Disappointed in Attila

[PhilBowles]

Okay, so I've mentioned a couple of times that I find AI Attila to be a disappointing opponent. However in my newest game (Emperor, Korea, Shuffle) he seemed a genuine threat and I left the game last night on a cliffhanger - he had a row of four battering rams, plus supporting Warriors, wandering towards my territory. He'd threatened a city state under my protection, then 'apologised' - leaving me a choice between a suicidal act of defiance or submitting and losing CS favour (I chose the latter). Of course he declared war anyway some turns later, but I'd had enough advance warning to start investing in archers and pull my warriors back from exploration duties.

All fair enough, but then this:



Okay, Seoul is a well-placed city - jungle all along one flank, and a river to boot, open ground on the other but with hills and forest to pass through to get there, and only one open attack route. But after having his run of the surrounding area and moving his troops around the city, did Attila really need to assault from the jungle side with his rams?

Or just wander around both Seoul and Busan without attacking?

Where are his own ranged units, even if it's too early for him to have horse archers?

Protecting his great general by stacking it with a battering ram - really? One next to one of my Warriors.

For some reason he didn't attack my damaged Warrior when it was in open ground after attacking across the river - this is where the AI's newfound sense of self-preservation causes problems. It's simply too cautious. A like-for-like trade is a good one, and that warrior has promotions - but his warrior would have taken damage and probably been killed by ranged attacks, so he won't countenance it.

I've actually rarely been this frustrated by bad combat AI, but as of last night this was shaping up to be a great showdown, with Attila the master of gunboat (well, battering ram) diplomacy pushing his weight around. It's too much of an anticlimax to come back to the game to find the big bad simply unable to beat even a two-city science-rushing empire much lighter on defence than he was on attack, not only holding him off long enough to produce archers without breaking a sweat, but actively able to pursue and destroy his retreating units.

I know the AI can do better in G&K - frankly Attila's performance here is lacklustre by vanilla standards. It just appears to have the electronic equivalent of a mental block where Attila the Hun is concerned, which is a shame when his whole reason for being in the game is to be a psychological threat.

EDIT: Not sure why the image isn't working, but it seems to link to the Steam cloud if you click the icon.

UPDATE: Only two turns later most of that Hun army is dead, I haven't lost a unit, and my archer heading back towards Busan captured a Hun settler undefended outside Attila's Court. His score is a princely 56 on turn 85. I'm not sure I've ever seen an AI perform as badly, as consistently, in Civ V as the Huns - half the world is still struggling to reach the Classical era and the great terror of the ancient world is already effectively out of the game.

 

[Xotite potancev]

Have to admit the way people were talking about rams i was a little Attila phobic he DOWed on me the other night turned up from a mile away with rams archers and pikes.
Proceded to let me flank his troops pick of his archers with cav, pick of his rams with archers and a few swordsmen an then stare at my walled city across a river with his pike before walking off.

Sad thing for him the walk home was napolenonic, by the time he was walking the one path back along the coast to his city i had a nice byzantine fleet parked along the route.

 

[fuzzatron717]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPoYllGSmNw this ancient behaving badly about attila this is part one there is five parts go by the assyrianguy34 this documentary is an hour long maybe this will give some insight on attila and how they made him an exact opposite when he's at war. There is alexander julius caesar, genghis khan and quite a few ancients behaving badly documentarys you can determine how wrong they have placed the ai in this game. Perticulary at war. I forgot they also have Hannibal too gruesome stuff hannibal did ehw.

 

[Peacemongerer]

All of the AI are generally this stupid in attacking. It's just that bc Attila dumps so many resources into a unit that requires great care to defend, he is easily repulsed.

 

[PhilBowles]

All of the AI are generally this stupid in attacking. It's just that bc Attila dumps so many resources into a unit that requires great care to defend, he is easily repulsed.

