Wars and the AI

[twersx]

There's a number of problems of the martial AI, but one of my biggest gripes is this; If i'm ripping an opponents army apart so much that he's producing new units to get killed every few turns, shouldn't the war be in my favour? Recently, as babylon, I got to the modern age much before anyone else. Caesar defiled my continent with his city so I went to war and razed it. I destroyed a few renaissance units that were on the continent and waited. Eventually, he started sending more units. my mechanized infantry were taking his muskets and rifles down with impunity. And he still sent more. He must have been spending all his production on units which were just getting killed. And his peace deals demanded concessions from me! If I compare a recent game where I played as caesar, Isabella DOWd me so i destroyed her army with legions and razed barcelona. Her army now non existant, she offered a lot of stuff for peace. I think the main difference was that with Isabella, my units could threaten her cities; as babylon, i had virtually no navy so I couldn't attack caesar. However, if the Germans had destroyed the BEF at Dunkirk, I would think that the British would offer concessions for peace.

Suggestions; implement a track of kill ratios so that if i lose no units and the other leader loses dozens, they should want to make peace.

Have some sort of food or happiness penalty for making units during war. If I was killing hundreds of thousands of men, then that means a city is losing population like it has the plague. the idea that people in the empire are chilled with their countrymen dying on a foreign continent for nothing is ridiculous. perhaps a 1 unhappiness penalty while building military units?

[VicRatlhead51]

Knowing how AI Ceased plays I'm willing to bet he had a carpet of troops on his continent before the war even started. The AI is dumb and cant seem to put together any other tactic than swarming. Hopefully the expansion makes them smarter. I know what you mean about peace negotiations though. Sometimes they'll give you anything for a peace treaty, sometimes they'll make demands when they're losing and very rarely will they give in to demands even when you'll obviously sack their capital on the next turn. Since it's a program I'm sure there's some kind of reasoning behind the AI choices. I just haven't figured them out yet.

I don't really like the idea of the penalties for war though. Look at it this way. He lost all the production spent on those troops. I think that's enough penalty all on its own. Besides the happiness wouldn't hurt the AI since they already get bonuses to happiness. It would only hurt players and that just puts us at even more of a disadvantage than we need.

[Machturbo]

From my experience, I've had a problem with this too. In my last few games, I rarely built units, or at all. Once I get Brandenburg Gate, Military Academy, and Heroic Statue built in my capital, I'll spam out 8-20 pikemen (I love the +100% for Foreign Legion when fighting against cavalry, and yes I mainly play as France.). I'm usually in at least one war by then, or if I'm lucky enough, since 3000 BC because the AI just hates me. (Harun and Hiawatha love to go to war with me in 3000 BC which annoys me to no end.) From what I noticed, if I have no military or two units, they'll make huge demands from me, even if I slaughter their units. Once I build my military, they ask for peace or give me a few things. I had a run in with Siam, he declared, 10 turns or so later, he gave me all his money (900ish) and 27 GPT. So from what I've seen, they base it on military power, not how many units they lose.

[leliel]

I believe (although I might be wrong...) that AI uses some Civ IV based algorithm to compute military power. Roughly, give each unit type a value, modify with promotion. Given these numbers, sum up total number of units to calculate "sheer military power" per nation. That somewhat would work with Civ IV where combined army power could represent (again, roughly) the actual military power (stacks of death). In Civ V a few well placed advanced and experienced units can create unconquerable spot. AI seems to fail with calculating that into account. Positioning, terrain and correct types of units with 1UPT makes this "combined military power" schema obsolete.

[VicRatlhead51]

I believe (although I might be wrong...) that AI uses some Civ IV based algorithm to compute military power. Roughly, give each unit type a value, modify with promotion. Given these numbers, sum up total number of units to calculate "sheer military power" per nation. That somewhat would work with Civ IV where combined army power could represent (again, roughly) the actual military power (stacks of death). In Civ V a few well placed advanced and experienced units can create unconquerable spot. AI seems to fail with calculating that into account. Positioning, terrain and correct types of units with 1UPT makes this "combined military power" schema obsolete.

Sounds about right. It would work most of the time but they need to add something that takes threats to their own cities into account. Quite often I'll be at war with a civ on the verge of taking a city and they ask for peace. I'll demand a luxury they have multiplies of and they refuse. They'll continue refusing until their entire civ is obliterated. Funny, I'm just going for a space VC and would have let them live if they'd just given me their spices.

[twersx]

I don't really like the idea of the penalties for war though. Look at it this way. He lost all the production spent on those troops. I think that's enough penalty all on its own. Besides the happiness wouldn't hurt the AI since they already get bonuses to happiness. It would only hurt players and that just puts us at even more of a disadvantage than we need.

You're probably right, i've just been playing too much Paradox. In their games, beating armies can get you a white peace. Something similar would be great; as it is, they'll jsut send their population off to die because I can't reach them myself.

