Defensive Order handled by poor AI, Option needed for player control

[Neomega]

My favorite game ever was the failure, Master Of Magic. I loved it, allthough it's AI was very poor.... but I was a kid back then, and just liked making uber units.
Today I would not play a game too complex for it's AI.

Civ IV has upped the complexity of the battle system greatly, asking for mixed stacks of units as optimal. But the AI is still defending on a unit by unit basis. So much is in player control.

I have been playing Monarch, because I already know the human mind can outfox an AI any day, so I give them the AI's advantage of archers at the beginning, and a worker.

But at a time when I would once agian like ot "outfox" the AI, the stupid* AI takes over, and destroys me with itself.

*(the AI is pretty good, but is only an AI, and as such, by default, not a good player)

 

[Neomega]

Renata gave more examples, too.

Renata's examples are of future use of units, (MGL's, Army counter attacks) not poor AI choices that ended up losing hte city.

As I have stated before, I KNOW my 2 samauri would have EASILY defeated the other 4 melee units. They are melee (+50% for samauri) and they have 2 first strikes, (something these melee untis do not ignore) AND the 40% city bonus.... No way the pike and macemen would have won.... AND the samauri would have won HANDILY.

 

[Psyringe]

Care to give some examples.... I played civ 3 about 400 times, and never did I wish I could have reserved my samauri because of their melee and first strike bonus for the melee units, and sacrificed my lesser units on the knights.

I am surprised the AI ever attacked your armies..... they NEVER attacked mine.

I never said that the AI attacked my armies, you probably confused me with Renata. (I rarely used armies at all, I regarded them as an exploit against the AI. But that's a totally different issue.)

An example from my Civ3 experience: It's been a while since I played unmodded Civ3, but I remember my 3-3-1 Legionaries defending my cities, while fortified 1-2-1 spearmen stood there idly. The spearman would often have been a better choice, because it couldn't do anything else but defend, while the legionary was good for counter-attacking. Or 4-4-2 Samurais defending instead of 1-3-1 pikemen.

As I said, it's the same situation you're complaining about in Civ4: The game chooses a defender which is good for the fight in question, but represents a bad decision for the fights immediately afterwards.

 

[Psyringe]

One more thing that came to my mind: You seem to imply that the AI would have chosen the same attack pattern when you had had a different defense pattern. I don't think that's the case. The AI attacked with the knights first specifically because you didn't have a good counter against these. It spotted a weakness in your defense and exploited it. As has been said several times - if you upgraded your spearman to a pikeman, results might have been different.

 

[Neomega]

One more thing that came to my mind: You seem to imply that the AI would have chosen the same attack pattern when you had had a different defense pattern. I don't think that's the case. The AI attacked with the knights first specifically because you didn't have a good counter against these. It spotted a weakness in your defense and exploited it. As has been said several times - if you upgraded your spearman to a pikeman, results might have been different.

No, the AI missed a strength in my defense, because it CANNOT think outside the box.

 

[Neomega]

As I said, it's the same situation you're complaining about in Civ4: The game chooses a defender which is good for the fight in question, but represents a bad decision for the fights immediately afterwards.

No it is not the same, as I said, that was for future battles, the AI made a poor choice for this battle. Had the order been done differently, I still would have retained the city... this turn.

 

[Kolyana]

The sentiment of this thread is SPOT ON and I couldn't agree more ... countless times I've wished to field an alternative defender against an attack. A prime example is when a given unit is chosen to defend, gets damaged (but wins) and is then chosen to defend again ... and again ...

The computer seems intent on picking damaged units until they are destroyed, like it is taking into to consideration only the max strength and not it's current strength into whatever calculation formula it uses.

Frankly, I'd like the option of 'taking control' of the defenders at battle time and picking my defender ... I'd put up with the slower fight, knowing I could protect my damaged units ... which the AI never does.

It's infuriating.

 

[Neomega]

A prime example is when a given unit is chosen to defend, gets damaged (but wins) and is then chosen to defend again ... and again ...

The computer seems intent on picking damaged units until they are destroyed, like it is taking into to consideration only the max strength and not it's current strength into whatever calculation formula it uses.

Frankly, I'd like the option of 'taking control' of the defenders at battle time and picking my defender ... I'd put up with the slower fight, knowing I could protect my damaged units ... which the AI never does.

It's infuriating.

I forgot about this, but have seen it plenty of times.... it is terrible... you do not want to field damaged units before they upgrade, yet the civ IV AI continuously throws them towards the attackers until they are dead.... dumb.

 

[Psyringe]

No, the AI missed a strength in my defense, because it CANNOT think outside the box.

Okay, that's right too.

