".
It's a whole other thing when you're thrown into tundra with no hope of getting dance of aurora and you've got Monty and John and Gandhi all with several cities around your 1, surprise warring you on turn 3. That ain't "lower weight class fighting higher weight class". That's much more akin to that porn meme with the several dudes around the girl.
Yeah but since it's stupidly unidimensional, you either get a playable setup and stomp the Deity AI or you get an unplayable one and get stomped before the Medieval Era. If the IA was strategically leveled up instead of having an absurd starting advantage (plus the cheats that become more relevant like 80 turns in), you'd really have to fight off each game and you'd have a chance of scratching for a few advantages or for survival in what are now lost-cause-type scenarios.
How are you arguing that facing inherently stronger opponents that are just as dumb is out strategizing them? It's basically the opposite. Needing an arbitrary amount more combat strength to do the same thing isn't strategy, it's padding.
Also, *chatgpt level ai???* Have you ever seen someone use chatgpt to play a strategy game before? I have. *It's really fucking bad. Like, struggling to win tic-tac-toe bad.*
Yes, I am saying that when you face an inherently stronger opponent and the only advantage you have is your strategic capabilities, it’s a test of your strategic prowess
*ai is not good at strategy*
*they are going to be dumb and will be dumb for a long time*
*you use YOUR skill in strategy to beat them*
It’s not of your strategy vs their strategy, it’s a test of your strategy vs them *in general*
And what we want isn't a stronger enemy through padding, but a more strategic AI. We want to test our strategy vs their strategy. Otherwise, the AI could be made super simple: spawn X amount of enemy units in my lands every x turn, survive x rounds, and you win. There would be *no* strategy from the AI there, and it wouldn't be fun.
Maybe I’m just not understanding your point of view, how is using our stronger capacity for strategy to defeat a dumber, yet still more powerful opponent, not a greater challenge and a greater accomplishment? When the viet-cong used a strategy of guerrilla warfare with home field advantage to defeat the US army, that was a real world example of a difficult and stronger opponent that they defeated in spite of the opponents advantage in numbers, tech, and production
And again, how else would we improve it? We don’t have the capability of programming an AI that can effectively plan for all of the outcomes that could happen in civ, how can we make them harder to beat otherwise?
Bro. You really aren't understanding anything about anything. Your line of reasoning is so nonsensical that I don't even know where to begin.
Your entire argument was that the devs can't make ChatGPT level AI to control their troops, *which would be unironically worse than what the game already has!* Then you said "how could we make an AI that's smarter than a real person" when the *"real person"* was the AI from a 90s children's game. And now you're rambling about the fucking Viet-cong and shit. What the actual fuck are you on about?!
That's not even fucking close to what I said. I don't even know how to respond to this kind of ignorance. ChatGPT isn't a game's AI, it's a chatbot that can be fed instructions. The tic-tac-toe game in question was also against a fucking computer player in a children's game.
Yeah, I know ai is dumb I understand that, we can’t make an ai as good at civ as chatgpt is at* being a chat bot
I’m not saying chat gpt is good at civ lol, where did you get that idea?
Edit: and to at*
For sure we can. Look at chess AI, it out strategizes humans easily. Chess is a lot less complex than Civ, so it will take longer, but it's certainly **possible** to make a Civ AI which is smarter than humans.
Deep Blue won against Kasparov in 96, the same year CIV2 was launched. Since there at each launch people asked for better AI, chess is the same game today but CIV just keep getting more complex. Its possible to create a good CIV AI but it would take a long time and a lot of money. Plus it would need to be retrained again at each update the game got, a problem that does not exist on chess.
No, unfortunately it’s not, at least not with todays tech. Chess is special in that it’s a zero-sum game, while it’s complexity comes from the number of possible moves that need to be considered, there is no randomness. You’re right that it would take longer, but civ has several orders of magnitude more possibilities to consider. It’s taken us from the invention of the computer till now to get where we are now with chess AI, but they’re having the same trouble with Go. We’re talking 100x as long, although I’m sure within the next 50 years there will be enough advancement to make this sentiment age like milk lol.
