Yes I was watching it last night. It got me a bit perturbed. I have not watched MadDjinn's yet.
Simple Ways the AI Could Be Better
- Thread starter hambonecu
- Start date
Yes I was watching it last night. It got me a bit perturbed. I have not watched MadDjinn's yet.
Yeah, AI mostly needs to go back to Vanilla days of no surrender till you smash them really badly. That thinking-to-shuffle-and-reshuffle isn't really working out, and its increasing the capacity my poor laptop has to handle this expensive game.
But otherwise it sounds like they were paralyzed with "too many targets" syndrome.
It'd be easier for them if siege units wasn't required for AI to take cities, really.
I'm gonna say that this is a Civilization game, and it shouldn't be ultra-realistic like a Total War... okay, that's not even a pretty realistic franchise.
Wasn't Japan also stuck in an quagmire war with China (a historical irony, if ever)?
Anyways, here's a fine moment when an AI fought for its capital.
Like, I was having this Gentleman's War with Napoleon for many turns. It must have been five wars in total, because it usually began and ended the same way - I move my fleet in, bring down his coastal capital's defenses...
Spoiler :
and then peace is declared by faraway team-mate, Sejong.
Spoiler :
It seemed like an exercise in futility, but Napoleon enjoyed a good war and to be honest so did I.
Spoiler :
He didn't enjoy it when I finally took Paris.
Spoiler :
And boy was he really pissed off.
Spoiler :
Spoiler :
Spoiler :
Spoiler :
We finally had peace after I thoroughly decimated everything he sent towards Paris, and it wasn't a peace of my own making.
Spoiler :
Poor Sejong had to do it again, lest I continue pushing forward.
It is not about being realistic or not. That's not the point. The point is the AI could have ground his artillery units into mincemeat if it kept on fighting. Buzzdowan had no air defense whatsoever, and would not have any for like 30 turns. The whole thing is about the AI giving in with a huge tech advantage. And not only that, giving up its capital freely. The whole thing is absurd.
It's almost as bad as the Red Sox trading away their star players.
Total War is also completely different, but if your comparing AIs. Mods are needed to make the AI better in that game. Lately, with the new versions of Darth Mod, ETW, NTW, and especially Shogun 2, have made huge strides in the AI department. Blowing CiV AI out of the water completely. It is not even comparable. The Total War AI comes after you and does not give in. The CiV AI wears a very short skirt lately.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
I recall one game where Hiawatha held a grudge and fought several times to retake his capital, succeeding at least once when I had other civs to deal with before I took it back. He wanted it enough to declare war on me when I was a far superior power.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
It is not about being realistic or not. That's not the point. The point is the AI could have ground his artillery units into mincemeat if it kept on fighting. Buzzdowan had no air defense whatsoever, and would not have any for like 30 turns. The whole thing is about the AI giving in with a huge tech advantage. And not only that, giving up its capital freely. The whole thing is absurd.
It's almost as bad as the Red Sox trading away their star players.
Total War is also completely different, but if your comparing AIs. Mods are needed to make the AI better in that game. Lately, with the new versions of Darth Mod, ETW, NTW, and especially Shogun 2, have made huge strides in the AI department. Blowing CiV AI out of the water completely. It is not even comparable. The Total War AI comes after you and does not give in. The CiV AI wears a very short skirt lately.
This is with a mod? I haven't used TW mods, but vanilla Total War AI was pretty terrible until Shogun 2, and it's still recognisably similar to Civ V in the types of mistakes it makes both in diplomacy and combat. It "comes after you and doesn't give in" because TW is by nature more war-focused than Civ games and all factions are pretty much permanently at war with somebody. I've certainly had vanilla AIs in Shogun 2 concede territory without a fight to speak of, or make any effort to regain territory. Largely I suspect for much the same reason as in Civ V - by the time you usually start taking territory, and particularly a capital, the AI no longer has the resources to retaliate.
Yes Darthmod.
I suppose, but in this case the AI had plenty of cities and air power, it should have fought on. The civ in question Arabia, will be back I have a feeling.
In any case, I enjoy both games, even if they can be frustrating from time to time.When the.dll finally comes out the AI will be modded and perform much better. We've been waiting too long for that.
Wasn't Japan also stuck in an quagmire war with China (a historical irony, if ever)?
Anyways, here's a fine moment when an AI fought for its capital.
We finally had peace after I thoroughly decimated everything he sent towards Paris, and it wasn't a peace of my own making.
Spoiler :
Poor Sejong had to do it again, lest I continue pushing forward.
This was great to see and made me feel better. Thanks for posting this.
God of Kings
Ruler of all heads of state
In the Maya video by MadDjinn, the antepenultimate and penultimate videos look certain that he would lose.
Spoiler :
Why shouldn't he? I mean it is not the gamer's fault their game has a crappy AI, now is it?
I may have to watch his Maya video, sounds like it was quite a game.
Has anyone even seen the AI use aircraft against artillery? I am watching a game now and the AI attacked a cavalry with 7 planes, bombers and fighters. They never once attacked the artillery right behind the cavalry? What is going on here? Am I seeing this correctly? Seriously? Really? That is a bit annoying?
Current team game as Wu (with Harun on other hemisphere) has Darius repeatedly DOWing me, and then I had to eradicate him from the game entirely before we had "peace" - even after he lost his capital, he would not accept peace.