More specific: The defending AI missed an opportunity because it only thinks about the current fight, not about the implications for the following fights. Your set of defenders was a suboptimal choice with regards to this limitation of the defending AI. The attacking AI then exploited that weakness.

Since you don't want this to happen, you suggest to give the player the ability to pick the defender by himself. This would solve the issue, but would also lengthen combat a lot. This wouldn't be much fun, since most of the time the AI algorithm would already pick the best defender, but you would still check the others in case it missed something. It would also be exploitable by producing cheap cannon fodder units with the sole purpose to throw them at the attackers.

The alternative solution is to take care and upgrade your defenders so that the situation the angered you wouldn't even happen in the first place.

Personaly, although I can understand your reasoning, I prefer the latter. It's generally a bad choice to implement a feature that has negative effects many, many times in the game (lengthened combat, more micromanagement), while only rarely providing anything positive in a situation that could easily have been prevented in the first place.

Just my opinion of course, you're entitled to yours.

 

[Psyringe]

The computer seems intent on picking damaged units until they are destroyed, like it is taking into to consideration only the max strength and not it's current strength into whatever calculation formula it uses.

This really isn't true. If you can provide a single savegame that proves that claim (which shouldn't be difficult do to), I'll start a thread with the topic "I'm a total idiot, and Kolyana proved it".

Now is this an incentive or what?

 

[Dragonlor]

What it comes down to is this...

You know the rules of the game and how the AI responds to things before the game. Basketball players know that at some point during the game the refs will make a bad call and maybe even cause them to lose the entire game. That's just how the game is. That's life. You know the rules beforehand. You should expect as much going into each game and prepare ahead of time.

A custom option to allow human players to control their defenders is fine. But the system as it is should hardly be a game breaker.

 

[Kolyana]

Oh Psyringe, c'mon, it's absolutely true and I've seen it so, so, so many times!!! I have often watched a battle and seen my best unit defending (fair enough!) only to see it destroy the attacker, get reduced in strength, and then line up to defend against the next attack as well.

I've sat there *OFTEN* with somewhat of a "WTH expression" and baited breath, only to see said damaged unit defend successfully. As I breath a sigh of relief and put it down to "well, even damaged it must have been the strongest unit!" I'll then see it line up to defend a third time ... and now, at a fraction of it's former strength, it'll eventually die.

I have seen this waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too often, particularlly in the latter part of the game.

Sure, it would be great to send you a save game, but then I'd have to anticipate it happening, because once it has it's too late to send a save. Perhaps I can grab screens shots during the battle ... if I can, I'll do it the next time I see it.

But MAN (!) it's one of the truest things and aspects about Civ IV ... it will pick a damaged unit to defend when every ounce of my body wants to pick an undamaged defender!

 

[Neomega]

and how the AI responds to things before the game.

Really, this was a first for me... sort of... the game is still new, and uh, well after spending yet another 3 hours on a game, I hate to be surprised by a poor AI working on my behalf, and once again, be forced to start all over again.

The defending AI missed an opportunity because it only thinks about the current fight, not about the implications for the following fights.

If you mean fight, as in the next unit in the same turn during the same battle for a city, then yes.

What would I do with this "personal command" option? I would reload a savegame, with the option on. Then I would turn it off once the battle was over.

I do nto want to have to reload the game, and replay 6 or 7 turns, just to undo an "injustice", by making peace with the Aztecs sooner, and moving my forces to the new Chinese front... in fact, that would feel like a cheat to me instead.


(just in case people are thinking I just simply can't take my medicine... I have played well over 30 games.... and lost most of them, but have learned alot like when a rival cancels an open borders agreement, and soon begins loading troops on the border, a war is imminent. I saw this coming by the Chinese, mad epeace with the Aztecs, and began movign forces to my mostly unguarded northern front, suiciding catapults to keep the forces from attacking for an extra two turns. I have played and bounced back (somewhat) from large losses before, but I cannot abide when I do everything right, and then lose because of one of the components I have no control over, (even in this instance, after the math is done.... the Chinese prayed to the RNG god heavily, because he did truly show his favor upon them) But I have accepted the RNG because I know it is mathematically pure... but the defense choice is based on a unit by unit basis, not on analysis of the entire stacks)

 

[BeefontheBone]

Of course, the same works in the player's favour when attacking a city, in fact forming part of the advantage the player has over the AI, especially since you can see which unit will defend against each attacker before combat begins. The attacking AI used the optimum attack order to take that city in the same way that you have the ability to when you try to take another city. Giving you the option to tailor the defence order, sacrificing some units in order to keep others alive/retain the city, would give you a further advantage over the AI.