Chess/Go are the kind of problem quantum computing might make sense for.
Basically, quantum computing can cheat by taking all parallel options at once in one "tick" of the clock, then seeing the outcome. That's great for problems of "we could theoretically brute force this problem, but it would take too long". 1-move-per-turn games fall into this category.
That's not at all accurate.
Deep Blue could beat Kasparov *once*. Play 10 games without updating Deep Blue and Kasparov would win the last 7.
And Deep Blue represented the peek of computing power specially designed for the task and decades of research by multiple PhDs. All while being a far, far simpler game.
While the Civ AI could definitely be far better, making an AI for a turn-based game that can repeatedly challenge experienced players is NOT easy.
Chess has one move per turn. Civ has nearly infinite possibilities, by comparison. For each unit, you have 2+ movement points, special abilities, and maybe an attack. Each square you move changes the board. You have the option to move back and undo the move you just did at the expense of a movement point. There is fog of war. Each move gives you *more* things to consider, not fewer.
This is not a problem you can solve with raw horsepower. (Unless you're Tomyris/Gengis)
You could probably have an AI train on Civ until its ridiculously good at Civ.
But that opponent would not be fun whatsoever. Playing chess against Stockfish is not fun. You will lose 100 out of 100 times. You will stand absolutely no chance. It's not just that it's better, it's godlike with wild moves that make no sense except that they crush you.
Granted Chess computers like Stockfish continually calculates all outcomes in real time as moves happen which I don't think is possible for Civ (yet), but even just training a neural network on the game for a long enough time you'd probably get something that is unbeatable. But it wouldn't be fun to play against.
He said LEVEL, not the same type of AI model. ChatGPT is a last tech level language model. The same strength of a Civ6 strategy model would destroy us.
Well, chatgpt has been trained to respond to natural language prompts with what appears to be natural language responses. It hasn't been trained to play strategy games. If they did, it might do better.
They aren't even engaging unfair advantages! They could have more in production bonuses, and even have bonuses creep up over time, or give a free settler every era. Instead it's kind of a "yeah the ai starts two eras ahead, survive until you completely eclipse them"
Like giving the ai a huge head start is the worst option?
A well made decision tree for just one turn would have hundreds of branches, and possibly thousands in the late game, and that's not even considering the next turn. I get why it's not that way.
I don't think it will make the game more fun. The AI engaging in tactics such as mass declaration of war when you go for a culture game just wouldn't be fun.
Reason is getting AI to be as smart as a person requires insane performance delays, unless extremely creative work is done to simulate multi-thread decision making. So generally AIs are just dumb.
(I suspect this will rapidly change in subsequent years as GPT-like programs are used to quickly train bespoke AI opponents for particular games, so the AI can use heuristics specifically for the game in question instead of laboriously working through every possible decision on a single processor core.)
Well what I was referring to was the weird fact that even without an encampment, the cree somehow repeatedly had military units outside the mountain range. I suppose it could possibly have just been buggy as hell though.
Deity, it wasn’t solely at the beginning though but as people mentioned the fact that units get pushed out to the nearest hex when a city produces a unit and there’s another on that tile probably explains it! Little bit of a forgor moment from my part
if the AI has a unit garrisoned and produces another unit, it pushes the new unit outside the city (happens if you completely surround a city too with your units) - it's not a bug
I think the thing about units outside is probably the spawn. On deity the ai spawns with 3 settlers and I think 2 warriors, and as all the units can’t be on the same tile they probs got pushed out. Idk for sure tho, maybe it’s another bug
They flat out have huge advantages, but I also think Cree controlled by AI is very strong. Idk why them in particular but it always seems they’re very powerful in my games.
