Really bad AI. Anyone else experiencing this?

[MAvL]

I have aslo noticed Archer Bombard makes AI less agressive because it tends to use it too much instead of standard attack, but I hate the all of nothing combat in this game so I will keep using it until I mange to mod combat mechanics to make units last more than one battle without killing or being killed (like in Civ VI).

One idea could be to give every unit a significant chance to retreat. AND already have mechanic to allow retreat while defending. It would increase the importance of retreating and healing, which might be yet another thing the AI doesn't cope well with.

 

[<Nexus>]

I don't think it's a very good idea to compare Civ4 and Civ6 in this area (and many others) since the scaling of the game is very different. I keep laughing every time I see a mapscript uploaded for Civ6 saying Giant. What is large in Civ6 is standard in Civ4. IMO the same goes for units: In Civ4 you build far more units than in Civ5 or Civ6.
The whole thing is different.

 

[MAvL]

I don't think the comparison is necessarilly bad here.

Spoilers to not take too much space for something a bit off topic

Spoiler :

There are good reasons why Civ 4 meta is some sort of rock-paper-scissors stacks of dooms. If you want to change that, and options like surround and destroy and archer bombard are attempts to change that, you might as well look at games that were thought from the ground up with those mechanics in mind.

The only implication of "In Civ4 you build far more units than in Civ5 or Civ6", is that you can't really punish stacks of doom too harshly or at all (unless you revamp economy as well).

It is true stack limitation goes well along non/less lethal 1v1 in making tactics different. For example, in civ2 or C-evo, you got stack limitation but lethal encounters and it's very prone to stalemate, especially on narrow but open terrain : even if you got more troops, you're very hesitant to move them forward more than 1 or 2 per tile at once, kill a wave of ennemy and get killed the next turn, rince and repeat; the lesser side only has to match the renewal rates of unit (dictated by the terrain) and even pays less maintenance. Wheras with non lethal attack as in civ 6, you got to pick which units to kill or wound, there is usually more desicion involed than "clear the frontilne".

But I don't see why you couldn't make non lethal 1v1 and still allow doomstacks. Sure I wouldn't play it, as it would make post industrial warfare several times more tedious than it already is, and it would definitely require to play slower game speeds, but I don't see it as infeasible or broken.

In civ, there is a precarious balance between the initiative advantage (whoever turn it is can pick fights) and defensive bonuses. I guess non lethal 1v1 might be an easy way to lessen the initiative advantage and archer bombard a way to lessen the defensive bonus. That could shift the focus to other things and make combat feel a little less turn based and a little more tactical (than it already is, tactical and turn based are not opposed).

The "other things" and "more tactical" are yet to be defined, and non lethal 1v1 and archer bombard are not enough to change the "rock-paper-scissors stacks of dooms" nature of civ 4 warfare, but I guess surround and destroy sould be enough for that.

 

[Ivan Preuss]

I have given this mod a fair amount of time and there wasn't a single instance in which the AI had at the very least declared war on me. I was playing on Noble difficulty each time; never lost a city to the AI.

 

[rtt4a]

I have given this mod a fair amount of time and there wasn't a single instance in which the AI had at the very least declared war on me. I was playing on Noble difficulty each time; never lost a city to the AI.

yep.. this is the biggest problem of AND. You cant "play" this seriously like K-mod or even regular BTS.. but I still like to build empire. I have won every game years now and I would win games no matter what against this AI. AI just do everything stupidly and it has no clue how to fight wars..

 

[Ivan Preuss]

I notice you haven't updated for a while. I hope that's because you're working on the problems in this game. The lousy AI isn't the worse one for me. It's the disappearing economy. I stopped playing because in one game I had 8000+ science, the next turn it was just over 2000! The turn after that it went up to 5000. Not the first time this happened. I've had games where it would drop 30-40%, never recover and then do the same thing again later in the game. These incidents happened without me changing civics or even building any new cities. I really hope you fix this problem because it's unplayable for me now and I miss it!

I beg to differ. This happened only once to me, but I found it really exciting. I had a high science output compared to other civs, and when it suddenly went down I was really intrigued. After it persisted for some turns I found myself desperately elaborating a recovery plan which worked quite well, and was pretty satisfying. The economy being unpredictable is not only reallistic, it also adds a welcome challenge to gameplay, in my opinion. Maybe the way it is executed could be different, but the idea of an unpredictable economy is a great one. Maybe something like Rhye's and Fall DOC's.

