Does the AI know?

[Naokaukodem]

...when we amass troops right on its frontiers? Does it react by upgrading and creating more units?

 

[The Great Apple]

I'm pretty sure it doesn't. It's the sort of thing which would be annoying - often you could just amass them slightly behind the frontiers, but it's alot more convienient to put them right on the border.

 

[HectorSpector]

Annoying my ass, it would be more realistic.

If the AI plonked a stack of 10 axemen on your border and fortified, you'd hardly think they had good intentions, no?

 

[The Great Apple]

I don't care if it's more realistic. It would be annoying.

Two options:
1) Put my units on the border. This allows me to easily remember exactly where to move each unit. Unfortunetly not realistic.

2) Put my units 2 squares behind the border. They can move into the square that they would be moving into were they on the border, but I have to spent a bit more time making sure all those squares are right.

Seems to me that number 1 beats number 2, even if it is less realistic.

 

[HectorSpector]

I'd rather be playing against an AI that was smart and countered your moves properly, rather than a stupid AI that's only ahead through increased tech/production rates.

They should just let you airlift your units straight from your capital to enemy cities. Saves the hassle of having to move/position at borders. It's not realistic, but it's sure as heck easier.

Anyway, I digress.

 

[Proteus]

Dunno,
once I had Cyrus on the same continent as myself.
We coexisted peacefully and had open borders as well as multiple trade treaties running, but at one time I decided that I need more room to expand and built up my military, with the intention to invade Cyrus country.
Then, maybe 5-10 turns before I wanted to declare war, Cyrus surprised me by declaring war on me

Either he had the same plans as myself, or he reacted to my growing military and drew the right conclusions

 

[The Great Apple]

They should just let you airlift your units straight from your capital to enemy cities. Saves the hassle of having to move/position at borders. It's not realistic, but it's sure as heck easier.

What I suggested is almost exactly the same as having them on the front line, except the AI wouldn't know about it. It would still take you the same amount of turns to invade. The two possible situations are exactly the same tactically, however one you have to do a bit more mental work. For gameplay reasons the easier situation should not be detrimental.

I have no idea what airlifting units straight to enemy cities has to do with this. I think you must be misunderstanding me.

EDIT: I do admit that pre-roads it might have an effect. Not much of one though - you'd just move to the borders the turn before war. One turn isn't enough to really react.

 

[Naokaukodem]

What I don't understand in what you say The Great Apple is what is the difference in doing the mental work before rather than later?

 

[The Great Apple]

If your units are offset 2 squares from the border and you have an invasion plan it's alot harder remember exactly where you wanted to put them then if they are right next to the square you want to attack on. It's also alot easier to see what troops you have to attack with if they are all on the border.

 

[drkodos]

...when we amass troops right on its frontiers? Does it react by upgrading and creating more units?

I have yet to see the Civ equivalent of the 38th parallel .

I think the AI is "aware" of all, but does nothing about troop build-ups because it is not programmed to do anything.

 

[Naokaukodem]

If your units are offset 2 squares from the border and you have an invasion plan it's alot harder remember exactly where you wanted to put them then if they are right next to the square you want to attack on. It's also alot easier to see what troops you have to attack with if they are all on the border.

You mean not to have to do again the mental work? i think I do so also to be able to attack as soon as I want, for example: as soon as a peace treaty expires. I think we do it for several reasons. One of them is to know more clearly when to attack knowing how many troops are ready you're right.

 

[Civ4rulesTH]

I find once troops pour into their territory and i am besirging a city they suddenly become frantic and try and kill you but not just on the borders.

 

[drkodos]

I find once troops pour into their territory and i am besirging a city they suddenly become frantic and try and kill you but not just on the borders.

It's a bit of a bummer that border warfare isn't better represented in the game. Not all conflict happens in urbanized areas. I think historically much conflict happens in the countryside, OUTSIDE the boundaries of the cities themselves (with the exception of actual sieges).

If forts had any real value, and the AI understood warfare, border conflicts would become a nice part of the game.

 

[Phoenix]

It's a bit of a bummer that border warfare isn't better represented in the game. Not all conflict happens in urbanized areas. I think historically much conflict happens in the countryside, OUTSIDE the boundaries of the cities themselves (with the exception of actual sieges).

If forts had any real value, and the AI understood warfare, border conflicts would become a nice part of the game.

Indeed most warfare is done in the countryside mainly because (in my opinion) wars mess up cities so much. Just remember the invasion of Iraq; all the fighting was done outside of Baghdad not in it (other than with rebels). In civ this could be implemented by saying that each time a unit attacks a city there is x% chance of a random (non wonder) building being destroyed (x = 10% would perhaps be a good number) and y% chance of the city loosing a population point (y being scalable from 0% for pop 1 cities and 5% for 2 - 10 size and 10% for 11+). The same could be true for bomber attacks. This would mean the you would have to think very hard about letting the AI get to you're cities as you may win the battle but loose the war due to the city now being unless. The same would apply to the attacker; who wants to expend great numbers of troups to capture what ends up as a size 1 city with no buildings?

In my opinion this would be SO much better than what is currently in play and would also be more realistic and give the forts a purpose to boot.

 

[Proteus]

It depends.
Up to the medieval times, AFAIK Warfare agtainst cities was much more abundant.
But that was, because city walls still had their value and so the defenders could reetreat into the safety of the city fortifications without the enemies being able to follow them in short time.

Everything changed when the city walls became more and more worthless, as cannons were developed that could penetrate walls from distances long enough to not being exposed to defensive fire from units within the city.

I agree btw. that it would be a nice idea, if every attack (including attacks by siege equipment against the walls) would have the chance to destroy a pop point or a building, instead off destructions only taking place when the attacker conquers the city.

 

[Codeman]

I agree btw. that it would be a nice idea, if every attack (including attacks by siege equipment against the walls) would have the chance to destroy a pop point or a building, instead off destructions only taking place when the attacker conquers the city.

this was a feature of earlier versions of civ. not sure why it was left out.

 

[Birdmanthepuny]

I'm pretty sure the other civ's notice your spike in the power graph, but they don't react to where they are placed.
If my neighbor sees a jump in my power, i believe it starts to build up a little just in case.

 

[weasel77066]

I wondered if they knew myself. A game ago, I got my first nuke and the only one on the board. The other civs buttered relations with me. They stayed over-eager to please untill they got nukes themselves. Then back to their old habits.
Monty refused to attack me, cause he could "see" my stack of tanks within striking distance. Even when I started other civs at war with him, he left me alone.

I would like to be able to target buildings. Precision strikes, I think it was in civs3. Thats about the first thing USA does, target barracks, airports, broadcast stations, courthouses, factories, etc... (according to the insurgency, we target mosques and baby food warehouses.) That is and always was a prime strategy in warfare.
IMagine how annoying it would be for an AI civ to hit your border cities and rip up all your buildings youve just spent 100 years constructing.

 

[weasel77066]

Absolutely. Ive seen some serious emotion on this board regarding particular AI opponents. Picture the nuts that something like that would loosen. I think several would have strokes over something like that.
I always liked stuff like that, though. Get fired up, get even. Keeps the game fun for me.
The AI would be hard to get right, as you have said, so it would really work in the players advantage

 

[HectorSpector]

this was a feature of earlier versions of civ. not sure why it was left out.

In Warlords you cannot work a tile that a warring enemy unit is on.