Having adjustable tactical AI

bahamut19

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 15, 2020
Messages
92
The tactical AI in version 4.2.7 is really good. At any level, from Settler on up, the AI makes logical tactical moves at war and it is always a challenge. The only difference in challenge is between the extra promotions, experience, and units the AI can achieve in the course of a game.

One thing I was considering, which is probably nearly impossible to program, but still an idea I had was this. Shaka's army's fight as well as Korea's. No matter the Civ, the tactical AI will consider the same possibilities and choose from the same best ones they are programmed to do. What if there were differences in the game in how each Civ fought wars? For example, a warmongering Civ's tactical AI chose from more possibilities and was more likely to pick the best ones when compared to a Civ who has no or little interest in wars? Korea has nice Hwacha's, but may not exactly use them optimally. The Impi always makes better decisions.

Thoughts?
 
can agree have been beaten on settler a few times with the tactical AI last settler game i took a tech lead and dominated theres no substitute for higher tech, noticed i have the upper hand vs barbs and the barbs always go for pilliaging strategic resources first no matter the level.

also AI struggle with Raging barbs if they haven't taken Authority ive seen 1 cities on Settler with barbs the ai sorta gives up might be linked to the expansion issue but one game i liberated one or two AI cities and and many city states (poss due to the bug)

all in all a great point but theres issues to iron out with the ai its too strong in some areas and laughably weak in others
 
which is probably nearly impossible to program
It is doable to make civs more or less aggressive in their tactical choices.
tactical AI chose from more possibilities and was more likely to pick the best ones when compared to a Civ who has no or little interest in wars
Possible, but making the AI deliberately stupider is not part of the design, and I have a great distaste for it.
Korea has nice Hwacha's, but may not exactly use them optimally. The Impi always makes better decisions.
This can be solved by giving the AI additional logic to account for what unit they have and their promotions. Some logic of this nature already exists, but not every case is covered.
 
It's not about making all AI dumber, but to prevent all AI from acting exactly the same in their wars.
It is doable to make civs more or less aggressive in their tactical choices.
Different civs would make different choices in the same game?
 
But... why would/should they?

The "different decisions" should come from army composition flavors and aggressive/defensive war goals, not tactical ineptitude. In your example, the reason Zulu armies should operate differently is because they have a ton of foot soldiers that want to walk over to you. Korea's siege units shouldn't be any dumber than Zulu siege, but by the nature of siege units they won't move very quickly, and they should focus on defending their siege units over pressing ahead with infantry.
 
Seems like this would just result in peaceful civs getting destroyed by warmongers. They already lack military advantages; if their military AI sucks too they'll just get bodied.
 
Different civs would make different choices in the same game?
There are some internal values which can be changed to make the AI more willing to take aggressive moves. If this is possible, changing it to be specific to each civ is doable. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it's possible without being overly difficult.
 
Aside from unique units, there is a distinct lack of flavour and personality from the AI towards decision making.

What about having more weight towards personality traits of each civ having an influence towards their tactics, in and out of warfare? As well as more distinct army composition bias towards their unique unit line?

Warmongers in this game never overreach and spread themselves too thin, traders don't get together to defend each other from warmongers. Civs both in early, mid and late game don't penalize warmongers, unjust aggressors, ruthless traders, etc.

I can't recall the last time a deal was ended prematurely as a result of the AI deciding it was a method of punishment, nor a neighbouring AI defending their neighbour against an aggressor.
 
Civs both in early, mid and late game don't penalize warmongers, unjust aggressors, ruthless traders, etc.
But they do, very regularly. The most frequently asked question on this forum is how to deal with AI civs ganging up on them.
there is a distinct lack of flavour and personality from the AI towards decision making.
There isn't, there is a world of difference between getting either Egypt, Aztec or Austria as your neighbour. With Egypt you just gave up making wonders at all, with Austria you'll see nearby citystates flip to her, and if you're near Aztect you know you're getting clapped very soon.
As well as more distinct army composition bias towards their unique unit line?
Isn't this already the case? The AI have a bias towards making their UU. The AI regularly make use of all unit types.
 
