 |
| |
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
(Responding to a post Theseus made in the AU Mod thread and to a couple responses to it by vmxa1)
With the AU Mod, the Military Academy does not require a victorious army to build and it produces a free army every 25 turns. Therefore, AIs do end up with armies.
Whether they use them or not, however, depends on their composition. In AU 503, the only AI armies I ran into were single-unit cavalry armies parked in the Viking capital. When the first unit in an army is a cavalry, nothing else can be added to it because no unit exists that can match a cavalry army's movement rate of four. As a result, the army actually hurts the AI by causing cavalry to sit in a city as defenders waiting for the army to be fully populated instead of being available for offensive use.
But in AU 601, I got to watch a few AI armies in offensive action. The compositions I remember are one guerilla and two cavalry, and one infantry and two tanks. The AIs even made use of the armies' free pillaging capability.
I do have a hypothesis as to what might account for the difference. In AU 503, the Vikings enjoyed an extended period of peace before I took them out in a rapid blitz. As a result, they had a few cavalry left over from earlier in the game that they could use to start armies, and those cavalry were at home in their cities rather than out fighting.
In contrast, in AU 601, there was a period of several centuries in which I kept the AIs involved in almost constant wars with the rest of the world ganging up on a single civ. That situation sent most if not all of the AI cavalry reserves out in the field where they died, and after Replaceable Parts, AIs prefer infantry or guerillas as offensive units. So as new armies were turned out by the Military Academy after Replaceable Parts, their initial unit was a guerilla or infantry, making it possible to add cavalry or tanks to complete the army into something useful. I don't know where the cavalry came from to finish out the armies that included them, but as I recall, two AIs came up with them somewhere, somehow.
Note that under this hypothesis, an AI that loses its cavalry in a war fairly shortly after Replaceable Parts becomes available is likely to have useful armies once tanks become available if not before, while an AI that stays at peace and holds onto a significant cavalry force is more likely to waste its armies initially populating them with cavalry. Thus, the general tone of the game would have a serious impact on whether offensive AI armies will be seen.
Is this hypothesis right? I don't know. At the moment, I'm basing it on only two games, which is not anywhere near enough to develop a scientifically sound conclusion. It would be interesting to hear from others regarding AU Mod games where they have or have not seen AI armies in the field to find out whether their games seem to fit my hypothesis.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The pirate
|
|
Just finished a game with the AU mod, standard size, pangea. It seemed most of the AIs had a number of armies in the capital, but only one had more than 1 unit. I dont even remember what the 2 unit army was, I was steam rollering with Tank armies and arts. I doesnt matter what your up against with those..
Got most of my armies from MGLs though.
Got to admit the omission of MA, although harsh, appeals to me - surgery for cancer.
and I havent even started on artillery....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mad Bomber
|
 |
Columbus, Ohio
Nov 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
With the AU Mod, the Military Academy does not require a victorious army to build and it produces a free army every 25 turns. Therefore, AIs do end up with armies.
Whether they use them or not, however, depends on their composition. In AU 503, the only AI armies I ran into were single-unit cavalry armies parked in the Viking capital. When the first unit in an army is a cavalry, nothing else can be added to it because no unit exists that can match a cavalry army's movement rate of four. As a result, the army actually hurts the AI by causing cavalry to sit in a city as defenders waiting for the army to be fully populated instead of being available for offensive use.
But in AU 601, I got to watch a few AI armies in offensive action. The compositions I remember are one guerilla and two cavalry, and one infantry and two tanks. The AIs even made use of the armies' free pillaging capability.
I do have a hypothesis as to what might account for the difference. In AU 503, the Vikings enjoyed an extended period of peace before I took them out in a rapid blitz. As a result, they had a few cavalry left over from earlier in the game that they could use to start armies, and those cavalry were at home in their cities rather than out fighting.
