How come the AI still doesn't know how to use air units?

It still doesn't know how to use Carriers (at sea)!

What about the fact that that the AI will send its air units to attack units that are out of range?

You'd think there would be a patch for this right after the release of the Original Civ2. What's unbelieveable is that FW and MGE (and ToT for that matter) where all released without addressing this issue!

?????? ??????

I don't design WW2 Pacific scenarios because the first thing the AI does is to send its air units towards land (they rarely make it that far)!

Is it just me or is the AI in Civ2 go out of its way just to commit suicide? It's like the AI's depressed with the world or something.


While I'm on the subject, would it really have been so hard to give the AI a little intelligence when it comes to combat. How hard could it be to get the AI to wait for multiple units to be built before sending them to battle? The 1 by 1 approach is just sad...PATHETIC but also sad.


A few AI stupidities I can accept, but this is too much. Anyone would think designers made a bet on who could design the most stupid AI and get it to systematically sabotage itself whenever possible!

The AI is what keeps good scenarios from becoming great. Events can only help the AI so much.

If anyone knows what the some of the causes of this absurd AI behaviour are (aside from neglegence on the part of designers), could you post the here?

Originally posted by yoshi
It still doesn't know how to use Carriers (at sea)!

Click to expand...

In my games it uses carriers loaded with bombers willingly, it doesn't protect them well, though (usually by one battleship).

What about the fact that that the AI will send its air units to attack units that are out of range?

Click to expand...

What do you mean by that? They attack units which are out of THEIR range? That shouldn't be possible, for human as well as for the AI... never noticed that.

You don't have the Carrier problem? You should note that the AI air units will only attack units that are reavealed --they won't go scouting.
Whenever I load up a Carrier with any form of air unit, the AI will immediately send them towards distant targets. For example, if you play most WW2 Pacific scenarios you will find that the AI does this --thus losing half its air units on the first turn. I use MGE with the latest patch. I haven't experimented that much with Test of Time because it's essentially the same game.

You have probably noticed that the AI doesn't have quite as many air units as it should most of the time.

yoshi, wrong board. This is Civ3, where the Ai can handle air combat superior...that is, compared to Civ2.

Still remember this great BotN WW2 Pacific scenario, where you could only play Japan yourself for the sake of your mental health...if the AI controlled Japan, they immediatedly launched all carrier based bombers, and then moved the carrier - so all bombers fell down next turn, since their base was out of reach

That explains everything, I should notice MGE and ToT references

I was getting worried... i never noticed anything wrong.

Nice diagnosis Doc.

I thought I was in the Civ II board for a minute..

Hey Doc, maybe there's something wrong with my head but last time I checked this was the 'Civ2-General Discussions' forum. Aren't threads posted here supposed to be about Civ2 and not Civ3? Have I missed something?

The BotN scenario you refer to is 'East Wind Rain' that shipped with Civ2's CinC expansion. It's pretty hilarious (if not saddening) to see the AI start with over 30 air units and go down to about a dozen in one turn. I've tried every way I can think of to get the AI to use Carriers but it refuses. It's like dealing with a really, really, really stupid, stubborn little kid...dangsarnnit!

I was thinking of forgetting the AI's incapacity to use Carriers and just create a very powerful sea unit and name it Carrier then give it the sub flag so that it can't attack land and just serves to clear the sea of unwanted Battleships. I ususally give all AI's sea units the sub flag so as to prevent them from commiting suicide vs cities with Costal Fortresses. I just give subs the advantage of being able to detect other 'subs.' Did you know that the AI can see subs in adjacent squares with or without the 'SeeSub' flag? Just when you think the AI can't get any worse...(sigh).

Why do people keep designing single player WW2 scenarios that include Carriers? Seems kind of pointless, unless there's some way of getting the AI to actually use Carriers properly. If so, I haven't heard about it.

