Couple Questions about the AI's usage of Nukes

[Taquitos]

Hi, I'm new to the forums, currently playing at monarch level offline.

I have two questions for the people that play above monarch difficulty, and its regarding the use of nukes.

My last game had 6 civs remaining, I was in one continent and had the other 2 civs as vassals, and Alexander was the owner of the other continent with other 2 civs as vassals.

I decided to go for space victory since I was actually ahead of alexander tech wise and because it would be utterly impossible invade him on the other continent for a dom victory. So obviously, without remaining opponents and his power rating eclipsing mine, you can imagine Alex was declaring war on me the first chance he got. I gave up trying to buil a navy that could stand his, you have no idea the ridiculous size of his navy at that point, without counting Huayna's (his vassal). Anyways, I focused of defending, with good sized armies at my coast and tank groups of 6-8 around the continent to help my vassals too. The game came to a point where I was nuking alexander everytime he declared war, using ICBMs mainly later I decided to use subs with Tactical nukes.
So my questions are:

1) I noticed after I nuked Alex's capital and Sparta and probably one more city, the very next turn he declared war, he removed the "refuses to talk" and he was willing to sign a peace without asking too much. Is this normal behavior of the AI in emperor and above? or this is only because it is monarch? because if that is the case, I would continue playing liek this when I decide to go for space victories late in game after realizing the impossibility of a domination, and coccoon myself in defenses and nukes to force peace. But I don't want to get use to this if this only happens in monarch.

2) My second question is about the AI's decision making regarding where to nuke. By the second and third time Alex declared war on me, him and Huayna (his vassal) had nukes, and used them. But I was surprised he used them on my vassal, and one of his island cities of about size 8 nontheless. They probably blew 5 nukes that game in different ocassions on misserable cities of my vassals. They never nuked Paris, or Tours, both of which were huge and were building Spaceship parts and the Space elevator. So is the AI that stupid using its nukes? its there any pattern he follows when using nukes? is this happening only because its monarch, or the AI is that stupid on higher difficulties too?

This would help me understand better how to improve my game when I start trying emperor games. Mainly I want to know if it's a good idea build the M. Project against emperor or above AIs. Right now seems awesome idea, because apparently I can force peace by nuking, and the AI is incredible stupid using the nukes so I don't have to worry about my capital and critical cities getting blown up.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Cam_H]

Taquitos,

Welcome to CivFanatics!

Sorry that I can't provide a more definitive answer, but players with more nuke experience may be able to chime in with a more knowledgeable contribution.

On your first question (paraphrased); are the A.I.s willing to talk and settle for peace (or become vassals) faster after you drop some nuclear warheads on them compared to the duration during more conventioal warfare (?), the answer is 'yes'. I have certainly I've had them reopen negotiations within three turns (on Immortal difficulty). 'The Me In Team" has a game ('Expansion + Cottages Example - Immortal (Now with 100% more Nukes)') with a similar short gap between war and negotiations.

On your second question (paraphrased); is the A.I. terrible at choosing nuke targets or is there some pattern to explain it (?), I'm not sure. The A.I. in the past has been criticised for poorly implementing its nuclear attacks by dropping the bombs but then not following it up in concert with an appropriate invasion. Regarding your example, it may be aware that you had the SDI whereas your vassals didn't (?) or bomb shelters (?) and taken these into account. Again, someone else may be able to provide a pointer here on the A.I.'s selection of target cities.

Sorry I can't fully answer your questions.

 

[Kadazzle]

For your first question, this is because the AI has ratings for how their doing in the war, and this is dependent on whether or not they'll make peace. When you nuke the AI, it maxes out one of the ratings, meaning they'll want to make peace.

I'm sure one of the code people will post and clarify this with codes.

 

[Gliese 581]

In a recent game I played the AI nuked a barb city, I think that's a first ever for me. Poor riflemen..

 

[Silu]

The AI generally tends to only nukes its perceived "war targets" meaning stuff they have their eyes on as their next target. They seldom nuke your capital and the juicy best cities far away, rather the border cities and visible unit stacks. Nor are they afraid of collateral damage, I've had an AI drop a nuke in the middle of their own damn city to get at my stack that was next to it (a good city too, core 20+ size one).

In general, difficulty level and AI stupidity have absolutely nothing in common. The Deity AI is just as wise (or dumb) as the Settler one, it just has a bigger stick (more opportunities to actually execute the strategies).

 

[Taquitos]

thanks for the answers guys, it clarifies everything a bit more.

It's good to know that I can force peace by nuking then. But, I'm afraid about what Silu said.

If the AI in fact will have a little better judgement than what I experienced in terms of where and what to nuke, then I don't know if it's worth building the M. Project., do you guys build it in your games?

Is it worth the risk building it to force peace and have the chance of getting your main cities or armies blown up?

Also, have you guys seen the AI building the Man. Project? In my experience I've yet to see a single game where the AI builds it. Generally the U.N. vote to ban nukes comes first if I don't build the Man.P. myself.

 

[azzaman333]

The AI is pretty damn terrible at war.

Build the MP if you want nukes, and don't worry too much about the AI getting them because they'll probably waste them.

