Does Anybody Else Miss Naval Combat?

[mb2bm55]

Starcraft AI is also a bad example for "good" AI, when we're talking about a game with extremely rudimentary resource collection and where it's all about build orders. The AI can be honed to do very well at such mechanical gameplay, but it's substantially less complex than any Civilization game, and therefore a far cry from what all-aspect strategic gameplay would require.

I agree that the challenges involved in programming the CivBE AI is far greater than some collect-build-rush-repeat game. However, I think there is some value to the comparison. A Civilization game inevitably breaks down into microcosms of tactics underlying the general strategy. While there may be some difficult programming problems in leading the AI to recognize these situations, once they are identified, the parameters of strong courses of action are similarly easy to define as Brood Wars (or any other similarly mechanical, twitch reflex RTS).

[I apologize for forgetting who suggested this idea and not properly referencing them] It was mentioned that once an AI unit comes within a certain distance of an enemy that an algorithm isolates a 10 X 10 Hex Square and runs some preset number of iterations to determine the statistically best course of action. In other words, there are solutions that would cause the AI not to send outnumbered, technologically inferior units to a pointless death.

IMO the main issue is a strategic level algorithm for the AI that determines the proper tactical algorithm. The individual tactical algorithms in-and-of-themselves are relatively simple. Its when there is a complicated strategic overlay on top that makes it difficult. You can write a large volume of tactical solutions that we discover consistently on these forums. But if each situation is addressed (almost) separately the programming becomes too dysfunctional to run. Determining the overlap as opposed to an entire separate set of instruction lines- to for ex. stock carriers with fighters- is a major challenge in a game this complicated

 

[Anomandaris]

Yes, the differences in complexity in the two games are significant. I don't know why you are hanging on to every word I have written. I am not saying "Brood War" had better AI or "make the BE AI like the Brood War AI". I was giving a simple analogy - one AI builds units and uses them (although badly), the other builds units (sometimes) and does not use them. Sometimes it even doesn't build units.
More complex in the BE case means there are more situations to consider. You can break down any situation into smaller and smaller decisions until they become simple "if/then" functions (although there are a -ton of them). Forget I ever mentioned Brood War.
It should not be complicated to program the AI to check "Do I have an empty carrier? If yes, don't build another until I build 2 jets." or "I want to attack. Are my carriers empty? If yes, keep them at home until they are filled". These are literally a couple of lines of code each. Yes, you would have to program hundreds of such cases but that is what the guys at Firaxis get paid to do!
Of course, you could say that it doesn't really work like that, that the actual behavior script of the AI is much more complex and this isn't feasible. To this, I would ask... why? Evidently, the current system is not working well. It is not normal that my second game of Beyond Earth was easily won (although after a long time because I was exploring) at the maximum difficulty. I have never played a Civilization game before (maybe once or twice 2 or 3 when I was really young but I cannot remember for the life of me). The AI is bad and Firaxis should feel bad. Unlike Brood War (there it goes again), they don't have the excuse that the game is primarily played online against other human players.

 

[Roxlimn]

Civ AI has always been this bad, Anomandaris. It was actually kind of worse when Civ IV and Civ V released. No exaggeration.

 

[Anomandaris]

I totally believe you, thank you for confirming it. I certainly hoped that was the case, because otherwise it would mean that the developers had made an awesome AI but decided we were not worthy of it so they took it away

I just have a slightly different perspective on the issue because I am not tainted by previous experiences with the series and preconceptions and expectation. I have a fresh set of eyes, so to say. I thoroughly dislike the notion that just because something was bad in a previous game is an excuse for it to be bad in the next game. Quite the opposite - they had time and opportunity to learn but they chose not to. Which is a screw up on their part and they totally deserve all the backlash, regardless of whether or not the AI was also bad in previous games.

 

[Roxlimn]

I think your continued comparison to Brood War betrays your preconceptions about this. I do think that the AI could be made better, but there are limitations on how much better it could be with the resources. AI has never been a strong suit for Civ, and they have other concerns and other focuses.

A game that focused on AI would be GalCiv2. If you think CivBE is bland, GalCiv2 on release was blander than cardboard. Arguably, it still is. The weapon techs are literally named Laser1, Laser2, Laser3, and so on. Different focus. Better AI, worse flavor. It's a thing. There's a finite amount of resources at hand. Concentrating on new things like Tech Web or Virtues, or entirely new techs to conceptualize - these are not screw ups.

Frankly, I think your expectations are unrealistic - complete fantasy. I would like an AI that had the chops of a human, but until I see it anywhere else, I just can't imagine a company screwed up by not having something that's impossible to develop.

 

[Anomandaris]

I just ran with the analogy because it amused me. I never expected it to be the Brood War AI, god, I hope not. It was terrible. I expected to lose my first game though. And again my first on Apollo. I guess that was too much to ask for.
Yes, I know they are unrealistic, but I not abandon my desires just because nobody cares.

 

[Hail]

It should not be complicated to program the AI to check "Do I have an empty carrier? If yes, don't build another until I build 2 jets." or "I want to attack. Are my carriers empty? If yes, keep them at home until they are filled". These are literally a couple of lines of code each. Yes, you would have to program hundreds of such cases but that is what the guys at Firaxis get paid to do!
Of course, you could say that it doesn't really work like that, that the actual behavior script of the AI is much more complex and this isn't feasible. To this, I would ask... why? Evidently, the current system is not working well. It is not normal that my second game of Beyond Earth was easily won (although after a long time because I was exploring) at the maximum difficulty. I have never played a Civilization game before (maybe once or twice 2 or 3 when I was really young but I cannot remember for the life of me).

exactly!