I'll try and see if this game will (eventually) have some runaway (probably on other continent - Pacal) using bombers to wipe out my artillery trains.
Xink
King
Napoleon decided to attack me - fair enough and Monty joined in.
But why during his attack on one city did Napoleon walk a lone settler into my territory next to my pikeman and then gallop a General totally alone on another part of the map to place him next to my musket man..?!
Napoleon's army was much stronger than mine but due to his lack of will and poor use of his supporting crossbow men it wasn't too difficult to soon have him turning back.
Monty give up the fight as soon as he could ask for peace, I only managed to kill a couple of his long-swordsmen.
Napoleon certainly had the military advantage and the musket men, cross bows and the canon or two should have been enough to have taken the city he attacked with Monty. But it just failed to gain momentum or co-ordination. Seeing them stand there whilst in range of my cross bows was a little sad and frustrating really. And then to see them stand there after a turn and not either pillage the mine they are stood on or move or fire is bewildering.
Just prior to his attack on me he had open borders with me and was on my right and Washington on my left, again with open borders. As Napoleon declared war on Washington it was fun watching them battle over my land. A siege weapon would be used against a swordsman and both sides would flip flop in killing single units with no discernible strategy. I think that Napoleon eventually took New York just because he had a few more units ther than Washington and not because of any superior tactics or strategy.
The AI still needs a lot of serious work as it is still as dumb as a bag of spanners and I really can't see that improving much by the developers at this stage of the games release.
But why during his attack on one city did Napoleon walk a lone settler into my territory next to my pikeman and then gallop a General totally alone on another part of the map to place him next to my musket man..?!
Napoleon's army was much stronger than mine but due to his lack of will and poor use of his supporting crossbow men it wasn't too difficult to soon have him turning back.
Monty give up the fight as soon as he could ask for peace, I only managed to kill a couple of his long-swordsmen.
Napoleon certainly had the military advantage and the musket men, cross bows and the canon or two should have been enough to have taken the city he attacked with Monty. But it just failed to gain momentum or co-ordination. Seeing them stand there whilst in range of my cross bows was a little sad and frustrating really. And then to see them stand there after a turn and not either pillage the mine they are stood on or move or fire is bewildering.
Just prior to his attack on me he had open borders with me and was on my right and Washington on my left, again with open borders. As Napoleon declared war on Washington it was fun watching them battle over my land. A siege weapon would be used against a swordsman and both sides would flip flop in killing single units with no discernible strategy. I think that Napoleon eventually took New York just because he had a few more units ther than Washington and not because of any superior tactics or strategy.
The AI still needs a lot of serious work as it is still as dumb as a bag of spanners and I really can't see that improving much by the developers at this stage of the games release.
If it does improve, it will be due to the modders. The same as it was for Total War. Even that game still has shortcomings, but they truly have made improvement.
The space race is really galling is sometimes the AI just doesn't move its parts into the capital. It can turn an interesting game into a pointless waste of time.
I remember winning a OCC deity game and wondering how the AI hadn't won and seeing random spaceship parts floating around.
I remember winning a OCC deity game and wondering how the AI hadn't won and seeing random spaceship parts floating around.
This seems to be an improvement that came with GnK. Some sort of cunning false flight to lure you into an ambush. The way it often turns out is the AI moves its units backwards and forwards and hardly ever attacks with the result I defeat much larger AI forces without taking a loss. If they'd just pressed on they probably would have lost anyway but at least they would have done some damage.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
Has anyone even seen the AI use aircraft against artillery? I am watching a game now and the AI attacked a cavalry with 7 planes, bombers and fighters. They never once attacked the artillery right behind the cavalry? What is going on here? Am I seeing this correctly? Seriously? Really? That is a bit annoying?
Yes, it's happened to me, but the AI will generally prioritise melee units threatening their cities over siege.
My latest tale of misjudged AI behaviour is my current war with Korea. Continents map, Korea has a decent navy but no land forces - and the land units it did have Sejong sent with his fleet to attack a target past Adwa, even as Jeonju was being attacked. Never found out what the target was - I moved a machine gun out of Adwa to fire at the passing fleet, and he promptly suicided all his embarked Great War Infantry against it, then the surviving fleet retreated. But launching an invasion when you make no effort to defend your own cities from attack is not the best strategic play I've seen, nor is failing to build up an army when you're facing an attack by land.
Battlehelm043
Warlord
Hey all, I'm new to CF and this is my first actual post; been a major civ fan since Rev. I seem to be one of the "fortunate ones" in regards to AI conducting wars. I have been on several occasions since G&K came out, sucked into a flank ambush. Mongols were a tech ahead of me, I was Aus and lacked iron. I went for the only source, they hit hard ruined it and when I sent my units in he pulled back and hit hard on the other side of my empire.
One thing I will say that needs fixing is Pikemen. It seems when there is no iron the Pikes are your best counter, which I think its unfair that they can go toe to toe with LSmen. Just a thought but maybe find a way to balance that out?
One thing I will say that needs fixing is Pikemen. It seems when there is no iron the Pikes are your best counter, which I think its unfair that they can go toe to toe with LSmen. Just a thought but maybe find a way to balance that out?
Xink
King
I agree, that is why I had noted "developers".
I would like to think that the promised source code etc will be released but I can't help but think with the Steam method of distribution and the way that the game loads we will not see that happen and thus be stuck with a flawed AI.