 

[Neomega]

Of course, the same works in the player's favour when attacking a city, in fact forming part of the advantage the player has over the AI, especially since you can see which unit will defend against each attacker before combat begins. The attacking AI used the optimum attack order to take that city in the same way that you have the ability to when you try to take another city. Giving you the option to tailor the defence order, sacrificing some units in order to keep others alive/retain the city, would give you a further advantage over the AI.

Which is why I am playing Monarch... the AI already has major advantages. My advantage is I am human. I could put everything else on auto, and watch the game play itself on noble, but what fun would that be? I want control. This game is all about control.

EDIT: I don't believe you. I don't think the AI is considering the entire stack, and running thorugh all the possibilities... semms to me it is using the most powerful first, and going down the list.

 

[Armr]

just build the same defensive unit and then you will always know what will defend LOL

 

[Ranos]

I have the perfect soultion to your problem.

BUILD BARRACKS.

If you had built the Longbowmen in a city with barracks, they would have had City Defense I giving them +45% City defense and a strength of 8.7 (before the cities defense bonus) puting them in the first defnder spot. Unless of course you had also built the Samurai using barracks and given them Combat I then they would have 8.8 strength and still would have defended first. That could have made the difference though because of your cites 40% defense bonus. You could also use the Vassalage and/or Theocracy civics which would give you even better results. Build more pikemen etc.

The AI uses whichever unit has the highest strength and that was your Samurai. If you want to solve the problem, make sure you give your units the experience and easy promotions that they need to defend your empire well.

I have only played SP games but I have never lost a city when the AI didn't use catapults.

 

[Kolyana]

just build the same defensive unit and then you will always know what will defend LOL

And watch as your elite uber super defense promoted unit defends for the first 3 attacks until it's finally whittled down to nothing ... while 6 other defensive units sit there, full strength, waiting to take their turn.

 

[Ranos]

Oh Psyringe, c'mon, it's absolutely true and I've seen it so, so, so many times!!! I have often watched a battle and seen my best unit defending (fair enough!) only to see it destroy the attacker, get reduced in strength, and then line up to defend against the next attack as well.

I've sat there *OFTEN* with somewhat of a "WTH expression" and baited breath, only to see said damaged unit defend successfully. As I breath a sigh of relief and put it down to "well, even damaged it must have been the strongest unit!" I'll then see it line up to defend a third time ... and now, at a fraction of it's former strength, it'll eventually die.

I have seen this waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too often, particularlly in the latter part of the game.

Sure, it would be great to send you a save game, but then I'd have to anticipate it happening, because once it has it's too late to send a save. Perhaps I can grab screens shots during the battle ... if I can, I'll do it the next time I see it.

But MAN (!) it's one of the truest things and aspects about Civ IV ... it will pick a damaged unit to defend when every ounce of my body wants to pick an undamaged defender!

And watch as your elite uber super defense promoted unit defends for the first 3 attacks until it's finally whittled down to nothing ... while 6 other defensive units sit there, full strength, waiting to take their turn.

So what you are saying is that the AI maliciously and intentionally destroys your good units to give itself and advantage? The men in the white coats are only here to help you.

The AI picks the strongest unit. If you are defending with a Longbowman with City Defense I, II and III and then some smaller units that have much less strength, then yes, your Longbowman may be used in the first 2 or even three attacks, but that is because you have put one very good defender and the rest are crappy.

Don't try to blame the AI for your mistakes in not keeping a balanced defnse force in your city. The AI will choose the defender that will have the most strength against the attacker. A City Defense III Longbowman that has been damaged to 3.9 strength is still stronger than a Longbowman with no promotions.

 

[Neomega]

I have the perfect soultion to your problem.

BUILD BARRACKS.

If you had built the Longbowmen in a city with barracks, they would have had City Defense I giving them +45% City defense and a strength of 8.7 (before the cities defense bonus) puting them in the first defnder spot. Unless of course you had also built the Samurai using barracks and given them Combat I then they would have 8.8 strength and still would have defended first. That could have made the difference though because of your cites 40% defense bonus. You could also use the Vassalage and/or Theocracy civics which would give you even better results. Build more pikemen etc.

The AI uses whichever unit has the highest strength and that was your Samurai. If you want to solve the problem, make sure you give your units the experience and easy promotions that they need to defend your empire well.

I have only played SP games but I have never lost a city when the AI didn't use catapults.

I know it is very strange, My units are always produced from barracked cities, and my samauri were battle hardened.

But is it really a realistic solution to say "nerf your samauri?"

I just want to "release my legion" as the romans did at the critical point.

Throwing the weaker units first, until the enemy was beat up, and then release the legions to mop up...