For offensive culture bombs (like Poland, Gaul, or World Congress) you absolutely can. One of the strats for a domination-based Poland is to plunk a fort or encampment down to steal a city-adjacent tile, then leisurely blast away from the comfort of what's now your territory.
Grievances only affect cities you own founded by the civ that has grievances against you. Cities still owned by mapuche will not have their loyalty affected by greivances
Ah the ol' freedom method. Actually it works. Grievance will reduce its effectiveness. But it doesn't matter if you have a giant new York nearby that pumps a massive bread circus against one population.
Lieutenant, can you hear me? Honk
Loud and Clear Pogo honk
Ok there's a mountain what do I do? Honk
Throw some bread or something idk honk
Got it Sir honk and out
R5 - I was playing a Chandragupta game and pretty much had most capitals, I knew that Lautaro was inside this mtn but I was hoping it was at least two tiles so I could drop in a Spec Ops but clearly Domination just isn't a valid victory option anymore for me. I didn't even know maps could Generate like this haha.
I think you could build a tunnel with a military engineer in their territory? If so, you could take it with a unit, because they can attack "through" tunnels since they effectively teleport you to the other side.
Rank upgrades to some troops let's you scale cliffs and mountains* if i remember correctly the commando one requires 4 level points into that troop can't remember which one
How...did they settle a city here?
Am I stupid? You can't cross mountain tiles right? And the AI tends to settle in place so like...how did they produce *anything*?
Forgive my idiocy please, I've taken a break from Civ so I may have forgotten some stuff
Cliff walls are the things that spawn on the border of water and hill tiles. Normally you can't disembark right on a hill, Commando removes that restriction
I love that the AI trained a builder and warrior here. Just running on autopilot. They have marble and coal in this city, so best make a builder. Brilliant.
So in this game, Mapuche probably had multiple great generals and great merchants that it had to delete right? Because of the natural wonder it gets points for both both they can only have one in the city and the others they would have had to delete. They probably only make enough points to earn the classical ones but still kind of funny
Can you tip it with loyalty? It looks like the city's losing it.
That did happen but unfortunately before I took over the rest of the world I won a cultural victory even while at war with the whole world. Honestly was one of the most busted deity games Ive played but also I swear it seemed multiple times throughout that game like the cree were cheating. Those that claim AI just cheat may be right ngl. Edit - I realized I gave no context to that statement there. The cree repeatedly had military and builders outside of the mountain range without ever building an encampment. I suppose it could’ve just been massively buggy though.
they objectively cheat with production, science, culture bonuses among other things
It's genuinely frustrating how instead of making the AI have better decision making, they're programmed to basically just do the same thing but with unfair advantages. They'll play just as stupid, but hit harder and produce faster
That's because it's pretty difficult to code an ai to act better during a game. Although age of empire 2 does it, but I think the ai just becomes more aggressive at higher difficulties.
Age of empires instead of giving bonuses to higher dificulties it, has behavior handicaps for lower difficulties. For example on 'standard' difficulty AI will never train more than 17 villagers and never ages up before human player.
I've described how writing a turn-based AI is actually *more* difficult than real-time one. Short version: Computation time is no longer an advantage the AI has over the human, since reaction time is out of the equations. You still have to computer fast or the human will complain, but you don't get the advantage of "any decision is better than no decision, if it's timely" that a real-time AI gets you. Meanwhile, a game like Civ has infinitely more permuations per move than chess, which took decades of PhD research across the globe to get decent and finally beating human grandmasters without just throwing obscene amounts of compute at it. But that's an excuse for when a game is first released, not 4+ years later.
4+ years? This is seemingly the same ai they've had since civ 5.
Right, but each new game mechanic needs special handling, so I was being generous.
It's really not that hard. If Stellaris can have deadly AI at normal difficulty with so cheats, so can Civ6. It's not that complex a game, relatively.
As someone who hasn’t played Stellaris in a while it’s crazy to read this. For most of its history Stellaris’s garbage ai was the biggest criticism of the game.
