Post 0.41h AI feedback needed

[phizuol]

I'm going to echo earlier statements about summoned units, which is made much worse when using illusions since they heal after combat. I wiped out several stacks of units last night by sending a mirror image of Alazkan into enemy territory and letting them suicide on him repeatedly.

I think that's going to be a tough behavior to correct, especially with illusions since sheer numbers aren't enough to destroy them.

 

[Nor'easter]

This might have already been reported, but just in case:

I've noticed that the AI doesn't seem to upgrade obsolete units. I'm playing as the Hippus, at war with the Balseraphs -- they've been sending huge stacks containing not only Mimics and Longbowmen, but also large numbers of Warriors and Archers. Maybe they don't have the economy to upgrade, which would be an issue in its own right.

 

[Medicine_Man_55]

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure the AI isn't building or using any siege weapons or mounted units at the moment. The only mounted units I'm seeing on the field are chariots and that is only because melee units can upgrade to them and I'm playing with AI No Building Requirements.

 

[Neomega]

Ive seen the AI use multiple catapults

 

[Medicine_Man_55]

Ive seen the AI use multiple catapults

Interesting. I wonder why the AI in my latest game is using none of them...

 

[Lone Wolf]

In patch j, the no-catapult thing is supposed to've been corrected...

 

[Medicine_Man_55]

In patch j, the no-catapult thing is supposed to've been corrected...

I am using patch J. In fact, I applied your suggested fix on patch H when I was using that one.

To elaborate a little bit: I'm sure I'm using Patch J. Examining the python files, I can see that the conquest mode AI sections have the correct lines for siege weapon logic. I just haven't seen any AI build any catapults or mounted units in the Tebryn Arbandi game I linked above. Perhaps none of the AI nations have switched to conquest mode for some reason?

This would make some sense, as most of what I've seen built falls squarely into the patrol or defensive stack use. Force compositions for all AI civs are uniformly axeman, archer, hunter, adept, and the units they can upgrade to.

Possibly an anomaly of the map type or game settings I chose? Maybe turning on No AI building requirements plays merry havok with the new production AI?

 

[Neomega]

I am using patch J. In fact, I applied your suggested fix on patch H when I was using that one.

To elaborate a little bit: I'm sure I'm using Patch J. Examining the python files, I can see that the conquest mode AI sections have the correct lines for siege weapon logic. I just haven't seen any AI build any catapults or mounted units in the Tebryn Arbandi game I linked above. Perhaps none of the AI nations have switched to conquest mode for some reason?

This would make some sense, as most of what I've seen built falls squarely into the patrol or defensive stack use. Force compositions for all AI civs are uniformly axeman, archer, hunter, adept, and the units they can upgrade to.

Possibly an anomaly of the map type or game settings I chose? Maybe turning on No AI building requirements plays merry havok with the new production AI?

I saw about 6 catapults with a stack of about 35 axemen and 25 archers. I very rarely see horsemen, but they do exist.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

I've seen a lot of mounted units fighting the Hippus, and some against the Calabim. I don't know if you were refering to horsemen specifically, but I've seen horse archers and others.

 

[Emptiness]

I suspect that what units the new AI builds is influenced by several factors in each specific game. For example, several posters in this thread have indicated that the AI is building huge stacks of Archers and not building melee units. I tend to see a lot of melee and recon, and in some games a few ships. Archers appear occasionally (usually from the Ljosalfar), but not Catapults or mounted units. I hadn't seen a (non-elf) civ focus on Archers myself, until my current game, in which the Balseraphs were doing this. It turns out that they didn't have access to Copper, and so apparently Archers appeared to be the best choice of unit. Later they gained access to Copper and started building Warriors; apparently Bronze Working wasn't a priority because of the lack of Copper.

Of course this is speculation on my part, but perhaps this may be why some people aren't seeing Catapults, and some aren't seeing mounted units, and some aren't seeing ships. The AI seems to focus on building the "best" unit available. Game settings, especially map type and density of civs, game situation (such as no access to certain resources), and different (human) play styles may have a big impact on what type(s) of unit(s) the AIs consider the "best".