In contrast, in AU 601, there was a period of several centuries in which I kept the AIs involved in almost constant wars with the rest of the world ganging up on a single civ. That situation sent most if not all of the AI cavalry reserves out in the field where they died, and after Replaceable Parts, AIs prefer infantry or guerillas as offensive units. So as new armies were turned out by the Military Academy after Replaceable Parts, their initial unit was a guerilla or infantry, making it possible to add cavalry or tanks to complete the army into something useful. I don't know where the cavalry came from to finish out the armies that included them, but as I recall, two AIs came up with them somewhere, somehow.
Note that under this hypothesis, an AI that loses its cavalry in a war fairly shortly after Replaceable Parts becomes available is likely to have useful armies once tanks become available if not before, while an AI that stays at peace and holds onto a significant cavalry force is more likely to waste its armies initially populating them with cavalry. Thus, the general tone of the game would have a serious impact on whether offensive AI armies will be seen.
Is this hypothesis right? I don't know. At the moment, I'm basing it on only two games, which is not anywhere near enough to develop a scientifically sound conclusion. It would be interesting to hear from others regarding AU Mod games where they have or have not seen AI armies in the field to find out whether their games seem to fit my hypothesis.
Nathan |
I made some comparable modifications in my personal scenerio and I am seeing results similar to yours (Palace produces an army every 100 turns, and the M. Academy produces one every 10 turns). From what I have observed (in limited games) is that the AI has the Army kept in the capitol until the army is completely filled with units tasked with the offensive role, once the army is filled then it sends the army out to attack. the overall results are encouraging; but only to a point. The AI will not be able to build armies as good as the human player does without a new patch which adresses the AI army behavior.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
After playing more games under C3C (AU 601 as Rome anyone?), and after player1's discovery that the AI does not populate Armies with a slower unit than the speed of the Army, I am more convinced than ever that Armies are seriously broken in C3C and need a drastic change to be fixed.
So since it looks like there will be no other patch any time soon, what would you think about this drastic change: Reduce Army transport capacity to 1!
This change has been suggested before (I think it was lockstep [edit: ducki], although he suggested a reduction by 1), but back then we had not yet discovered how broken Armies were in C3C.
Pros:
1) Strategic choice of what to do with an MGL. It's no longer a no-brainer to make an Army. Perhaps we will see more Palace moves, or even city improvement rushes.
2) Vast improvement of the AI. The AI no longer has the problem of using Armies once it gets them, since 1 unit is all that can be loaded. Also, unlike what happens now, the AI will have no problem attacking 1-unit armies since they do not get more HP than a regular unit.
Cons
1) Definitely a big change
2) Armies in C3C are fun, as long as you are the one using them.
I think that just the movement bonus to a unit will be worthwhile, and will give a nice dilema of what to do with an MGL. In order to give back some of the benefit lost by militaristic civs, I propose to decrease the number of cities required for an Army to 1. The Military Academy might need a small boost as well. Perhaps more frequent Army spawning.
What do you think?
Last edited by alexman on 09-09-2004 at 23:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The pirate
|
|
I assume the +1 move is hard coded and not editable?
I am at work and cant check.
Stupid question: I am sure it would have been the first thing player1 checked on discovering the reason they dont get filled.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
You could still use the The Pentagon to make 2-unit Armies, right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
On the Pentagon allowing an extra unit, my thinking was no, but I'm not sure. It would become an even more powerful wonder by doubling the units in an Army... [edit: not to mention that the AI would have the same problem populating its Armies]
Player1, you can always disband your obsolete Armies to get new ones. You don't even need the MA to abuse the AI with Armies as they currently are, since MGLs usually come very easily in the Industrial Age.
Last edited by alexman on 10-09-2004 at 01:01
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-03-2004 09:48
]
This is as big a change as my "replace all artillery units with 'Assault' units" change, yet simpler because it is just an editor tweak (no complications of adding new units to the game)! 
as ..., but worthy of saving the post on the computer and making a printout.
|