Civilization VI - Second Expansion Announced

Baulderstone

Registered User
Validated User
#21
Ironically enough, in their attempts to make the AI feel more different from each other, they came out feeling more same-y to me. A lot of agendas, both the permanent ones and the hidden ones that get randomly assigned, are... things you can't really control. Meet an AI whose agenda is all about not building tons of improvements, in the 1700s after you've... already built tons of improvements? Congratulations, they're gonna call you up every forty turns to complain from now on. It kinda makes every leader end up feeling arbitrary and annoying. And really petty sometimes, too. Yeah, bro, I know you've been calling me up for the past 1500 years to complain that I have no navy, and it is going to stay like that because I'm a landlocked empire.
While there are a lot of neat parts in Civ VI, the AI is the one thing that ultimately ruins the game for me. People are right when they say that AI in Civ games has always been somewhat dodgy, but back in Civ IV, I at least felt the AI was aspiring to representing the rulers of other nations that I could interact with on a meaningful level. Nations with the same religion were more friendly towards me. Nations that desperately needed a resource that I possessed and wasn't trading with them were more likely to attack me. Nations that I had helped out were better disposed towards me. While the AI could do things the were dumb on a tactical level, I still felt largely like I was interacting with rational foreign nations when I played the game, and I felt like my behavior towards them affected their behavior towards to a reasonable degree.

Civ V had the issue that other civs were too opaque. They did things, and I didn't know why. It was just a mystery. Civ VI is clearly trying to fix this by giving other Civs clear reasons reasons liking or disliking you, but the reasons don't make any sense. The last time that I played, I was on the same continent as a leader that was big on constant expansion. He wanted to blob all over the map, and by the logic of Civ VI, he wanted me to blob all over the map. "Hey, why aren't you trying to quickly grab all the land that we are trying to grab? We would like you so much better if you were trying to grab that same land that we want!"

It's maddeningly nonsensical, like the naval example that you gave. Even if you hadn't been landlocked, it's still a weird thing for a country to keep bugging you to have a big navy. In real history, the British Empire at its height wasn't running around trying to push everyone else into making big navies. It wanted having a naval supremacy to be its thing.

In earlier versions of Civ, you might see incremental improvements to AI in the expansions, but the problem with Civ VI for me is that I don't like the basic model. In Civ IV, the AI might fall down at times, but the designers were at least intending to have the civs act like civs. In Civ VI, a lot of the most irritating, artificial behaviors are the game doing exactly what the designers want it to do, so I am skeptical it can ever be fixed.

I can understand people liking the game anyway, as there are a lot of interesting moving parts in it. It's just that part of the fun of Civ for me has always been the emergent story. The strange AI choices in Civ VI tend to produce really silly stories. While I can have fun on a turn-by-turn basis for stretches of the game, the overall shape of it is unsatisfying to me.
 

LCDR Seamonkey

Urban Monkey Warfare
RPGnet Member
Validated User
#22
Civ V had the issue that other civs were too opaque. They did things, and I didn't know why. It was just a mystery. Civ VI is clearly trying to fix this by giving other Civs clear reasons reasons liking or disliking you, but the reasons don't make any sense. The last time that I played, I was on the same continent as a leader that was big on constant expansion. He wanted to blob all over the map, and by the logic of Civ VI, he wanted me to blob all over the map. "Hey, why aren't you trying to quickly grab all the land that we are trying to grab? We would like you so much better if you were trying to grab that same land that we want!"

It's maddeningly nonsensical, like the naval example that you gave. Even if you hadn't been landlocked, it's still a weird thing for a country to keep bugging you to have a big navy. In real history, the British Empire at its height wasn't running around trying to push everyone else into making big navies. It wanted having a naval supremacy to be its thing.
I think part of the problem is that "like" and "respect" both get abstracted out together. So for instance when Genghis Khan is giving you shit for not having a lot of Cavalry, it's not that he thinks people with a vast horde are going to be his buddies, it's just that if you don't have a bunch of knights then he doesn't take you seriously - which makes you a raiding target.

I mean, historically, England wasn't pushing other people to keep their fleets small because they wanted to be their friends, they were pushing everyone to keep their fleets small so that they could continue to lord their naval dominance over them and boss them around.

R,
Me.
 

Skycroft

Space Wizard
RPGnet Member
Validated User
#23
Yes, for many leader agendas it makes more sense to look at it the other way around. If you have a weak navy, Harald will dislike you and raid your shores; if you can keep him from raiding, he'd refrain from attacking you and so try to be friends. Ghengis (who actually likes you if you don't compete in cavalry) has his agenda set up so he is likelier to attack the civs with the most horse units... because that takes advantage of his special ability, which is to steal enemy cavalry units. And so on.

Not every leader agenda uses this kind of logic - most don't - but if you're tilting your head and going "eh?", looking at what the agenda makes the leader target rather than at what it makes the leader befriend usually clears it up. Like, England wants to have cities on multiple continents (note that their new ability in Gathering Storm shown in the stream now specifically wants as many unique continents as possible), so its set up to attack civs that have cities on continents they don't have yet.

Which is not to say I think the agenda system is well-implemented by any means, but I usually can see what they were going for.
 

Sigrid Hex

Social Justice Valkyrie
RPGnet Member
Validated User
#24
And then sometimes you have Rome get mad at you if you settle near them and also get mad at you if you don't. Sometimes you just can't win. :p

(But in all seriousness, I think my main issue with the agenda system is the presentation. There is a huge difference between Norway seeing that you have a weak navy and decide to pillage your shores, and Harald calling you up and yelling at you for not having enough ships.)
 

Esckey

Registered User
Validated User
#25
Especially since he shouldn't know how large your navy is, or how many improvements you have and so forth. The agenda system would be so much better if the AI had some sense and didn't use a cheat for it as well.
 

Sigrid Hex

Social Justice Valkyrie
RPGnet Member
Validated User
#27
Especially since he shouldn't know how large your navy is, or how many improvements you have and so forth. The agenda system would be so much better if the AI had some sense and didn't use a cheat for it as well.
Like when Kongo knows you've developed a religion (and is super mad that you haven't shared it) before you do. :LOL:
 

Ugly Man

Shaman Theme Jet Wink
RPGnet Member
Validated User
#28
The changes to warmongering alone sell me on this, honestly. The rest is just gravy. I've loathed than winning defensive wars makes everybody hate you. Or that the AI will hold things against you for literally millenia. I should not still be hated for burning down Boston when I did it three thousand years ago Goddamn he built the city in the middle of featureless tundra.
 

Shade the Lost

Registered User
Validated User
#29
The changes to warmongering alone sell me on this, honestly. The rest is just gravy. I've loathed than winning defensive wars makes everybody hate you. Or that the AI will hold things against you for literally millenia. I should not still be hated for burning down Boston when I did it three thousand years ago Goddamn he built the city in the middle of featureless tundra.
Yeah, unless you make a faction that are the Warhammer universe dwarves, I don't think there's a group in fiction that would begrudge a single crap town in the middle of nowhere being destroyed three millennia ago.
 

sun_tzu

Registered User
Validated User
#30
Yeah, unless you make a faction that are the Warhammer universe dwarves, I don't think there's a group in fiction that would begrudge a single crap town in the middle of nowhere being destroyed three millennia ago.
I dunno, Jewish tradition is still mad at Nabuchodonosor and Amalek.
 
Top Bottom