 

[lastofthelight]

This is called better AI. Old AI did suicide attacks. You simply must find ways to attack them, and you absolutely must kill the first lizardman! You have to be patient, and wait for them to step on plains, grassland, or desert, or if possible find areas to block them out.

No, thats not called better AI. Thats called scripted cheap tactics. Better AI would be if vampires fought like vampires, barbarians fought like barbians, and Elohim fought like...overly defensive Elohm. Barbarians only doing exactly the one specific thing they'd need to guarantee a win isn't AI, its cheap.

I would expect barbarians to /not/ use any advanced tactics, to just spam a few cheap units and rush your city, unless they are horsemen, in which case I'd expect them to try and pillage and pick off workers/lone units moving between cities.

But cheap preprogrammed 'we will win raaar' tactics are not necessarily the same thing as AI.

 

[Neomega]

I would expect barbarians to /not/ use any advanced tactics, to just spam a few cheap units and rush your city

Based on what? And how is running around, piallging, and hiding on high defense terrain, until you have more support, "cheap" tactics?

Barbarians only doing exactly the one specific thing they'd need to guarantee a win isn't AI, its cheap.

Barbarians win?

But cheap preprogrammed 'we will win raaar' tactics are not necessarily the same thing as AI.

What exactly are they winning, and more interestingly, why are you letting them beat you? They aren't beating me, but they sure as hell aren't just rushing my cities with goblins anymore. That was LAME.

It is obvious you are pissed off, because the AI is now better. Instead of going through the motions in the early game like you are used to, you actually have to use some strategy. Instead of actually trying to figure it out, you are getting angry, because things are not going the way they used to. You are used to cheap kills. Those days are over.

An din history, barbarians have been more than just suicide nuisances. They were the biggest threat to China for over a thousand years.

 

[Onionsoilder]

It is obvious you are pissed off, because the AI is now better.

I would venture to say the AI is worse. This is mostly due the fact I went UP a difficulty level after the patch. Anyway, I agree that it's not that hard to deal with the barbarians; on the other hand, I feel they shouldn't be sitting on your hills and forests waiting around. I think barbarians should do one of two things:

1) Attack
2) Leave

If they don't have the force to take a city, why the hell are they waiting around? They would wander off looking for workers to capture or improvement to pillage. Not bunker down in a hill.

 

[Neomega]

I would venture to say the AI is worse.

The AI is worse, but the Barb AI is better.



I have never seen barbs bunker down, but they do wander around and wait for more barbs to arrive before they attack your city. They force you to attack them. If you don't, you can't improve your lands, you can just leave your worker in your city and watch the lizardman wander around.

 

[Onionsoilder]

The AI is worse, but the Barb AI is better.



I have never seen barbs bunker down, but they do wander around and wait for more barbs to arrive before they attack your city. They force you to attack them. If you don't, you can't improve your lands, you can just leave your worker in your city and watch the lizardman wander around.

Huh. I had an orc settle in a forested hill outside one of my kuriotate settlements(so I didn't care much about it). Then I saw two, so I send a couple more units to guard it. Around 100 turns later I looked back over and saw the barbarian stack grew to about 20 units, all fortified on the hill. I guess they didn't attack because it was like 8 orcs and 12 goblins versus 4 arquebus, so... they didn't feel they had good enough odds?

Anyway, if that was an actual city I could see how it would be annoying, as I would want to improve tiles around that hill(or maybe even the hill itself) and a +75% defence bonus can be a pain to get around.

 

[Neomega]

Huh. I had an orc settle in a forested hill outside one of my kuriotate settlements(so I didn't care much about it). Then I saw two, so I send a couple more units to guard it. Around 100 turns later I looked back over and saw the barbarian stack grew to about 20 units, all fortified on the hill. I guess they didn't attack because it was like 8 orcs and 12 goblins versus 4 arquebus, so... they didn't feel they had good enough odds?

