A Better AI.

Harrier said:
In 3580BC got the info that 'Buddhism is founded' -great I thought {right choice again} except a millisecond later - Shock Horror.

3580BC 'Hinduism founded'. Same turn!!!

Damm you Blake what have you done. :goodjob:
Didn't you ever consider that somewhere out there, some tribal village was already practicing Hinduism and they decide to share the secrets of Polytheism with the first scout that gets to them? :lol:
 
You cant get Poly or Med, or any religion giving tech iirc, from a hut.
 
Dear Makers!

Here is a "bug" of a settler, a pack of Persian units with a settler standing idle in my territory - check the easternmost tile in the save...
 

Attachments

I've found AI's like Alexander are very good at breaking other AI's now, I can almost rely on Alexander making another AI his b*tch.

It is still possible to use counter-armies very effectively against the AI, they can be very predictable and will do things like mass horse archers, which is totally dominated by Elephants. Also if you are agg or cha against a metal-happy AI shock axemen will tend to make a real mess. In one game I ambushed and killed 15 of Ragnar's units in a row with no losses, getting loads of exp in my units. However later he returned with a vengeance and parked a whole lot of trebs with a healthly elephant, crossbow and more escort on a hill next to one of my flatland cities. Foolishly I tried to hold the city but his masses of trebs easily broke the city. I can say for certain that trying to defend a non-hill city against an AI stack of doom is folly, you either defend a hill city or destroy the AI stack on flat land.

The very newest version absolutely adores promoting Axemen with Shock* which makes Agg AI's a real headache, shock axemen with some spears and swords escorts are very hard to counter until Catapults or Crossbows and even with those superior units they can win through sheer numbers. I'm certainly finding it nearly essential to be Agg or Cha to get a promotion edge/equality on the warmonger AI's and it's simply not worth founding off of hills if you're going to be fighting, unless you have ivory for open-land domination.

* I wrote some promotion code so the AI better chooses counter promotions. Basically it will be very reluctant to promote contrary to an existing anti-type bonus, for example spearmen with their +100% vs formation will mean that any promotion which *isn't* anti mounted will be unlikely to be chosen, meaning the spearman will tend to go with Combat until Formation.
Units like Knights or Cavalry with no anti-type bonus will tend to promote to counter their own kind, meaning in this case combat and formation. The magnitude does matter here, Riflemen for example with their +25% vs Mounted, that is not enough to "Drown out" the desire to pick Pinch to counter own-kind units, as such Riflemen will tend to be promoted with either Pinch or Formation, with neither totally dominating the other (and it's heavily discouraged from picking two different +25% bonuses on the same unit, instead sticking with more combat to properly specialize the unit).
When you have units which counter their own kind already, like Axemen (melee with anti-melee bonus), both trends work together to pretty much guarantee Shock Axemen, the same with Pinch Infantry.
This promotion scheme means the AI can mass up some very nasty and hard to counter units. While the human can still choose better counter-promotions contextually, the AI does at least do decently heuristically and the stacking of counter-promotions means the AI stacks are harder to attack - your units are pretty much guaranteed to come up against some nasty piece of work like a Shock Crossbow or Formation Elephant, and trust me that jabbering hordes of Aztec Shock Axemen means a miserable day for a player stuck with only metal units for defense ;).
 
Blake said:
I've found AI's like Alexander are very good at breaking other AI's now, I can almost rely on Alexander making another AI his b*tch.

It is still possible to use counter-armies very effectively against the AI, they can be very predictable and will do things like mass horse archers, which is totally dominated by Elephants. Also if you are agg or cha against a metal-happy AI shock axemen will tend to make a real mess. In one game I ambushed and killed 15 of Ragnar's units in a row with no losses, getting loads of exp in my units. However later he returned with a vengeance and parked a whole lot of trebs with a healthly elephant, crossbow and more escort on a hill next to one of my flatland cities. Foolishly I tried to hold the city but his masses of trebs easily broke the city. I can say for certain that trying to defend a non-hill city against an AI stack of doom is folly, you either defend a hill city or destroy the AI stack on flat land.

