2017 Australia Patch - Combat AI...?

Just lost my first game... ever, really, in Civ VI on Deity. Had only met America, France & Scythia. France and America became friendly with me and sent me delegations.

Then America wiped out France... every city. Meanwhile, Scythia attacked America, took two cities, made peace. Then came after me. I had three archers and four warriors... not enough. They slowly beat me down with horsemen, archers & warriors. They surrounded my capital to the point where it wouldn't heal and took me down. It was such a... great thing!

Now I'm going to start over on a lower difficulty. Much more like it!
I am so glad to hear stories like this. As someone who sadly can't tee up many games with human players, a high quality AI is my only chance of a challenging game.....not that I consider myself a great player, btw, especially not with all the new stuff Civ6 contains!
 
Anyone else finding it harder, I mean they will not destroy you but its harder to take an entire civ

Also i freed seol at one stage and got suze but soon all 8 players were all over it including 4 unknowns. It just seemed wrong

Yes I agree AI is putting up a better fight. I used to play with AI+ but turned it off now after the patch. On Immortal it took me a the same time as usual in ancient/classical area (no walls yet) to take out my neighbor so didn't see much difference there. But the next AI enemy I fought in medieval era and that war took very long and I had high WW.

That CS suzerain thing with unknown envoys - that happens to me all the time, before the patch too. I think it's a bug because first turns after you liberate a CS and become suzerain you get your 3 envoys and 0 for anyone else. But a few turns later, all of a sudden all these unknowns pop up. Usually it's AIs you haven't even met yet on a distant continent so it shouldn't be happening - I doubt they have even met the CS themselves
 
Early experiences on Emperor are not positive, with no real changes to AI behaviour - save, perhaps, a greater reluctance to retreat from winnable fights (or at all). This is less positive than it sounds - the AI remains much less aggressive and less capable of supporting large armies than Civ V, so it really just sends things into a meatgrinder piecemeal. It makes wars more of a time sink than they were, and that will cost you if you pursue it for too long, but the AI itself still isn't effective in combat.

Glaring issues:

- Garrisoned units still don't attack, and rarely switch places or leave a city when that's a reasonable option. Most of the time cities remain ungarrisoned.
- AI unit composition remains dominated by melee units for most civs, with a typical civ like Rome (my main opponent) having maybe an archer or two and a chariot, which will not be coordinated.
- Stereotyped targeting behaviour that doesn't change with context. For example, I was attacking a Roman city and had two nearly-dead melee units after using them to take down the city's defences. With its final shot the city targeted the healthy archer it had been exchanging fire with for several turns.
- Very little aggression when faced with combat modifiers. In that same battle I kept a scout at the flank of my damaged units. A Roman spearman adjacent to it never attacked, which would have incurred a river modifier, and also never moved to a more favourable position.
- The new 'never retreat, never surrender' behaviour prompted the Romans, at a couple of points, to stand a unit within range of my garrisoned archer and exchange fire with the city until the Roman unit died.
- Something that may actually have got worse over time, the AI seems incapable of adapting to a defeated attack. It will prepare its initial attack, then typically declare war and besiege the target city with enough units ... but if those are destroyed or the city retaken (if the attack's successful), it doesn't appear able to repeat this behaviour for subsequent waves - without a plan of attack it will just send units at you one or two at a time. It also won't usually move to reinforce a city under attack.
 
It is again relevant... so:

Please, report here as if any changes to AI combat behavior after the 2017 Australia patch...

like:

- Does AI attack and capture cities (especially walled cities)?
- Does AI use defending range unit in its cities to defend?
- Does AI use its damaged units to attack when it is reasonable?
- Does AI use air units?
- Does AI upgrade units?

Is this a criteria for judging whether or not the AI is at least competent in its job? Or is such a thing a bit more subjective than that? Just asking...
 
I`ve had to save scum twice in my fight against Kongo. 4 warriors and a heavy chariot against my unwalled capital. My units were a bit misplaced because a barb camp raid in the east away from my capital. I did kind of take a huge risk to see if Kongo would bite or not. Now i know to be more carefull against the current AI.
This was the Ancient era.
 
I`ve had to save scum twice in my fight against Kongo. 4 warriors and a heavy chariot against my unwalled capital. My units were a bit misplaced because a barb camp raid in the east away from my capital. I did kind of take a huge risk to see if Kongo would bite or not. Now i know to be more carefull against the current AI.
This was the Ancient era.

Agree, played my first game post patch. Wasn't much of a game. On Diety as Kongo, had Brazil to my left and Scythia to my north. Was off fighting barbarians when I placed my second city, "close" to Brazil. They did the "your people are lazy" and "you settle too close", then declared a surprise war. Quickly surrounded my city to prevent healing and took the city efficiently. Decided this was a good lesson and retired. Will have to be more careful on the home front going forward.

Feels a bit like a new game, which is good. Had been playing the Ananese's BFG modpack and was still able to dominate on Diety -- my read here is still once you get to the middle ages, you are probably at least not going to be overrun unless you are so outteched that you cannot effectively fight.
 
Agree, played my first game post patch. Wasn't much of a game. On Diety as Kongo, had Brazil to my left and Scythia to my north. Was off fighting barbarians when I placed my second city, "close" to Brazil. They did the "your people are lazy" and "you settle too close", then declared a surprise war. Quickly surrounded my city to prevent healing and took the city efficiently. Decided this was a good lesson and retired. Will have to be more careful on the home front going forward.

Feels a bit like a new game, which is good. Had been playing the Ananese's BFG modpack and was still able to dominate on Diety -- my read here is still once you get to the middle ages, you are probably at least not going to be overrun unless you are so outteched that you cannot effectively fight.

