A "real" AI cheat

[The Snug]

Thanks for that simple to see graphic illustration of the problem. Hopefully your pedantic illustration will bring home the reality of what I'm trying to say.

Now I could see someone scoffing at your illustration since the defenders are only triremes. But we could update your illustration to a modern occurrence that I've actually been the victim of. Change all of your ships to missile cruisers. Now give that single attacking missile cruiser 4 guided missiles. Now, just before it attempts to pillage it strikes with all 4 missiles, weakening the defenders. Now the missile cruiser initiates it's pillaging attempt and sinks all 3 defending ships.

If it seems difficult to believe that 1 full strength MC can sink 3 damaged MC's, it should at least be conceded that 1 could sink 2; and furthermore that 2 can sink 4 or 5; 3 can sink a whole lot. This should not be legal or possible.

If this is not a broken game mechanism, than clearly I cannot understand what is a broken game mechanism and I truly am an idiot who needs to just shut up and go away. How more obvious can this broken mechanism be?

It should be noted that when I was seeing these anomalies I didn't know that it was due to a busted sea patrol function. I just thought that the AI had developed some sort of illegal multi-attack blitz function. Therefore, this busted function needs to be broadcasted loudly so that others will not become victims of it. It's a legitimate problem that cost me dearly in my immortal games; as it greatly delayed my victory. A prior knowledge of this weakness would have altered my strategy.

This is legitimate and deserves its due recognition.

Ok. I think I'm done with this now. What more can be said to prove it? Now it simply needs to be either fixed or abandoned as an option altogether.

 

[PieceOfMind]

For some reason this bug-like behaviour of the patrol function is repeatedly being presented as an advantage for the AI. I don't get that. Both the human player and the AI have the ability to use the patrol function or not use it. Both the human player and the AI have the ability to use the weaknesses of the patrol function to their advantage. The human player is usually better at exploiting loopholes of the rules of the game. So while there exists some bug-like behaviour in the functionality of the patrol function, I don't think there exists an advantage for the AI.



The bug-like behaviour of the patrol function can be solved in many ways. While the game engine lets the pillaging ship attack, it graphically looks as if the patrolling ships are attacking and the civilopedia description of the patrol function also says the patrolling ships are attacking pillaging ships. In my opinion, the only reason that the game engine lets the pillaging ship attack is that this mechanic allows the patrolling ships to get the defence bonus of coastal terrain. This was probably the easiest way to give the advantage of terrain to the patrol ships. But that does not mean that we should view the reaction of the patrol ships on the pillaging ship as an attack of the pillaging ship on the patrol ships. The graphic of the action and the description of the patrol function suggest that the game designers view it as an attack of the patrolling ships. Also the order given by the pillaging ship isn't 'attack the patrol ships', it's pillage this tile. So the patrol ships initiate combat.

Because the designers have graphically and verbally implemented the patrol function as an attack of the patrolling ships on the pillaging ship, I don't think the pillaging ship should be allowed to retreat. Defenders are never allowed to retreat in civilization 4.


You have implemented a new rule where you can't pillage after you have been attacked by a single patrol ship or something like that, correct? I don't have a fundamental objection to that rule. It's a bit like the rule that a bomber that is intercepted and survives interception cannot continue its bombing run. That is reasonable although arguments can just as easily be given for the opposite rule. Your rule could work well for those who have followed the discussion in this thread. However, for every other player, it will be a mystery why they can't pillage after being attacked by the first patrol ship. There is no other situation in civilization 4 where a unit with movement points left cannot pillage. And that is a problem because a game rule should be transparent or if not transparent it should be well documented. It could work if the pillage button showed a pop-up message when you try a second time: 'cannot pillage after being intercepted by a patrol ship'. As it is now, it will cause confusion for those who try to pillage a tile for a second time while next to several units on patrol duty.

My thoughts exactly. I agree with every point there.

It turns out I've never used the patrol mission before so I've never seen this. However it bothers me that the patrol mission works the way it does. I always assumed it would cause your own units to attack nearby enemy units in your own turn which is why I never tried it.

Because of the way patrol works (effectively allowing a player's units to act outside of his/her turn) it leads to such weird behaviour.

To be fair, I think the feature should be left the way it is. An unrealistic example of a battleship taking out three triremes muddies things up a bit (though it shows perfectly the odd behaviour). It is fine for patrol to have an inherent disadvantage. Putting weak units on patrol is asking for trouble if you know an enemy can come in with a very strong unit.