I wonder if it's just that combat AI hasn't kept pace with diplomacy AI - as I say, on the diplomatic front he gave a wonderfully genuine sense of being a bully and a threat ("Oh, I do apologise for bullying Geneva. It would be very nice if you let it pass just this once. Hmm, is that a battering ram you see before you?"), and I love the way it forced a strategic decision diplomatically that was going to upset someone whatever I did. So I have more of a sense in G&K than vanilla that there's a looming threat I have to sacrifice my allies to appease - only to find that when it comes down to combat, there's still no follow-through.

It's looking a game that could generally give me an easy ride this time - I'll get a very late religion if I get one at all, but I've already declared friendship with Sweden (not a bad move with Korea's GP improvement science bonus), Attila's out for the count and I got an extra worker from it, and I gain the incidental benefit from my friendship with Sweden that it reinforces my friendship with Germany (not that I trust Bismarck in the slightest).

 

[AriochIV]

To be fair, protecting vulnerable units in a 1UPT system is a challenging task, and it's clear that the AI is still not up to it (as it still walks Great Generals and Workers right into harm's way). However, the Battering Ram is an extremely dangerous unit, if it can be used properly. It can do over 100 points of damage in one attack to an early-era city.

 

[Putmalk]

You don't honestly believe that the AI incompetence is strictly restricted to Attila, do you? Every AI works the same, it just works out that Attila does not have a Spearman unit, but a Siege unit instead.

Thus, a human can easily use the Battering Rams to completely annihilate a civ, but the AI cannot do the same to a human. Because AIs are AIs. AIs have no concept of "right unit to defend my Great General" or "direction of attack" because if they did, that would mean more calculation. Albeit it would be lovely for the AI to evaluate your terrain before he attacks, but have you considered that, in the event they actually do that, he didn't explore it.

There's a reason why the AI needs advantages. It is severely limited compared to a human player.

There's nothing to be disappointed about. And there's nothing specific to Attila here.

 

[Kabloosh]

I saw Attila send a sizable force at China despite being a dbag towards me the whole game. He wouldn't of been able to stand a chance since I had a large military force parked up on hills in jungle anyways that out teched him.

Well I saw it limping back in pieces. Eventually everyone on the continent declared war on him and I joined in the fun for the hell of it despite him being a 1 city empire of epic fail.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

That hasn't been my experience. I saw Attila tear Gandhi a new one. Then, when I finally declared war, even though I brought a sizeable army to capture one of his cities, I got the shock of my life when he suddenly appeared with a whole heap of Horse Archers, regular archers & warriors. Not only were they able to repel the bulk of my forces before I even had a chance to capture their city, when I finally *did* capture their city, they were easily able to take it back from me the next turn (by bringing up a couple of battering rams he had in reserve). Sure the AI isn't *perfect* when it comes to combat, but I'm finding it way more challenging than at any time since I started playing Civ5 (& more challenging than some Civ4 games I used to play!)

Aussie.

 

[Harv72b]

My only combat experience with Attila was playing Carthage on a Large Islands map; the first war he declared and sailed at me with a pretty big fleet of triremes leading his ground units in, but I had enough q-remes pre-positioned to kill off that force at the loss of one ship to my side...but, when I for the standard counterattack, he was waiting with a fresh force of triremes now backed up by galleas. I took his peace offer and put more emphasis into bulking up my navy.

Fast forward 50 turns or so (standard speed), and I see yet another large Hunnite fleet sailing towards my shores. This time I decide not to wait for him and DoW on Attila; once again I'm able to defeat his invasion force with no friendly losses (by then I had my own galleas with a couple caravels mixed in), but once again he's kept enough forces in reserve to thwart my counterattack, and I accept another peace offer.

