Thoughts on New Patch Strategies

[Morningcalm]

The AI should start pillaging improvements and making harder-hitting attacks. The patch improved their strategic and tactical thinking a bit, but they're still in the habit of randomly evacuating their troops just as they're winning. I think it's because they don't want to risk losing troops on my castled cities.

 

[kamex]

The AI should start pillaging improvements and making harder-hitting attacks. The patch improved their strategic and tactical thinking a bit, but they're still in the habit of randomly evacuating their troops just as they're winning. I think it's because they don't want to risk losing troops on my castled cities.

Agreed. They seem more aggressive too. Although i still see a lot of unnecessary water evacuations right in front of my navy!

 

[Deau]

The AI should start pillaging improvements and making harder-hitting attacks. The patch improved their strategic and tactical thinking a bit, but they're still in the habit of randomly evacuating their troops just as they're winning. I think it's because they don't want to risk losing troops on my castled cities.

It definitely isn't as bad as before...at least on deity I've had multiple turns 30-70 losses against a decently well organised warrior+ rush. Obv that was when trying to knock a super hardly tuned opener that basically involved luck on the peace side so I had no true defenses other than maybe Walls and my starting warrior but I've still seen the AI do much dmg to me.

Even watched a few opportunistic sneak attacks from the flank i left open because I had went to war on another end. Forced me to blow all of my gold into units and lose a wonder I was ahead to complete. I'm not saying they are never doing stupid stuff...like having 6 warriors coming and starting the attack with 4 only to give enough extra turn to my cap to "heal" and survive through but it has not happened anywhere as often. I even watched an AI just take me down 2-3 net dmg per turn with archers up until there would be enough harm to warrior zerg w/o casualties.

Again this may be because of the outstanding free production of deity AI and their starting army as well

 

[snarzberry]

It definitely isn't as bad as before...at least on deity I've had multiple turns 30-70 losses against a decently well organised warrior+ rush. Obv that was when trying to knock a super hardly tuned opener that basically involved luck on the peace side so I had no true defenses other than maybe Walls and my starting warrior but I've still seen the AI do much dmg to me.

Even watched a few opportunistic sneak attacks from the flank i left open because I had went to war on another end. Forced me to blow all of my gold into units and lose a wonder I was ahead to complete. I'm not saying they are never doing stupid stuff...like having 6 warriors coming and starting the attack with 4 only to give enough extra turn to my cap to "heal" and survive through but it has not happened anywhere as often. I even watched an AI just take me down 2-3 net dmg per turn with archers up until there would be enough harm to warrior zerg w/o casualties.

Again this may be because of the outstanding free production of deity AI and their starting army as well

Now after playing a larger amount of games I think I'm getting rushed on deity in the first 60 or 70 turns in about 1/3 of games. Most of the time I've been able to fight them off and it hasn't always spelt doom for my economy.

In my last game it was Nobunaga, he seems to be programmed to do it often along with Monty and Isabella (although that could just be my experience) and I was prepared for it all along as we were close neighbours. I still lost two fortified warriors to kamikaze attacks from wounded warriors and the bushido UA really gets on your nerves after a while!

I puppeted him once I upgraded my warriors and I never accepted his peace offerings during the build up so I never had to DoW either. I left him with one city for an exorbitant amount of gold for so early in the game , so diplomatically and economically his attack on me was a plus.

 

[joncnunn]

AI on AI wars: YES!

I'd been watching a war ongoing between 2 AIs where China had been losing cities every few turns prior to the patch.

With the patch: China never lost another city to the attacking AI even though they stayed at war the rest of the game.

As to Human on AI wars: I was able to easily conquer a couple of Chinese cities and get a 3rd for peace after the Chinese AI was dumb enough to DOW me while they were still fighting that other civ. Personally didn't notice any difference but then again I had Tanks & Foreign Legions.

(The cities were very well developed; I annexed them as they came out of resistance cash and normal built 2 Court Houses only having to buy one since production was so good simply from shifting worker tiles)

is it me or are all post patch wars have basically turned into a stalemates?
i can't seem to get a decisive victory but i never really LOSE a war where i HAVE to make peace to continue.

 

[Deau]

In my last game it was Nobunaga, he seems to be programmed to do it often along with Monty and Isabella (although that could just be my experience) and I was prepared for it all along as we were close neighbours. I still lost two fortified warriors to kamikaze attacks from wounded warriors and the bushido UA really gets on your nerves after a while!

Isabella's "seemingly flavour for DoWs" comes mostly from her ******** gold gain from UA in the early game. Since wealth counts towards total military for the new operational DoWs calculations, this has had a significant change on her early game behavior.

And yeah I've been having trouble w Oda as well, RAs never go through -_-.