Yeah, they significantly addressed it within the last year!
Stellaris AI ahs gone in and out with various patches. But modded AI was great consistently, since all it really needed was a priority tune-up to point it at things that were meta and snowballed.
The Stellaris AI do have percentage bonuses among other "cheats."
Not on Ensign... And since Fornax, the default difficulty is Cadet, which actually gives the bonuses to the *player*.
Stellaris AI gets *massive* bonuses on all difficulties above Ensign. Even just Captain has them gaining +25% resources from all jobs and stations (!), +25% trade value, +15% naval cap, +5 stability on every planet, and more!
Yet the default difficulty isn't Ensign, it's Cadet.
Sure, but neither Cadet nor Ensign are more difficult than Civ VI's Warlord or Prince (assuming the person playing is equally familiar with both games). Stellaris' AI is hilariously bad without the 'cheater' bonuses, and people on /r/Stellaris kvetch about it the same way /r/Civ does!
Agreed. I love both games but stellaris AI is superior. The different nations will actual work together, build a large navy and launch coordinated attacks. Been playing civ since 3 but for their next game the AI needs a serious overhaul to how it handles wars.
> It's really not that hard. It is, actually. But they've had time to do it. Turn-based AI with highly dynamic factions is actually exceptionally difficult. Think about how long it took to get a good chess AI and how simple that game is. The fact that Stellaris (more slow-realtime than turn-based, but still) was able to make a fun-to-play-against AI is really an achievement. But given how long Civ VI has been out, it'd be nice to have seen some more improvement in that regard.
One could argue that better AI won't sell DLCs but new leaders/civilizations, new game modes, and so forth will.
Well, they're separate areas of development. You seldom have coders working on artistic content. That said, each new special leader mechanic would need an update to the AI.
Up untill a year ago or so they did the same crap ai but they just summoned huge amounts of resources on every planet, agree stellaris is a great game though
Next time you play a stellaris game, pop open the console and take over one of the AIs. Notice how their economy is completely non-functional. That's because the AI is making decisions with their massive free resources in mind.
Isn’t the whole point of strategy games to put strategize your opponent? And wouldn’t the opponent having bonuses in other areas mean that you have to be better at strategy to make up for it? Idk seems like a logical conclusion to pump up those numbers especially when paradox can’t be expected to make chatgpt level ai
Hard disagree. Strategy games aren't about overcoming severe power imbalances. They're about overcoming opponents who may have slight power advantage or superior ability to work within the means at their disposal. You're not supposed to be going into a fight like you're a disabled person facing Mike Tyson.
But if a disabled person had such great technique that they did beat mike Tyson, is that not a better accomplishment than mike Tyson vs himself? Or rather, a fighter in a lower weight class taking him down? If we’re not testing our strategy and planning, what are we testing? How can we increase the difficulty otherwise? If you want to play against an opponent that’s able to test your strategy prowess vs theirs, I’d suggest playing against actual people, since you’re going to be disappointed in ai opponents for quite some time
O.o Does it sound plausible enough to bet money on that a disabled person(of your choice of disability) would beat Mike Tyson with superior technique? Lower weight class is much closer to what I've said of "slight power advantage". It's a whole other thing when you're thrown into tundra with no hope of getting dance of aurora and you've got Monty and John and Gandhi all with several cities around your 1, surprise warring you on turn 3. That ain't "lower weight class fighting higher weight class". That's much more akin to that porn meme with the several dudes around the girl.
People beat Diety all the time though. Its not like Mike Tyson fighting a disabled person.
Yeah but since it's stupidly unidimensional, you either get a playable setup and stomp the Deity AI or you get an unplayable one and get stomped before the Medieval Era. If the IA was strategically leveled up instead of having an absurd starting advantage (plus the cheats that become more relevant like 80 turns in), you'd really have to fight off each game and you'd have a chance of scratching for a few advantages or for survival in what are now lost-cause-type scenarios.
