Is AI too afraid of military score?

[Haig]

Many of the late game AI leaders shun of military conflict apart from Emergencies unless they have huge military score (the points on the ribbon).

I wonder if they take other empires' military score too much into consideration when it comes to war?,

Of course it's good they just dont attack all over the place but I think the score gives as much points for a pikeman unit as an infantry unit, so it might be a bit bogus.

I want to have bigger late game conflicts, sometimes they do happen thru Alliances and sometimes there have been really cool/crazy emergencies, but generally I'd like to see AI more aggressive in last few eras.

 

[Mahi]

I'm not sure about the actual formula that decides for an AI if it wants to declare a war or not but there is definitely a correlation between the AI's military score and the potential opponent's. I'm guessing it's the reason why you see much more war in the early game. Due to AI's military bonus and tech advantages in the early game it tends to be more 'brave' because it has much higher military score than you. The problem is the differences are quickly evened out as the player gains tech advantages over the AI.

 

[MrRadar]

Many of the late game AI leaders shun of military conflict apart from Emergencies unless they have huge military score (the points on the ribbon).

I wonder if they take other empires' military score too much into consideration when it comes to war?,

Of course it's good they just dont attack all over the place but I think the score gives as much points for a pikeman unit as an infantry unit, so it might be a bit bogus.

I want to have bigger late game conflicts, sometimes they do happen thru Alliances and sometimes there have been really cool/crazy emergencies, but generally I'd like to see AI more aggressive in last few eras.

They do attack though, in my last game I saw Monty declare on Genghis while Aztec military score was about 2/3 of that of the Mongols. But late game their aggression tends to be directed against surviving city states, which is kinda realistic - picking on the weaker is safer and more profitable than going on an all-out world war against peers.

Bigger problem is that AI is so inept at waging its wars. A bit of terrain difficulties on approach and AI hits a brick wall. I saw Aztec AI throwing its modern armor armies against a city state and suiciding them, because the CS was protected by some mountains and lakes. Alex AI fought a two-front war WWI Germany style against Lautaro and Peter for an eternity with zero military results, only gains Alex made when he got a Golden Age and Peter a Dark One, so a couple of small Russian border cities flipped to Macedon.

If you look at the number of combats graphs at the end of the game, these stats can be impressive, it is just the AI has little clue what it wants from those wars and how to conduct them.

 

[bgandhi]

I think it makes sense and reflects on how civilization progresses, becoming less war-like over time, so it supposed to be less adventurous in the late eras.

 

[Naeshar]

They do attack though, in my last game I saw Monty declare on Genghis while Aztec military score was about 2/3 of that of the Mongols. But late game their aggression tends to be directed against surviving city states, which is kinda realistic - picking on the weaker is safer and more profitable than going on an all-out world war against peers.

Bigger problem is that AI is so inept at waging its wars.

Military score is definitely coming into the equation, but as it was discovered here on CFC, much greater impact have amenities. Monty is usually hoarding them, so he's the more 'brave' civilization. The AI lays a huge importance on keeping the happiness up, which is probably a relic from Civ5, where happiness was global and very impactful.

But its tactical brains are very limited too. The only way AI is winning wars is by brute force (like start bonuses).

Civs are becoming more peaceful over time, they must watch their amenities closely (as each fight incurs penalties) and diplomatic hits on declaring wars later are also immense. (I don't know [GS])

 

[Bangau]

Recently had a late game surprise war by Cyrus.I had neglected my army a little,so the difference was significant and Cyrus really loves to suprise war. But what he failed to take into account is that I had huge walls up and encampments. Plus 4 allies that neighbor him from all sides. He never stood a chance.

 

[MrRadar]

and diplomatic hits on declaring wars later are also immense. (I don't know [GS])

Yes, it seemed so when we had whatever it was called before grievances were introduced. But now AI is only too happy to declare on your vassal city state and pick up 100 grievances against themselves.
It would be interesting to know, how that thing "AI is seeking such and such victory" comes into play? If they are seeking other kind of victory than domination, maybe that is also a restraining factor on their warmongering?

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

ships have huge scores. i had no land units for like 50 turns but a lot of ships. no AI declared war on me ( alexander and gilgamesh were in the game , industrial age ).

 

[Haig]

ships have huge scores. i had no land units for like 50 turns but a lot of ships. no AI declared war on me ( alexander and gilgamesh were in the game , industrial age ).

Would be cool to have separate scores for land and sea power.

 

[seanos08]

Once a Civ gets steel it takes Tank and Infantry armies backed up by artillery armies with balloons and/or bombers in order to conquer a city.
AI too strategically inept to field such a force or use it properly. Once I get steel the most the AI can do is some annoying pillaging.

 

[King of Prussia]

i do wish the AI was more aggressive in the late game. I wish the AI was more aggressive in trying for a victory condition or 2.(especially if its goal is domination)

With that said, it is hard for the AI to be competitive in the late game unit wise because of build costs, required resources/districts and its own capability to properly attack cities.

 

[Starwars]

I always felt that the endgame was a weakness of Civ in general but it really is especially true in VI because of this issue. Pretty much the only games I finish are those rare ones where a war does break out later in the game. Just SOMETHING happening makes it so much more fun. But then of course, there is the huge weakness in the AI actually accomplishing something meaningful.

I've had games where I've been attacked late game and my army was downright pathetic. Few units, not upgraded etc. The AI rolls in with quite massive armies, surrounding cities and so forth. And theoretically, they could've smashed several of my cities to dust within a few turns, given the strength of their units compared to mine. But no... they swoop in, put a city under siege (this is the moment where you go "oh damn"), and then the next turn they just scatter to the four winds, running around randomly in my territory until they eventually get picked off. It seems so indecisive.

If you actually bother to make use of the late game units, artilleries and aircraft and so forth, the AI just stands no chance. Even with just a few of those units, plus balloons/drones, you can completely obliterate the AI.