I finally sunk everything into Navigation and then on building up/upgrading a fleet of Frigates & Privateers, along with a couple each of cannon and gattling gun (to defend my beachhead once I take it). That worked like a charm, as I had him at even numbers this time but with a technological advantage--I was able to take and hold the city which was my primary target, and then move on to raze a second city and capture a newly founded island city as well. I finally wound up sitting off the shore of Attila's Court and pounding every new unit he built into oblivion for about 200 turns, which was immensely satisfying.

tl;dr - The new AI is better and can actually throw you an occasional curveball, but still has its weaknesses.

 

[Zenstrive]

now that cities are harder to take, and melee units are even weaker against cities, and ranged attacks are more powerful...

...archers and their descendants are scary :|

 

[Arilian]

Protecting his great general by stacking it with a battering ram - really? One next to one of my Warriors.

For some reason he didn't attack my damaged Warrior when it was in open ground after attacking across the river - this is where the AI's newfound sense of self-preservation causes problems. It's simply too cautious. A like-for-like trade is a good one, and that warrior has promotions - but his warrior would have taken damage and probably been killed by ranged attacks, so he won't countenance it.





The battering ram cannot attack units at all.

 

[Arilian]

I have seen Attila conquered Dido on turn 40, and also I very easy can win a duel Deity map, just with BR.

But now I also have a map where Attila is very weak.
I am dissapointed in the horse archer btw, I was thinking it will be able to retreat after attacking.

 

[PhilBowles]

To be fair, protecting vulnerable units in a 1UPT system is a challenging task, and it's clear that the AI is still not up to it (as it still walks Great Generals and Workers right into harm's way). However, the Battering Ram is an extremely dangerous unit, if it can be used properly. It can do over 100 points of damage in one attack to an early-era city.

And I appreciate that it's a difficult unit to use well, and so I can expect the AI to use it badly - but really? I've had Attila in three games now, and have been hit by battering ram attacks only three times (two against the same target, capturing it). If the Huns wouldn't use them as though they were spearmen and sacrifice them by sticking them outside its cities on defence or (as in this case) to protect GGs etc. they would be considerably more effective.

I am dissapointed in the horse archer btw, I was thinking it will be able to retreat after attacking.

No, it's a chariot archer replacement, not a horseman replacement. All it has over the CA is +1 movement, +1 strength (not ranged strength) and the lack of a horse requirement - which is wholly redundant since the Huns get early access to horses anyway. It's not a terribly good unit.

You don't honestly believe that the AI incompetence is strictly restricted to Attila, do you? Every AI works the same, it just works out that Attila does not have a Spearman unit, but a Siege unit instead.

Attila's AI doesn't seem to have been programmed with the knowledge that the battering ram is a siege unit rather than a spearman. Different AIs do to some extent employ different combat strategies, and in general I've found the combat AI to be slightly better in G&K than in vanilla - but this game saw the AI do things its vanilla equivalent would consider dumb. I've certainly noticed much less terrain awareness in G&K - units routinely (almost to the point of preferentially) attack across rivers when they have another option, and the AI is weighted to overfavour defence - as I say, with a Warrior that could have killed one of mine in the open, the AI preferred to sit tight on a jungle tile and not risk being wiped out by city/archer fire even to kill a promoted enemy unit. Maybe the preference for jungles is the same thing - the AI doesn't factor in that it is actually attacking, it just sees a jungle across a river and "thinks" "My units will survive better here than if they attack from open ground".

And I've saved so many units just by sticking them on a hill - I know they'd die if attacked, but the AI (except Barbarians) will almost invariably head off to look for easier pickings even if there's no prospect of losing their own units.

Protecting his great general by stacking it with a battering ram - really? One next to one of my Warriors.

For some reason he didn't attack my damaged Warrior when it was in open ground after attacking across the river - this is where the AI's newfound sense of self-preservation causes problems. It's simply too cautious. A like-for-like trade is a good one, and that warrior has promotions - but his warrior would have taken damage and probably been killed by ranged attacks, so he won't countenance it.





The battering ram cannot attack units at all.