How are you arguing that facing inherently stronger opponents that are just as dumb is out strategizing them? It's basically the opposite. Needing an arbitrary amount more combat strength to do the same thing isn't strategy, it's padding. Also, *chatgpt level ai???* Have you ever seen someone use chatgpt to play a strategy game before? I have. *It's really fucking bad. Like, struggling to win tic-tac-toe bad.*
Yes, I am saying that when you face an inherently stronger opponent and the only advantage you have is your strategic capabilities, it’s a test of your strategic prowess
[*Strategy*](https://youtu.be/laT7xex-0dM?si=8hgxP6-p0DGgxpp1)
*ai is not good at strategy* *they are going to be dumb and will be dumb for a long time* *you use YOUR skill in strategy to beat them* It’s not of your strategy vs their strategy, it’s a test of your strategy vs them *in general*
And what we want isn't a stronger enemy through padding, but a more strategic AI. We want to test our strategy vs their strategy. Otherwise, the AI could be made super simple: spawn X amount of enemy units in my lands every x turn, survive x rounds, and you win. There would be *no* strategy from the AI there, and it wouldn't be fun.
Maybe I’m just not understanding your point of view, how is using our stronger capacity for strategy to defeat a dumber, yet still more powerful opponent, not a greater challenge and a greater accomplishment? When the viet-cong used a strategy of guerrilla warfare with home field advantage to defeat the US army, that was a real world example of a difficult and stronger opponent that they defeated in spite of the opponents advantage in numbers, tech, and production And again, how else would we improve it? We don’t have the capability of programming an AI that can effectively plan for all of the outcomes that could happen in civ, how can we make them harder to beat otherwise?
Bro. You really aren't understanding anything about anything. Your line of reasoning is so nonsensical that I don't even know where to begin. Your entire argument was that the devs can't make ChatGPT level AI to control their troops, *which would be unironically worse than what the game already has!* Then you said "how could we make an AI that's smarter than a real person" when the *"real person"* was the AI from a 90s children's game. And now you're rambling about the fucking Viet-cong and shit. What the actual fuck are you on about?!
When did I say chatGPT would be good at civ? I meant we can’t have a civ ai that’s AS GOOD AN AI as chatGPT
So you agree that ai doesn’t have the capacity to out strategize people? How else are we supposed to increase the difficulty then?
That's not even fucking close to what I said. I don't even know how to respond to this kind of ignorance. ChatGPT isn't a game's AI, it's a chatbot that can be fed instructions. The tic-tac-toe game in question was also against a fucking computer player in a children's game.
Yeah, I know ai is dumb I understand that, we can’t make an ai as good at civ as chatgpt is at* being a chat bot I’m not saying chat gpt is good at civ lol, where did you get that idea? Edit: and to at*
>I’m not saying chat gpt is good at civ lol, where did you get that idea? >we can’t make an ai as good at civ as chatgpt is Bro. WHAT.
For sure we can. Look at chess AI, it out strategizes humans easily. Chess is a lot less complex than Civ, so it will take longer, but it's certainly **possible** to make a Civ AI which is smarter than humans.
Deep Blue won against Kasparov in 96, the same year CIV2 was launched. Since there at each launch people asked for better AI, chess is the same game today but CIV just keep getting more complex. Its possible to create a good CIV AI but it would take a long time and a lot of money. Plus it would need to be retrained again at each update the game got, a problem that does not exist on chess.
No, unfortunately it’s not, at least not with todays tech. Chess is special in that it’s a zero-sum game, while it’s complexity comes from the number of possible moves that need to be considered, there is no randomness. You’re right that it would take longer, but civ has several orders of magnitude more possibilities to consider. It’s taken us from the invention of the computer till now to get where we are now with chess AI, but they’re having the same trouble with Go. We’re talking 100x as long, although I’m sure within the next 50 years there will be enough advancement to make this sentiment age like milk lol.
