Better AI in BNW?

[kaspergm]

In other words, if 1UPT wants to stay, the model has to migrate from city-centric to land-centric, where the city is the main (but not the only) strategic center of a given region in the map, but all resources/production/etc, even population, is spread out around each city, with plenty of tiles in between each city for the AI to maneuver. What is clear to me at this point in time is that 1UPT and the city-centric model do not work well together. The city-centric model works well with armies as containers of units; 1UPT works well with a land-centric model with spread out cities, resource, population, etc.

Yes, I do agree with this assessment. I think cities should be defensive centres rather than offensive centres. As it is now, they have far too much offensive power even without a unit stationed in them.

 

[apocalypse105]

Yes, I do agree with this assessment. I think cities should be defensive centres rather than offensive centres. As it is now, they have far too much offensive power even without a unit stationed in them.

They can easy fix that by allowing only a city with walls to do a range atack withouth a wall it can't

 

[KrikkitTwo]

They can easy fix that by allowing only a city with walls to do a range atack withouth a wall it can't

Or perhaps cities do damage to ranged units which attack them... but cities have no ranged attack of their own.

(That really would help cities be defensive rather than offensive.. armies would be necessary for stopping pillaging/barb worker stealing)

It would also make them more powerfully defensive. Composite bows would no longer dominate city taking.

 

[apocalypse105]

Or perhaps cities do damage to ranged units which attack them... but cities have no ranged attack of their own.

(That really would help cities be defensive rather than offensive.. armies would be necessary for stopping pillaging/barb worker stealing)

It would also make them more powerfully defensive. Composite bows would no longer dominate city taking.

So each time a unit atack he gets damage this increases the range atack of cities even more and wasn't this hole discussion about? That cities are to strong?

No i don't see that work.

 

[Aristos]

Well, the problem right now is that cities are already too powerful in defense... because they are all crammed together, creating easy killing zones for any incoming army (even for the human if not careful).

Try this: play a test game with MIN_CITY_RANGE = 5, perhaps no CS to let the AI have maneuver room, without CS you could even try 6... you will see the AI maneuver a lot better, and it will be a challenge to hold border cities against an AI rush, because there is no second/third city providing bombardment support... no killing pipe for the incoming army anymore.

You will see what I mean. That is what 1UPT should be like, but for that the city-centric model has to change.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

So each time a unit atack he gets damage this increases the range atack of cities even more and wasn't this hole discussion about? That cities are to strong?

No i don't see that work.

It would only be for units that attack the city, ie you could keep a massive army within someones empire, and they could do nothing about it (unless they had units)

ie the cities would have no "offensive" capability

However, anyone that attacked the city would take damage.
(that could be a significant nerf v. artillery, ranged units in general, and particularly ranged cavalry/logistics ships)

This way units could move around, destroy the enemy army, and Then begin conquering the city.

So tactics could be done...



I do agree that 1UPT makes the game far to tactical, and would prefer armies (where the tactical was something like...
Archer=5 Str +5 per smaller of enemy/friendly melee unit
Spear=7 Str+6 per enemy horse unit
Horse=8 Str+4 in open Terrain

So you could have an army of
10 Archers, 4 Spears, 3 Horses...
That would have
X Str...
+ Y Str (in certain conditions)
+Z Str (in certain conditions)
+A str (in certain conditions)

and it would act as one unit (until you broke it up)

So the only thing for the AI to handle would be army composition, and army placement.
(the other thing necessary would be an "intercept" function... where an army can act like a fighter with a bomber and "intercept" another armies approach)

 

[SJSerio]

I would like if the "choices" that you have in diplomatic relations actually mean something. Only a few make clear what will happen. Most, it is not even clear if there is a difference of what you select. An example would be when one Civ wants you to join them in a war against another. The no choices are "We are not interested" and "How dare you?" Does "How Dare You?" have any repercussions? Also, when a Civ pops in to insult you, your choices are "You will pay for this!" or "Whatever?" (well, something like that). What do those do to the relation?

 

[GlobularFoody]

Is there any news of improved combat AI in BNW? I can't find anything about it in the description on the official site, which is not looking good. I want to buy this but I'll just wait until it's cheap if the AI is going to be the same.

Moderator Action: Merged with similar thread.

 

[kaspergm]

They can easy fix that by allowing only a city with walls to do a range atack withouth a wall it can't

Well, not really a fix imo., unless we are talking very early game, cities have walls, so that doesn't really change anything. A better solution imo. would be to say that a city can't range attack, but a ranged unit stationed in a city gets a bonus to its attack.

Well, the problem right now is that cities are already too powerful in defense... because they are all crammed together, creating easy killing zones for any incoming army (even for the human if not careful).

Well that is not really what I call defence - if you too away the ranged attack of cities, it would matter much less how far the distance between them are.