 

[<Nexus>]

I beg to differ. This happened only once to me, but I found it really exciting. I had a high science output compared to other civs, and when it suddenly went down I was really intrigued. After it persisted for some turns I found myself desperately elaborating a recovery plan which worked quite well, and was pretty satisfying. The economy being unpredictable is not only reallistic, it also adds a welcome challenge to gameplay, in my opinion. Maybe the way it is executed could be different, but the idea of an unpredictable economy is a great one. Maybe something like Rhye's and Fall DOC's.

Unfortunately your case was a bug and not a feature, not something planned and designed. Normally players should be be noticed: "Wow! Look what happened!"

But it's good that you made juice from the lemon and still had fun with it

 

[valergrad]

I have given this mod a fair amount of time and there wasn't a single instance in which the AI had at the very least declared war on me. I was playing on Noble difficulty each time; never lost a city to the AI.

Sorry, this is just you. May be you are playing at very easy levels? Never played at Noble, but at Immortal or Deity AI is definitely declaring wars and trying to eliminate you. I would even say that it depends not on AI level, but on military comparison. AI probably would not attack if you have equal military or so. But if it has 3-5-20 times more military than you ( and this is achievable on Deity ) and at least equal on technology and border cultural conflicts - it will definitely attack you unless you in a very good relationships ( from religion or anything else ).

I am not trying to say that AI is smart, it is surely not, but it is definitely not as stupid as you describe him. Try higher levels - when AI has more cities, more technology, more military - and see how it will probably attack you. Including destroying strategic resources, bombs or even MADs.

 

[Ivan Preuss]

Sorry, this is just you. May be you are playing at very easy levels? Never played at Noble, but at Immortal or Deity AI is definitely declaring wars and trying to eliminate you. I would even say that it depends not on AI level, but on military comparison. AI probably would not attack if you have equal military or so. But if it has 3-5-20 times more military than you ( and this is achievable on Deity ) and at least equal on technology and border cultural conflicts - it will definitely attack you unless you in a very good relationships ( from religion or anything else ).

As far as I can tell, your assumption is far from correct. There were times the AI could definitely attack me and conquer some cities, but it chose not to. There were times the AI had greater military strength than me and it failed to put said strength to good use. This indicates a problem at a much more fundamental level than simple difficulty settings.

And this is not to mention that Noble is the most balanced difficulty setting. At Noble, the behavior I reported should definitely not happen. It doesn't on base Civ BTS; so what makes you think this is just me? You should try and play on Noble to see it for yourself.

I am not trying to say that AI is smart, it is surely not, but it is definitely not as stupid as you describe him. Try higher levels - when AI has more cities, more technology, more military - and see how it will probably attack you. Including destroying strategic resources, bombs or even MADs.

I have plans to try flexible difficulty and flexible AI, see if it makes a difference, as suggested previously in this thread. When I'm satisfied with the testing I might return and tell you guys my observations about it.

 

[Ivan Preuss]

Unfortunately your case was a bug and not a feature, not something planned and designed. Normally players should be be noticed: "Wow! Look what happened!"

But it's good that you made juice from the lemon and still had fun with it

Yeah, I had my suspicions...

 

[valergrad]

As far as I can tell, your assumption is far from correct. There were times the AI could definitely attack me and conquer some cities, but it chose not to. There were times the AI had greater military strength than me and it failed to put said strength to good use. This indicates a problem at a much more fundamental level than simple difficulty settings.

And this is not to mention that Noble is the most balanced difficulty setting. At Noble, the behavior I reported should definitely not happen. It doesn't on base Civ BTS; so what makes you think this is just me? You should try and play on Noble to see it for yourself.



I have plans to try flexible difficulty and flexible AI, see if it makes a difference, as suggested previously in this thread. When I'm satisfied with the testing I might return and tell you guys my observations about it.