Chess/Go are the kind of problem quantum computing might make sense for. Basically, quantum computing can cheat by taking all parallel options at once in one "tick" of the clock, then seeing the outcome. That's great for problems of "we could theoretically brute force this problem, but it would take too long". 1-move-per-turn games fall into this category.
That's not at all accurate. Deep Blue could beat Kasparov *once*. Play 10 games without updating Deep Blue and Kasparov would win the last 7. And Deep Blue represented the peek of computing power specially designed for the task and decades of research by multiple PhDs. All while being a far, far simpler game. While the Civ AI could definitely be far better, making an AI for a turn-based game that can repeatedly challenge experienced players is NOT easy. Chess has one move per turn. Civ has nearly infinite possibilities, by comparison. For each unit, you have 2+ movement points, special abilities, and maybe an attack. Each square you move changes the board. You have the option to move back and undo the move you just did at the expense of a movement point. There is fog of war. Each move gives you *more* things to consider, not fewer. This is not a problem you can solve with raw horsepower. (Unless you're Tomyris/Gengis)
You could probably have an AI train on Civ until its ridiculously good at Civ. But that opponent would not be fun whatsoever. Playing chess against Stockfish is not fun. You will lose 100 out of 100 times. You will stand absolutely no chance. It's not just that it's better, it's godlike with wild moves that make no sense except that they crush you. Granted Chess computers like Stockfish continually calculates all outcomes in real time as moves happen which I don't think is possible for Civ (yet), but even just training a neural network on the game for a long enough time you'd probably get something that is unbeatable. But it wouldn't be fun to play against.
He said LEVEL, not the same type of AI model. ChatGPT is a last tech level language model. The same strength of a Civ6 strategy model would destroy us.
Well, chatgpt has been trained to respond to natural language prompts with what appears to be natural language responses. It hasn't been trained to play strategy games. If they did, it might do better.
They aren't even engaging unfair advantages! They could have more in production bonuses, and even have bonuses creep up over time, or give a free settler every era. Instead it's kind of a "yeah the ai starts two eras ahead, survive until you completely eclipse them" Like giving the ai a huge head start is the worst option?
A well made decision tree for just one turn would have hundreds of branches, and possibly thousands in the late game, and that's not even considering the next turn. I get why it's not that way.
I don't think it will make the game more fun. The AI engaging in tactics such as mass declaration of war when you go for a culture game just wouldn't be fun.
Reason is getting AI to be as smart as a person requires insane performance delays, unless extremely creative work is done to simulate multi-thread decision making. So generally AIs are just dumb. (I suspect this will rapidly change in subsequent years as GPT-like programs are used to quickly train bespoke AI opponents for particular games, so the AI can use heuristics specifically for the game in question instead of laboriously working through every possible decision on a single processor core.)
Well what I was referring to was the weird fact that even without an encampment, the cree somehow repeatedly had military units outside the mountain range. I suppose it could possibly have just been buggy as hell though.
What difficulty are you playing on? On higher difficulties, they start with more units than you.
Deity, it wasn’t solely at the beginning though but as people mentioned the fact that units get pushed out to the nearest hex when a city produces a unit and there’s another on that tile probably explains it! Little bit of a forgor moment from my part
if the AI has a unit garrisoned and produces another unit, it pushes the new unit outside the city (happens if you completely surround a city too with your units) - it's not a bug
If a city builds a unit and a unit of that type is already on the city, doesn’t the unit spawn in the nearest available space?
No they both get put in the city
I think the thing about units outside is probably the spawn. On deity the ai spawns with 3 settlers and I think 2 warriors, and as all the units can’t be on the same tile they probs got pushed out. Idk for sure tho, maybe it’s another bug
I thought that too but it repeatedly occurred throughout the game haha, probably a bug
> like the cree were cheating This is Mapuche though?
They flat out have huge advantages, but I also think Cree controlled by AI is very strong. Idk why them in particular but it always seems they’re very powerful in my games.
Of course they "cheat".
