Settler Snatching and the AI

[DeAnno]

One thing I've noticed recently in my Immortal games is that while the worker snatch has been mitigated now by a lot of factors (especially the slavery cooldown), performing a snatch of an early unescorted settler (usually the first or second) coming in your direction is still very good. It hurts the AI for more production than the worker snatch, it saves you getting a city settled in your face, and it still provides the benefit of a snatched worker. The AI has been pretty negligent about defending its settlers as far as I've seen, often having a warrior ~1 turn away that just doesn't happen to be on top of it, or letting you "strip" the warrior from the settler by blocking it with military units at a choke point. Do other people actively look for chances to snatch AI settlers? Do people think the AI should be more paranoid? Part of the issue is that scouts can come in out of nowhere to grab a settler, so in a game against hostile opponents it pretty much needs guarding at all times.

Related to this, I've noticed several chances the AI has had to snatch one of my brave settlers in the early game and never does it. Should it try maybe? The only reason I'm brave with them like I am is that the AI refuses to snatch them.

 

[SpankmyMetroid]

I’ve never seen the AI declare war just to take one of my civilians.

 

[tu_79]

You have also barbarians to deal with, so unescorted settlers are unwise.

But it is true that AI almost never try to rob my settlers. They wait until I've settled the city, then they think my army is weak, then they attack.

Could it be made that AI consider the player to have one extra city for each Settler it spots?

 

[DeAnno]

You have also barbarians to deal with, so unescorted settlers are unwise.

Barbarians are kind of more predictable (especially if you're good about killing nearby camps) and only very rarely can move more than two spaces at that point in the game. AI Scouts might move six, you can't just have some vision on the area and be safe in the way you can from barbs.

Often I'll save a turn or two on my city by having my settler not quite under my escort all the time, but AI scouts could punish that if they knew how.

 

[Recursive]

I've never seen the AI attack just to snatch a Settler or Worker, but having them do that seems vulnerable to exploits (i.e. want to go to war? bait them with a Worker on the left, have them declare war and get the diplo/combat penalty, and storm in with your army on the right), not to mention it probably would be an unfun mechanic for the average player.

 

[saamohod]

I never ever snatch AI workers or settlers, such is my house rule. The reason is simple: AI never does it to me.

 

[dostillevi]

Would it be too drastic to make it so that any non-military units outside of borders are fair game to any other civ that you don't have a declaration of friendship with? Attacks on non-military units like these would have a diplomatic penalty. For a recent example, Iran seizing oil tankers. Diplomatic penalty, might lead to war, but in and of itself not an act of war.

What this would do:

1. It would be critical to properly guard your own settlers, workers moving between cities, and diplomats and trade units moving outside of borders (and don't send them through civs you're not friends with!) This would increase micro. It would also make the UA allowing pillaging of trade routes obsolete, but that could be changed as well, perhaps just to negate the diplomatic penalty.
2. AI may have trouble protecting units as well as a human could. Would require some careful coding, especially regarding trade units.
3. Would give players new opportunity for peacetime use of military units.
4. Would encourage warfare naturally when two competing civs but up against each other. Could possibly remove or reduce penalties from settling too close or border disputes.

 

[Gazebo]

AI won't fall for bait. Slippery slope towards an exploit. End of story.

G

 

[tu_79]

AI won't fall for bait. Slippery slope towards an exploit. End of story.

G

G, you said that AI considers the military might of the player divided by the number of cities to decide whether to attack, among other things. If it is not already the case, couldn't a spotted settler near a settleable spot be considered as a potential extra city for the player in just a few turns, and let AI take this into consideration in advance? Like, knowing that 3 warriors are not enough to protect the would be 4th city of the player. I'm not sure I could exploit it by luring AI to kill my settlers, it seems very counter productive.

 

[Bhawb]

I very rarely escort my settlers (also don't try to snipe AI ones usually), and the AI has never tried to snipe me. It just seems like a bit of an unfun mechanic, the kind of thing that causes you to stop playing with that one guy in MP who is just a B Hole constantly.

 

[DeAnno]

AI won't fall for bait. Slippery slope towards an exploit. End of story.

I think this is a reasonable take because it's probably too hard for the AI to judge. However, I don't want to get lost in the weeds, the bigger issue is the AI escorting its own adventurous settlers. It's gotten to the point where if a spot is looking like it'll be contested I like to park military around there looking for a chance to snatch the unescorted AI settler.

 

[andersw]

One thing I've noticed recently in my Immortal games is that while the worker snatch has been mitigated now by a lot of factors (especially the slavery cooldown), performing a snatch of an early unescorted settler (usually the first or second) coming in your direction is still very good. It hurts the AI for more production than the worker snatch, it saves you getting a city settled in your face, and it still provides the benefit of a snatched worker. The AI has been pretty negligent about defending its settlers as far as I've seen, often having a warrior ~1 turn away that just doesn't happen to be on top of it, or letting you "strip" the warrior from the settler by blocking it with military units at a choke point. Do other people actively look for chances to snatch AI settlers? Do people think the AI should be more paranoid? Part of the issue is that scouts can come in out of nowhere to grab a settler, so in a game against hostile opponents it pretty much needs guarding at all times.

Related to this, I've noticed several chances the AI has had to snatch one of my brave settlers in the early game and never does it. Should it try maybe? The only reason I'm brave with them like I am is that the AI refuses to snatch them.

I feel the AI usually escorts and when I manage to grab a settler is usually a combination of terrain issues with obvious (or lucky guess) on where AI wants to settle.

 

[Rekk]

The AI is willing to send settlers past/under neutral opponent Civs; if a military escort's path is blocked, then the settler will continue unescorted.