The AI does not know how to handle settlers

[LompeLuiten]

was going for a religious victory. I saw a settlers going by from a AI and I was like: Lets follow it and convert it on the spot! So there it went, to a completely suitable space: One were I would put it also. Then it doodled aroud for a few turns and then went back... stayed a few turns next to his own city and then disapeard.... WTH?

So later I came to a AI with only 1 city. With a settler in the city centre... just standig there, doing nothing. That it is still standig there is probably the reason it had only one city: A AI bug.

Earlier that game I saw the rusians moving at leats 6 times a settler around.. and a few times back. They build only 1 city. Brazil missed a very good spot just next to him. And the sumarians moved a settler around my cities... and then back. They never build a city.

That might explain why they expand so little.

 

[tlang71]

That is for sure. I saw a settler coming over from London so i immediately purchased the tiles between us, no open borders, thus locking England's settler out of a pathway to the West near Baltimore. The settler sat there the whole game, England never settled above London or east of or south of Amsterdam. Made for easy conquer of London and knocking out England

 

[Kougar7]

The AI may have lux problems and be unable to expand, I don't know. But the point is yes, the AI needs better programming for settlers. Some examples I have seen:

A barb settler wandering around an AI's city, and the AI's military forces were going AROUND it. I watched it for 10 turns, paid the AI for open borders, and sent my scouts in to capture it myself. This should NOT happen, especially when the AI in question was expanding rapidly.

Also saw a news article saying some AI had cleared a barb camp with its settlers.

 

[Baleur]

Now, i dont know jack Moderator Action: <snip> about AI programming. But should'nt that be possible to avoid with a very simple then/if rule?
IF (whatever modifier checks so there are no valid military units adjacent to attack)
AND (whatever modifier checks if there is an adjacent enemy civilian unit)
THEN (whatever modifier tells the AI to attack that civilian unit)

I mean, yeah it'd be a bit simplistic and rigid, but wouldnt that be better, to have a simple clear AI rule that it always attacks adjacent civilian units if there are no other threatening targets nearby?
Than having elaborate AI equations that make it far-sighted and utterly miss imminent close-quarters opportunities that should NEVER be ignored.
If something literally has zero risk (no damage to the unit) but 100% benefit (getting a free settler or worker), it should always be executed by an AI.

Because im sure this thing happens because the AI has some long-term plan and overly complex evaluation algorithms running, where it cant possibly consider diverting its plan for 1 turn to take a free goodie hut or civ unit right next to it. Sometimes less is more, in terms of complexity.
No excuse for oversights like that thb.

Moderator Action: Please help us keep the forums family-friendly.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[LompeLuiten]

Does Fraxis read this forum for these bugs?

 

[Browd]

It is our understanding that they do.

 

[Exodite]

I saw a settler coming over from London so i immediately purchased the tiles between us, no open borders, thus locking England's settler out of a pathway to the West near Baltimore. The settler sat there the whole game...

Expanding upon that I experienced a similar situation in a game I played as Germany.

I saw a french settler making a line for a spot next to my most recent city, intending to forward-settle me like the AI is usually apt to do. I quickly grabbed whatever gold I could from trades and bought all the tiles I could afford, extending towards the french settler.

Unfortunately I couldn't reach the actual tile the AI had decided to settle but I had bought most of the adjacent ones, meaning the AI was denied roughly half the tiles of the new city - including the ones next to the city center.

Since the AI still decided to settle this leads me to believe that it never, ever re-evaluates the initial plot it's decided upon. If it can settle there, it will. If it can't it will just wander aimlessly until some barbarians or a friendly player comes along and captures it. This would also somewhat help to explain why the AI will always tend to forward-settle you like a mad person despite there being plenty of room elsewhere. It doesn't even remotely consider other settlements or borders, let alone such thing like diplomatic considerations. It only seems to check whether or not a particular spot is possible to settle, which it would be once you're 4 tiles away from another city.

I'd argue that the AI should probably re-evaluate the settlement plot every turn the settler in question is in transit, and most definitely before actually settling.

It should also be far more respectful of borders, especially when it has friendly relations with the neighboring civilization and/or is in danger of getting crushed militarily.