Thoughts on New Patch Strategies

[fromar]

Hi folks,

I started my first 1.0.1.275 patch game last night. Does anyone have any thoughts on the patched AI?

I have won the game with all the leaders except Sultan Suleiman, so it was time to give him a shot. I played king, quick, archipelago map. I had a single war with Askia on my continent. I attacked with two long-swordsmen, an archer, and two pikemen. In the past, this would have been enough, but in this case, the AI kept his catapult in the city and killed all of my mans. Well done, AI! Askia then stupidly counter-attacked my civ with all of his surviving units, an archer and the catapult. As I rebuilt a horse-long-swordsman army, those two units meandered around my border city occasionally bombarding it, but never doing anything serious. After a few turns, I popped some dudes and killed his archer. The catapult ran into the ocean, where I made him mostly dead with a trireme. The catapult retreated back to his own territory, but I finished it off with a horseman. The attack should have never happened, but at least they tried to get away in a logical way when I showed up with units.

I played through to the renaissance and witnessed Egypt invading Siam over water and one strip of land. Egypt mounted a serious naval offense. I saw Egypt land 4 cannons + supporting units. I thought for sure Siam was dead. Egypt seemed to have a tech and numerical advantage, but the Siamese were attacking the cannons with Elephants directly from the water. It was a very good strategy to get rid of the deadly artillery.

I am going for a science win, but I need to knock Egypt off the map. I'm very impressed with the AI's willingness to throw a decent naval invasion together, and honestly, I'm a little nervous Egypt will turn on me before I get to them. They have a decent navy, a lot of units, and they are using them together.

So my two strategic take-aways so far are:

• Expect the AI to not just roll over and hand you cities
• You can forget about a naval invasion unless you gain naval superiority

Thoughts?

 

[leflings]

Haven't switched to the new patch yet (I have some games I want to make I can finish first, without any breakage caused by the patch), but what you describes sounds very promising. Can't wait to try it out.

 

[chazzycat]

That's great to hear about naval improvement. You SHOULD have to gain control of the seas to mount an overseas invasion, that is awesome.

I didn't get far enough in my game last night to have any naval battles, but the AI did show very early aggression. He sent 5 warriors to my territory, which made sense at the time, since I was only defending with 3 of my own warriors. But i hooked up the iron right as he arrived and upgraded these 3 to swords. He then seemed to be indecisive about whether to attack or not...a few turns later he did end up DOWing. It was not the right decision. I easily crushed his warriors and then proceeded to take his 3 cities with my swords and a couple catapults. Not really sure if any of that is related to the patch, but I don't remember being warrior rushed very often before (play on emperor).

 

[Pazyryk]

Playing at Immortal in a game where I intend to dominate, and it feels a bit different. Two neighbors have launched 3 quick attacks on me very early. Started around turn 35 or so (for the first 2) with a mass of warriors. It's "quick" in the sense that they came in fast, there was much killing, and then they were ready to settle a few turns later but in a way that made more sense than pre-patch. In pre-patch, I always look at being attacked as a prize. I get lots of experience for my units and a big gp prize to boot. Here, I had to payoff one civ (500 gp) even after killing many units. Despite killing many of his units, I was not a threat to him at this time but he could really ruin my day in the next turn. The second settled for no cash after I killed 5 of his warriors (after which, neither one of us was a real threat to the other). I almost felt in both cases that the AI was launching these to extract some prize money, rather than a serious takeover effort. I'm only now seeing the first civ offer me cash (~500 gp) as I have 4 swordsmen at his border city. So my first impression of civ war settling is good (hope it's not just my imagination).

 

[King Patrick]

Keeping a strong military as a deterrent seems to be more important then ever.

I started a new game as Rome, King difficulty, pangaea map, and played my normal REX early game, keeping up enough military for barb defense but putting off heavy-duty unit building until the better techs. First, Babylon and the Iroquois declared war on me, though both were still pretty far away so it didn't amount to much. I built up an okay military but it got pretty mauled wresting a city away from Hiawatha (he'd founded it right where I was going next, so I figured I'd take advantage of the war to snatch it). Then Persia, my closest neighbor, noticed my military was a mess and backstabbed me, taking my closest city to him and, had I continued the game, probably rolling up the rest of my empire.

Before the new Rome game, I continued a saved game (Incas, King, pangaea) post-patch. The AIs seemed much more eager to take advantage of easy pickings there, too. Several wars broke out almost right away post-patch, plus Catherine, my nearest neighbor, sent units flooding into the Inca Empire due to open borders after, I presume, noticing I'd been neglecting my military.

