Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by RDomico, May 16, 2017.
Does the AI actually use planes to bomb and intercept? When I played before the patches, it did not.
I have seen some (rare) examples of the AI bombing, but none of intercepting with fighters.
That is disappointing.
The AI uses his fighter-types air for intercept missions mostly (hmm, when they do uses them). In my games, I have seen fighters and jet-fighters perform bomb missions, but rarely. I have seen some interceptions (if the bomber enters the fighters hex, since the AI rarely deploy their fighters. I have seen on some rare occasions deployed fighters). Bombers usually sit there and play with themselves, but they do bomb eventually, especially strategic bombing and cities. The AI rarely bomb units. They do use bombers to drops A-bombs.
It is strange, because I can see AI planes sit there doing nothing for 20 turns and then all of a sudden they start bombing like there is no tomorrow.
Lets hope that the next patch will fix this so they use them more efficiently (and also, hmm, build stronger navies).
I think this is a much more urgent and larger issue than air units that come around when the game is more or less already decided anyway. Ok, you can bomb a space port into demolition...
This. Naval warfare of AI is horrible. Much worse than in Civ V. In Civ V, I was DEFEATED on sea by Askia. King difficulty. And I was even playing Suleiman. And they should buff coastal cities, there is almost no reason to build them (unless you're playing Australia).
You mean directly on the coast? Or are you saying that there is no reason to build cities that are within range of a harbor?
There are several variables to look at, but on any map you should look to see if having a strong navy is a worthwhile investment. Navies are incredibly powerful, even if there are no conquerable cities.
The more harbors/coastal cities you have, the faster you can build a navy. The more you settle directly on the coast, the more time and gold you save.
edit: but yea... improving the naval ai would be great. If they did it well, the game could get scary. AND LET SUBS go under ice again, thanks!
Directly on coast. Coastal cities in civ V were strong, thanks to navy, harbours and trade ships. But in Civ VI, cities on coast are useless thanks to the district mechanics. They're only good for Eureka for sailing. And as easy target for OP navy. And because navy lost its importance, there is little reason to build more than three or four ships. Harbours are good for trade routes, but these are all reasons for me to build naval cities. All naval cities should be buffed. And coastal should get some extra bonus.
hello ED beech !!
He won't hear you if you can't even spell his name.
In the real world cities with a river connected to the ocean are strong (Athene, Rome, Seville, London, New York, Paris, Hamburg...). But cities only on the coast were endangered for storm surge. I do not know so many historical important cities with their city center at the coast. E.g. the city of Alexandria had enormous problems with their coastal position.
You may be right, but I'm talking about Civ. And with rivers or not, both coastal and naval cities need a buff. Naval cities were historically important, yes, but in Civ, they are nearly pointless. Firaxis, remove trader ability to embark and give us trade ships like in Civ V. More expensive, but better. At least give us this reason to build naval cities. Or give us another civ than useless Norway that has naval bonuses, like Dutch empire or Venetian republic.
Yes, we need more stuff for the coast like
different harbor districts and buildings,
offshore wind farm,
tidal power station and of course
better trade ships. It is just more efficient to us a ship no question.
the topic here is probably something other.
The game could certainly use more Colonial policy cards. I'm not the most savvy player but the only one I can think of is the +25% gold for cities on a different continent. That would make navies more interesting if the colonial route was actually worthwhile.
In terms of air power it would be helpful if there were more uses from the infrastructure apart from a few bonuses to cities and tile movement. An air force is a very powerful thing to have when it comes to the map and warfare but has very little interaction with other aspects of the game. What if building an Aerodrome gave you an extra envoy like how harbors/CHs give trade routes? Or why in the name of all that is Holy does Integrated Space Cell key off of Harbors/MEs instead of Aerodromes? The barrier to entry in the air power game is very high and hardly ever worth it against the stupid AI. So either improve the AI or give some extra boost to Aerodromes.
Biplanes started at first from meadows and fields. They were hammered together be the village smith - nearly.
I have mostly explored Fighters before I built the first Aerodrome.
Biplanes should not require an airfield.
yes. so much. theres a dual-function to CZ and HD (trade+yield), culture zone (culture+tourism), encampment (yield+ranged attack) and holy sites. Aerodromes are just boring, though. cost so much but contribute so little.
Another factor is the unit tree for the aircraft is completely garbage !! we need the ww1 bomber back and more aircraft in general.
The AI is awful with aircraft. They do build them but then they leave them in their hangers doing nothing. I've never actually seen the AI use one yet.
Naval AI is equally bad. Again they do build them, but not nearly in enough quantity to either forge a successful or attack or repel one of mine.
In short, once I get to Frigates and above or an airforce, the AI is now at a severe disadvantage.
Amen !! I once surrounded an AI airfield they have 4 bombers and I had no air defense... they just sat there and never attacked... toatally sad
Well, the AI is pretty bad at everything, so not a surprise. Civ has never been great with aircraft, anyway.
I just fought 2 wars primarily with biplanes. They kept sending Infantry Armies and they just got wrecked.
Separate names with a comma.