 

[CMKMStephens]

I've been playing as as France at Emperor on a large map. Basically I got my own continent to my self (about 1/5th of the land area). Not a very good one, lots of silver but not much else.

I was actually first to get to the Renaissance (which is uncommon), but unfortunately once I had established relations with the other two continents, Hiawatha had gone complete runaway on one of them. Now I'm getting left behind having just gotten into the industrial age and him reaching the modern. Thanks to his blasted AI bonuses he has a dozen 10+ cities and apparently 50+ happiness - obviously teching and making gold faster. I'm not sure where the game is going to go playing it out.

I've noticed far far more denouncing after the patch, though fortunately I am somehow friendly with everyone.

 

[SilkwormTR]

In my last game (standard size pangae standard speed immortal) my neighbour was Monty. As it happens he attacked pretty early but thanks to my upgraded scout/archer, I was able to defend myself.

Then I decided to leave him for last. He is not a tech whore, he is a warmonger and does not ally with city states, he will not go for a cultural or diplo or science win, so I decided to focus on a possibly bigger threat such as Rome. I got beaten by Rome pretty good a few times, as they tend to go good in tech and usually build many cities. I choked Rome off while leaving the defense of my capital to 2 immortals and an archer. And as expected just when my main army was on the opening turns with Rome, he attacked again with several jaguars and archers and a few swordsman. I dispatched the jaguars and even though we were at war pretty much for another 20 turns, there was no danger.

I kept Monty at bay through the rest of the game, he spawned many cities and attacked me a few times but it was easy to defend my capital with a catapult/trebuchet/cannon and a few immortals. I focused on other opponents and by the time it was Monty's turn, even though I was running a meager 450 beaker/turn, and almost no RA's (thats what happens when you are fghting with 4 civs at the same time) I had artillery and mech infantry, and he only had rifleman.

I think its better to choose your first two opponents. If a tech whore like Siam is far away, and you can not kill them by turn 200, the chances of a domination win is very slim.

 

[Deau]

so I decided to focus on a possibly bigger threat such as Rome. I got beaten by Rome pretty good a few times, as they tend to go good in tech and usually build many cities.

I think its better to choose your first two opponents. If a tech whore like Siam is far away, and you can not kill them by turn 200, the chances of a domination win is very slim.

I've had completely awkward games with Rome. He's either dead bottom or turns to be so powerful he could win by dom/science/culture all on the same damn turn. I had a game where he REXed so much and had litterally no early wars and I turned turn 120 with my 14 rifleman army (which is usually a very solid landsknetch->rifle rush that can deliver a solid 50 turns of rifle vs LS/musketmans)...and Caesar had 55% tech on that turn 120 (which is usually attained by top civ around turn 175 on deity). He was outteching my flawlessly tuned double sling...I just couldn't believe it!

and I usually feel like there is a "deadzone" for warmongering. Obviously initial targets will change the face of the game, but any succesful first 2 rushes will usually grant you a winnable position. The deal is up until happiness is fixed, puppets are back on track and you have put the warmongering wealth to CS spam w/ scholasticism, you then are in a trailing position. Yet, the position resolves itself excepted really if you did let a civ that was leading in nearly everything "go on it's own" aka not bribe others to war it and vice versa.

Anyway my point is, even with awful choice w/ regards to first civs to attacks, if you are patient through the seemingly bad position where you are catching up through the strength of new puppets&CSs, you should still have a pretty winnable game on turn 200. You might be forced to shift away from total dom plans but still winnable through science or the joke diplo victory.

 

[ljofthemm]

I am really impressed with the AI in the new patch. Just played a game as Persia on a standard fractal map with 11 civs and 16 CSs. Greece took out Polynesia and the Iroquios to dominate their continent, then went off on an insane tech lead by using patronage and allying with every CS save the one I had as my ally (they were at war with me for thousands of years). I actually have a larger land empire than they do, but I shared a continent with 5 other civs after eliminating the Ottomans. It was an enjoyable game even though Greece got the diplo victory.

 

[Civsassin]

Now that I've had a chance to observe AI patterns post patch, I've noticed that the CS AI tends more to raze cities it captures. I've seen more times when it's razed than when its kept the city. I don't recall seeing this happen pre patch unless the CS AI had more than one city. At that point, it seemed to raze all others. However, now it is razing even a second city.

Has anyone else noticed this, and does anyone know what the logic is behind the AI's actions?

 

[Deau]

Now that I've had a chance to observe AI patterns post patch, I've noticed that the CS AI tends more to raze cities it captures. I've seen more times when it's razed than when its kept the city. I don't recall seeing this happen pre patch unless the CS AI had more than one city. At that point, it seemed to raze all others. However, now it is razing even a second city.

Has anyone else noticed this, and does anyone know what the logic is behind the AI's actions?