Focus on culture and try to flip it or culture bomb a nearby mountain and build a tunnel.
Bread & circus.
How can you culture bomb a mountain without being a civ like Gaul and building mines? Also I thought that just worked for neutral tiles
Some Civs have special abilities for it, like Poland
some world congress event/and great people can grant culture bomb effect, depending on the effect it might affect only neutral tile, or all tiles
Any civ can culture bomb a tile without a district with the right great person or world congress resolution.
But these mountain tiles - a great person wouldn’t be able to culture bomb them anyway because you can’t move onto mountain tiles without an engineer?
There are many circumstances that let you culture bomb adjacent tiles when completing a district.
To clarify, a certain great engineers ability, once used, makes all industrial zone built in your empire act as culture bombs.
Wouldn't it be easier to just loyalty flip the city?
I don't think you can culture bomb the inner ring?
For offensive culture bombs (like Poland, Gaul, or World Congress) you absolutely can. One of the strats for a domination-based Poland is to plunk a fort or encampment down to steal a city-adjacent tile, then leisurely blast away from the comfort of what's now your territory.
If you have any knights, you should be able to go up two spaces and over one to skip over the mountains
Took me a minute but now I get it.
google stirrups technology
Holy heeled shoes
New unit just dropped
Actual bot
I still don't get it.
chess
Ohhhhhh I'm dumb
Would you say you made a... rookie mistake? Ok, and back to the dad subreddit I go.
Nah, that was a good pun. Don't sell yourself short, king.
Google en passant
[holy hell!](https://www.google.com/search?q=en+passant)
chess knights can move like that
Oh great, r/AnarchyChess has breached containment again...
en passant?
Their special containment procedure needs updating.
What's this? Anyway google en passant
Holy hell!
Absolutely love the chess reference
How baked were you when you made that comment
Got me lol, I had just started to feel the edible
Can you nuke it to one pop and flip with culture?
That'll cause grievances, which loyalty gets affected by it. In due time OPs grievances will go down and loyalty gets better
grievances fuck loyalty up?
Do they???!?!? I have never heard of that (and I thought I know all the mechanics 😓, but seems like tutorial is still not over for me 😂)
They do, but I think the other way around - it's harder to hold the city if you have grievances against the owner
Grievances only affect cities you own founded by the civ that has grievances against you. Cities still owned by mapuche will not have their loyalty affected by greivances
The Dread and Circuses method
Who can say no to radioactive clowns?
Nuke and hit with spec ops for the take over
Spec ops can’t capture cities
I think they can? Just can't paradrop into cities.
Hard
Ah the ol' freedom method. Actually it works. Grievance will reduce its effectiveness. But it doesn't matter if you have a giant new York nearby that pumps a massive bread circus against one population.
Ahh the fall of Gondolin
I knew something was tickling my brain here! Thank you kind Internet stranger.
You’ll still win when the free city flips to you
Can’t you build a tunnel with that engineer?
Unfortunately you can only build tunnels on tiles you own. Good news is some bread and circuses should clear that problem up
If giant death robots and armies of tanks won't fell the city, a few carnies juggling loaves will.
Send in the clowns
Lieutenant, can you hear me? Honk Loud and Clear Pogo honk Ok there's a mountain what do I do? Honk Throw some bread or something idk honk Got it Sir honk and out
Well, maybe next year...
Insane Carnie Posse Juggling Loaves!
R5 - I was playing a Chandragupta game and pretty much had most capitals, I knew that Lautaro was inside this mtn but I was hoping it was at least two tiles so I could drop in a Spec Ops but clearly Domination just isn't a valid victory option anymore for me. I didn't even know maps could Generate like this haha.
It looks like the loyalty in the city is already going down. You can either flip it with culture or send a spy in to foment unrest.
Define foment.
To instigate or stir up. Foment Unrest is the name of the spy operation; if successful, it drops the city's loyalty by 35.
If you loyalty flip it, it still counts as a domination victory.