To me, putting a unit on patrol sounds like you are giving it permission to initiate combat outside of your turn, without your control, defending a resource. If you have multiple units on patrol, then you are allowing for the possibility that all of your units will engage the enemy.

As weird as your example looks Dan, I think it is the best way for the game to work. At least that way there is advantages to putting ships directly on resources or on patrol beside resources. In the unrealistic situation of battleship vs. triremes, you should immediately go for the sitting on resource tactic.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Thanks for that simple to see graphic illustration of the problem. Hopefully your pedantic illustration will bring home the reality of what I'm trying to say.

Now I could see someone scoffing at your illustration since the defenders are only triremes. But we could update your illustration to a modern occurrence that I've actually been the victim of. Change all of your ships to missile cruisers. Now give that single attacking missile cruiser 4 guided missiles. Now, just before it attempts to pillage it strikes with all 4 missiles, weakening the defenders. Now the missile cruiser initiates it's pillaging attempt and sinks all 3 defending ships.

If it seems difficult to believe that 1 full strength MC can sink 3 damaged MC's, it should at least be conceded that 1 could sink 2; and furthermore that 2 can sink 4 or 5; 3 can sink a whole lot. This should not be legal or possible.

If this is not a broken game mechanism, than clearly I cannot understand what is a broken game mechanism and I truly am an idiot who needs to just shut up and go away. How more obvious can this broken mechanism be?

It should be noted that when I was seeing these anomalies I didn't know that it was due to a busted sea patrol function. I just thought that the AI had developed some sort of illegal multi-attack blitz function. Therefore, this busted function needs to be broadcasted loudly so that others will not become victims of it. It's a legitimate problem that cost me dearly in my immortal games; as it greatly delayed my victory. A prior knowledge of this weakness would have altered my strategy.

This is legitimate and deserves its due recognition.

Ok. I think I'm done with this now. What more can be said to prove it? Now it simply needs to be either fixed or abandoned as an option altogether.

After reading this argument I'm more tempted to reconsider and vote for removing the patrol mission altogether. Honestly it doesn't make much sense to be able to attack outside of your turn anyway. Rather than the patrol mission being a type of automation (like I originall expected) it is actually a completely different combat mechanic.

EDIT I think the key bug here is that units set to patrol can be softened up by missiles (for example) and then killed all at once by a single unit. Maybe a solution is that for every pillagable tile, only one unit can defend it against a particular pillager. eg. If I send two submarines to attempt to destroy a fishing boat, and the first one fails and dies and the second fails but retreats, then attempting to pillage a final times works automatically, because the defenders have had their chance to stop the pillager. Sound reasonable?

 

[Roland Johansen]

With all due respect Roland, but this only shows that you have never seen it happen with your own eyes.
1. If it was like that, this whole thread wouldn't exist.
2. It just can't work that way because everything happens during the AI's turn, so all actions including combat are initiated by the AI.

I wonder why people keep arguing vehemently without trying and testing and thinking about things first?

There's no need to start becoming condescending. That doesn't help your argument. Especially since I hardly disagree with you in your previous post.

I've used the patrol function in a situation where I just had galleons and my opponent had them too. I had to defend 3 sea food resources against an enemy galleon that I saw coming towards my coast to pillage. I used the patrol function in the middle of the pack of sea food resources because that was the only way to defend them. Reading the description I expected the galleons to attack anyone who tried to pillage the resources at all cost. If an enemy frigate had come out of the fog of war and had tried to pillage one of the resources, then probably both galleons would have died trying to stop the frigate. That's the command that I gave my galleons, so I'm fine with that. The patrol mission isn't an extremely intelligent way of defending resources. It's just a attack at all cost mission.

What happened was that the lone enemy galleon tried to pillage one of my resources. My first galleon tried to stop him but died. Then the second galleon attacked and defeated the would-be-pillager. From what I remember, my units graphically moved into the tile of the would-be-pillager and battled the enemy unit. So by wording in the civilopedia and by graphical description, the patrol units do the attacking. When I watched the combat log (just to see what had happened as it was the first time I used the patrol function), I noticed that my galleons were technically the defenders. I hadn't expected that, but immediately realised that it was a good idea as it allowed my units to get the terrain defence bonus.

