Post 0.41h AI feedback needed

[Kael]

Interestingly I just found a bug that wouldnt activate the Barbarian World option if it was selected. But could sometimes if Barbarian World wasn't selected. It makes me wonder if some of these "to many barbs" reports may be because barbarian world was unknowingly on.

 

[Finn]

Well, Barbarian AI is a LITTLE bit different, their units should be using a different "move" function in CvUnitAI which is slightly more suicidal. But the BULK behavior (where to place the units, how/when to group them) ought to be unchanged.

One thing I would reccomend which I had tweaked (still haven't had the time to review patch I code to see if it is already done, I appologize) is to make the danage threshold for a temporary unit always be 0 (will attack at any odds) and their sacrifice value be HUGE (will be selected to attack an unkillable stack). And for Barbarians you can adjust the danger threshold based on current stack size, making a stack of 20 units willing to fight ANYTHING, but as they dwindle down toward 5 units they return to being slightly more reasonable (insisting on 40% chance or better like normal, or whatever the normal is for BarbMove)

Nice. The barbarians thinking themselves invincible when they form up into a giant horde makes sense gameplay wise and is also fun flavor.

I'd love to see some kind of AI debug output option, either a log screen or things drawn right over the main interface. It doesn't look like there are any hooks in the present AI code that could output any useful state or objectives or evaluations or whatever. But it would sure help trying to figure out what's up when the AI acts inexplicably. You're objective is to take over WHAT city?

 

[EverNoob]

Patch i, Immortal diff:

Overall the AI is much better. The midgame AI economic crash no longer happens, which was a real game stopper. The AI from midgame onward is more challenging. They're fielding appropirate tier units and seem to be teching appropriately on their own. When I captured AI cities I find a decent number of buidings in it, unlike before.

Though I find the early game easier than before, I imagine it's because the new AI is more focused on economy than military. Before they'd constantly rush me at the beginning of the game with warriors or axemen so that created a lot of pressure. Now I have more breathing room in the early game.

Basically now the game is moderately difficult early and gets progressively more difficulty as the game progresses. Before it was the reverse, early game was extremely difficult, but once you got past it was a cakewalk and no longer fun. A definite improvement!

 

[Onionsoilder]

Oh, I should probably note that before patch h, I was using my own economic AI mod. That might explain why I'm so disgruntled by this new patch, as I am used to the AI having a good economy. As far as I can tell, these are the differences:

1) Improved Economic AI: As I mentioned, I was previously using an economic mod, so I didn't notice much of a difference here. Can't comment on it, then.

2) AI's starting settlers move around. I HATE this. This is the primary reason I DO NOT play Wild Mana. It leads to 5-6 AI clumping around one spot, leaving vast other stretches of land unused. It just doesn't work for the type of games I like.

3) Stack Mechanics: I also HATE this. The sheer numbers of units are not the problem. As I already mentioned several times before, a few tricks I have learned can handle that problem. The problem here is that the AI no longer knows how to use their units. They have archers running around the countryside instead of defending in their cities. They have archers attacking other cities. They have archers doing everything they shouldn't be doing, and no other units.

4) Magic Usage: As far as I can tell, this is the ONLY area the AI has been upgraded in, but it is no-where near enough to make up for the problems caused by the rest of the patch.I have seen the AI casting buffs a lot more often, and I have even seen them summoning units. Unfortunately, they do not understand the concept of expendable summons, either with their own units or with their opponent's units(They will chase after a summon before attacking a city, and they will summon 8-10 summons and not use them, so they go away next turn).

I have never seen the AI cast a Direct Damage spell. Tsunami, Snowfall, Ring of Fire, Malstrom... the AI does not understand how to use these spells. The only spells they seem to use properly are buffs.

 

[Onionsoilder]

EDIT: Double Post.

 

[Nor'easter]

Like some others who posted in this thread, I've also noticed a slowdown between turns, beginning earlier than it usually does. Usually happens in the very late game, but now I'm seeing it in the 300s. Maybe due to more complicated AI decision-making?

As for the AI's play, among spells, what I've seen the AI successfully use is Fireball to bombard cultural defenses.

Regarding the AI stacks, I noticed that when some units in the stack are held (because of spells like Slow or Blinding Light), the whole stack will stay where it is. The AI won't split the stack to have its mobile units continue their advance. Maybe that's intended, and keeping the units together might provide greater protection, but just thought I'd mention it.

 

[CurseUppl]

2) AI's starting settlers move around. I HATE this. This is the primary reason I DO NOT play Wild Mana. It leads to 5-6 AI clumping around one spot, leaving vast other stretches of land unused. It just doesn't work for the type of games I like.

This is certainly not a problem in huge maps, which I play exclusively

Like some others who posted in this thread, I've also noticed a slowdown between turns, beginning earlier than it usually does. Usually happens in the very late game, but now I'm seeing it in the 300s. Maybe due to more complicated AI decision-making?