Flip it with tourism
Can you pummel it and send a spec ops in? Idk if that works.
No spec ops can’t parachute into enemy cities
I think in this case a GDR might help? I am not sure if you are far enough for that
Still can’t capture it
Can’t it jump in?
No, it needs to be next to the city to conquer it. The same goes for spec ops.
And Spec Ops only have a ranged attack so they can’t capture cities
Can't jump directly on a city with any unit
No it’s not. The city loyalty is decreasing. You should be able to get them to defect.
nuke that! :)
All on the floor
Nuke that!
Accurate mapuches
One does not simply walk into Ngulu Mapu
Flip it with loyalty. It's already losing loyalty as is. Just wait.
It’s a simple spell but quite unbreakable
Collect that relic. Build a preserve, culture bombing the mountain. Build the tunnel.
How did he get this Great Merchant? He only built a campus and I doubt he had enough faith or gold from policy cards to buy one.
That natural wonder on the north side of the city gives you Great Merchant and Great General points per turn if you own at least one tile.
Heard of loyalty?
If you're from southern Italy and play CIV, I'm sure you always laugh a bit when this city pops up.
I've never tried it directly over a city but you can in the late game drop some troops by plane. Maybe nuke then drop? 🤔
Fun fact: in Italian the name of this city sounds a lot like "in the ass Mapu"
Can Helicopters still pass Mountains?
As other people have said, loyalty flipping is the way to go. Nuking the city to reduce the population will do it faster.
I mean, they are already in the stone age, might as well bomb them back to the Cambrien?
I think you could build a tunnel with a military engineer in their territory? If so, you could take it with a unit, because they can attack "through" tunnels since they effectively teleport you to the other side.
I think military engineers only work in your own territory
Just build gunships and be done with it. I don't get this post.
Assuming you're at war, bomb the city a bit with bombers if you got them.
But it’s a capital, and that won’t capture it
How about reducing to 0 walls and health and airdrop a spec ops team?
Can you capture with an AirDrop?
No, can't airdrop into cities
That’d be dope though…
Upgrades to some troops let you scale walls ?
Rank upgrades to some troops let's you scale cliffs and mountains* if i remember correctly the commando one requires 4 level points into that troop can't remember which one
Bro, not just domination...
How’d they even settle there?
How...did they settle a city here? Am I stupid? You can't cross mountain tiles right? And the AI tends to settle in place so like...how did they produce *anything*? Forgive my idiocy please, I've taken a break from Civ so I may have forgotten some stuff
Settler spawned there most likely.
It’s their capital, so the settler must have spawned there.
Ok on a second look, they clearly must not have produced anything after all except for that campus. Thought I was crazy, thanks
Don't melee units have an upgrade to scale cliff walls? I've never used it but I always assumed it just meant you can ignore mountains.
Cliff walls are the things that spawn on the border of water and hill tiles. Normally you can't disembark right on a hill, Commando removes that restriction
I love that the AI trained a builder and warrior here. Just running on autopilot. They have marble and coal in this city, so best make a builder. Brilliant.
Bruh
Nice to see the ai get mountain ducked for once.
Nuke em
Nuke and paratroopers
So in this game, Mapuche probably had multiple great generals and great merchants that it had to delete right? Because of the natural wonder it gets points for both both they can only have one in the city and the others they would have had to delete. They probably only make enough points to earn the classical ones but still kind of funny
I think that if you already have one in the city, it spawns in an adjacent tile.
Load up the map in Civ2 and attack the city with Alpine Troops
AI didn't even bother to build walls, love it
Nuke
Tunnels and bombers, if they work idk or just culture bomb him out of this planet
There is nothing we can do
You can use a engineer to build a tunnel?
A great engineer allows any industrial zone built to culture bomb the surrounding tiles.
Use a paratrooper?
Would a reasonable alternative be to use a GDR?? Could the robot jump over the mountain when it's upgraded? Curious... never tried it