Isn't this already the case? The AI have a bias towards making their UU. The AI regularly make use of all unit types.
The AI does use all unit types. But each AI acts exactly the same once any AI is in a war. There is no differentiation in the war fighting tactics between how Austria, Aztec, or Egypt will fight their wars. The only difference is the UU. Each of these 3 Civs will use ranged and siege units exactly the same way, as one example.
 
I know im in the minority on this but i bet if we put say Askia vs Maria in a grasslands cage match with exactly the same units both would make the same moves and ulitmately end in a draw,

Question: Would Askia push his units harder? more suicide runs against a diplomatic opponent ? Maria would negotiate before Askia etc etc.

its not the AI personality at trial here is the AI decision making and if you stripped away and put civ 5 ai vs civ 5 ai in a grasslands cage match (barring who went first and drew blood ) they would make exactly the same moves same calcuation where as id like to see Askia, Monty, Khan, etc push it too hard and leave themselves exposed rather than all the AI make the same decision.

I understand that theres variables such as terrain, Personality units etc but id like to see Catherine for example think with her superior double quantity of strategic resources overreach and be arrogant make many mistakes and or an AI after having a huge defeat go turtle in its decision making or infuriate them so much they see the red mist and go on suicide runs, but when things are all equal they make the best decisions based upon thier warmonger personality

This isnt making the AI weaker in fact its making them more human like response like if you p*** em off they see the red mist and go on suicide runs and make more aggressive moves or if the war is going longer for the AI it starts getting frustrated .. it starts loosing a lot more units it gets turtle like (could be tied to weariness)

The base AI is excellent even at settler it could do with a warmonger type.
 
Don't expect too much from AI. CiV is just a small game, AI are just doing things randomly based of fixed numbers, they can't think or be emotional
 
Don't expect too much from AI. CiV is just a small game, AI are just doing things randomly based of fixed numbers, they can't think or be emotional
Seriously? AI in civ5 VP is not sentient yet? Who would have thought?

In theory different civs could do different tactical moves based on their personalities, but that could be a lot of work, considering that even without it, AI is not that easy to do.
 
I think the premise in this hypothetical is wrong though: Maria and Askia shouldn't have the same unit composition.


You have Austria, a civ with a skirmisher UU, and little interest in taking over the world. They should have a preference for defensive tanking units, a few more skirmishers than normal perhaps, and ranged units to pick off anyone that starts fighting the frontline.

Songhai has a melee mounted UU with reduced penalty for cities, and does want to take over the world. They should prefer mounted units, both for the speed they can hit and because they cover for city-capture better than usual.

So in this case, you have infantry and ranged backed up by skirmishers playing defense, and mounted melee and ranged trying to wrap around and pick off archers and ultimately cities. Those armies will play out very differently, which is the end goal. So if the AI isn't able to shape its army correctly, (or maybe too many unit preferences are similar?), then I can see the problem. But it's not an issue with combat action decisions in my opinion, it's an issue with how their armies look on the field.
 
Last edited:
I haven't played 4.27 yet but up to 3.10 at least the AI in my opinion retreats too quickly when you capture one of their cities. They just pull back, every single time at least up to king difficulty, maybe it's different above. This makes it a lot easier to capture cities once you understand how the AI does this every single time. You can be much more aggressive and go in there without having a massive advantage. just enough infantry to push them back and then you can siege the city and even if your army is half dead by that point, the AI will retreat. This also makes it possible to take coastal cities without having an own navy to kill the AIs off. their ships just pull back even thought the could have a field day.
 
I haven't played 4.27 yet but up to 3.10 at least the AI in my opinion retreats too quickly when you capture one of their cities. They just pull back, every single time at least up to king difficulty, maybe it's different above. This makes it a lot easier to capture cities once you understand how the AI does this every single time. You can be much more aggressive and go in there without having a massive advantage. just enough infantry to push them back and then you can siege the city and even if your army is half dead by that point, the AI will retreat. This also makes it possible to take coastal cities without having an own navy to kill the AIs off. their ships just pull back even thought the could have a field day.
Agreed. It seems like there is some calculation that the city is going to fall that's a little too pessimistic. Once the city is a little under maybe half health it seems like the AI will stop sending reinforcements to save it.
 
watch this in the next release ...

also leader personality does play a role - if FLAVOR_OFFENSE is higher than 6, the AI player will attack slightly more aggressively (ie accept more damage). but the effect is small so far.
 
Top Bottom