Example of the patrol function units being destroyed by stronger enemies.

Example of the patrol function units being destroyed by stronger enemies.

When the pillagers are stronger than the units defending the sea food resources (1 destroyer vs 3 frigates, 1 missile cruiser with 4 missiles vs 2 missile cruisers), then it's a bad idea to give your defending units the patrol order. You're saying that these units should attack any pillagers at all cost and that's just a bad idea when the pillagers are stronger.

So, yes, in that case it's better to manually defend your resources.

The AI never uses the Sea Patrol Command (AFAIK) so the proposed changes would never affect the human player on his pillaging crusades or lead to any situations that might lack transparency. But it would help to turn the Sea Patrol Command into a useful tool for the human player to help protecting his sea food from all the annoying pinprick attacks (late game / Sid's Sushi).

I don't know whether it's true that the AI never uses the Sea Patrol Command. It doesn't seem very hard to implement the AI using this command and the AI does defend it's resources. I've often seen the AI do that.

But all of that is besides the point. The workings of the patrol function should also be clear in multiplayer. So, a human player should know why he can't pillage. And thus if one wishes to use such a rule as you suggest, then the a popup message above the pillage button is necessary to show the human player why he can't pillage. I think my suggestion 'cannot pillage after being intercepted by a patrol ship' would work fine.

My thoughts exactly. I agree with every point there.[\QUOTE]

Thanks for your agreement. Ships on patrol behave somewhat similar to airplanes on intercept duty. The main difference is that pillaging ships have multiple moves while airplanes only have a single move. This means that pillaging ships can get repeated reactions from the ships on patrol duty while airplanes only get one reaction to their bombing or airstrike missions. I suspect that the main idea behind the patrol mission was based on the air interception mission.

DanF5771 now tries to limit the number of times a single ship can cause a reaction from patrol ships to 1 which makes it more similar to the air interception mission. I don't have a fundamental objection to that rule change, however I do think the rule change should be obvious for anyone encountering a situation where they can't pillage because they've already been intercepted once.

 

[Psyringe]

Come on guys, let's keep it civil from all sides, and concentrate on the facts instead of us personally, and don't let misunderstandings distract us.

I didn't have the time to check the issue yet, but will do so in the course of the day (or night, which is actually more probable ).

In any case, I offer an apology to SirSnuggles - while I can understand *why* I didn't believe that there was an issue, the fact stands that there actually *is* one. The question is now whether we can (or should) solve or improve it.

 

[scu98rkr]

I would suggest that the best fix is that a patrolling unit can only attempt to stop a pillage once per turn.

That means if it fails to destroy the unit and it still has movement points then it can pillage.

This would also mean the patrolling unit can only stop one unit per turn, but this is fine a unit can only attack once per turn any how so this fits with this rule.

If you want it to be able to stop multiple units pillaging then your going to have to have multiple patrolling units or just bite the bullet and place the unit on top of the resource you want to defend.

Some people like the fact a patrolling battleship can destroy 3 triremes in one turn but this IS NOT standard CIV IV behavior as theoretically the patrolling unit is initiating the combat.

Obliviously you still have the advantage that one patrolling unit can still defend several resources if they are close, which presumably is the behavior firaxis was trying to simulate.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I would suggest that the best fix is that a patrolling unit can only attempt to stop a pillage once per turn.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I may very well be) but isn't this how it works already?

Perhaps you or I have misunderstood most of the thread?

For example, you could have 4 detroyers set to patrol beside a fishing boat. A submarine comes along and attempts to pillage the fishing boats repeatedly, each time calling one of the destroyers to actively defend the tile. It's possible the submarine may kill the first destroyer, then withdraw from the other three when they each have their one attack, then pillage the tile.

The worry is that it "looks" like the submarine has the ability to attack multiple times in its turn despite it not having a blitz promotion. But in reality it is simply defending itself several times (just like any defending unit in the game can always do) and using up movement points in the process.

 

[Wodan]

The best solution is to disallow pillaging when the unit has had a combat that turn already.

 

[scu98rkr]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I may very well be) but isn't this how it works already?

Cant say I really see the problem then.

I assumed people were suggesting the same weakened unit was being called out repeatedly by a sub which seeing as it had an extremely high withdrawal chance was amassing EXP for free.

If you have 3 or 4 units patrolling then they will all be called out to the stop the resource being pillaged whats the problem ?

