The AIs current warfare ability

[Janig]

Hi guys

With the current steam sale, and a number of questions being asked about the AIs warfare ability, Im making this topic to demonstrate the current aptitude of the AI. I bought g&k yesterday so this is the most up to date verson of the game.

I pick a small random map, normal settings, Celts, and Emperor because I havent played for a long time. The start of the game goes ok, Im still learning the new features so I make a few silly moves. Ive read comments about the AI being much stronger early game, and more aggressive, so Im weary.

All looks quiet on the western front

but Ive read the forums, so I send the scout to check it out
whoa. next turn...
cyrus declares war on me immediately


120 years later cyrus has found my border city

...and cyrus retreats

Well, that was my first experience of war in my first game of g&k. So much for the Nov 14th patch. At least I got the game cheap, and now you know that the AI is still crap. If I could travel back in time I would not buy this game.

 

[Camikaze]

So what I think you're saying is that you'd prefer the AI to suicide its forces? I'm not entirely sure what about the example you've given is an exemplification of poor AI, unless you think any sort of retreat ever by the AI is bad. Without a retreat, the forces around Dublin would be annihilated by your pikemen and bowmen. Cyrus has achieved an early war that has to some extent stunted your development (e.g. pillaged tiles and you switched production to walls), so why should he not play it out defensively?

 

[Donaskme]

Your walls went in, raising defense from 15 to 21 on turn 137, thus changing the nature of the battleground. You advanced Composite Bowmen into range of his melee units at the same time. The aggressor performed a strategic retreat since plan A had just been compromised. That doesn't exactly strike me as a fail, nor is it even totally unexpected.

The AI has its problems, but I don't think this is an example of them.

 

[Matthew.]

The AI has improved significantly since vanilla release.

I think one of the main problems has been that taking cities is difficult. A city with garrison can hold off a stupid number of enemy units. The player gets around this by A.) Not attacking cities with too high of defense and B.) Relying on mass ranged units--preferably from 3 tiles or more away.

The AI can and does calculate city strength, but it cannot reason that a weak city surrounded by water, forest, hills, and mountains is still nearly impossible to take without long range.

I think the overall situation could be improved significantly by giving AI combat units a small passive bonus to combat strength. The AI needs to be able to take a few cheap hits from the player and survive, because it cannot play on a human tactical level. I'd also much rather have this passive bonus increase with difficulty than giving the AI the ability to pump out units at a fraction of production cost.

 

[Gucumatz]

Look I am not one afraid to complain about bad AI... but this isn't a case of it. You built a walls, had 2 composite bowmen and 3 Pikemen vs 5 ranged units, a mounted unit, and 2 warriors. There was no significant advantage - and even if Persia was a human player - as a human player you could have repelled that attack with the troops you had. You had a strong enough defense, this is far from a case of bad AI... find actual faults rather than complain the sky isn't your shade of blue, because there are plenty of actual faults.

 

[Civking5]

Lets look at this example as if it is a multiplayer game and I am Persia and u r celts. I c the city of Dublin defenceless so I attack with everything I have. As soon as my units surrounded your city, I realize that u have composite bowmen and pikemen behinds. Right next turn, Dublin finishes its wall, and this changes everything since I did not bring any siege weapons. Now the question is, should I loose everything behind Dublin's wall or retreat for now? Ofcourse AI still can be improved a lot. It will be a lot more challenging if AI is changed to attack to multiple locations at the same time. Or it is changed to attack with at least two or three solid waves.

 

[Light Cleric]

It was smart that he retreated but I don't think that force had any business being there to start with. What the hell was Darius doing attacking with that army composition with no siege on turn 136? Maybe that's because it was Emperor I don't know.

I had the same thing happen the other day on Deity no less. Bismark walks a bunch of Warriors and Archers up(no siege) to my border city and sits them LITERALLY right next to my Composites and Swords on turn ~75. He DoWs and immediately retreats and I pursued and slaughtered him. I think it was because it took him a long to get to me as he had to walk around India, but you'd think by the time he got there and looked directly at my superior units he'd say "Hmm maybe this is a bad idea".

