Problem with AI not Making Progress in War

[Noyyau]

i was talking about protective trait not production XD.i test stuff out on blitz but my real games are on epic.im using the minimize ai turns but in the industrial era turns start to take like 10-12 seconds in huge maps.

Industrial era on huge maps and it takes ONLY 10-12 seconds? That is actually quite fast.

 

[dbkblk]

it seems like that i was actually running REV 806 even though the launcher showed that it is REV 873.somehow when i updated the mod using the checker it didnt really updated it.

The update system was messed up between launcher v1.0 and 1.04. It might explains this strange behavior. That all should be fixed now.

 

[oldnooob]

Ya know, one thing probably keeping the AI from doing much in their wars is the fact that any AI that has Protective as a trait WILL be massing large numbers of Drill IV / City Garrison I/II units in every city. Very, very, very large numbers of them. I painfully remember how terrible I fared in wars against these AIs - throwing NINETEEN Artillery against eight Drill IV units, and not knocking them even down to half health - they'd still be getting 90% odds against my units, and they'd heal up in 2 ~ 3 turns and then more units will come rushing in - also all Drill IV.

The AI's already bad at standard warfare, the Drill I / CG I promotions on Protective already stalled the AI pretty badly and while Better AI does hepl, the many Drill IV's that the Protective AI get due to the extra Drill promotions that Trait was given.... Well, it can't be anything short of absolutely painful. The large reduction on collateral damage makes siege weapons prior to Bombers almost useless, and it takes little effort for the AI to get Drill IV / CG II units out of the gate just because of the new and "improved" Protective trait.

I have made a change in protective trait that I think will be more appropriate for the trait description.
In assets\xml\civilizations\civ4traitinfos.xml
I changed PROMOTION_CITY_GARRISON1
PROMOTION_DRILL1
PROMOTION_DRILL2
to
PROMOTION_CITY_ GARRISON1
PROMOTION_CITY_GARRISON2
PROMOTION_DRILL1
I think that such uber offensive promotions are more suited to Aggressive trait than Protective trait.
Now I will playtest to see if this setting works any better.

 

[Afforess]

I think one of the weaknesses I see is that the AI sometimes get tied up in border disputes that never go anywhere. When the AI is at war, their economic planning is different than when they are peace, so this can be detrimental to it's overall economy. Maybe improving the ability of the AI to make peace might help.

 

[oldnooob]

I think one of the weaknesses I see is that the AI sometimes get tied up in border disputes that never go anywhere. When the AI is at war, their economic planning is different than when they are peace, so this can be detrimental to it's overall economy. Maybe improving the ability of the AI to make peace might help.

I have tried to make that point several times.

 

[Afforess]

In Rev 886, I made some changes to AI behavior would should encourage them to end wars that are draws, or going badly. Let me know what you think if you update.

 

[dbkblk]

While developing xUPT, i use AIAutoPlay to generate games and i sometimes stop it to look if everything is conformal to what i code. I use 1UPT on random maps. Please look at this screenshot:

This is what I call a total warfare, except the AI don't make use of this army. If I force a war declaration, there are some quick skirmishs, but the peace is quickly signed.
I think we should try to make the AI more resentful and less inclined to make peace, maybe be increasing differences between peaceful leaders and warmongers. The AI should fear Moctezuma but respect Gandhi, if you know what i mean.

 

[Afforess]

Try adding a global define for "AI_LONG_WAR_TURNS_COUNT", and changing the value from 40 to...say 60. It controls how many turns (on normal speed, scaled for gamespeed) the AI has to be at war with a team before they think it's been a long time.

 

[dbkblk]

Thank you Afforess, i'll try to play with that setting!

 

[IPEX-731BA5DD06]

This is the MAIN reason for not being able to make progress in war.

The Mismanagement of its siege.

How often do you see a single siege unit coming to attack/Pillage your lands.

Or a STACK OF DOOM comprised of ONLY SIEGE.

The AI will fling attacking stack after attacking stack, with no siege support.

In my current game, 2 examples.

1) - Franco declares war out of the Blue, sends in his attacking stack to assail my Culture 2 city. It has only 1 Longbow as defence, with a culture defence of over 50%. Franco loses 5 troops attacking this worthless city, only there for cultural pressure on my Vassal. No siege support.

2) Sitting bull attacks a CORE city on the border with him. O.K. good strategy. BUT!!! he sends in a stack of 11 Bombards ONLY no troop support, they were eliminated 5 turns before with only 1 or 2 siege support. All they really did was pillage a few tiles and die at my walls due to attacks from Garrison.

Again, mismanagement of its siege. Now I've just sent in my 5 Noble knights to flank attack the siege stack and whittle it away, with 3 Knights and a rider. No troops support to defend this stack.

How to solve.

Hard code in the need for defending siege, have defensive troops, city assault troops and siege.

don't know it its possible, too hard or impossible to achieve.

 

[Afforess]

This is the MAIN reason for not being able to make progress in war.

The Mismanagement of its siege.

How often do you see a single siege unit coming to attack/Pillage your lands.

Or a STACK OF DOOM comprised of ONLY SIEGE.

This should never happen. Either someone has screwed up the XML and given siege units an UNITAI type that is not valid for siege, or it's a legitimate bug. Next time you see such a SOD, report it as a bug and upload a save.

 

[dbkblk]

@Afforess: talking about siege units, i don't know how to identify them in C++. DefensiveOnly concern also RECON and some other units (gatlink, etc.).

 

[Afforess]

@Afforess: talking about siege units, i don't know how to identify them in C++. DefensiveOnly concern also RECON and some other units (gatlink, etc.).

Siege units aren't defensive only (except for rams). They should be a unit that causes collateral damage.

 

[Noyyau]

The AI does send siege units on their own without escort.

See attached save: I'm the Dutch, and a couple of turns ago I invaded the English. I can understand their units sitting in a city not attacking my stack camped outside, since I have Arquebusiers and they don't (though a couple of sacrificial bombards, which they have, would make a lot of damage!).

But sending lone, unprotected Bombards into my territory, with other units one or two tiles behind? Easy pickings!

 

[Afforess]

@Noyyau

I will look into it.

@dbkblk

I may look into creating a UNITAI type specifically for siege units. That would give us more direct control over seige ai.

 

[dbkblk]

@Afforess: That could be handy. I also think we should prevent the AI from linking great generals with siege units. This is totally pointless.

 

[Afforess]

I ended up not adding a new UNITAI. The bombard mechanics are too closely tied to the UNITAI_ATTACK_CITY. I did write some significant new code which should cause unescorted siege units to find an escort ASAP. Let me know if you still see poor behavior in Rev 893+.

The AI won't escort siege units inside of it's cities or own territory (if there are no nearby enemy units threatening the territory). But in unsafe or enemy territory, they should be escorted...or retreating for an escort. Hopefully the new behavior is an improvement.