I dropped back to Prince and continents for my current game as Rome. I'm having an easier time keeping up with production & tech, so the AIs have been leaving me alone. So I think I can say it's definitely the AIs doing a better job of analyzing respective military power and possibly being more willing to backstab if they see some easy pickings, rather than a random ratcheting up of aggressiveness.

 

[roguepro92]

is it me or are the AIs super warmongers now?
i used to do large with all default settings except time, at epic and pull out a win fairly often on emperor but now im having hard time keeping safe on king...

 

[chazzycat]

I wonder from people's comments if the AI no longer needs Open Borders to be sufficiently sure of their opponent's military strength. That could have something to do with it.

 

[fromar]

I read in another thread the AI is "cuddly". Maybe the AI is just thinking more situationally. Am I too optimistic?

The new patch feels smarter. I'm in a war now with Egypt over water...They are using effective air power to keep my boats away from their shores. I haven't found a place to land my army. I don't think the AI in the old game would be able to keep a navy off their shores like this.

 

[fromar]

100 turns later, and I have been building a new destroyer every couple of turns. The AI, on the other hand, is sinking them faster than I can build. My mech-infantries are dead upon landing. The AI is keeping a lot of artillery out of my reach, and I can't keep up with the slaughter. I am losing the war, and Ramses wants thousands of dollars for peace.

Before the patch, this army would have destroyed the AI in a few turns. I think it's gotten a lot smarter.

 

[joncnunn]

Hum, this patch might be interesting then since in my own came there's quite a few ongoing wars already from before the patch, but only one of them had cities that changed hands as a result.

There's several civs not at war yet though that have recently been asking me to join them DOWing their neighbor which I've said no too, so those countries might DOW on each other now.

And I just so happened to upgrade my army on the last turn I played before the patch downloaded, so perhaps that was an even better call than I thought.

Keeping a strong military as a deterrent seems to be more important then ever.
The AIs seemed much more eager to take advantage of easy pickings there, too. Several wars broke out almost right away post-patch, plus Catherine, my nearest neighbor, sent units flooding into the Inca Empire due to open borders after, I presume, noticing I'd been neglecting my military.

 

[Civsassin]

100 turns later, and I have been building a new destroyer every couple of turns. The AI, on the other hand, is sinking them faster than I can build. My mech-infantries are dead upon landing. The AI is keeping a lot of artillery out of my reach, and I can't keep up with the slaughter. I am losing the war, and Ramses wants thousands of dollars for peace.

Before the patch, this army would have destroyed the AI in a few turns. I think it's gotten a lot smarter.

Even pre patch, you have to go after artillery with a large number of units and be prepared to lose many. Use your units with 3+ movement to take out the artillery. It's an uphill battle still, but with patience you can do it. I suspect it is more difficult now, but I haven't gotten that far yet post patch. I am fighting with rifles currently as Montezuma. I wiped out the Ottomans and crippled Russia. On to the Mongols.

 

[roguepro92]

im getting spam asked DOW by other nations on one single leader.
the AI is either going to dog-pile on one poor guy a lot more or is this just one instance of my game?

 

[slobberinbear]

I just finished an Emperor/Domination win as Alex on Continents, standard speed. I took out Mongolia and Spain on my home continent with 5 Hoplites and 2 Companion Cavalry and the Honor tree buffs and a Great General. They were defending with warriors and archers. I puppeted everything and didn't build a second city until I needed a shipyard. I did not notice any AI improvement in the opening rush, but then again I was on the attack.

When I got to the other continent, I had allied with every known CS on the map (love Alex and gold puppets!). So I didn't need a beachhead ... I just moved my rifles and cannons through my allies and marched into Berlin, Babylon, Perseopolis, and Onodaga, my units eventually becoming infantry and artillery in the process. I did this with about 6 infantry and 3 artillery and a Great Khan gifted to me by one of my allies (Patronage woo!).

Anyway, the ONLY improvement to the AI I noticed was regarding my final foe, America. They were only one tech-gen behind me and had a large army (about 20 units). While I was trying to get to Washington, they retook Babylon and another ex-Babylonian city with a swarm of units. Washington also had ALL of the Honor tree and his units were not pushovers. His minutemen were fairly effective defensively. Also, he managed to kill one of my artillery with a clever cavalry attack.

In the end, Washington fell under the power of my artillery and some frigate bombardment, and my marine-promoted infantry marched in and ended the game.