Maybe I've got this wrong but can a unit be set to patrol while docked ? If so then there would never be any reason to actually move the ship out and protect the resource properly if this was the case.

Personally I'd think there would be advantages and disadvantages to every option selected. This "BUG" is one of the disadvantages to not stationing your unit correctly on the resource.

 

[Woody1]

The best solution is to disallow pillaging when the unit has had a combat that turn already.

Sure, if you want to completely change the way pillaging is supposed to work.

I don't really see this as a "bug" that needs fixing. Pillaging and patrol are working exactly like they are supposed to. If you don't like the way it works in rare circumstances late in the game, then don't use patrol in those situations. Park your defenders on the resources, or find and sink the enemy subs. (They should be easy targets if they've attacked multiple times and have little health left.)

 

[scu98rkr]

Just re-read, yes you are right, "Piece of Mind".

Ok take the the Battleship/Trireme example from the previous page, this is just an extreme example where the Patrol function is a bad choice.

Then take the same map with the 3 fish resources, but this time you have 2 Frigates and the enemy 1 Frigate.

If you have both your Frigates on 1 resource each the enemy can definitely pillage one and might be able to get away or if you attack him next turn he gets a defensive bonus.

However if you have both Frigates are patrolling then the first Frigate gets a defensive bonus and might be able to destroy the opponent without the resource being destroyed. If he loses then the enemy Frigate is unlikely to be able to successfully pillage the next resource with out being destroyed. Or you will then be able to destroy him next turn.

In this case patrol works out better. Same as any Civ IV feature plus sides and down sides I vote to keep as it is. You just need to be aware of the possibilities hence the civopedia needs to be improved not the game mechanism.

Ok when Patrol goes wrong goes it goes very wrong, but this is similar to other Civ Mechanisms.
Often a stack attacking an enemy city really has problems until enough collateral damage is done and then the opponent can easily destroy the remaining unit sometimes on 99% probably getting a load of experience points for not much.

 

[The Snug]

The best solution is to disallow pillaging when the unit has had a combat that turn already.

Agreed.

xchar

 

[The Snug]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I may very well be) but isn't this how it works already?

Perhaps you or I have misunderstood most of the thread?

For example, you could have 4 detroyers set to patrol beside a fishing boat. A submarine comes along and attempts to pillage the fishing boats repeatedly, each time calling one of the destroyers to actively defend the tile. It's possible the submarine may kill the first destroyer, then withdraw from the other three when they each have their one attack, then pillage the tile.

The worry is that it "looks" like the submarine has the ability to attack multiple times in its turn despite it not having a blitz promotion. But in reality it is simply defending itself several times (just like any defending unit in the game can always do) and using up movement points in the process.

I believe that the description of the function is misleading. The patrolling unit doesn't "attack" the pillager in the classic meaning of the term in civ combat. Really, it engages the pillager, and its engagement is defensive (for if I'm not mistaken, the patrolling unit recieves the defensive bonus).

In this sense, the patrolling unit may be understood like any other defender in that it will defend itself (or rather defend the resource) multiple times. The patrol function is understood (despite the inept description) as a defensive action. It may seem aggressive, but truly its mission is entirely reactive, passive and defensive. It does represent parking a ship on each "protected" resource. And it's a necessary function. No other types of units in civ possess the quick movement ability of naval ships (land units can only go, at most, 2 squares in enemy territory), and as such, it is impossible to really defend against naval ships. The patrol function was created with the intention of countering the speed of naval units by permitting the defense of multiple squares. Thus, at its heart, the patrol function is passive rather than aggressive. The patrolling unit just sits there waiting for someone to attack its defense network.

Perhaps this is where the debate is breaking down. Piece and Roland conceptualize the patrol function as an aggressive attack where the pillager is the defender, whereas myself and Dan view it the opposite way. We must ask ourselves, which unit is initiating the combat. Is it the patrolling unit who is attacking the pillager, or is it the very pillager who is initiating the combat by its aggressive act of destruction? To answer this question, I think we need to understand the purpose of the patrol function. Which is one of defense. It's the same as aerial combat. I believe we all can agree that a fighter on patrol is the defensive unit that is protecting its resources from an aggressive raider fighter. It's the same concept here. The patrol function is a defensive measure intended to counteract the potentially game-breaking fast speed of a naval ship.

Again, the game mechanic views it in the same light, since the patrolling unit receives the defensive bonus.

