AI War Logic???????

[Drew97]

Ok, I'll get straight to the point, AI's never ever use logic in war. They send units one by one so I can just easily kill them. It eventually got too easy for me to get max level troops(7 promotions). I mean, me playing with my friend. He has a pikeman, the AI retreats the musketman and sends 3 knights to attack the pikeman. Logic here?

Not just that but they like to attack me when their at minor defeats or even major defeats. Mainly, they still attack me when theres river defense. +6 cs

Though, I am aware of how strong the AI's are in late game with bombers and jet bombers killing my max level troops which is sad. Opinions people?

 

[Naokaukodem]

I think that considering the carpet of doom in deity logic is not that important, for AI at least. Btw the 3 knights will kill your pike, I think. And why the hell did you send a pike vs. a musket ? Find logic.

 

[oSiyeza]

I think that considering the carpet of doom in deity logic is not that important, for AI at least. Btw the 3 knights will kill your pike, I think. And why the hell did you send a pike vs. a musket ? Find logic.

I think AI is much better defending than it is attacking. Also, it is really not aggresive enough. AI should be more proeficient at wars. More oportunistic taking weak cities (and take grievances less into account), and more capable of attacking with groups of units.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Yeah maybe. I'll always remember a multiplayer game of Civ5 (again...) when i was attacking a dude and he disconnected, the thing is that I barely noticed it and played with my computer all that time along ! Didn't notice the difference which is kinda funny. But I have to admit that at that time I didn't watch quite enough let's plays and was doing war like the AI, it is to say like the programmers, and with too many melee units and not enough ranged.
So yeah, the AI is easily criticized in those forums, but I think that overall it's more well programmed than one could think. Or at least without human exploits (/emergent strategies) took into account.

As to the AI aggressiveness, I found that in earlier versions of Civ6 it was kind of a gamble early : most of the time a neighbour said 'hello' and came back with all his bonus (bonus !!!) units 5 turns later, litterally surrounding your poor "capital" and Game Over. So I won't complain of lack of aggressivity in Civ6 (for now) like I did with Civ2 where the AI was sitting basically.

 

[oSiyeza]

Yeah maybe. I'll always remember a multiplayer game of Civ5 (again...) when i was attacking a dude and he disconnected, the thing is that I barely noticed it and played with my computer all that time along ! Didn't notice the difference which is kinda funny. But I have to admit that at that time I didn't watch quite enough let's plays and was doing war like the AI, it is to say like the programmers, and with too many melee units and not enough ranged.
So yeah, the AI is easily criticized in those forums, but I think that overall it's more well programmed than one could think. Or at least without human exploits (/emergent strategies) took into account.

As to the AI aggressiveness, I found that in earlier versions of Civ6 it was kind of a gamble early : most of the time a neighbour said 'hello' and came back with all his bonus (bonus !!!) units 5 turns later, litterally surrounding your poor "capital" and Game Over. So I won't complain of lack of aggressivity in Civ6 (for now) like I did with Civ2 where the AI was sitting basically.

Yes, that will be also not fun.
My problem is:

After the first stage of the game. Once I have two or more cities, and have dealed with the barbarians. I often start to think in early expanding, looking for useless city states and my weakest neighbours.

It is often not easy to attack an AI civ, it is usually the start of a long war and they seem to be always prepared, so they play the military game. But most of the time, only to react to the player, never to expand.

I dont think Im very aggresive, and I often conquer one or two capitals in the game and stop expanding. The problem is, I am always leading military victory by a long margin, even having a weak army compared to other civs. Also everybody hates me for three eras and nobody attacks me except in emergencies.

I play on King, but I think this is not the way it should be. In my last ten games with GS, I have not seen any AI taking any capital. I would say the AI does never play the domination game. Is not that is uncapable to win. It is unwilling to try. And that is a shame.

 

[Drew97]

I think that considering the carpet of doom in deity logic is not that important, for AI at least. Btw the 3 knights will kill your pike, I think. And why the hell did you send a pike vs. a musket ? Find logic.