 

[smallfish]

What I would like is a... let's call this the Competency Modifier. In every game at the start, there will be a hidden number which determines which AI is frighteningly military genius, which AI will just throw endless hordes at your face (and be bad at it), and which AI is either-or-neither. This could definitely tie in with a runaway modifier which may or may not exist that determines which AIs will be the score leaders, and you could get some hilarious results - like a Gandhi who has been forced into OCC but has been holding on his own for centuries because all his warmonger neighbors are dumb spammers (who happened to get lucky with his other cities), or a Bismarck whose empire got torn to shreds by... a multitude of city-states.

 

[Janig]

Guys Im not here to argue as to why the AI is incompetent, give me my money back and I'll beta test for you, until then Im just raising awareness. I mean I even offered to beta test for free before release, yet we get this crappy product so I guess the devs just dont care

I think the overall situation could be improved significantly by giving AI combat units a small passive bonus to combat strength. The AI needs to be able to take a few cheap hits from the player and survive, because it cannot play on a human tactical level. I'd also much rather have this passive bonus increase with difficulty than giving the AI the ability to pump out units at a fraction of production cost.

That could be a brilliant suggestion; easily implemented and it directly relates to the problem which is AI combat.

Just to explain the pictured game a bit more: The AI doesnt use its horses to explore/prod my territory, the AI negates its ranged units by obstruction of the forest, the AI loses about 5 units, the AI takes a big rep hit, and the AI is too slow to move.

 

[Matthew.]

That could be a brilliant suggestion; easily implemented and it directly relates to the problem which is AI combat.

I've tested it out in mods, and I was pleased with the results. Seemed to work best in the 35-65% range--anything beyond that, and unit choice became pointless, since AI tended to one-shot your ranged and melee.

It may not make the AI smarter, but at the very least, it requires the player to focus on tactics and strategy a bit more. e.g., standing on flat ground compared to hill may actually get your units killed, upgrades become important to try and equalize, etc.

 

[Civking5]

I don't think anyone arguing here. Almost everyone agrees that AI must improve in this game. But the example that you brought here can be interpreted in different ways and it does not show a bad AI performance. Furthermore, in my opinion there is a big difference in emperor and immortal level; therefore, seems u r an experienced player, I suggest u try an immortal level game also.

 

[whyidie]

In addition to the walls did you spend some coin on units ? You went from 1,600 to 800.

The game definitely changed on the AI. I actually like that the AI can't get an exact picture of my potential strength. At least on the lower levels (Emp and below) I play at. For those who play higher levels this may be a nice addition.

As others have said, there are definitive problems with the AI, but this seems more of a bait and switch tactic which you played nicely.

Also, Darius seems to have 2 of 4 cities on tundra. From the screenshots you provided, it seems that he really had no way out. When he declared on you did he give you the "I'll probably lose, but this is my best shot" line ?

 

[Donaskme]

give me my money back and I'll beta test ... I even offered to beta test for free ... the devs just dont care ... Im just raising awareness

Your example doesn't support this whine. You built walls, you advanced bowmen, and you spent 800 gold contriving this example. And the AI did pretty much what any intelligent human would do in the same instance. Nobody needs their awareness raised, since nobody is pretending that the AI compares to a human being.

If you're sore that you weren't selected to beta test, that's a whole nuther can of worms. Your verbiage suggests that you have an axe to grind, rather than anything useful to contribute.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Please discuss this in a civil way!

 

[Janig]

Donaskme Im anything but sore right now. People usually pay me to test their games, Ive been a fan of Civ since ever, I know the industry, and Im just pointing out that the devs dont seem to care. Fingers crossed for Civ6.

In addition to the walls did you spend some coin on units ? You went from 1,600 to 800.

The game definitely changed on the AI. I actually like that the AI can't get an exact picture of my potential strength. At least on the lower levels (Emp and below) I play at. For those who play higher levels this may be a nice addition.

As others have said, there are definitive problems with the AI, but this seems more of a bait and switch tactic which you played nicely.

Also, Darius seems to have 2 of 4 cities on tundra. From the screenshots you provided, it seems that he really had no way out. When he declared on you did he give you the "I'll probably lose, but this is my best shot" line ?

I rushed a barracks and 1 archer thats all. Actions speak louder than words so I didnt read the message. As much as I'd like to believe I only won because Im super talented, thats simply not true; I was almost asleep playing that game. The real issue is as I wrote earlier:

The AI doesnt use its horses to explore/prod, the AI negates its ranged units by obstruction of the forest, the AI loses about 5 units, the AI takes a big rep hit, and the AI is too slow to move.