We cannot base any conclusions upon the graphics, since often times in land battles my defenders appear to rush out and attack the actual attackers. Yet, to be pedantic, most of the time I see a pillaging ship sail into a resource square, pause, and then move into the square that the patrolling unit is sitting in (which, if we put merit into graphics, indicates that the pillager is the attacker). I don't think the graphics really matter though. It's both the concept of the patrol function and who receives the defensive bonus that illuminates the matter for me.

The solution, therefore, depends upon which school of thought you follow.

If you believe that the pillager is the aggressor (since it's coming from far away from somewhere in the fog of war to destroy something), then all naval units should be disallowed from repeated attempts at pillaging (thus removing their disguised blitz ability).

On the other hand, if you believe in the patrolling unit as the aggressor, then indeed, patrolling units should be limited to a single opportunity to defend the resource (thus removing some abstract blitz ability that occurs outside of its own turn).

If you believe the second premise, I must ask, doesn't this defeat the very concept and purpose for the patrol function? And, how is it that you differentiate between the patrol functions given to air and naval units; why should they not be both viewed as defensive measures simply responding to attacks?

I believe this is the heart of the matter, the juxt of the disagreement. How do we resolve this issue and proceed to a solution? For certainly, something must be done one way or the other.

To really shed light on the issue, can we have someone confirm who (if anyone) recieves the defensive bonus. Perhaps that would provide the definitive clue as to Firaxis' true intent (unless it was simply another oversight on their part).

 

[Roland Johansen]

I started the comparison between the aerial interception and the patrol mission because I think they function pretty much the same and were designed for a similar purpose: aggressively protect an area.

If you were to give fighters multiple moves so that they could bomb/airstrike multiple times per turn, then you'd get exactly the same behaviour as the patrol missions. Each bombing/airstrike mission would result in a reaction from the airplanes with an intercept mission and a jet fighter with multiple moves could defeat several fighters on intercept duty during one turn. The only real difference is that unmodded fighters and jet fighters just have only 1 movement point and thus can't use multiple bombing/airstrike missions during one turn.

In most cases there is no problem with the present patrol mission. It's just in cases where the pillaging unit is decisively stronger or when the retreat chance of the pillaging unit is very high that some players don't like the behaviour of the mission.

If all units could only pillage once per turn, then no-one would have ever complained about the current implementation of the patrol mission. But that is not the case. Making an exception rule so that ships that have been intercepted by a patrol ship cannot pillage anymore is therefore a bit weird rule. It could work to avoid multiple attacks of the patrol ships on the same pillager, but if a human player controls the pillaging unit, then it should at least be clear to this player why he can't pillage anymore.

I must admit that I don't think it's a very elegant rule because it would be an exception rule and I don't have a real problem with how the patrol function works now. There are some instances where it's better to not use the patrol function. But that doesn't necessarily make it broken feature. However, if this 1 time pillage rule were to be implemented in a way so that it's clear for the player why he sometimes can't pillage anymore, then I also have no problem with it.

To be fair, I think we're blowing this out of proportion.

 

[Woody1]

If this is not a broken game mechanism, than clearly I cannot understand what is a broken game mechanism and I truly am an idiot who needs to just shut up and go away. How more obvious can this broken mechanism be?

You can describe yourself however you wish, but I don't think the patrol function is broken. It's working exactly how it's supposed to work.

Just because it doesn't have your desired outcome in extreme circumstances, doesn't mean it's broken or a "real AI cheat". If you don't like it, don't use it.

 

[JujuLautre]

From what I read, the main issue seems to be the fact that a unit with a high withdrawal chance can get several XP by pillaging multiple times, am I right?

Then, the same way that siege engine can't attack when their target is at low health (and so, coincidently, cannot gain any more XP), why not make that the attacker does not get any XP if no fight was done (meaning that the attacker was at very low health and retreated without anything done) ?

 

[PieceOfMind]

I believe that the description of the function is misleading. The patrolling unit doesn't "attack" the pillager in the classic meaning of the term in civ combat. Really, it engages the pillager, and its engagement is defensive (for if I'm not mistaken, the patrolling unit recieves the defensive bonus).

