2016 Winter Patch - Combat AI...?

[Gort]

They don't repair themselves; you have to run a Repair Walls Project, which you can only do if the walls haven't been attacked in the last 3 turns.

Whoa. Completely missed that one.

 

[dac050]

They don't repair themselves; you have to run a Repair Walls Project, which you can only do if the walls haven't been attacked in the last 3 turns.

It's truly sad, I never noticed this project either. The AI has never gotten close to attacking a city of mine.

 

[jollywonk]

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.

 

[Lucius_]

An AI-friendly change I'd like to see is for besieged cities to lose 10% of their health every turn (so a city besieged for 10 turns will fall, even if it's never attacked). The AI can besiege cities, and this change would circumvent the AI reluctance to actually attack. Plus, I think it makes sense historically (the city is starving, after all) and would make navies more significant (since you'll need navies to besiege coastal cities). It would also tip the balance a little bit away from ranged units and toward melee units which can exert zone of control.

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.

 

[kaspergm]

They don't repair themselves; you have to run a Repair Walls Project, which you can only do if the walls haven't been attacked in the last 3 turns.

Didn't know that either. Wonder why it doesn't show up as a normal "repair" as with buildings when you capture a city?

 

[V. Soma]

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...

 

[Cymsdale]

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.

 

[Jabulani]

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 " ??

 

[Stringer1313]

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.

 

[PYITE]

@Gort: Epic, if completely disheartening, read about the AI's (in)capability in besieging cities. Somehow, it seems as if Civ6 AI is even less capable than Civ5 AI?


I disagree. Almost on the other hand, I think cities are too easy to conquer if you know what you're doing. The new siege mechanism and the fact that you can knock down walls and hence remove city attack effectively counters many of the problems inherent in Civ5 city combat. City attacks might be tuned down a bit in damage, but on the bottom line, I think the problem is not cities being too hard to take, but the AI being completely clueless about what it's doing.

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?

 

[tekjunkie28]

How long it takes the AI to conquer a capital city that shoots at them

Turn 208: Start
Turn 211: Meet Aztecs, declare war
Turn 219: Enemy city state machinegun shows up, gets shot by city center, retreats
Turn 240: Barbarian machinegun shows up, gets shot by city center and encampment, dies
Turn 252: First Aztec military unit shows up, half-dead infantryman
Turn 279: Carthage (neighbouring enemy city state) invades with two machineguns, a helicopter, an infantryman and a rocket artillery
Turn 284: City and encampment shoot down one of Carthage's helicopters, their rocket artillery has retreated having not yet fired a shot
Turn 285: City kills a Carthaginian machinegun
Turn 291: City kills the Carthaginian rocket artillery
Turn 302: City kills a Carthaginian infantryman - there are now no enemies near the capital
Turn 311: Aztecs invade in force - a modern tank army and two mechanised infantry. The tank army is bombarded for 6 damage by the encampment
Turn 312: The modern tank army attacks the encampment and dents it a bit
Turn 314: The two mechanised infantry form a corps
Turn 315: The modern tank army leaves
Turn 319: An Aztec and a Carthaginian helicopter show up
Turn 320: A Carthaginian rocket artillery shows up
Turn 321: The Carthaginian rocket artillery attacks the city for decent damage
Turn 323: The city and encampment destroy the Carthaginian helicopter
Turn 329: The city and encampment destroy the Carthaginian rocket artillery
Turn 347: I make a builder to repair some damage to the tiles around the city, a half-dead Aztec helicopter rushes adjacent from out of the fog of war. It is shot by the capital and encampment, I move the builder back into the capital.
Turn 348: I move the builder out again and the same even-more-dead Aztec helicopter rushes adjacent from out of the fog of war. It is shot and destroyed by the capital and encampment.
Turn 359: I notice a bug whereby the capital and the encampment's walls are not healing, even though there are no enemies nearby, and haven't been for about ten turns now.
Turn 360: Amsterdam invades with two mechanised infantry and a machinegun
Turn 366: Lisbon invades from a different side with two mechanised infantry and a machinegun
Turn 371: Carthage invades from a different side with one mechanised infantry. Lisbon brings in two rocket artillery.
Turn 374: City destroys one of Lisbon's mechanised infantry
Turn 375: Both of Lisbon's rocket artillery hit the encampment. Amsterdam and Carthage withdraw their forces.
Turn 376: Both of Lisbon's rocket artillery hit the encampment. It's now almost wall-less.
Turn 377: Both of Lisbon's rocket artillery hit the encampment. It's now in the red and cannot fire for the rest of the game since its walls are not regenerating.
Turn 379: One of Lisbon's rocket artillery hits the city.
Turn 380: One of Lisbon's rocket artillery hits the city.
Turn 382: One of Lisbon's rocket artillery hits the city. It is now without walls and cannot fire for the rest of the game since its walls are not regenerating.
Turn 383: One of Lisbon's rocket artillery hits the city, and one of their mechanised infantry assaults. It's now without fortifications and on half health.
Turn 384: Both of Lisbon's rocket artillery hit the city. It's now on a sliver of health.
Turn 385: Both of Lisbon's rocket artillery hit the city. It's now on a sliver of health.
Turn 386: Both of Lisbon's rocket artillery hit the city. It's now on a sliver of health. The adjacent mechanised infantry could probably take it but is on red health and healing 5 HP a turn.
Turn 387: Both of Lisbon's rocket artillery hit the city, and the adjacent mechanised infantry attacks, but fails to take the city somehow.
Turn 388: One rocket artillery hits the city.
Turn 389: One rocket artillery hits the city.
Turn 390: Amsterdam invades with three mechanised infantry.
Turn 391: One rocket artillery and a mechanised infantry attacks, but again they fail to take the city. It's been unable to fire for about ten turns and been in red health, but somehow they can't take it.
Turn 392: Two rocket artillery and a machinegun hit the city.
Turn 393: The city is now under siege with a single hitpoint. Is there something weird where city states can't conquer capitals?
Turn 394: Two rocket artillery, a machinegun and a mechanised infantry hit the city.
Turn 395: Two rocket artillery, a machinegun and a mechanised infantry hit the city.
Turn 396: The city gets attacked six times and my fingers are getting tired of typing.
Turn 397: Four attacks.
Turn 398: Five attacks.
Turn 399: Six attacks.
Turn 400: Five attacks.
Turn 401: Seven attacks.

