 |
|
Mongoloid Cow
|
|
Destroy the roads connecting their important resources with their cities, so they cannot replace the units you destroy. And the attacker evens the score. A successful attack in the modern age would require simultaneously conducting air raids, destroying resource and transport roads, and using tanks to take out the easy objectives, and using them to sheild your artillery from the enemy (remember they can capture catapults, cannons, etc.) Doing too much or too little would give the defenders the advantage. And failing to have enough defense in the conquered cities could see a successful counter-attack.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999 time: 00:15
|
|
Mongoloid Cow
quote: Destroy the roads connecting their important resources with their cities, so they cannot replace the units you destroy. |
they might not be able to rebuild the more sophisticated units in the cities the attacker besieges, but they can use the draft to quickly get cheap defenders and then they can also bring up reinforcements close to the battle on their road/rail system
quote: A successful attack in the modern age would require simultaneously conducting air raids, destroying resource and transport roads, and using tanks to take out the easy objectives, |
i agree about the air raids and destroying the transportation network, but before airpower i think the attacker will have trouble
first if both sides have equal tech, then i don't see how an attacker could cut the defenders transportation network without a fair amount of cunning, something which i am afraid the AI will lack
quote: using them to sheild your artillery from the enemy (remember they can capture catapults, cannons, etc.) |
if the defender has bombard units, especially bombard units on fortified hills, then they will have a range advantage against other bombard units of the same type, plus until howitzers i'm sure catapults, cannons, and artillary have a movement of 1, giving the defender the first shot...plus as long as the defender has their bombard units stacked with normal combat units they are safe from capture
quote: And failing to have enough defense in the conquered cities could see a successful counter-attack. |
exactly!
all in all pulling off an attack against a defender of equal strength with take skill, will the AI be up to the task?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
cort
|
|
quote: Originally posted by korn469
Will the AI know to do that? My worst fear is that the AI sends army after army with cutting off my ability to reinforce my front, and then ends up losing its massive armies.
So in your opinion will the AI be an Atilla the Hun or will it be a George Pickett (Pickett's charge)? What does the AI need to know for it to be successful on the attack? |
i am pretty sure that the AI will NOT BE CLEVER ENOUGH to perform such coordinated attacks.
it will cheat at higher difficulty levels; produce units at lower costs, probably transport them to fronts more easily than human player, even spawn units and all of those will contribute to a more challanging gameplay for the human player but they are all defensive issues.. since cheating will be much more obvious during an attack, i suggest not to expect much from AI assaults..
not to blame Fraxis though, current technology level does not permit that. think of the chess game; compared to civ, it is a far far simpler game and it takes super-duper computers to challange a human player..
|
|
|  |
 |
|
joer
|
 |
Frankfurt, Germany
Apr 2000 time: 05:15
|
|
One of the biggest advantages of the AI in the past (I am positive about SMAC, suspect about Civ II) was complete information. It knew where all of my units where, how big my defenses were, etc.
That became pretty stupid when certain tactics (hiding in fungus) and unit special abilities gave the advantage of making a unit invisible -- when the AI still always knew where it was. 
However, the SMAC AI was too stupid to take full advantage of that knowledge. Since it was incapable to coordinate attacks, it could not direct its forces towards cities which were nearly undefended. For me, the result was usually that all my big center cities were defended by one of the puniest, weakest unit possible -- I just counted on the fact that the AI would never get near my capital. 
So...I think a big question is whether or not the AI will have complete game information again, and if it's capable of drawing advantage out of it.
Even without too sophisticated tactics a la chop'n-drop, fast surprise attacks with combined forces against selected cities would mean BIG trouble for me. I am not sure if I can afford to defend every city with several of the latest defenders.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
albiedamned
|
|
Ellicott City, MD
Sep 2001 time: 00:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Crouchback
I have absolutely no hope of the AI managing complex combined attacks later on in the game, which has nothing to do with the changes in cheating but everything to do with the stupidity of silicon. That is why I'm glad to see the position of defenders strengthened, to help the AI stop me.
But, what about the earlier game when all the AI has to combine is catapults/cannons and PBI? That stage of AI warmongering might improve dramatically under the new system.
David |
Pardon my ignorance, but what is PBI?
My opinion on this whole debate is that we should not raise our expectations too high regarding the AI's ability to coordinate an attack. There's never been a game that had an AI that could strategize like a human. Nothing against the coders at Firaxis, but if they had achieved such a breakthrough I'm sure they would be bragging about it.
Having said that, I agree that defenders in general will have an easier time in Civ3 due to some of the changes (attackers can't use road networks, bombardment units can be captured etc.). I believe Firaxis realized how easy it was for human players to outsmart and demolish the AI. Since they realized it would be nearly impossible to give the AI the same strategic ability to attack, the next best option would be to enhance the defenders to make attacking harder for the human player.
So the AI probably still won't be able to attack us effectively, but we'll have a harder time attacking it. The overall effect is a game where war is just not as attractive an option. As a builder, I'm all in favor of that! The original Civ's were never intended to be war games, but many played them as such because it was so easy to beat the AI at war. Now I think the game will be much more about true civilization building, and not just civilization conquering.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
old dog
|
|
I don't expect the AI to be able to strategize like an experienced human. However, it is possible for the AI to have a "bank" of plausible strategies, and it is possible for the AI to vary amongst these strategies so as not to be too predictable.
Most of the worst problems arise from a)no strategy at all, just sending individual units forth to attack the nearest city, and b)having a single, predictable strategy which can be fully exploited by the experienced player.
One would hope that, if the strategy worked for the AI a few turns back, the odds of that same strategy being repeated would rise. If the strategy failed, the odds of repeating would drop.
The claim that city governors "learn" from your actions gives me hope that the AI military strategy will rise to at least this level. Add in the "tilted playing field" of an AI advantage (at higher levels) in production and tech development, and you have yourself a very competitive game.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15. Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|