Must experiment more with this. But when Kongo told me not to settle near them i told him i settled wherever i pleased. Perhaps it is better to lie to the ai then to piss them off in the slightest.
I feel like in the ancient and classical era there is nothing you could do to please them. Not to wage war or a coalition of war against you. It is getting better but the AI plays much like a human. Backstabbing basterds.
You can`t really do without an army of like at least 3 archers in the early game. Not against barbs and not against the ai.

I often find it weird why another civ is happy or unhappy with me. The stats do not Always tell me what it is. When i like them to like me i try to settle some favorable deals for them that dont hurt me to bad.
 
I'm only about 250 turns into my first game. Playing as Australia on the TSL standard earth map from Firaxis, on Emperor. Because of the Aus start I didn't have any early wars, but I've seen good things from the AI. My first war was with Egypt, and they sent a fairly decent sized force to my home continent. I was trying to take a couple of their cities, and had to abandon the war due to WW because I couldn't conquer them fast enough (which I've not had to do before).

In terms of the other victories, I've been fighting off religious conversion attempts by India and Norway, and all the Civs are within 10 techs of me. I'm flipping between 2nd and 3rd place on tech. Poland is due to drop out of the race soon as they are being conquered by Norway over repeated wars (and conquering walled cities).
 
I've been playing as Spain on Emporer and there has been a lot of conflict in my game which has been really good to see. Japan has slowly steamrolled Norway and captured multiple cities (I intervened to keep the Norwegians afloat). Rome has runaway with tech on the other continent. I just captured their capital with Conquistadors/bombards and it has a Space Port and they rolled out their first Mech Inf. just before I capped it! So I'd argue that Rome didn't build enough military units - but I'd also argue that they were going for a runaway tech game and were purposely investing elsewhere. They may come back and slap me with some Mech Inf/Bazookas now that I have their capital which may get exciting as I am relying on Wars of Religion/Missionaries/Army Corps/Crusader to keep my Conquistadors competitive.

Now I need to go step on Frances neck before they run away with a Culture victory. Despite my warmongering I'm still allied with Norway & Egypt and friends with China. Gorgo is just a complete psychopath and I don't think anybody could ever be friendly with her...

Not sure how I am going to close this one out - probably Conquistadors to flip enemy cities to enable a religious victory. Anyhow best game of Civ VI yet by a long shot.
 
I`ve had to save scum twice in my fight against Kongo. 4 warriors and a heavy chariot against my unwalled capital. My units were a bit misplaced because a barb camp raid in the east away from my capital. I did kind of take a huge risk to see if Kongo would bite or not. Now i know to be more carefull against the current AI.
This was the Ancient era.

I wonder if you played the previous patch - comments I've seen praising AI improvements mostly focus on things like this that were implemented in the last patch. Since that the AI has known how to implement a siege and these 4-unit rushes are fairly typical. The downside is, they only ever work in the earliest game stages and the AI won't send larger armies in if they fail. Exactly this happened in my last session, when a Roman siege attack captured newly-founded Osaka, which I took back within a few turns (i.e. as soon as my first heavy chariot finished production, as I had multiple archers attacking the city). The AI advance will also stop if you have more than one city, as I did - it never moved its units forward towards Tokyo.

Timing also seems highly stereotyped, so like a Zerg rush in Starcraft you can simply play around it by getting a couple of units in defensive positions no later than turn 20-25 (on Emperor - they may attack sooner on higher difficulties) and you'll probably be fine.
 
I think I skipped the previous patch, so I can compare with the release version.
I think that combat AI became just a little bit better and there are no dramatic changes. Some examples (playing on Emperor):

1. Lategame formal DOW by India (had 3 cities). While I was mostly busy with Australia (some lazy wars, Australia declared joint war on me three times or so, sending 1-2 troops to different cities and then signing a peace threaty), India sent lots of cavalry/knights (I think about 10 units total). The good thing I noticed, that India was able to take down vulnerable units, so I lost a few. But then AI turned the stupid mode on and instead of doing something usefull half of the units gone deeper into my territory to find a more protected city with an encampment (they died there). Another half was trying to attack the walls of my border city (they died too).
2. Early DOW by Aztec. Three war carts didn't save me. Four eagle warriors just focused them to death. No strange dances around my units.
3. My sneak attack on Rome. I deliberately tried to play carelessly here because had too bad starting location: jungles on one side, tundra on the other. I attacked Rome forces near my cities directly, leaving my archers vulnerable to the chariot. Instead of shooting my archers and attacking them with a chariot, AI started the strange dances around my units without attacking anyone.
4. Various DOWs I was not prepared for: while I was usually able to relocate my forces, it seems that AI is targeting districts for pillaging if it is not "feeling confident" in capturing the city.
5. I've seen Poland bombing the nearby China.
6. Whle the Brazil was trying to capture Stockholm (Really Brazil? I mean really? Stockholm?!) in early game, I've found two unprotected Brazilian settlers. That obviously meant two free cities for me.

My conclusion:
1. AI is still unable to build support units. I don't know why it is so difficult to fix.
2. AI with large territory is still unable to build large army. It seems that AI is more focused on victory conditions than on army. Unfortunately I haven't seen AI that was obviously trying domination.
3. Oppositely, the small and hopeless AI is quite able to prepare a large army (it may be a little bit outdated, of course). But without support units such blitzkrieg is doomed.
4. AI still likes to capture the city-states regardless of their usefulness.
5. AI is able to build bombers and destroy the enemy infrastructure with them.
6. As before, AI can seriously hurt your economy if you leave your districts unprotected.
7. Ritual dancing around the enemy is still there.
8. AI is still unable to concentrate forces in one region except the early game.
 
Top Bottom