It was actually my friend who wasn't as skilled as me. But, he just used it to kill a horseman. But, a musketman pops up. Then the ai retreats it and uses 3 knights

 

[Drew97]

I think AI is much better defending than it is attacking. Also, it is really not aggresive enough. AI should be more proeficient at wars. More oportunistic taking weak cities (and take grievances less into account), and more capable of attacking with groups of units.

Yes i agree with that fact. AI is actually good in defense. Just like me sending 2 knights, 1 musketman and 1 crossbowman against north america. He killed the knights and also destroyed the battering ram that was with the knight. But, if he tries to attack me, all his knights die before they can do any damage even.

And yes, their aggression should be increased. After all, there was one game where no one went to war until the game ended

 

[Drew97]

Yes, that will be also not fun.
My problem is:

After the first stage of the game. Once I have two or more cities, and have dealed with the barbarians. I often start to think in early expanding, looking for useless city states and my weakest neighbours.

It is often not easy to attack an AI civ, it is usually the start of a long war and they seem to be always prepared, so they play the military game. But most of the time, only to react to the player, never to expand.

I dont think Im very aggresive, and I often conquer one or two capitals in the game and stop expanding. The problem is, I am always leading military victory by a long margin, even having a weak army compared to other civs. Also everybody hates me for three eras and nobody attacks me except in emergencies.

I play on King, but I think this is not the way it should be. In my last ten games with GS, I have not seen any AI taking any capital. I would say the AI does never play the domination game. Is not that is uncapable to win. It is unwilling to try. And that is a shame.

Yes me too, I always have the smallest army though the most skilled army. And somehow my small army is doing so much damage to the bigger armies. Though, its probably because of the ranged units which damage the enemy unit but not take damage. After all, there was one game where I had an archer that never died and eventually became a machine gun army with 7 promotions.

And yes, most AIs dont go for domination victory which I really wish some do. Because I want to have a game where everyone actually tries for domination and war is everywhere

 

[Drew97]

Yeah maybe. I'll always remember a multiplayer game of Civ5 (again...) when i was attacking a dude and he disconnected, the thing is that I barely noticed it and played with my computer all that time along ! Didn't notice the difference which is kinda funny. But I have to admit that at that time I didn't watch quite enough let's plays and was doing war like the AI, it is to say like the programmers, and with too many melee units and not enough ranged.
So yeah, the AI is easily criticized in those forums, but I think that overall it's more well programmed than one could think. Or at least without human exploits (/emergent strategies) took into account.

As to the AI aggressiveness, I found that in earlier versions of Civ6 it was kind of a gamble early : most of the time a neighbour said 'hello' and came back with all his bonus (bonus !!!) units 5 turns later, litterally surrounding your poor "capital" and Game Over. So I won't complain of lack of aggressivity in Civ6 (for now) like I did with Civ2 where the AI was sitting basically.

I’ve actually never been rushed that badly by AIs. The only one I remember is when Gorgo which is Greece declared a surprise war on me when I was still in the lower levels(When i was still nub basically). But I eventually made peace

 

[Naokaukodem]

I’ve actually never been rushed that badly by AIs. The only one I remember is when Gorgo which is Greece declared a surprise war on me when I was still in the lower levels(When i was still nub basically). But I eventually made peace

It has happened in a relatively short period of time if I'm right. Like within the first expansion or something.

 

[steveg700]

Yes i agree with that fact. AI is actually good in defense. Just like me sending 2 knights, 1 musketman and 1 crossbowman against north america. He killed the knights and also destroyed the battering ram that was with the knight. But, if he tries to attack me, all his knights die before they can do any damage even.

And yes, their aggression should be increased. After all, there was one game where no one went to war until the game ended

Play at Immortal of Diety.

 

[Drew97]

It has happened in a relatively short period of time if I'm right. Like within the first expansion or something.

Yes, when I was still in classical era. And Gorgo goes like hah I declared a surprise war on u. And that was one of the only surprise wars I recieved

 

[Drew97]

Play at Immortal of Diety.

I tried to attack Deity Gandhi with an army of 6 troops. And damn I didn't feel like continuing despite my losses so I left without even saving purposely