I noticed it as well. I was actually quite pissed to not get an always appreciated BPT buff from patronage after I watched one of my allied CS tear the empty flank of one of my opponents

 

[Dizzy75]

One thing that is (still) silly and annoying:

I play as Babylon, Catherine is to my west, and Monty to the north. Monty starts expanding south, between us (but closer to Cathy than to me).

Catherine asks to join forces and DOW Monty. I'm not quite ready, but I choose the 10-turn wait, since I was planning to attack him, anyway.

The time comes and I "honorably" agree to declare war. I take both of Monty's expansion cities and puppet them, with not much help from Cathy's warriors. Somehow, she turns "Guarded" and then "Hostile," then denounces me - while we're still military allies in the middle of a war! I'm sure it's because of the proximity of my puppets to her borders, but still - the reason I took them was because she ASKED me to!

 

[joncnunn]

Yes, it's because your puppets are on her borders.
What she really wanted you to do was kill Monty's units but not take his cities. (Or at least immediately gifting to her any cities near her you took.)

(Of note there are quite a few instances during WW II in which the USSR requested their allies NOT enter specific German held cities that the USSR regarded as in their sphere of influence).

One thing that is (still) silly and annoying:

I play as Babylon, Catherine is to my west, and Monty to the north. Monty starts expanding south, between us (but closer to Cathy than to me).

Catherine asks to join forces and DOW Monty. I'm not quite ready, but I choose the 10-turn wait, since I was planning to attack him, anyway.

The time comes and I "honorably" agree to declare war. I take both of Monty's expansion cities and puppet them, with not much help from Cathy's warriors. Somehow, she turns "Guarded" and then "Hostile," then denounces me - while we're still military allies in the middle of a war! I'm sure it's because of the proximity of my puppets to her borders, but still - the reason I took them was because she ASKED me to!

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Anyone else notice the AI being much less generous with peace deals? I've had situations where I have a vastly advanced army that just took three-quarters of both an AI's military and empire. And the AI still insists on a neutral peace treaty.

 

[Deau]

Anyone else notice the AI being much less generous with peace deals? I've had situations where I have a vastly advanced army that just took three-quarters of both an AI's military and empire. And the AI still insists on a neutral peace treaty.

it depends on state of your relationship beyond the war itself. Generally beyond the first 2 wars in a game, since you get warmonger title it becomes increasingly hard to settle peace for anything really. I don't know if it came in .275 I had not played enough deity warmongering pre .275 but usually when an AI has legitimate reasons to think you will attack him again after the treaty expires, he won't give tributes.

I think there was a "what stop the tributes" thread out a week or two ago where everyone added experiences and exceptions and whatnot

In a sense it's kinda stupid but it prevents abuses like a 7 turn war to get a huge peace treaty whenever you have a clear advantage over an enemy you had attacked earlier. It more or less turns into a "if the AI thinks the tribute won't settle peace once and for all, it won't pay anything.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I don't know if it came in .275 I had not played enough deity warmongering pre .275 but usually when an AI has legitimate reasons to think you will attack him again after the treaty expires, he won't give tributes.

Alright, fair enough. But really, I would have been happy with just trading and RAs after the wars. They did get what was coming to them though.

 

[KevinMiles90000]

is there any difference between choosing "get over it" and whatever other option there is when another civ complains about something?

 

[Deau]

is there any difference between choosing "get over it" and whatever other option there is when another civ complains about something?

cough "we're sorry that this has caused a divide between us". It is the most unclear double alternative diplomacy issue. There has to be a difference...

My feel/idea is that the condescending comment itself has no diplomatic effect; it is just a mix of the chattiness and meanness flavours of an AI that reflects verbally the current diplomacy (i.e. the trade/question opens up after a change but the question itself only has other diplomatic effects based on the answer). In such case, if you apologies, you get no additionnal penalty to your current relationship whereas if you answer get over it or you will pay for this depending on the type of unclear comment, you get an additionnal penalty further deteriorating your relationship with the given civ

That's my 2cent though

 

[KevinMiles90000]

cough "we're sorry that this has caused a divide between us". It is the most unclear double alternative diplomacy issue. There has to be a difference...

My feel/idea is that the condescending comment itself has no diplomatic effect; it is just a mix of the chattiness and meanness flavours of an AI that reflects verbally the current diplomacy (i.e. the trade/question opens up after a change but the question itself only has other diplomatic effects based on the answer). In such case, if you apologies, you get no additionnal penalty to your current relationship whereas if you answer get over it or you will pay for this depending on the type of unclear comment, you get an additionnal penalty further deteriorating your relationship with the given civ

That's my 2cent though

I wish there was a way to turn off the "sorry we attacked a CS that you previously allied with". I feel like this is 50% of the diplomatic screens that come up and is completely useless.