I should add that interestingly, the AI DOES know how to use 'land' Carriers (i.e. land units with Carrier flag). It essentially treats them like cities --although it will abandon the land-carrier unit in favour of a city that's in range. I think the problem is that the AI doesn't see the sea -carrier unit as a viable landing spot just like it will systematically move away from Airbases even if it mean running out of fuel --the program doesn't account for Airbases. Did designers even TRY to give the AI a little bit of INTELLIGENCE? Jeez! Hell, even I could have done a better job designing the bloody AI...and that's saying a lot.

I just compensate for this by using immobile land-carriers as airbases instead of using actual Airbases. It gives the bonus of being able to destroy enemy airbases but prevents you from occupying an airbase.

yoshi, there's a thread called 'List of AI stupidities', where the stupidity of Civ2 AI is discussed, and another one called 'List of AI cheats' IIRC. The AI obviously isn't designed to be able to handle an airforce. The AI will never ever build the carrier unit (with the standard rules.txt) and if one is gifted to them, it will be used as an ordinary naval unit (and lose at the first attack because of the low attack value). If you change rules.txt so that another unit switches place with the carrier, this unit won't be built either, which means the AI will never build any unit on the same line in rules.txt as carrier is normally.

The 'AI stupidies' and ' List of AI cheats' forums focuse more on WHY it happens and what to do about it. I'm pretty clear on why this happens and pretty sure that there is nothing that can be done about it...by players at least. I opened this thread in part just bring light to a matter that should be addressed --even though Civ3 is out. You paid for a game with Carriers so it's only reasonable to expect the Carriers to work.

My remark about the super-unit with the name "Carrier" was to essentially make it even more powerful than a Battleship to simulate the effect of air power. It was ony an idea for a scenario; not meant for the core game.

Although you do bring up another point about the AI using units with low attack that have no chance of winning. Just one more example of the suicidal AI.
I won't get into that though because it's a bigger issue than it looks when applied to land units (i.e. designers didn't completely overlook the AI logic mechanism --land units tend to be more 'stable').

The point of this thread is to determine how faults like this were overlooked given the amount of time designers had to come out with patches, etc. long before Civ3 came out --which shouldn't have mattered that much because the developers are different. Just because Firaxis bought the rights to CIVILIZATIOn doesn't mean you can't come out with patches for already existing games. Or does it?

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to sound as if I thought this thread was useless. My intention was to bring to your attention that there are threads about similar matters, since you seemed interested in it.

I just posted a link to this thread in the 'AI Stupidities' thread. Might as well.

Yoshi,

I don't remember ever seeing the Civ II AI build or use carriers in a regular Civ II game. I've never even seen it buiid them. But recently I created a Submarine Aircraft Carrier unit. I gave it 3 moves, made it invisible (like a sub) and made it cost like 2x as much as regular carrier. For some reason I saw the AI build and use such a carrier, even though I've never seen it build a regular carrier.

So perhaps you are correct and what happens is that the AI wastes its carriers attacking cities? I just found it bizarre that it would build the twice as expesnive Sub Carrier but not regular ones.

By the way, for reference, there were such things as Submarine Aircraft Carriers. The Japanese built them during WWII.

The Japanese WW2 sub "carriers" carried 1-3 floatplanes, mostly for scouting purposes (they were designed to be the advanced "eyes" of the great surface battle fleet). Landing on a sub would be quite difficult, and even floatplane operations are hampered because a sub cannot create a "slick" like a cruiser or a battleship for a safer landing in rough water. Later in the war they tossed around the idea of using them to attack the US. One of them may have overflown some West Coast areas; the documentation is sparse. Another plan was to mass several "carrier" subs and attack the Pacific side lock of the Panama Canal. US defenses were fairly strong throughout the war, including anti-sub and air patrols, so this probably would not have worked.

Another "weapon" they tried were lighter-than-air balloons. Several were launched into eastwardly jet streams with the intent of floating over forests in the western US and releasing incendiary bombs. Only one of those seems to have succeeded, and the fire did not last long.

And I thought this thread was dead.

Helpful to know that the does build sub carriers. Might be able to use that since I tend to use the sub flag for most ships anyway in my scenarios so as to prevent suicide coastal attacks by the stupid AI (and the occasional dumb human).


...Nice blurb E.