Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by V. Soma, Dec 21, 2016.
Whoa. Completely missed that one.
It's truly sad, I never noticed this project either. The AI has never gotten close to attacking a city of mine.
Quite the indictment on the AI. It's very buried at the bottom of the production screen as it is, it took me a long time to notice and figure out. Then sometimes the project wasn't there (because it hadn't been 3 turns)...lots of confusion.
I think it makes more sense to have some sort of reduction of city strength per turn (for X turns) opposed to health, basically making the city weaker without actually reducing the population. I don't think fortifying a few units around a city for 10 turns should be enough. It should require an actual attack at some point.
Didn't know that either. Wonder why it doesn't show up as a normal "repair" as with buildings when you capture a city?
A question: Is there any new Domination Victory condition?
I played another AI vs AI, Autoplay and Monty 2 captured Monty 1's capital (a walled city!) and yet game went on...
When I attack cities I don't require any masterclass tactics to succeed. I pretty much surround it with a few of my good units and ram their faces into the walls until it is mine. Heal up, rinse, repeat. Artillery and missile attacks help it go a bit faster but I don't go out of my way for it.
I don't know what makes the AI so cowardly, but I honestly think a dumber AI would be much scarier to face since there would be an actual danger of losing things.
I am an average player and at emperor level I have never lost a single city in dozens of games, even the very first ones.
Am I a super player or the AI has been programmed by an alien species which ignores the word " strategy " ??
I just won my very first Emperor game in Civ series ever (and I've played all Civ games from Civ 1 --- I'm not counting Civ:BE though) and am about to win my first immortal. My military defenses are pathetic/nonexistent. Being DOWd used to terrify me but now it's a total joke. I just have my city attack 1-2 of their units and wait a few turns and they immediately declare peace.
I agree it is super easy to take cities now because the AI is not really defending. My point is that when properly defended they can be almost impossible to take when terrain limits the number of units that can attack per turn or limit approach attack and retreat options.
The AI doesn't use garrisoned ranged units currently. If a city has walls, an encampment and two ranged units that's 4 ranged shots per turn. If it is not possible to make a single turn approach where you can attack the city that turn or the next turn that unit will be decimated before they do any damage.
If the ranged units are level 2 upgrades then the 4 ranged attacks are going to kill 1-2 units per turn as they approach.
Do you think if a human was defending a city that it would still be easy to take without overwhelming forces?
Can you PLEASE add this exact thing to the 2K forums and maybe even have 2K Joe PMed about this.. This is SOLID evidence of the issues with the AI. Amazingly it looks more bugged then bad AI. I assume somewhere in the code it eithjer gets too locked up on its own units or something or they just dont have enough priority to get it.
It doesnt matter if they do or not... they CAN NOT seem to fix their own game. If the dev isnt able to debug and fix the AI in a timely manner ( and this patch should have had a HUGE section of AI fixes) then fire him. If he can do his job then find someone that can and will. It either seem the devs on the AI team dont have the heart or are completely incompetent. I will be speaking with whoever I can at some point and maybe even an open letter to Firaxis and 2K.
Once again I reiterate that if the AI devs cannot do their job and a modder has to then I will gladly pay the modder. NOT THE DEV OR COMPANY THAT CANT DO THEIR JOB
The AI doesn't even try to succeed, though. Like you see ranged units start their turn in shooting range of your city but they don't shoot it. Melee units just milling around next to a city, not attacking it.
"Enemy in range -> Attack it" seems like the least we could expect from the combat AI. I could understand if the AI units were over-confident, attacking when they shouldn't, or shooting the first thing in range when there's a better target a move away - that's why AI players get difficulty bonuses to help them replace losses and have stronger units in the first place. But the AI units not even using their attacks is kind of unforgivable.
I may try that, maybe using 10% of remaining health each turn until a minimum value is reached, I wouldn't want the city to fall without at least a fight and lowering the health may be enough to trigger an AI attack.
