Colonel_Butthurt
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2024
- Messages
- 2
Before I list several questions that interest me, I'd like to spend a minute to describe how awe-struck I am by the AI's effectiveness in this mod. Before I proceed, please note that I play on Prince and Monarch difficulties with the "AI plays to win" setting ON.
After playing Civ6 for the last few years, where almost any AI invasion can be thwarted by a single ranged unit in a walled-off city and a couple of supporting\harassing units, having my cheeks spread by a sudden, carefully prepared NAVAL invasion by an AI player who is technologically inferior (we're speaking late medieval vs early gunpowder units) is a very humbling and exciting experience. I was even successfully raided (i.e. 1 city (3rd largest in the empire) swiftly taken) by a NAVAL invasion by BARBARIANS. Just wow. Strategically, AI seems to correctly evaluate their chances at the invasion, and if it declares war on you, you are very likely to lose at least 1 city within like 5 turns (not necessarily a game-ending event, but still a major hurdle, considering the necessary reconstruction after its liberation) - which cannot be said about AI in Civ6, which loves to declare suicidal wars it has no chances of winning and then spends dozen of turns cackling like a madman, sending waves of units to their deaths.
AI seems to be settling and developing their lands quite efficiently, and they are pretty ruthless diplomatically. They manage their naval power relatively well (again, compared to Civ6 where naval gameplay is a complete afterthought even in games with multiple continents). Tactically, AI seems to care about preserving its fighting force and will retreat its stacks after sustaining heavy casualties, and will very rarely initiate attacks that are unlikely to succeed.
Amazing stuff all-around. A round of applause, truly. But, considering such high level of expertise on described matters, some of their decisions seem questionable, and I'd like to ask questions and discuss those.
1) Why does AI advisor keep recommending building slave farms even VERY late in the game? It is especially jarring to see it recommend replacing an irrigated mechanized farm with a slave farm, while the tooltip clearly says that it will result in lower food yields (obviously, I'm not running slavery at this point of the game). While it doesn't impact me as a player (as I don't use automated workers), I'm afraid that this decision-making can hurt AI players, who probably just blindly follow such "advices".
2) Why does AI hate signing open borders so much? While I understand why the leading players would do it - to preserve the technological edge over their close competitors by preventing the technology diffusion feature - it's a mystery to me while AI players who are clearly behind score-and technology-wise just refuse to consider it, despite having much to gain and sometimes even having good relations (high scores of "Pleased" stance). Not only does it make no sense pragmatically, it kinda is immersion-breaking, and it severely devalues all gameplay elements that buff foreign trade routes - right now I'm trying to roleplay a merchant republic, and have quite a miserable time, having OB with only 2 out of 15 AI empires, and thus having most of my trade routes as internal.
3) While earlier I described how AI takes care of its forces, sometimes it just slams some poor unit (usually a horseman) into a fully garrisoned city for no apparent reason (i.e. I've navally invaded Japan and took its coastal city, parking a very formidable force there (4 grand batteries, 2 grenadiers, 5 line infantry, 2 light infantry), and while AI withdrew its main stacks to fight another day, once in a few turns suddenly a lone horseman attacks the city head-on for no effect (we're talking minimal direct damage and negligible collateral damage). Am I missing something, and this is a viable tactic? Like forcing 3 units out of the stack to heal, thus preventing its advance, with the possibility that the horseman withdraws and survives the whole endeavor?
Thank you for your time! Eagerly awaiting responses!
After playing Civ6 for the last few years, where almost any AI invasion can be thwarted by a single ranged unit in a walled-off city and a couple of supporting\harassing units, having my cheeks spread by a sudden, carefully prepared NAVAL invasion by an AI player who is technologically inferior (we're speaking late medieval vs early gunpowder units) is a very humbling and exciting experience. I was even successfully raided (i.e. 1 city (3rd largest in the empire) swiftly taken) by a NAVAL invasion by BARBARIANS. Just wow. Strategically, AI seems to correctly evaluate their chances at the invasion, and if it declares war on you, you are very likely to lose at least 1 city within like 5 turns (not necessarily a game-ending event, but still a major hurdle, considering the necessary reconstruction after its liberation) - which cannot be said about AI in Civ6, which loves to declare suicidal wars it has no chances of winning and then spends dozen of turns cackling like a madman, sending waves of units to their deaths.
AI seems to be settling and developing their lands quite efficiently, and they are pretty ruthless diplomatically. They manage their naval power relatively well (again, compared to Civ6 where naval gameplay is a complete afterthought even in games with multiple continents). Tactically, AI seems to care about preserving its fighting force and will retreat its stacks after sustaining heavy casualties, and will very rarely initiate attacks that are unlikely to succeed.
Amazing stuff all-around. A round of applause, truly. But, considering such high level of expertise on described matters, some of their decisions seem questionable, and I'd like to ask questions and discuss those.
1) Why does AI advisor keep recommending building slave farms even VERY late in the game? It is especially jarring to see it recommend replacing an irrigated mechanized farm with a slave farm, while the tooltip clearly says that it will result in lower food yields (obviously, I'm not running slavery at this point of the game). While it doesn't impact me as a player (as I don't use automated workers), I'm afraid that this decision-making can hurt AI players, who probably just blindly follow such "advices".
2) Why does AI hate signing open borders so much? While I understand why the leading players would do it - to preserve the technological edge over their close competitors by preventing the technology diffusion feature - it's a mystery to me while AI players who are clearly behind score-and technology-wise just refuse to consider it, despite having much to gain and sometimes even having good relations (high scores of "Pleased" stance). Not only does it make no sense pragmatically, it kinda is immersion-breaking, and it severely devalues all gameplay elements that buff foreign trade routes - right now I'm trying to roleplay a merchant republic, and have quite a miserable time, having OB with only 2 out of 15 AI empires, and thus having most of my trade routes as internal.
3) While earlier I described how AI takes care of its forces, sometimes it just slams some poor unit (usually a horseman) into a fully garrisoned city for no apparent reason (i.e. I've navally invaded Japan and took its coastal city, parking a very formidable force there (4 grand batteries, 2 grenadiers, 5 line infantry, 2 light infantry), and while AI withdrew its main stacks to fight another day, once in a few turns suddenly a lone horseman attacks the city head-on for no effect (we're talking minimal direct damage and negligible collateral damage). Am I missing something, and this is a viable tactic? Like forcing 3 units out of the stack to heal, thus preventing its advance, with the possibility that the horseman withdraws and survives the whole endeavor?
Thank you for your time! Eagerly awaiting responses!