I always play with between 15 and 22 AI and I've only noticed a performance increase. Do you run all your graphic settings on low? This has quite a huge impact on turn loading speeds for me. I'm also running Windows 7 which loads turns VASTLY faster than Vista. Can't speak for XP.

 

[Nor'easter]

This is certainly not a problem in huge maps, which I play exclusively



I always play with between 15 and 22 AI and I've only noticed a performance increase. Do you run all your graphic settings on low? This has quite a huge impact on turn loading speeds for me. I'm also running Windows 7 which loads turns VASTLY faster than Vista. Can't speak for XP.

I play huge maps with 11 or 12 AI. Using Vista. Windows defaulted to setting my screen resolution to the highest setting -- I'll take it down a notch and see how that works.

 

[Onionsoilder]

This is certainly not a problem in huge maps, which I play exclusively

I usually run Large 19-civ maps(every civ is in the game). Most civilizations get 5-6 good cities this way, and the game has more conflict, which I like. Also, this solves the issue of huge tracts of worthless desert or ice the AI fills up because nobody else has.

 

[Neomega]

The AI uses magic pretty good now. It ended a gam ewith me with 20 vampires that summoned 20 skeletons, and then as each skeleton died, it would summon a new one. If the Ai is summoning but not using, it may just be doing it for defense. The AI is definitely paranoid, in that it requires huge stacks before attacking.

It does not handle barbs well, as I have watched Auric move around big stacks of axemen within his borders while two or three barb warriors walk around and pillage everything.

I am also constantly beat to the great library now, which is good, because obviously now the AI understands how powerful it is, and heron throne is usually built earlier as well.

Raging barbarians is more fun now, too. They used to just suicide attack my cities, now they circle and harass until I kill them.

I would drop it down a level, but I am afraid if I do, I will still see good size armies, but that I will beat the AI to all wonders, since as it is right now, I like th elevel of competition, even if I do get a wonder or two snatched from me 2 turns before I complete it.

I usually run Large 19-civ maps(every civ is in the game). Most civilizations get 5-6 good cities this way, and the game has more conflict, which I like. Also, this solves the issue of huge tracts of worthless desert or ice the AI fills up because nobody else has.

I play large tectonics lakes with 12 players. The players still have space for about 8-10 cities, with large tracts of useless land, which I love. Those large tracts get filled up with barbs, animals, and beasts.

The problem here is that the AI no longer knows how to use their units. They have archers running around the countryside instead of defending in their cities. They have archers attacking other cities. They have archers doing everything they shouldn't be doing, and no other units.

I simply have not noticed this, and archers make good point defenders in the countryside, as well as good stack defenders. I have had a mega stack with archers attacking my city, but that was in combination with a whole bunch of swordsmen.


However... I have yet to see a single horseman.

 

[CurseUppl]

However... I have yet to see a single horseman.

Seen plenty of centaur arches and centaur chargers, so clearly the Kuriotates know how to build them.

 

[Onionsoilder]

I simply have not noticed this, and archers make good point defenders in the countryside, as well as good stack defenders. I have had a mega stack with archers attacking my city, but that was in combination with a whole bunch of swordsmen.

Well in my recent Immortal Amurites game, the three civs sharing my continent(Balserphs, Hippus and Luchurp) had an overload of archers. The Balserphs had NOTHING but archers; Literally NOTHING. As the Baslerphs were led by Keelyn, who did know KotE, that was rather odd. The Hippus and Luch had 80% of their armies consisting of archers, with a few golems/mages sprinkled in.

 

[Ekolite]

In my recent game as the Illians, I decided to step down to Noble level (usually play on Monarch) to play against the AI on a level playing field. Of course, the competition for wonders went down the pan, but I was absolutely amazed at how well they teched.

Unusuallly for me, I had a little over 700 beakers per turn at about turn 450 or so, and I had teched up to mithril working and was on my way towards omniscience. Then one of those bubbles popped up showing each players relative level of advancement and I was trailing behind two of the AI's! And I thought I was doing unusually well and had stepped down two levels! Not to mention that there were only 4 AI's, putting me right in the middle. The Ljosalfar, who had gone RoK and so didn't even have their ancient forests bonus, hit mithril working only a few turns after me.

However, there were still too many units on the field, although it was noticably less then at higher levels.

--

Also, unlike some people I actually love how the AI moves around to find an ideal starting location. If you dislike it, it's probably because you are refusing to use the extra few turns to your advantage and find an ideal starting location of your own, or if you spawned in one, to get a head start on your culture. I think that if two or more AI start together it just encourages early warfare which is fun. I think the early rush types should be scripted to specifically search for another player to build near to, that they can then attack.

--

Finally, although I didn't experience it in my Illian game, the Ljosalfar are often very vulnerable in the early game, to the player or to barbarians, because they send both their starting scouts off exploring. I think their starting units should temporarily be changed to a warrior and a scout until a proper solution is found.

 

[tharg]

Had three games. The most obvious point is the barbarians which appear to be much more dangerous..