In this sense, the patrolling unit may be understood like any other defender in that it will defend itself (or rather defend the resource) multiple times. The patrol function is understood (despite the inept description) as a defensive action. It may seem aggressive, but truly its mission is entirely reactive, passive and defensive. It does represent parking a ship on each "protected" resource. And it's a necessary function. No other types of units in civ possess the quick movement ability of naval ships (land units can only go, at most, 2 squares in enemy territory), and as such, it is impossible to really defend against naval ships. The patrol function was created with the intention of countering the speed of naval units by permitting the defense of multiple squares. Thus, at its heart, the patrol function is passive rather than aggressive. The patrolling unit just sits there waiting for someone to attack its defense network.

Perhaps this is where the debate is breaking down. Piece and Roland conceptualize the patrol function as an aggressive attack where the pillager is the defender, whereas myself and Dan view it the opposite way. We must ask ourselves, which unit is initiating the combat. Is it the patrolling unit who is attacking the pillager, or is it the very pillager who is initiating the combat by its aggressive act of destruction? To answer this question, I think we need to understand the purpose of the patrol function. Which is one of defense. It's the same as aerial combat. I believe we all can agree that a fighter on patrol is the defensive unit that is protecting its resources from an aggressive raider fighter. It's the same concept here. The patrol function is a defensive measure intended to counteract the potentially game-breaking fast speed of a naval ship.

Again, the game mechanic views it in the same light, since the patrolling unit receives the defensive bonus.

We cannot base any conclusions upon the graphics, since often times in land battles my defenders appear to rush out and attack the actual attackers. Yet, to be pedantic, most of the time I see a pillaging ship sail into a resource square, pause, and then move into the square that the patrolling unit is sitting in (which, if we put merit into graphics, indicates that the pillager is the attacker). I don't think the graphics really matter though. It's both the concept of the patrol function and who receives the defensive bonus that illuminates the matter for me.

The solution, therefore, depends upon which school of thought you follow.

If you believe that the pillager is the aggressor (since it's coming from far away from somewhere in the fog of war to destroy something), then all naval units should be disallowed from repeated attempts at pillaging (thus removing their disguised blitz ability).

On the other hand, if you believe in the patrolling unit as the aggressor, then indeed, patrolling units should be limited to a single opportunity to defend the resource (thus removing some abstract blitz ability that occurs outside of its own turn).

If you believe the second premise, I must ask, doesn't this defeat the very concept and purpose for the patrol function? And, how is it that you differentiate between the patrol functions given to air and naval units; why should they not be both viewed as defensive measures simply responding to attacks?

I believe this is the heart of the matter, the juxt of the disagreement. How do we resolve this issue and proceed to a solution? For certainly, something must be done one way or the other.

To really shed light on the issue, can we have someone confirm who (if anyone) recieves the defensive bonus. Perhaps that would provide the definitive clue as to Firaxis' true intent (unless it was simply another oversight on their part).

Yeah I'm aware of the techincalities regarding which unit is considered to be the one defending. I see it as the patrolling unit being the aggressor but enjoying a defensive bonus.

I definitely agree with Woody1 (for once! ) in that there's nothing in need of change. The patrol mission shouldn't become a one-size-fits-all decision.

Although the behaviour may seem weird, I'm yet to see a clear argument as to what the actual bug is; I believe there is no such bug.

I also find it annoying when my fighters get up and try to intercept enemy jet fighters. Even though this is usually a bad idea for my fighter, I accept this is the way the intercept mission works. And with intercept there's no alternative to defending territory anyway so with naval combat we're blessed with more flexibility.

And as Roland said I think we are blowing it out of proportion. It's taken this long since the game release for an experienced player to even notice the oddity. Again, I say leave it.

EDIT I might not be around for the next week so I may not be able to continue the debate for a bit.

 

[PieceOfMind]

On the other hand, if you believe in the patrolling unit as the aggressor, then indeed, patrolling units should be limited to a single opportunity to defend the resource (thus removing some abstract blitz ability that occurs outside of its own turn).

Hang on, isn't this how it works now?

It's not the patrolling unit that appears to have a blitz ability (it already doesn't) but the pillaging unit, because the pillaging unit can "appear" to initiate combat with several enemy units in one turn. But when I attack an archer with five swordsmen in one turn I don't see anyone saying defending with one archer 5 times is unfair.

 

[The Snug]

the situation would be the same if each of those 5 swordsmen could attack that archer 5 times each.

 

[Woody1]

There is no "land patrol" function in the game, so your analogy doesn't work.