Another recent experience was this: I shared a continent with napoleon, Alexander and Nobunaga, and Alexander set to work on winning over those city states. Nobunaga would routinely (three times in total) declare war on me, move his horde of brutes into my forests (playing as Hiawatha) and my Mohawks would tear them apart. Each time, Nobunaga (and later napoleon) would offer a peace with no strings attached. And then, they didn't hate me for the war. Apart from the part where they "deceptively" backstabbed me. it was quite annoying and only threatening the first time. Alexander attacked me and I killed some units, demanded some luxes and he hated me for the war. So I think not demanding anything when you could makes the AI friendlier, although it does nothing to curb their natural aggressiveness. The only reason I didn't have constant wars throughout the medieval period was because Alexander was busy eating the other two up. And now we're at war with every city state on his side. Every single one. Quite tough.

[VicRatlhead51]

Sounds pretty typical. Alex seems to occupy himself and stay friendly early on then seems to get bored and starts declaring wars on anyone near. Especially if you start buying up city States. Napoleon and Nobunaga are both warmongers most of the game. The funny thing is the warmonger civs usually seem to weaken themselves by going to war more often than they can afford. I frequently play games where Nobunaga and Montezuma wind up the weakest civs on the map because they go to war more than they can afford. I wonder if the better AI in the expansion will make these guys more of a threat. I mean I've had more epic wars with Ghandi than Montezuma, it's kind of backwards.

[twersx]

I was thinking of City states because I need diplo achievement for steam, but when i saw that Alex was allied with every city state on my continent, I gave up. Never touched a city state that Alex had already invested in. They were all at war with me at one point but they all hated each other. Napoleon and Nobunaga kept asking me to team up against the other, but never against alexander, who I realised was a bigger threat than both of the combined.

Warmongers need to build up more. Washington often has big armies if he's left alone but if not, he'll get crushed. In addition, there needs to be an anti-steamroll mechanic. Taking cities should be much harder (long term, not actually assaulting; holding I suppose) and there should be more incentives to annex if you don't care about culture.The fact that the AI always puppets really annoys me. They never raze or annex. ever. Perhaps a penalty to outputs from puppet cities?

[Machturbo]

I've seen them raze. It's not a thing that happens all the time, but they do it. Granted to incentives for razing... Oh wait... There are none. I've even seen a city state keep a conquered city. But really, the only way to get an incentive is going through Autocracy, which by that time, I've already grabbed and completed Freedom, which is far better.

The only people that I usually have decent wars with seem to be the peace lovers like Gandhi or Siam. Personally, I hate when I war with Gandhi in the modern era. Nukes go everywhere. Although, in my last ten games, I haven't seen really any AI nuke, aside for maybe one time.

[VicRatlhead51]

I've seen them raze. It's not a thing that happens all the time, but they do it. Granted to incentives for razing... Oh wait... There are none. I've even seen a city state keep a conquered city. But really, the only way to get an incentive is going through Autocracy, which by that time, I've already grabbed and completed Freedom, which is far better.

The only people that I usually have decent wars with seem to be the peace lovers like Gandhi or Siam. Personally, I hate when I war with Gandhi in the modern era. Nukes go everywhere. Although, in my last ten games, I haven't seen really any AI nuke, aside for maybe one time.

I know what you mean I've had some wicked wars with Siam. I don't tend to build a lot of pikemen normally and the mideval era against Siam can be ugly if you don't have a small army of pikemen. Those elephants can be nasty. And yeah, Ghandi's UA allows him to stay peaceful, have a small empire and still keep up with tech. He can be a pain to take out at the end for sure. Like I said it's wierd but the most memorable wars I've had have been with the peaceful civs. Japan should be hard to beat because of the UA but he wastes everything on early wars where he accomplishes nothing. He always seems to be a pushover to beat at the end. That's exactly how my current game is going. He's got Samurai and trebuchets fighting my artillery and infantry. Oh, if they get nukes they use em. Even on cities they plan to retake. I had Ceaser bomb me multiple times one game, it was rough.

[Uncle Anton]

There's a number of problems of the martial AI, but one of my biggest gripes is this; If i'm ripping an opponents army apart so much that he's producing new units to get killed every few turns, shouldn't the war be in my favour? Recently, as babylon, I got to the modern age much before anyone else. Caesar defiled my continent with his city so I went to war and razed it. I destroyed a few renaissance units that were on the continent and waited. Eventually, he started sending more units. my mechanized infantry were taking his muskets and rifles down with impunity. And he still sent more. He must have been spending all his production on units which were just getting killed. And his peace deals demanded concessions from me! If I compare a recent game where I played as caesar, Isabella DOWd me so i destroyed her army with legions and razed barcelona. Her army now non existant, she offered a lot of stuff for peace. I think the main difference was that with Isabella, my units could threaten her cities; as babylon, i had virtually no navy so I couldn't attack caesar. However, if the Germans had destroyed the BEF at Dunkirk, I would think that the British would offer concessions for peace.