First game was a Sandalphon (game from strategy forum) where the barbarians were much more reluctant to attack in hopeless causes. Most of the time I needed to attack them myself to get the EPs. Further I was impressed when Falamar cast maelstrom on a couple of my boats which were annoying one of his cities. Could hear the sounds of lots of AI casting, numerous springs althogh did not actual see where.

Last two where huge diety raging with 18 opponents, however I never really met any of them. Barbarian worlds I think, although there did not seem many barb cities.

Second was a quick game as Logos where I was in isolated part of an erebus map, After a vicious initial attack where the barbarians hung around until there were quite a lot of them before attacking. They suddenly stopped when I built my second city. It was as if the barbarian generating routine stopped dead.

A third game on an inland sea map - reminded me of the 18 player fantasy realm game a couple of years back where I got it heads up with Jonas after cowering in my corner for 200 turns hoping 6 warriors a city was enough. First two stabs failed when the barbarians just hung until there were around 20-40 of them then, ouch! Third time by just building nothing except warriors and freaks for a long while I managed to survive. (My first freak had heroic defence and +10% strength phew!)

Previously the trick with barbarian assaults was to build cities at each compass point from the capital, the barbarians then attack the other cities and allow you to improve the land around the capital. This game appeared to be different. The barbarians were not distracted by irrelevant cities, which meant I had to leave the capital alone but could improve the terrain around the other cities.

After 150 terns 18 have dropped to 8 including me. This was at NORMAL speed. Think I will try a huge low marathon fantasy realm game, with, 18 oppos. See if I can win by just building warriors in my capital for the whole game (probably insist Mahala be one of the AIs). Playing Chardon, Sandy or Clan on the map should probably be considered cheating - especially Sandy.

The drill promotion really comes into its own on these maps!

No complaints, guess I am just a masochist.

BTW and I really like the palace guard idea from one of the ffhmods, where defenders in the capital get +1 defence.

 

[Morlark]

Interestingly I just found a bug that wouldnt activate the Barbarian World option if it was selected. But could sometimes if Barbarian World wasn't selected. It makes me wonder if some of these "to many barbs" reports may be because barbarian world was unknowingly on.

I'm not sure if that was the case or not in my report. I didn't see any barbarian cities when I'd been exploring the map, but the lair barbarians did start spawning earlier than I'd expected.

In any case, it does highlight what I consider to be undesirable behaviour. The normal orcs and goblins from barbarian cities work fine, because they go about pillaging your land, and they attack when they have a large enough stack. The lizardmen and skeletons however do not pillage, and (AFAICT) don't seem to attack cities even when they have overwhelming numbers.

In the problem game that I was complaining about before, I had spawns from three lizardmen lairs and two skeleton barrows (possible even more) all swarming my first city. There's no way that a single city can produce enough warriors to kill every lizardman as it arrives, even if your warrior is camping on a forested hill. And once the lizardmen have numbers on their side, you literally can't even leave your city, even to attack the lizardmen, because any unit who leaves will die, meaning you can never get a warrior highly promoted enough to be able to kill lizardmen consistently.

Ok, maybe it's fine that you sometimes get yourself into a situation where you can't win. Except that in this case, can't win is not the same as lose, because the lizardmen never attack your city. If the game just let you lose once it's obvious that you've lost, it might be ok, but instead you get an incredibly frustrating situation where you've effectively lost but the game doesn't end.

 

[xalien]

A one side effect of those huge stacks the AI is building is that armaggedon units now have about as much chance as a proverbial snowball.

 

[Lone Wolf]

armaggedon units now have about as much chance as a proverbial snowball.

If that problem does exist, just give the Ponies some innate first strikes.

 

[apenpaap]

Or immortal (once, that is of course).

 

[ArkhanTheBlack]

Played a patch I quick tech game with a friend on small map size with monarch difficulty. The early game of the AI's seems to be better since they build some more warriors now to fend off early rushes. However, after that I'm not so thrilled about the changes. They build huge stacks of 10 - 20 warriors and/or axemen/swordsmen and just park them in their cities or let them patrol around. That's okay if they either attack or have to defend against large scale attacks. However, they just did absolutely nothing with them. They just moved them around trying to impress their neighbours. Unfortunately, the only thing they actually reached was killing their own economy with that. A close AI neighbour of me had constantly 15 - 20 axemen in his main city. No idea why!
In the end they couldn't keep up with our tech speed and ended up as easy prey: Ritualists and Pyro zombies eat big stacks for breakfast. I also never saw anyone of them with something better than axemen. I remember some games back in patch d when Balseraphs made some suprisingly good assaults with catapult/swordsmen/archer/horsemen combis. However, Barbarians seem to be more dangerous now.

 

[hbar]

One side effect of the superstacks is that Cannibalize (and its living counterpart(s)) are the best imaginable defensive promos. I have a Ghost that received Aeron's chosen, and he now defends against entire stacks, eating ~20 units per turn!