In conclusion: the AI seems to do better handling its individual units and coming up with and executing an offensive plan. However, it is still fairly lacking on defense and has a hard time prioritizing targets. Had America brought its army back to defend washington, it would have been a harder final battle.

So I think the "better AI" is more of a threat for non-warmongers.

*EDIT* Also, for some reason Washington stayed at war with the remaining (crippled) AIs, spending a lot of his firepower on them instead of me. I would like to say that was my masterplan, but it wasn't. I didn't bribe them. He should have made peace with them and focused on my Greeks.

 

[swmaniac]

im getting spam asked DOW by other nations on one single leader.
the AI is either going to dog-pile on one poor guy a lot more or is this just one instance of my game?

I think it's just you. Granted I've only played a single post-patch game, but chain denouncement/war seems to be nonexistant.

 

[joncnunn]

Pre-patch:

Chinese AI losing cities every few turns to the Askoan AI.

Post-patch: Chinese AI immediately stopped the bleeding. (Hasn't lost another city since 15 turns later; war still ongoing)

Possibly AI better at defending it's cities from another AI than it used to be?

The denouncement pace has picked up considerably after the patch, but it's not chain related. It's the civs that obviously didn't like each other even before the patch.

 

[roguepro92]

I think it's just you. Granted I've only played a single post-patch game, but chain denouncement/war seems to be nonexistant.

can't really use my current game as example.
3-5 leaders DOW'ed on me on the same turn. my 4cities and 6 artillery only held for so long >.>
maybe it was just this one game that had leaders hating preset already before i updated.

 

[slobberinbear]

Having won another domination game since my prior post, my overall sense is that the AI is more sensitive to relative military strength and acts accordingly. If you are weak, you will get dogpiled if the AI has the means to do so.

I was also DOW'd by an AI, early-game, that was a LONG way away from me. That had not happened before, and it was doubly confusing because (as Monty) I had about six Jags and was not a pushover.

Peace through superior firepower.

 

[Lyoncet]

One thing I found in the only two games I've complete post-patch is that bribing AIs to war with one another seems to be less effective at preventing you from being DoWed yourself. In both games (culture both times, so admittedly my military was lacking but not pitiful), I had the sort-of-runaway-superpower at war with 4+ civs on just about any given turn. And both times, that didn't stop me from being declared on. It could be they resented my meddling, but only one or two of those wars were of my doing; the rest was just the AIs ganging up on their own.

 

[King Patrick]

I finished an all-night game as Egypt with a cultural win (prince, pangaea, huge). My first culture win, too. A few post-patch thoughts:

+ Barbarians are far more aggressive. I eventually turned them off after playing 3 starts getting more and more frustrated with new barb camps spawning practically on my borders and relentless attacks on my starting civs. At one point, Thebes was fending off 4-5 brutes at once! Barbs attack cities now, too. They also seem better at tracking & killing or stealing scouts and civilians. That, or else there are more barbs running around. Several times I had scouts cornered & killed by 2 or more brutes or archers.

+ I can confirm the AIs are better at reading relative military strength (yours and the other AIs). Any time I lagged behind militarily, I could see the AIs sniffing around, either in the diplomacy screen or literally, on my borders. Likewise, upgrading your military and defenses causes them to lose interest, except --

+ I got a new war-declaring message: "Even though the odds are clearly against me, I have no choice." Babylon and Spain, both of whom lagged behind in science ranging from slightly (Babylon) to a lot (Spain) both attacked several times with that message. Spain did call off one invasion after seeing her conquistadors would be going against my infantry, artillery, and a brand-new tank.

My suspicion is this message makes explicit the old "you are going to win and I can't possibly prevent it otherwise" war trigger, with both Nebby and Isabella being more sensitive to it than the other civs. I was ahead on points most of the game, and at the end, way ahead on culture with science or domination wins not even a possibility for the other civs at that point. Or else it really is a tune-up to liven up the game when the human player's on track for a runaway.

I actually enjoyed the change - made the game a lot more interesting, since once I decided to go for a culture win, I ruled out wars of aggression (don't need the distraction nor the captured cities).

+ The AI has gotten cagier about open borders requests before declaring war. I had civs ask for open borders despite having been at war recently and shortly before new attacks. Sometimes even with the invading units stacked on my borders!

 

[King Patrick]

Addendum on the "odds are clearly against me" war-declaration - someone else suggests it might be a case of the AI strategically trying to whittle down what it sees as a dangerously powerful military coupled with the AI's still-not-quite-there-yet tactical talent that turns the attack into a rout.