Suggestions; implement a track of kill ratios so that if i lose no units and the other leader loses dozens, they should want to make peace.

Have some sort of food or happiness penalty for making units during war. If I was killing hundreds of thousands of men, then that means a city is losing population like it has the plague. the idea that people in the empire are chilled with their countrymen dying on a foreign continent for nothing is ridiculous. perhaps a 1 unhappiness penalty while building military units?

If I understand your post correctly, you're wondering why the AI doesn't count itself as losing because it's walking into a prepped killzone?

It's a fair enough question, although it's something I've noticed in more Civ games than just this one. Basically it doesn't matter how slaughterific your killzone is, or how one sided the engagement is, the AI won't consider themselves as "losing" until you take that engagement to their doorstep. Even the old Civ 4 AI on Dogpile or Total would behave in this way. The only way to bring the AI to heel politically? Rock up on their turf (even if it's a colony or outlying city), give it and every unit and improvement around it the Sodom and Gamorrah treatment, then pull back; the AI will be screaming for peace like a schoolgirl being violated by a polar bear.

[VicRatlhead51]

Rock up on their turf (even if it's a colony or outlying city), give it and every unit and improvement around it the Sodom and Gamorrah treatment, then pull back; the AI will be screaming for peace like a schoolgirl being violated by a polar bear.

That analogy is hilarious.

[Magic_Hotdog]

The early rushers become more powerful as you move up in difficulty.

[chrisjwmartin]

the AI will be screaming for peace like a schoolgirl being violated by a polar bear.

It's true - in my experience, schoolgirls scream REALLY loud when being violated by polar bears. By pandas, not so much.

[twersx]

But as the Iroquois, you have such an unbelievable advantage on home forest turf that it feels like you're being neutered if you leave it. And I only have the problem when the AI has managed to get a ridiculous war machine going and can build a new army before mine can heal. Which means I can't attack because his new army will overwhelm mine.

Ugh, just so stubborn and childish these leaders. You swing a punch at them, they bring out the assault rifles and nukes and throw them at you as you melt them then just keep throwing.

And in my experience, Siam is peaceful for an era or two then gets really angry over trivial things and DOWs you with this looks of rage that could kill... something...

One more gripe is this; you start pushing your territory north, and then Oda comes along and settles in your way. 15 turns later, you've settled too near to him and he covets your lands. Can't the AI ever be satisfied with their lands? Just be like post 1945 Germany and focus on improving its own damn country, in a way that we can all appreciate?

[Magic_Hotdog]

One of your neighbors will always covet your land. Sometimes a non-neighbor too. And every AI will hypocritically think you a war-monger when you are simply defending your land while rejecting unequal treaties.

Take this as a lesson: never feel remorse for being a genocidal maniac. They all deserve to die.

[VicRatlhead51]

One more gripe is this; you start pushing your territory north, and then Oda comes along and settles in your way. 15 turns later, you've settled too near to him and he covets your lands. Can't the AI ever be satisfied with their lands? Just be like post 1945 Germany and focus on improving its own damn country, in a way that we can all appreciate?

Funny this exact scenario just happened to me in the game I'm playing now. Oda settled his second city directly north of my capital and constantly denounces me saying my cities a a plague even though I'm playing a culture game and only have 4 cities. I finally wiped him out in the modern era after India, Polynesia and Arabia had their way with him first of course.

[tfordp]

...And every AI will hypocritically think you a war-monger when you are simply defending your land while rejecting unequal treaties.

What utter nonsense.

You will never get a negative diplo-hit for defending your lands. If by defending your lands you mean destroying the civ that attacked you, then yes you *might* but you deserve it. That is no longer defensive, that is very offensive.

Rejecting treaties or trades will also never get you a negative diplo-hit.

[VicRatlhead51]

What utter nonsense.

You will never get a negative diplo-hit for defending your lands. If by defending your lands you mean destroying the civ that attacked you, then yes you *might* but you deserve it. That is no longer defensive, that is very offensive.

Rejecting treaties or trades will also never get you a negative diplo-hit.

I think hes right. I don't even think retaliation by sacking a couple cities will hurt if they're the aggressor. The thing that will hurt is taking their capital that usually changes opinions fast.

[twersx]

Yeah, you're fine if you massacre their entire population but if you take their capital? You're a monster on a never before seen scale.

[Magic_Hotdog]

What utter nonsense.

You will never get a negative diplo-hit for defending your lands. If by defending your lands you mean destroying the civ that attacked you, then yes you *might* but you deserve it. That is no longer defensive, that is very offensive.

Rejecting treaties or trades will also never get you a negative diplo-hit.

Blah blah blah... whatever. My point stands. They still deserve to burn.

Whenever someone decides to reinterpret our friendship, the only way to make things right is to make sure that he/she takes my interpretation up his/her colon.

[tfordp]

Yeah, congratulations on understanding the game.