Lately I've just grown really annoyed at how bad the AI is at war...

[Priah77]

Basically, Ive come to realize that multiple games go by without me losing a single unit.

I play Immortal (though I should really move up to Deity as its been a while since Ive been challenged), usually win by space race by turn 260-280ish or so... most other victory conditions just seem cheesy, and domination just takes too many hours.

The main issue I think is that ranged attack units just add way too much complexity to the game for the AI to effectively deal with...

I'm usually pretty good about having a rather large and effective army, but obviously on Immortal I'll run into AI's with a larger army than me. Even so, war with them is basically just a massacre. The first couple of turns pretty much involve them sending endless waves of units at me and me killing them off without a casualty, then I simply advance in their territory efficiently using ranged units.... its been a while since Ive lost a unit. It's kind of irrelevant how huge and powerful their army is... they are worthless given their complete lack of tactics.

I just think that if the AI can't be improved to actually use ranged units to the point of presenting a challenge, maybe we should altogether remove ranged units or drastically nerf them. One thing I was thinking was maybe only allow ranged units to ranged attack from forts and cities?

I just think the AI would be on a far more level playing field and I might actually fear an invasion if I didnt have any ranged units in my arsenal. It just sort of feels like every game is an auto-win because of how easy every war is... and I think this was primarily caused by ranged units being way too complex for the AI to handle using effectively... Any thoughts?

I was thinking about playing a game without building any ranged units...

 

[strijder20]

Doing so might make the game too hard. And I want my Keshiks!

You might be right though, but the best fix is to learn the AI how to use ranged units

 

[smallfish]

I would say there needs to be a modifier where an AI civ has a 50/50 chance, at the start of the game, of being either vanilla pants-on incompetent (ie. real world examples: the Iraqis) or dazzling heads with their multi-pronged vertical envelopments (again, real world: Third Reich). With backed-up waves and of course, competent usage of siege and whatnot!

It'll also be really cool if they would "improve" their warfighting capability as time progresses

 

[Buccaneer]

I just had an Immortal Korea OCC game where I ended up next to Greece. Held off two waves but the third wave had Greek Crossbows behind Greek Pikes to attack my city. It brought enough units (too many, actually) and successfully and quickly attacked with the ranged units going first and then the melee units. The AI doesn't know how to defend against superior units very well (never did any civ game) but the logic is there for it to do so, as it did against me.

 

[Priah77]

I guess my point is that the current AI just completely sucks at wars to the point where unless you are outnumbered more than 3 to 1, you are probably going to win that war without really losing a unit. That just makes the game way too easy in my opinion.

If they really cant program a tactically competent AI (I really don't understand what is so hard about this to be honest), just remove range units to take out the tactical complexity that gives human players such a ridiculous advantage over the AI.

I would like to see wars where if you get invaded by someone while outnumbered 2 to 1, you are probably going to get annihilated.

 

[Atwork]

My proposition when the game came out was that ranged units should be allowed to stack on melee units. One ranged per one melee. If the melee unit is killed, then so is the ranged unit.

The AI might never use ranged units well, but at least they'd be defended if stacking were allowed.

 

[Becephalus]

Play hotseat against yourself. You will find the battles much tougher.

 

[chazzycat]

if you never lose a unit on immortal maybe you're ready for deity....I lose units all the time on immortal. Hell, I lose cities occasionally...

 

[Atlas627]

Play hotseat against yourself. You will find the battles much tougher.

I do this, and games take quite a long time. One problem I have though is that for some reason everytime I load the game some of the resource icons are permanently removed from the game. It drives me insane.

Anybody know how to fix that, btw?

 

[headcase]

I do this, and games take quite a long time. One problem I have though is that for some reason everytime I load the game some of the resource icons are permanently removed from the game. It drives me insane.

Anybody know how to fix that, btw?

I haven't had this, but the scrambled yield display glitch is fixed by turning off yield icons, saving the game, and loading it. So maybe you can fix this by turning off resource icons, save and load...

 

[Heerlo]

My thread and story about AI combat in the Unofficial Patch:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=459144

I don't really know if that mod is what caused the AI to give me such a hard time, but I'm not sure if they usually do that.

 

[Tabarnak]

Play hotseat against yourself. You will find the battles much tougher.

Or better, play multiplayer with trusted(and similary competent) people.