The very newest version absolutely adores promoting Axemen with Shock* which makes Agg AI's a real headache, shock axemen with some spears and swords escorts are very hard to counter until Catapults or Crossbows and even with those superior units they can win through sheer numbers. I'm certainly finding it nearly essential to be Agg or Cha to get a promotion edge/equality on the warmonger AI's and it's simply not worth founding off of hills if you're going to be fighting, unless you have ivory for open-land domination.

* I wrote some promotion code so the AI better chooses counter promotions. Basically it will be very reluctant to promote contrary to an existing anti-type bonus, for example spearmen with their +100% vs formation will mean that any promotion which *isn't* anti mounted will be unlikely to be chosen, meaning the spearman will tend to go with Combat until Formation.
Units like Knights or Cavalry with no anti-type bonus will tend to promote to counter their own kind, meaning in this case combat and formation. The magnitude does matter here, Riflemen for example with their +25% vs Mounted, that is not enough to "Drown out" the desire to pick Pinch to counter own-kind units, as such Riflemen will tend to be promoted with either Pinch or Formation, with neither totally dominating the other (and it's heavily discouraged from picking two different +25% bonuses on the same unit, instead sticking with more combat to properly specialize the unit).
When you have units which counter their own kind already, like Axemen (melee with anti-melee bonus), both trends work together to pretty much guarantee Shock Axemen, the same with Pinch Infantry.
This promotion scheme means the AI can mass up some very nasty and hard to counter units. While the human can still choose better counter-promotions contextually, the AI does at least do decently heuristically and the stacking of counter-promotions means the AI stacks are harder to attack - your units are pretty much guaranteed to come up against some nasty piece of work like a Shock Crossbow or Formation Elephant, and trust me that jabbering hordes of Aztec Shock Axemen means a miserable day for a player stuck with only metal units for defense ;).

O.o...

WHen comes a new version??:drool:

Anyway, what are you saying? That now aggressive AIs are the best AIs? If that is true perhaps it needs a little balance later on hehe. Maybe the AI should get diplomatic bonus for being really pacifist, like Gandhi and Asoka for example. But the cultural AI is working pretty well, I still need to finish that game, but Im not sure I will win because they did grab a lot of cultural wonders and im not sure I cna get the victory before their spaceship, and Gandhi is pretty near of me in this cultural fight also! And besides I got the impression that Louis will come with ihs stack of doom soon on me heh :sad:
 
You only need one Gandhi to win a cultural, or one Mansa Musa to win space. I do suspect that when a peaceful AI starts next to an aggressive warmonger, the Warmonger will kill the peacemonger unless they end up religious allies. But it's fairly easy for a warmonger to get deadlocked with another warmonger, while an unmolested peacemonger (due to allies or whatever) can just tech off into space.

I have made the AI's typically use the same dagger strategy once they get attacked (the likes of Gandhi may remain pacifist though...) - so they start spitting out units to keep the attacker honest, so the question is whether the warmonger can hit with enough force and have enough momentum to take out most of the peacemonger's empire before they properly mobilize for war. Twice now I've had AI Alexander smash right through a peacemonger and take their capital in a matter of a dozen turns or less. On the other hand playing as Asoka I had Monty positively crush me despite a significant military build up on my part, these aggressive brutes are not easy to handle without being agg/cha/pro yourself, and at some point it becomes a matter of "sh*t happens", if you spend enough on military to actually defeat the attacking army you'll be screwed anyway, it can be a better strategy to just hope or manipulate them into attacking someone else, befriending such a warmonger is quite an effective way to gain security and it's a heck of a lot cheaper than fighting them. Since the dagger strat does contain a component of being less inclined to pursue religions the daggerers will usually end up with someone elses religion meaning that at least one civ will probably be reasonably safe from their aggression.
 