For the next 22 turns my city has been completely surrounded by city state units and attacked about seven times. Aztecs are basically nowhere to be seen, so I decide to take over the city states with my envoys to break this deadlock. We struggle over the city states for a bit, but in the end I get one and they get two.

Turn 429: Somehow my capital is still sieged even though there are no enemy units near it.
Turn 432: My capital un-sieges when some enemies approach it. Huh.
Turn 433: Carthage hits my capital with a mechanised infantry.
Turn 436: After a few turns of attacks, my capital has no health again.
Turn 443: Carthage is still attacking the capital, but now an Aztec modern tank army has shown up.
Turn 444: Carthage is still attacking, now there are two Aztec modern tank armies.
Turn 448: The Aztec tank armies withdraw.
Turn 467: An Aztec tank army comes back.
Turn 468: The tank army is now adjacent to my capital, which has 1 HP.
Turn 470: The tank army is sitting near the capital, which is now healing. The Carthaginians have withdrawn.
Turn 475: The Aztecs now have four tank armies and a mechanised army within five tiles of my capital.
Turn 478: The Aztecs are now hitting Lisbon, ignoring my capital entirely. It has healed to full health but still has no walls.
Turn 483: The Aztecs conquer Lisbon.
Turn 486: The Aztecs now have six tank armies and one mechanised army in my territory.
Turn 488: The Aztecs leave.
Turn 498: The Aztecs now have eight tank armies in my territory.
Turn 501: Aztecs one-shot kill my encampment.
Turn 508: The Aztecs leave again.
Turn 513: OK, it's been more than 300 turns and nothing's happening. I'm giving up.

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.

 

[tekjunkie28]

This seems extremely bad. Do the devs actually read through these forums? An AI that doesn't know how to war properly makes the single player games basically broken on higher difficulties.

You can't not go to war, because the AI has an advantage in tech and cities, yet you can't go to war because the AI can't attack/defend themselves properly. So what are you expected to do?

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

 

[Gort]

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?

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.

 

[Gedemon]

An AI-friendly change I'd like to see is for besieged cities to lose 10% of their health every turn (so a city besieged for 10 turns will fall, even if it's never attacked). The AI can besiege cities, and this change would circumvent the AI reluctance to actually attack. Plus, I think it makes sense historically (the city is starving, after all) and would make navies more significant (since you'll need navies to besiege coastal cities). It would also tip the balance a little bit away from ranged units and toward melee units which can exert zone of control.

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.

 

[PYITE]

Does the AI bring siege towers? 2 Samurai and a Siege Tower can bring down a medieval city with walls in one turn if it's on flat land. Against 2 Crossbowman and an encampment I would think 4 Knights and a Siege Tower could take out the encampment and then the city in about 3 turns. Maybe the AI doesn't build any support units or can't coordinate them well enough?

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.

 

[Gort]

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.

 

[PYITE]

An AI-friendly change I'd like to see is for besieged cities to lose 10% of their health every turn (so a city besieged for 10 turns will fall, even if it's never attacked). The AI can besiege cities, and this change would circumvent the AI reluctance to actually attack. Plus, I think it makes sense historically (the city is starving, after all) and would make navies more significant (since you'll need navies to besiege coastal cities). It would also tip the balance a little bit away from ranged units and toward melee units which can exert zone of control.

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.

 

[jollywonk]

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.

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.

 

[PYITE]

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.

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.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

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.