 

[Silu]

The AI will build the MP. A tad faster/more often on the high levels, as they tech and build faster but the UN votes stroll by at the same pace

If you think you will need nukes (need to battle a much bigger / more advanced Civ), build it. Don't build it "just because" because of the possibility that that decision will come bite you in the ass later, it's not worth it to just have the "option" if you're not sure whether or not you're going to use it.

 

[mirthadir]

The AI weighs its kills exchange when looking at negotiations, nukes drive this value to some obscene level rather quick. I've had a deity AI cap on the second turn of a war (granted, I took all his coastal cities and all his cities within range of a paradrop from the coast on turn 0 of the war).

 

[Lyoncet]

In one of TMIT's Let's Plays (Justinian?) he got capitulation on the turn he declared war. It was beautiful.

 

[mirthadir]

In one of TMIT's Let's Plays (Justinian?) he got capitulation on the turn he declared war. It was beautiful.

I've never managed that, I've killed the AI on turn 0 several times. That is far more rewarding in my book. Did he just leave the AI some city on a distant island?

 

[Kietharr]

1 turn capitulation is pretty simple, just have 2-3 nukes for every enemy city. You'll kill over 90% of their military, ruin all of their improvements and infrastructure, oh also all of their population will die. You will lose a ton of power from consuming those nukes but their power will bottom out much faster than yours, especially if you've got a conventional stack or two around.

Also worth noting is that nukes will permanently destroy floodplains and oasis tiles.

 

[mirthadir]

1 turn capitulation is pretty simple, just have 2-3 nukes for every enemy city. You'll kill over 90% of their military, ruin all of their improvements and infrastructure, oh also all of their population will die. You will lose a ton of power from consuming those nukes but their power will bottom out much faster than yours, especially if you've got a conventional stack or two around.

Also worth noting is that nukes will permanently destroy floodplains and oasis tiles.

If I have 2-3 nukes per city I normally just take the whole thing and avoid the motherland issues. On most maps I play 2-3 nukes per city + paras normally means I just kill the entire civ on turn zero.

Preferably I will have OB with my target and a sub for each city, few spare subs + tac nukes or spare ICBMs, a transport for each coastal city (maybe slightly fewer), and some airships, spies, or fighters for recon. Load each sub full with tac nukes (OB let's you rebase in), have paras+1 marine/tank (perhaps) in the transports, declare war when my navy is a good position, and begin by nuking the coast, walk the marine/tank into the coastal ports, bring in the ship, unload, nuke the interior cities (bring subs into port to get the extra range if needed, abuse cannals to inland lakes if required if not use ICBMs), use recon units after the 2nd nuke for each inland city and use more nukes if the AI has any units. Paradrop into the interior cities and say goodbye.

Taking down a diety AI in 1 turn with SDI is possible a properly executed nuclear alpha strike.

 

[Sincro]

I assume that you need to be very close to your personally chosen victory condition prior to beginning the nuclear barrage?

I was under the impression that shooting off the number of nukes some of you indicate (Especially TMIT, good lord) turns the entire world into desert in fairly short order.

-Sinc

 

[mirthadir]

I assume that you need to be very close to your personally chosen victory condition prior to beginning the nuclear barrage?

I was under the impression that shooting off the number of nukes some of you indicate (Especially TMIT, good lord) turns the entire world into desert in fairly short order.

-Sinc

Not really. Global warming isn't that bad it would have to strike dozens of times to make a major dent in total output. Unless mechanics have changed, you can't reliably desertify the world; I have a half-arsed Dutch strategy that exploits the sea and corps (which are unaffected by desertification) in hopes of crashing the AI economy. I've tossed hundreds of tac nukes into a barb city and I still couldn't desertify half the land in the world.

If you have ecology it is actually pretty easy to reclaim the land, just scrub, WS/Farm/WM and your "wasteland" quickly becomes a powerhouse. Nukes tend to be game ending moves because nukes are just that powerful (and the AI sucks just that bad with them). I've spent games where I toss off 2-3 ICBMs every turn while I tech to computers, internet and space. Every square the AI owns may be glowing, but I still can manage to win space in 150 turns (granted GW slows me down, but it is anything but close).

 

[r_rolo1]

Any number of nuke blasts above 20 will assuredly start the raining sand phenomenon ( most of the times far less, maybe even 0 ) and it's spawn rate is not dependent of the number of nukes AFAIK .

 

[Kietharr]

If you have nukes you should be on the cusp of victory regardless so global warming is irrelevant. You might lose 5-10 tiles total.

Even 1 nuke will eventually turn the entire world into desert, but you need to use a lot to make it come fast.

 

[mirthadir]

Any number of nuke blasts above 20 will assuredly start the raining sand phenomenon ( most of the times far less, maybe even 0 ) and it's spawn rate is not dependent of the number of nukes AFAIK .

Yeah, but say you have 200 tiles in your empire, how many of them can you realistically lose? Even in nuke heavy, long games I've never had half my land get eaten by the sand monster.

 

[Soundwαvє ▼]

What happens if you go to the low latitudes and then nuke with 100 nukes an poor enemy just to cause global warming and destroy other civs? It's possible?

 

[Sincro]

What happens if you go to the low latitudes and then nuke with 100 nukes an poor enemy just to cause global warming and destroy other civs? It's possible?

I assume that the direct effects of nukes, city damage, unit kills, population loss and fallout is far more effective at destroying other civs. If you're going to use them, it sort of makes sense to follow up with your own troops and capitulate/destroy the target.