Yes, I now befriend Stalin, for example... ;)
And I was right, the Great Generalissimus went on to destroy the USA :D
 
Blake said:
You only need one Gandhi to win a cultural, or one Mansa Musa to win space. I do suspect that when a peaceful AI starts next to an aggressive warmonger, the Warmonger will kill the peacemonger unless they end up religious allies. But it's fairly easy for a warmonger to get deadlocked with another warmonger, while an unmolested peacemonger (due to allies or whatever) can just tech off into space.

I have made the AI's typically use the same dagger strategy once they get attacked (the likes of Gandhi may remain pacifist though...) - so they start spitting out units to keep the attacker honest, so the question is whether the warmonger can hit with enough force and have enough momentum to take out most of the peacemonger's empire before they properly mobilize for war. Twice now I've had AI Alexander smash right through a peacemonger and take their capital in a matter of a dozen turns or less. On the other hand playing as Asoka I had Monty positively crush me despite a significant military build up on my part, these aggressive brutes are not easy to handle without being agg/cha/pro yourself, and at some point it becomes a matter of "sh*t happens", if you spend enough on military to actually defeat the attacking army you'll be screwed anyway, it can be a better strategy to just hope or manipulate them into attacking someone else, befriending such a warmonger is quite an effective way to gain security and it's a heck of a lot cheaper than fighting them. Since the dagger strat does contain a component of being less inclined to pursue religions the daggerers will usually end up with someone elses religion meaning that at least one civ will probably be reasonably safe from their aggression.

Well, I still think it needs "some" balance, but this is for the future!

Anyway 99% sure Firaxis wont put that dagger concept in a patch, too much peopel wouldent like to see their "perfect" victory ruined..What I can understand..But its the reaction of the peacemonger AIs that makes me bugged, even Gandhi should try to defend himself better if its eminent that a real bad guy will come and kill his beloved population, rape and destroy all of its culture..Right? At least react defensively if attacked!
 
Blake, congrats to your AI, I have lost to AI Asoka in Space Race...

I am usually winning easily on Prince, now I lost...
For me this means Prince is again a challange... :)
 
Here's another note, either for the current or the next build.

Cyrus and I have a defensive pact. Isabella declares war on me. Cyrus invades her, with Swordsmen (etc) vs. Muskets and Rifles.

Cyrus had plenty of money. The AI needs to have a decision point to wait a turn to upgrade units before invading.

Wodan
 
It should be like a ten turn limit. I often mass city raider maces, caravels, galleons, and cash. Then, on the turn that chemistry completes, I have a horde of troops ready to set sail.

EDIT: Also, the game is already very tilted towards war. I think that it would be best to leave the AI's more balanced.
 
Wodan said:
Cyrus and I have a defensive pact. Isabella declares war on me. Cyrus invades her, with Swordsmen (etc) vs. Muskets and Rifles.
Cyrus had plenty of money. The AI needs to have a decision point to wait a turn to upgrade units before invading.

Did he have the necessary technology too?
AI always like to mass-upgrade if they can (me too)
 
wioneo said:
Also, the game is already very tilted towards war. I think that it would be best to leave the AI's more balanced.

I disagree.
I felt the original was tilted too much towards peace.
Why you build and upgrade these multitude of units if you never use them.
It's nonsense.
My taste would like even more war :ar15:
Previously there were many games without a single war in it.
THAT was bad IMO.

Just for the Blake team to see there are other opinions too. :)

PS: Civ evolved from the game 'Empire' in which cities only build military units, there's 'always war' and the only victory option is 'conquest'. :D
 
Arlborn said:
Anyway 99% sure Firaxis wont put that dagger concept in a patch, too much peopel wouldent like to see their "perfect" victory ruined.