Firaxis should have hired some folks from the academia long ago to write them a turn-based generic AI engine.
It's not happening though. Firaxis, as capitalism in general, is shortsighted.

a rule-based AI always sucks and is relevant only for the game it was written for.

The AI is bad and Firaxis should feel bad. Unlike Brood War (there it goes again), they don't have the excuse that the game is primarily played online against other human players.

the AI is bad and Firaxis should not feel bad.
I dunno about civ5, but for civ4 the statisitics speak for themselves: 80% of the players do not play a difficulty higher than Chieftain.

a good AI is not justified

 

[sprang]

I dunno about civ5, but for civ4 the statisitics speak for themselves: 80% of the players do not play a difficulty higher than Chieftain.

Dear god, no. There's just... no. no.

 

[morikahn]

There are no submarines and no destroyers... just battleships. This drastically changes naval combat to a simple matter of gun power. Maybe Firaxis will add such units in an expansion.

Its just odd to see a sci fi game where modern naval capabilities surpass future ones.

 

[Gort]

I'm glad they fixed ships in the patch - it was so silly how fragile they were to ranged attacks.

 

[MechMedic130]

I think the big problem with naval stuff in this game is that I barely feel the need to even head out to water in the first place really. There are no city states or civs to discover so that need to get your navy up early is nonexistent really. There is no sea-fairing civs to deal with, no massive sprawl of naval trade routes to dominate. Where in Civ V having a well developed naval presence on most maps was a must, in this game you can almost ignore them entirely all game. I'm not rushing for coastal cities if I start out landlocked, it might be my 4th city many times.

So IMO it's not just naval combat that is lacking, it's the entire naval experience. The water is just not hotly contested in this game.

 

[Gort]

I think the big problem with naval stuff in this game is that I barely feel the need to even head out to water in the first place really. There are no city states or civs to discover so that need to get your navy up early is nonexistent really. There is no sea-fairing civs to deal with, no massive sprawl of naval trade routes to dominate. Where in Civ V having a well developed naval presence on most maps was a must, in this game you can almost ignore them entirely all game. I'm not rushing for coastal cities if I start out landlocked, it might be my 4th city many times.

So IMO it's not just naval combat that is lacking, it's the entire naval experience. The water is just not hotly contested in this game.

You could knock down the defenses of coastal/near-coastal cities really fast with a few ships pre-patch - now that they might actually survive some return fire they'll be even nastier in that role. This gets particularly dangerous later in the game when you can pair your ships up with hovertanks and use that combination to conquer cities before they even get to shoot back.

A coastal city garrisoned by both a ranged unit and a ship is a tough nut to crack, as well.

 

[Onylra]

Naval AI is both good and awful in this game...

Good in that the AI often makes quite large fleets and moves them about with coherence and coordination.

Awful in that the tactical AI doesn't seem to be capable of both moving and firing on the same turn.

Exhibit A: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=353977629

Exhibit B: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=354197406

Exhibit C: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=353977936

So, here I am, D-Day against Elodie, who has a decisive tech/affinity advantage, I crushed the fleet outside of Prosperite and went to work grinding it down, meanwhile Elodie has a large and unsighted fleet around the northern coast.

I set up a picket on my flank with 2 Destroyers and a Carrier with a Tacnet, thinking that should be sufficient to ambush any interlopers - in A you can see Elodie ambushing my ambush, apparently by using her 3-range ships that would one-shot my ships to hug me to death, a Destroyer is sacrificed to her clammy embrace while the others retreat in panic.

A couple of turns later the Vindicator fleet appears by my main invasion force, as seen in C - she even dropped a Tacnet! Good work! But uhh, yeah, instead of just annihilating me we're back to hugging it out apparently. Guess what happened? Yes, instead of having my entire army wiped-out in a single alpha-strike, I laid waste to her fleet, then her first two cities, and then her gate, all without losing a single unit (excepting the one Destroyer from up the coast who got trapped in the hug-of-death).

Short while later, when the FI threat appears to have put to bed, yet another large fleet appears, this time outside an isolated frontier city with few defenders, seen in B - great surprise! You got me! No, no... I don't want a hug... no Elodie! That is not how you wage war...

Can someone explain to me exactly what the hell is happening in these screenshots? These scenarios should not be happening at all, let alone every single time the AI engages in naval warfare.

 

[Lucius_]

I think the big problem with naval stuff in this game is that I barely feel the need to even head out to water in the first place really. There are no city states or civs to discover so that need to get your navy up early is nonexistent really. There is no sea-fairing civs to deal with, no massive sprawl of naval trade routes to dominate. Where in Civ V having a well developed naval presence on most maps was a must, in this game you can almost ignore them entirely all game. I'm not rushing for coastal cities if I start out landlocked, it might be my 4th city many times.

So IMO it's not just naval combat that is lacking, it's the entire naval experience. The water is just not hotly contested in this game.

#1 reason to make a navy and go exploring=progeniter ruins. Find those tiny islands and send explorers to all those unfound excavation sites, particularly those ruins!

I will say though, the game certainly lacks the sense of discovery of previous Civ's.

 

[nick-brown]

The AI also sucks extra hard with ships. Those empty carrier zergs are deadly...

LOL Why do they do that? What a wonderfully warped world-view the AI must have to think this is a good idea! ;-)