I suggest u try an immortal level game also.

The whole point of 1upt was to streamline Civ, make combat more interesting and get rid of the stack of doom from Civ4. Increasing the difficulty level wont make combat any more interesting, it'll just mean more of the same bad combat.

 

[Gucumatz]

I play multiplayer often on Civ 5 because playing AI isn't the same as playing humans.

As for archers behind the forest, I don't see that [big] of a problem with that. Prevents your comp bow from hitting them and allows AI to retreat an archer away from the forest if hit and replace.

The AI still doesn't target the right units enough and doesn't kill them, which is a huge problem as the Human in singleplayer will have time to retreat the unit.

Its turn 131-136 and your science is somewhat low and you had a nice stack of cash and some units to spare. It shouldn't have warred you in the first place. There are cases where I have played and seen the AI throw carpet after carpet of units only to watch my units slaughter them piece by piece. The AI is overly agressive to make up [somewhat] for its lack of intelligence and if you allow them to become a runaway its possible to be mobbed and lose a city/ground.

I have never beta tested a game before, but these seem to have been flaws in the engine. AI can be competitive, it just doesn't feel "fair" when they are because of the amount of advantages they have. If you can accept that the game is actually pretty good, if you can't... well you won't like it.

A lot of us like the game but agree it can be improved. I played a lot of Civ 4 Multi and combat/strategy felt so contrived and poor to me in Civ 4. AI could feel threatening, but never very competent either... but I only lost like 2 games ever on Civ 4 as well [I never played deity on Civ 4]

I feel like its a matter of perspective - the problem is a lot of Civ fans didn't have that perspective that we Civ 5 fans have, and thats the Developer's fault

 

[Browd]

I generally agree. The AI is programmed better, a bit more human like, but that also means human like misjudgments. Recent game I made a very human misjudgment after conquering Austria and puppeting her cities, and then turning my army to Ramses. As I did it, I thought, I should leave a screening force to block Cathy -- she's expanding in my direction and trading lower prices for luxuries, but, no, I left a pike behind and plowed though Ramses. As I was about to assault Thebes, yes, Cathy DOWs, targeting my recently puppeted Austrian cities-- astute move really, good timing. As I puppeted Thebes, I started peeling off units to dash to the defense of those cities. She took two cities, but then melted before my reaction force. Left her with one inconsequential city, but the point still held -- her DOW was well timed and took good advantage of my misjudgment. The fact that I then swept her off the map is, I think, beside the point.

 

[Janig]

That's a fine example thank you Browd.

I play multiplayer often on Civ 5 because playing AI isn't the same as playing humans.

The problem with multiplayer Civ5 is that its a lot more demanding than singleplayer, and potentially unhealthy. I pause and have breaks from singleplayer all the time, any multiplayer group would hate me for it, and if I didnt have breaks I should be sick. We arent meant to focus on computer screens for hours at a time, Civ multiplayer lasts hours at least, therefor its bad

G&K sucks, However if the developers can really focus on making a chess-like combat AI, 1upt Civ could be the best game ever. Fingers crossed.

 

[whyidie]

That's a fine example thank you Browd.



G&K sucks, However if the developers can really focus on making a chess-like combat AI, 1upt Civ could be the best game ever. Fingers crossed.

Or give us an option like the Total War series. Stack them up to move them about. When a fights about to break out give the user the option of going into a mini-map mode and duking it out. Can keep it a turn based mini map rather than real time.

 

[Gucumatz]

That's a fine example thank you Browd.

The problem with multiplayer Civ5 is that its a lot more demanding than singleplayer, and potentially unhealthy. I pause and have breaks from singleplayer all the time, any multiplayer group would hate me for it, and if I didnt have breaks I should be sick. We arent meant to focus on computer screens for hours at a time, Civ multiplayer lasts hours at least, therefor its bad

G&K sucks, However if the developers can really focus on making a chess-like combat AI, 1upt Civ could be the best game ever. Fingers crossed.

Well you could play all of them in one session

But... There is also Giant Multi Death Robot where you only play a few turns/a turn at a time/session.

G&K does not suck - the AI does - big difference in my opinion.