Samaurai is a bit of a special situation because of it's full attack strength even when injured. But even in that case I have to disagree. I'm talking about having to attack a city with human level AI defending with walls, encampment and 2 upgraded crossbows in a city. Add in an obstacle like a river that covers 3 sides of the city hex, then things become exponentially more difficult. In case you haven't noticed, currently the AI never fires with garrisoned ranged units. I think you would find it much more difficult if they did. Kinda like what the AI encounters when it attacks one of your cities, every unit is quickly damaged to the point where they no longer have the attack strength to do any significant damage.
Terrain is the X factor, if it severely limits your approach or attacking and retreating options it can make city conquer extremely difficult to impossible. If those 4 knights can't approach and attack in one turn then they are going to be killed or severely injured before they do any damage. This is of minimal defense example, add 1 or 2 properly placed pikemen it becomes impossible when competently defended. When you have 4 ranged shots per turn it's pretty easy to concentrate fire on any units with a battering ram or siege tower.
That's just the medieval example, I expect it would be very hard to capture a city with an artilery plus ballon garrisoned.
The AI seems to do a lot better with battering rams and siege towers than it does with ranged siege weapons. Maybe there's just a general problem with the ranged unit AI so it leans heavily on melee units to take cities.
I like the idea that you would need to siege the city in order to attack without damage or maybe like you said lose a portion of city health regardless of attack. But if the city just lost 10% per turn then the attack power of the units becomes irrelevant. The amount of city health lost should be dictated by the combined strength of the surrounding units vs the city defense. You shouldn't be able to take a city surrounded with warriors in the same time it takes to take the same city with modern infantry.
I agree usefulness of melee units could use a boost versus that of ranged. I definitely had that in mind when I was thinking of this.
My rule of thumb is 3 ranged units can kill 1 unit of equal strength entirely per turn. So you have 2 crossbows (say 45 strength with promotion firing at 48 strength knights) and 2 city/encampment ranged attacks.
On turn 1 let's say the first knight hits the encampment with the siege tower and then dies to the ranged attack. Knights #2 and #3 finish off the encampment and also kill crossbowman #1 which was in the encampment.
Turn 2 starts and knight #2 is roughly half-damaged by crossbowman #2 in the city center and the city center ranged strike. Knight #2 retreats and heal-promotes, assuming it's not yet reached level 1. Knights #3 and #4 attack the city and take to something well under half-health, not sure exactly, maybe 30-40%.
Turn 3 starts and knight #3 gets attacked down to half-health before attacking, but it doesn't matter. If Knight #4 doesn't end the city, #3 still has enough juice to end it, and knight #1 is probably still within range to attack that turn.
I'm pretty sure that's the way it plays, with a siege tower. Knight #4 might have to cross a river on turn 1 and then wait for the siege tower to show up in order to let all knights attack the city center. Siege mechanic doesn't really matter here, in this hypothetical with an overwhelming 4 knights and a siege tower. I'm not sure if 3 knights could win this scenario or not so I went conservative.
I understand the AI is terrible and Samurai are a bit unique still doing full-damage when hurt, but I was just trying to answer your question of how many units and how much time would it take to beat walls, an encamp, and 2 crossbows. My samurai example was actually performed on a human player, we were both kind of shocked at how fast Samurai took the city down. Cities themselves are very weak.
Completely agree. The AI has no idea how to use ranged units for assault or defense. I'm just concerned that once they fix the AI ability to garrison and defend cities with ranged units that the AI will never be able to take each other's cities even with improved aggressiveness.
Have they gotten worse? I mean was there a patch that worsened things somehow? I think in my second or third game AI Monty conquered two other Civs, Spain and France I think. It wasn't all pre-walls either. Some of it was pretty late game. I haven't seen anything like it in my last couple games though. I was playing a lower difficulty then though. Prince I think.
Will win my first deity game which is something I dont think I should be able to do so there's definitely something wrong with the AI. I feel like the expendable builders and unstacked cities are having the same effect on city building that 1upt had on warfare in V. Cities I capture in the late game are pretty poorly developed with almost no attention paid to adjacency bonuses.
Separate names with a comma.