Probably you haven't got my idea... I haven't said that AI will always attack you when it has good opportunity - no, in fact it is not. In fact, AI will miss 9 from 10 good opportunities to attack. But you've said that AI never attacked you - this is what I didn't agree.
And yes, I totally agree that AND AI is more stupid than BTS AI. So, where BTS will miss 7 from 10 good opportunities to attack, AND will miss 9 of them. And this is probably mistakes with coding - every single AND function that I've looked carefully has a lot of mistakes in calculations or strange decisions. I have impression that it causes that AND AI is one-two levels easier that corresponding BTS, and playing AND at noble - it is like something playing BTS at chieftain. And if you played BTS at noble, and want the same level of challenge in AND you should probably try monarch.

 

[Ivan Preuss]

Probably you haven't got my idea... I haven't said that AI will always attack you when it has good opportunity - no, in fact it is not. In fact, AI will miss 9 from 10 good opportunities to attack. But you've said that AI never attacked you - this is what I didn't agree.

But, my friend, that is only a statement of fact. It's not for you to agree with it or not.

And yes, I totally agree that AND AI is more stupid than BTS AI. So, where BTS will miss 7 from 10 good opportunities to attack, AND will miss 9 of them. And this is probably mistakes with coding - every single AND function that I've looked carefully has a lot of mistakes in calculations or strange decisions. I have impression that it causes that AND AI is one-two levels easier that corresponding BTS, and playing AND at noble - it is like something playing BTS at chieftain. And if you played BTS at noble, and want the same level of challenge in AND you should probably try monarch.

What I want is a fair game, with smart AIs that can behave wisely without having to resort to disproportionate bonuses to create a challenge, but that is beside the point. I have had similar experiences with other mods in which I could play at Deity and only get reasonable dificulty levels, so I'd prefer to ramp it up a little bit more. As I have said, I am still going to try it.

 

[valergrad]

But, my friend, that is only a statement of fact. It's not for you to agree with it or not..

Sure) But here is another fact : this happened because of your settings. If you chose another difficulty level => you'll get a challenge.

Of course you can complain "AI is not smart enough", but this is not helpful. It really is, and it is not "bug", it is just how this 100k or something lines of code were written by bunch of authors. Unless you not going to rewrite them all with your 100k lines of code -> this not give us too much info.
Bug - is something more concrete, like "Look at this save, AI don't attack this city, and it would be obvious decision to do so".

 

[Ivan Preuss]

Sure) But here is another fact : this happened because of your settings. If you chose another difficulty level => you'll get a challenge.

Once again, I'm still going to try it. If I'll get a challenge out of it or not is something for me to judge in my own due time.

But if this challenge comes from unfair principles and not a significant capacity to predict and even outsmart the player, as I've said before, this challenge is far from being satisfactory to me.

Of course you can complain "AI is not smart enough", but this is not helpful. It really is, and it is not "bug", it is just how this 100k or something lines of code were written by bunch of authors. Unless you not going to rewrite them all with your 100k lines of code -> this not give us too much info.
Bug - is something more concrete, like "Look at this save, AI don't attack this city, and it would be obvious decision to do so".

Allow me to politely tell you that the reason I'm here is neither to argue semantics nor to debate the appropriate conduct when facing the unsatisfactory in a situation such as this. Suffice to say that the behaviour I reported is paralleled by commentaries in this thread, and as such it is well within the scope of the original complain that initiated this discussion.

 

[Trantor]

try this save game and tell me if AI is bad

 

[Trantor]

oh...humans have an edge here...you get 5 tech each time you capture a AI city.... still you will loose cities to AI at regular interval

 

[IPEX-731BA5DD06]

Wrong forum, if your using the "Cave Man to Cosmos" mod C2C

 

[Combat Wombat]

Back from a hiatus from playing and doing my usual setup the AI does seem to be struggling to do basic things. They aren't building improvements except for the barbarians who are going as normal. The Barbarians are also trouncing many of the other AIs over and over again in fights even wiping out Civs.

 

[robbyextreme]

Back from a hiatus from playing and doing my usual setup the AI does seem to be struggling to do basic things. They aren't building improvements except for the barbarians who are going as normal. The Barbarians are also trouncing many of the other AIs over and over again in fights even wiping out Civs.

Maybe it's cause I always play on the same map and same difficulty level with no raging barbarians but I have never seen AI failing to make improvements or losing more than 1 or 2 cities to barbs.

 

[Combat Wombat]

No raging barbarians just barbarian generals, so the barbs got a golden age which does explain some of it maybe, but not why most of the actual AI empires struggled to do even some really basic stuff.