Note my bold in the above - this was a different battle, when one of my Warriors next to Seoul crossed the river to finish off one of his weakened battering rams. The result was a warrior in open ground, right next to one of his warriors in jungle; mine was promoted but damaged due to having to attack across the river, his was intact. He just retreated.

 

[AvantInvader]

No, it's a chariot archer replacement, not a horseman replacement. All it has over the CA is +1 movement, +1 strength (not ranged strength) and the lack of a horse requirement - which is wholly redundant since the Huns get early access to horses anyway. It's not a terribly good unit.

It doesn't have +1 movement, just 4 movement like the Chariot Archer. What it does have is no Rough Terrain Penalty, which is often better than +1 movement as hills and forest would otherwise completely negate your movement advantage. It also has a free Accuracy I promotion, which is really quite nice on it's own as well as letting you reach later promotions that much quicker. Overall, a good, but not amazing, unique unit. Really comparing it to Keshiks and Camel Archer would be unfair as those are incredibly powerful unique units that should not be the standard of comparison as they are a bit overpowered. They are the only 2 ranged units in the game that can move after attacking and it is a rather unfair ability in the hands of a skilled player.

 

[Arilian]

My bad on the warrior/battering ram confusion.

I still do not like the horse archer. Battering ram is great at the beginning, but dies too fast after iron/horseback riding. And they should survive in the first line to win.

Still insanely good vs cities, so I would says BR is balanced.

 

[Bad Wolf]

I don't understand how the AI can't be made to get something as simple as "protect vulnerable units".

Ever played the very hard or insane AI in StarCraft II? They'll only hit you when they have the advantage, with a strategically layered force, and retreat the second they no longer have an advantage - quite brutal. They'd never throw a constant stream of 4 zerglings at a time at you to be pointlessly mowed down by your defences, but the CIV AI seems very fond of doing this.

 

[PhilBowles]

I don't understand how the AI can't be made to get something as simple as "protect vulnerable units".

The terrain issue concerns me more - in this attack, Attila actively moved across the river before attacking, having started on the hilly eastern side of Seoul. This can't really be excused as a 1UPT issue, as the considerations for terrain for one unit are the same as for a stack. The UPT issues are the ones that have to some extent been fixed - problems with coordinating multiple attackers, using flankers, focusing fire, using different unit types (ranged and melee) well (and, yes, stacking vulnerable units - which the AI does now generally do, just without the ability to understand which units offer the best protection. If the AI still thinks of a Battering Ram as a Spearman UU, it makes sense for it to stick its GG with a ram - the problem is that it *shouldn't* think that way). That's not an excuse for attacking over rivers where the calculation that an attack penalty applies has already been done and there's free space across the river to move to, or attacking a city with a move 2 melee/siege unit by moving it into an adjacent tile that uses both of its movement points, hence exposing it to attack before it can act.

 

[pspboy7]

Attilla is pretty strong in the very first part of the game, but trickles out fast. That, plus you have to play pretty smart to take advantage of early games units when other civs are cranking out knights and pikes. I found rams to be overrated and overhyped.

 

[PhilBowles]

Attilla is pretty strong in the very first part of the game, but trickles out fast. That, plus you have to play pretty smart to take advantage of early games units when other civs are cranking out knights and pikes. I found rams to be overrated and overhyped.

This is the very early game - the AI actually did better than I've seen it do with Attila before in terms of working out when to attack (on the downside, this was before it had Horse Archers and Attila never seems to build archers).

The greater difficulty in taking cities is great for players, but hurts the Civ V AI which already struggles with offense; added to that changes that seem to prioritise defence at any cost, even when attacking (hence the poor use of terrain and refusal to attack if the AI might lose its own unit), and it's unfortunately hard to take Attila seriously even in the earliest game stages - his civ is optimised to be aggressive at the point in the game when the AI may be least capable of pulling off aggression (no or few ranged units, relatively small numbers of units overall, and no one has much of a military tech advantage so the AI's throwing units of equal tech at you - and on an equal-tech basis, human strategy will generally win).