 

[Atlas627]

I haven't had this, but the scrambled yield display glitch is fixed by turning off yield icons, saving the game, and loading it. So maybe you can fix this by turning off resource icons, save and load...

I have tried this. I have even tried never turning them on, then saving and loading. Once I turn them on, there are STILL some missing

 

[Singulare]

I've just played about 5 games so far (installed the game recently), but i do understand what the OP means. Yesterday while playing on the 4th difficulty (whatever that was) I stopped a massive invasion north of 30 units with just 3 crossbowman, no losses.

I cant as of yet offer a good ideas on how to balance the game, but I don't think nerfing ranged is the way to go. There just needs to be a patch with better AI is my initial thought though.

I've found another thing that i find strange personally. It happened that same game. He attacked the first time and I stopped him cold, remained in war for about 100 turns with him just sacrificing a unit from time to time asking me for peace with me giving him everything i can (short of cities) even though i pummeled him. After getting my tribute low enough I sign peace with him and 20 turns later war again. After I crushed his army again (same 3 units, did not build any other the entire game) he again wanted me to give him stuff so I'm like it I'm gonna make him suffer than and went close to his cities. The moment i did that i receive offer from him for peace with everything he can spare but cities.

Does this behavior of the AI seem OK to you?

 

[NotSure]

Ya, never losing a unit is a pretty bold statement . I suppose you would lose less playing only science games, but none? Ever?

I don't have a big problem with ranged units. The AI just isn't very good on the offensive... ranged or not. They do use it pretty effectively on defense.

 

[smallfish]

I'm not sure how one can really not lose a unit, unless maybe they savescum rigorously. It tells me they've never been on the receiving end of a surprise DOW.

 

[Kaosprophet]

I've just played about 5 games so far (installed the game recently), but i do understand what the OP means. Yesterday while playing on the 4th difficulty (whatever that was) I stopped a massive invasion north of 30 units with just 3 crossbowman, no losses.

I cant as of yet offer a good ideas on how to balance the game, but I don't think nerfing ranged is the way to go. There just needs to be a patch with better AI is my initial thought though.

I've found another thing that i find strange personally. It happened that same game. He attacked the first time and I stopped him cold, remained in war for about 100 turns with him just sacrificing a unit from time to time asking me for peace with me giving him everything i can (short of cities) even though i pummeled him. After getting my tribute low enough I sign peace with him and 20 turns later war again. After I crushed his army again (same 3 units, did not build any other the entire game) he again wanted me to give him stuff so I'm like it I'm gonna make him suffer than and went close to his cities. The moment i did that i receive offer from him for peace with everything he can spare but cities.

Does this behavior of the AI seem OK to you?

Just OK. As in, not good but not terrible either.

See, until you start threatening his cities he's not really under any pressure to take a peace deal. Even if you *can* wipe him out in under five turns, he has no reason to worry until you start making moves that indicate you *will* do so. Once you do, his position changes. I don't see a real problem with that, especially if he theoretically has an advantage over you.

The problem is that he keeps throwing his troops away for nothing, and thereby squanders any advantage he might have. Which while a related issue, is a slightly different one.

 

[Ajuga]

Does this behavior of the AI seem OK to you?

I find that the AI likes to bluff a lot. The thing is, they usually have a terrible pokerface.
I believe it's intended.

As for the OP, I've lost some wars against other civs on prince difficulty.
That's mostly because I neglect my army though. Musketmen don't stand much chance against tanks surprisingly enough. *sarcasm intended*

 

[Titanis Walleri]

I play on Prince (I'm a noob) and the war AI is incredibley stupid. They never use a navy, they bring their embarked units near my units on land, etc.

 

[Priah77]

Ya, never loosing a unit is a pretty bold statement . I suppose you would loose less playing only science games, but none? Ever?

I don't have a big problem with ranged units. The AI just isn't very good on the offensive... ranged or not. They do use it pretty effectively on defense.

I don't know, maybe I just take my war pretty seriously. I position my defensive units in such a way as to not be in range of an initial surprise attack if I get dowed, and to have plenty of units in the middle of my empire to move in whatever way an attack comes. Basically, I guess I'm highly conservative when it comes to losing any unit that costs more shields than a warrior.

Then again, now that I think about it I do lose a warrior or two if I get dowed pretty early on, but usually thats only against a particularly feisty early enemy like Germany.

I just think that the issue comes down to the AI failing with ranged units... if all we had was melee units it would probably be a far more even fight.