Anyway, if that was an actual city I could see how it would be annoying, as I would want to improve tiles around that hill(or maybe even the hill itself) and a +75% defence bonus can be a pain to get around.

Honestly, I haven't let barbs build up at all for the past couple of patches, but I would not be surprised if they actually were as timid as regular AI when it comes to attacking cities.

But I have had some fantastic campaigns earlier, with poison goblins damaging my units, and eventually wearing my defenses down.

 

[MacGyverInSpace]

I've noticed that if you cast Slow on AI stacks, they won't break the non-slowed units from the stack to kill the casters stack, even if their remaining power is 100x greater than the enemy.
I think they may break for lone casters, though.

Anyway this and the fact that Auric settled near Letum Frigis and valued nature mana more than a 2nd Ice mana allowed my Lsolfar to surive a surprise Grigori stack that would indeed have been my doom. Survive long enough to get the dragon that settled in Hyll after Orthus stole it (who I dew out earlier for his axe ) and several increasingly promoted beastmasters to old back their stacks.
This AI bug stopped this from being the first game I lost on Monarch in eons.

 

[Onionsoilder]

I've noticed that if you cast Slow on AI stacks, they won't break the non-slowed units from the stack to kill the casters stack, even if their remaining power is 100x greater than the enemy.
I think they may break for lone casters, though.

This happens in regular Civ IV too, and is not necessarily related to Slow; the AI is very reluctant to break up stacks at all, even if there are huge advantages to be gained by breaking up the stacks. Reasons for this Total Stack Immobility include:

1) Units losing movement points(Slow)
2) Units becoming Held(Traps; Blinding Light)
3) Units being damaged(Stack stops to heal)
4) Stack waiting for other units to join.

However, even though it is in BTS it would be nice if this could be circumvented with FFH AI.

 

[sunherd]

Patch J and Noble level here.

Zharkov's major problems:

1. The AI is too defensive. It moves stacks back and fourth that would wipe you out. When stronger and at war, it should press its advantage! Currently it "waits" for something that might never happen until it is to late.
2. The AI seems to neglect higher tier units and prefers to spam basic units - but that does not work out, because it does not attempt to overrun its enemies (see above).

combined with one of the minor problems:

2. The AI sends its units in mass suicides against summend unit, that would disappear

I took a Kuriotates city with just my 6 units able to summon wraiths.

They had a total of 200 units in it at one point, and more units kept flowing in every turn from their 3 other cities. Centaur archers and chargers, mostly, just a few others.

Each turn I sent 6 wraiths (admittedly boosted with 3 death mana), and Kuriotates attacked them each turn with some 20 units, very rarely killing a single wraith of mine. It took a long time and was extremely boring, but in the end I had drained their power dry and took the city (and soon the other cities, too).

Any turn they could've have attacked with, say, a 100 units' horde, and have overrun my summoners (even if they wouldn't have done the thing human would've done, what would've been go round the wraiths and just kill the summoners). I even had a town with just 2 pyre zombies 4 or 5 tiles away from their city, so they could have easily overrun that too.

The main problem here is the bore factor. There has to be some other way to make the AI's manage

EDIT: But I still would like to maintain a tradition of keeping Noble level without AI cheats. The cheats are easy to tone up/down with difficulty levels, but it would be nice if there was some known level with which it would be just I (intelligence ) vs. AI.

 

[Angrenost]

Whatever the difficulty level, the AI sucks too hard with wars to be of any challenge apart from some early rushes. As long as you have a summon or some cheap unit to throw behind their megastack they never get to attack your cities as they just chase those units or wander aimlessly. Then you kill them off.

Their production choices are a bit odd too, like spamming warriors like no tomorrow on turn 300 (normal speed) when the AI has technology for tier 3-4 units.

Often I can just ignore the AI stack and take their cities instead. It's especially easy with raiders as AI has its units in that stack somewhere while the cities are poorly defended.

The spellcasting AI is quite nice now though, it was interesting to watch an AI cast spring around a desert city and then see it bloom. Also those summons are more dangerous when AI actually dares to attack with them.