On AI (not) upgrading its units

[V. Soma]

We saw the by now (in)famous AI Battle Royale...

AI not upgrading warriors...

Let's collect possible solutions for that:

1.
Make a upgrade chain that is possible for all players - that is, doesn't need resource.
I think these should be basic and defensive melee and ranged units for each era.
Strategic resource should be for units for a better, say, special offense...

2.
about maintenance cost:
I say that outdated units cost should be raised when getting to a later era - so on even with that era's units...

 

[Frank327]

Solutions for not upgrading:

1. Instead of making resources a requirement, give units a penalty/bonus for having the strategic resource or not having it. For example Swordsmen without Iron get a 6 points penalty to their combat strength. Simulates using a less than ideal material for their equipment.

2. Allow melee units to be upgraded to the anti-cavalry line if you lack the resources for the next tier of melee.

 

[HF22]

How about just change the encampment bonus regarding strategic resources - Instead of reducing the requirement from 2 copies to 1, make it reduce the requirement from 1 copy to zero.

 

[qadams]

Solution:

Make an upgrade chain that is possible for all players — that is, doesn't need resource.
I think these should be basic and defensive melee and ranged units for each era.
Strategic resource should be for units for a better, say, special offense...

This is so obvious I can't believe the developers haven't already thought of it and implemented it. I'd really like to hear from them why they haven't.

 

[criZp]

Perhaps warriors should upgrade to spearmen.

 

[Deggial]

No ressources are needed for production or upgrade, but production- and upgrade costs are massively increased when not having them:
Quadrupled costs when not having a single related strategic ressource, doubled costs when having only one and normal costs when having two.

Encampments will lower the ressource costs by one and units produced in them will "remember" (they already do for XP-gain, AFAIK) where they were produced and will cost appropriately less when upgrading.

This approach will:
- keep strategic ressources relevant (very important!)
- allow the AI to upgrade without them
- doesn't need new units or a complete overhaul of the game design
- should be easy enough to be implemented

 

[Haggbart]

The easiest short term sollution is to make the AI build primarily slingers/archers and spearmen, and prioritize going for techs with units that do not require resources (unless they've got said resource).

Also it's a bad design choice to have two units that require different resources in the same upgrade path, especially since units span two eras. They could reshuffle the tech-tree to make at least every other unit upgrade possible in all cases (with some late game stuff a possible exception).

 

[isau]

Also it's a bad design choice to have two units that require different resources in the same upgrade path, especially since units span two eras. They could reshuffle the tech-tree to make at least every other unit upgrade possible in all cases (with some late game stuff a possible exception).

This I definitely agree with.

 

[pietro1990]

The easiest short term sollution is to make the AI build primarily slingers/archers and spearmen, and prioritize going for techs with units that do not require resources (unless they've got said resource).

Also it's a bad design choice to have two units that require different resources in the same upgrade path, especially since units span two eras. They could reshuffle the tech-tree to make at least every other unit upgrade possible in all cases (with some late game stuff a possible exception).

Make bombards require niter and musketman not.

Strategic resources are usally for players who want to be agressive. if you don't have niter you can't use siege bombards to atack.. But still defend thats the big difference you don't have a strategic advantage so you are equal in combat

 

[V. Soma]

Make bombards require niter and musketman not.

Strategic resources are usally for players who want to be agressive. if you don't have niter you can't use siege bombards to atack.. But still defend thats the big difference you don't have a strategic advantage so you are equal in combat

Exactly...

 

[Lyoncet]

Personally I'm onboard the "strategic resources give a boost instead of unlocking the unit" train. I don't care if it's an increase in strength or decrease in cost.

 

[homan1983]

It's not that hard:

- if the civ can't build or upgrade a strategic requiring unit, it should tech for and build the spearman/archer lines. That's what they're there for.

It seems the game designer has done a much better job of providing for different situations than the AI developer has done in using those design concepts to instruct the AI.

With regards to warriors costing more in different eras, I would give a resounding no.

The fact that lower tier units cost less support is one of the best and most thoughtful changes to the game series so far.

This is one of the principle combatants of "science is king". Now a civ 1 tier behind won't get rolled over by the better AI because it can support more of the cheaper units.

A warrior does NOT cost the same amount to maintain as a fighter jet.

So this is a case of: this design is better balance wise and historically speaking.

If the AI thinks 10 x warriors = 200strength = 3 tanks then that is a problem with AI valuation.

 

[RaidandTrade]

If the issue is access to strategic resources shouldn't the AI be incentivised to secure access?

There is a range of actions with varying degrees of aggressiveness:
- Trade (None)
- Settling the resource (Potentially aggressive depending on location)
- War

Could even have a new CB for securing resources?

They said "military might" factored in treasury as gold can be turned to military. Okay. But if no strategic resources means they can't upgrade but can only buy obsolete units then maybe that equation needs to be adjusted?

All that said, still looking forward to playing later!

 

[Lord Shadow]

I like that strategic resources would "normalize" construction and performance of related units, as opposed to barring it entirely if they're absent.

As for the AI, I'd try and simplify resource requirements for them, without getting rid of them. Something like allowing unlimited construction and normal performance as long as one or two sources are secured.

 

[Securion]

Just let AI and humans be able to choose what to upgrade to? Problem solved.

(if upgrading to non-linear unit just remove promotions and let the unit start from 0 again or refund the promotionpoints)

 

[Brutus2]

It's not that hard:

- if the civ can't build or upgrade a strategic requiring unit, it should tech for and build the spearman/archer lines. That's what they're there for.

I have to agree with this. The game already has a line that doesn't require resources which seems to be what many people are saying we need. The AI should be able to evaluate if it has a source of iron within reach and if so, try to settle it but if not it should move toward spearmen instead and maybe disband a warrior after each spearman they build. The more troubling thing for me was the large number of archers, horse units and catapults in the late game. I think that makes it clear that the lack of upgrading is more than just a lack of resources issue.

 

[ExemplarVoss]

Personally I'm onboard the "strategic resources give a boost instead of unlocking the unit" train. I don't care if it's an increase in strength or decrease in cost.

Yeah. I'd go further and just have it be the boost for the relevant tech, like iron mines boosting iron working. UUs are already an exception to strategic resources (which is honestly potentially game breaking with bad RNG for strategic resources for their neighbors). Classic era warriors revolve around swordsmen. You've got a whole era to chew through until pikemen (which the swordsmen still get an advantage against, thanks to the melee vs anti-cav bonus), so just dropping strategic resources to bonus resources makes the most sense to me.

 

[MadDjinn]

now that the game is out....

the problem is not strategic resource needs, generally, but rather the AI not picking up the mid-game military techs (between medieval and atomic era). I put together a mod that fixes that (and a lot more) over here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/maddjinns-tech-tree-mod.600302/