It could be a replacement to the bad 'aggressive AI' custom option.
It makes a domination/conquest victory much harder but i don't like the idea that AI is there to conquer them. I'd like to see them as players also aim to win.
So i vote for dagger

Arlborn said:
But its the reaction of the peacemonger AIs that makes me bugged, even Gandhi should try to defend himself better if its eminent that a real bad guy will come and kill his beloved population, rape and destroy all of its culture..Right? At least react defensively if attacked!

Blake wrote if AI civ is attacked they immediately adapt the dagger strategy to muster a defensive force.
And in my last game (the save i posted) Asoka did it quite well.
He drafted a lot of riflemen and managed to stop Brennus's assault after losing 2 cities.
Previously they would just sit around and wait to be destroyed.
For a small civ this might be late but for a mediocre or bigger civ they probably will have enough time to use the counter-dagger strategy successfully.
 
One more idea about the dagger strategy to the Blake team.

Civs that adapt the dagger strategy right from the start usually don't have siege weapons in their initial stacks because catapult comes later with construction.
So all dagger-armies built before construction but go to war after that will have maximum 1-2 siege units.
This makes the first assault stack weaker and more vulnerable.
The following stacks will properly include a lot of siege weapons like the 22 trebs of Arlborn :)

So i don't know how hard is it to code but it would be much better if assault armies built before construction would disband some of their units (with the lowest strenght or anything) and replace them with siege units so if they go to war later they will be as powerful as they should be in the assault.
 
When I said the the game was geared too much towards war, I was referring to the human player. Also, I want my grenadiers to be city raiders.
 
kettyo said:
I disagree.
I felt the original was tilted too much towards peace.
Why you build and upgrade these multitude of units if you never use them.
It's nonsense.
My taste would like even more war :ar15:
Previously there were many games without a single war in it.
THAT was bad IMO.

Just for the Blake team to see there are other opinions too. :)

PS: Civ evolved from the game 'Empire' in which cities only build military units, there's 'always war' and the only victory option is 'conquest'. :D

Yeah, and if they go to war they own right?

That is what I mean. I want more balance about it. His mod has little to do with how much the Ai goes to war(perhaps when they fix that silly bug they go more), but how they go right? But in the actual situation, if Monty decides to go to war with you with a SoD, he can kick you hard even with outdated army. Imagine how he kickes peacefull AIs..And some other minor things that the other guy(aelf?) tried to point out but nobody listened..

I DONT want a mod that put AI more aggressive, if I want more war I turn on aggressive AI or change xml attitude. I want an AI more competent ^^

And that is what Blake is doing!
 
wioneo said:
When I said the the game was geared too much towards war, I was referring to the human player. Also, I want my grenadiers to be city raiders.

I think the human player is geared towards how s/he feels like :)
 
Arlborn said:
Yeah, and if they go to war they own right?

There is no 'war' in it. All 3 players attack each other from the start.
Actually neutral cities first and then each other.
Yes the AI is quite ok but it's a WAY more simple game.


Arlborn said:
if Monty decides to go to war with you with a SoD, he can kick you hard even with outdated army. Imagine how he kickes peacefull AIs..

Yes but you can beat him if you do YOUR job well :D
And after all he made a huge investment to his SoD so deserve some benefit.
If attacking would be useless it would be an all peaceful game = boring.

Arlborn said:
I DONT want a mod that put AI more aggressive, if I want more war I turn on aggressive AI or change xml attitude. I want an AI more competent ^^

And that is what Blake is doing!

Aggressive AI is crap because it restricts human-AI trade as a part of the option i don't know why and it kills diplomacy. They would better be just more warlike.
I didn't try XML 'attitude change' value. Do you have any experience? I fear if lowering that it would make overseas trade impossible. It's very hard even with -1 to achieve an open border and to trade with overseas civs.
 
kettyo said:
Did he have the necessary technology too?
Yes, of course.

Wodan
 
Back
Top Bottom