 |
| |
|
|
bad0cat
|
 |
Austin, TX
Dec 2000
time: 05:20
|
|
OK, I have been griping about the same military issues in CIV since before CTP and they still haven't (for the most part) been fixed. Firaxis - this is not a whine/flame - just constructive criticism 
Granted, MP is all about human vs human but most games will involve computer opponents to round out the game, so I really think these things should be fixed before the PTW release - they wouldn't be that hard to code into the AI.
BASIC MILITARY CONCEPTS THE AI STILL DOESNT GRASP:
1) On a map with a decent amount of water and seperation between continents, one battleship is worth 10 infantry. This is a no-brainer to humans but the AI still can't grasp the most basic naval concepts. Coastlines need to be garrisoned with ships, troop carriers should be escorted, and most importantly - aggresors can't launch a massive land assault if they can't make it to your shores allive.
-fix-
Geography desperately needs to be part of the AI calculations for building and deploying troops. On a "continent/island" map, naval units should be integral to a civ's military. This makes for a better game and is also more historically accurate.
2) The AI still doesn't seem to get that some units are offensive and others are defensive. It will often throw stacks of infantry headlong against fortified tanks in a vain effort to counter attack, when these infantry would be far better off defending cities. By the same token, some civs will build disproportionate numbers of cavalry and tanks and use them only to garison cities... ? 
-fix-
Flag units as either defensive or offensive. Have the AI build the appropriate units for its overall strategy. Then, more importantly, they must USE the units accordingly in combat. Currently, the AI will often EMPTY towns in a ridiculous effort to fight a stack of advancing units that is fortified in mountains.... 
OK - there are other areas that I think the military AI could improve but these are the "big two". Both of these changes could be implemented with little to moderate work on the AI and would make for a much more interesting MP and SP game.
Thoughts anyone?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:20
|
|
I must confess that I haven't seen the AI problems that you have seen in Civ3. Well, not all the time, anyway! Certainly the AI makes stupid mistakes from time to time, but not with the regularity it did in Civ2! It has also improved, in general with each new patch! This is what I have noticed which is positive!
1) I have seen examples of transports being escorted by destroyers and battleships! Hopefully this will be even better when proper stack movement comes into the game! I have noticed, however, that the AI is sometimes slow to intercept incoming naval units, and this is, hopefully, one area that the development team will improve in future patches!
2) Unlike Civ2, the AI in Civ3 seems to know the importance of massed attacks and combined arms tactics! I have seen massive invasions with a wide variety of units. It often brings along defensive units for garrison duty after it takes a city!
It also doesn't mindlessly attack heavily fortified cities like it did in civ2 (throwing away one unit after another!) Instead, this AI seems to like to undermine your civ by destroying valuable infrastructure and by softening up your cities with bombardment! Overall, I can't complain about the AI, especially compared to Civ2! That doesn't mean that it can't be improved, but I get the sense that Mike enjoys the challenge! I particualrly like the way the AI takes to using modded units, and seems to adjust it's strategy accordingly!
The best AI story I ever heard was in regards to a protracted war between the player and America. This war had essentially stabilised into a front line along their common border. Suddenly, the player noticed an American transport heading out to see with a destroyer escort. The player was in no position to stop it, so simply went back to fighting on the front!
After several turns, he suddenly realised that he was being attacked in his undefended rear by a combo of American tanks, marines and infantry! What had happened was that America had signed a RoP with the Chinese (who formed the players other border) and used the transport to circumnavigate the continent. This caused the player to lose several valuable cities before he could counterattack!! I have yet to see such a strategy myself but, if true, it just goes to show how much the AI has "matured" since Civ2!
This is definitely the kind of thing I like to see, though, bad0Cat: CONSTRUCTIVE criticism!! You actually offer perfectly reasonable fixes to problems you have seen with the AI, instead of just rubbishing the game (like some others who shall remain NAMELESS!)
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ShredZ
|
|
1) Ive never seen the AI move a transport thru the water without an escort (bb or destr.), just like Ive never seen them move a settler by himself.
2) I think once they have enough defender in their cities they just pump out units with the highest attack. But I agree those cities would be better off with a stack of 40 Infantry than to use them to attack...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
bad0cat
|
|
Austin, TX
Dec 2000
time: 05:20
|
|
Allow me to clarify some of my points:
First of all, Aussie is exactly right, the AI has improved tremendously since CIVII and overall I am very impressed.  It seems to suprise me with something new every time I play. As far as the two issues I raised here are my clarifications/adendums:
1) Navy - The AI does a decent job of escorting units now. Gone are the days of CTP where the computer would build empty aircraft carriers and sail them around aimlessly (  ) What I still don't think the AI "gets" is the importance of a navy on an island/continent map. I usually play island/small-continent games and the computer generally sticks to its usual build priorities of mainly cheap defensive units (riflemen, mech infantry, etc) and a poor if not not worthless navy. It would be far better off investing in a powerful navy - most human players realize this, the AI does not seem to. Even in maps with moderate amounts of water - once you control an entire continent, navy is more important than land units!
2) Offensive/Defensive units - Again you are correct, the AI does a far better job than it used to of using stacks of units and combined arms. I guess what I don't understand is this: Usually when I attack a CIV I will bring in 2 or 3 large stacks of units. I almost always keep them on hill or mountain tiles for defensive purposes. More often than not the computer will bring up a large stack of units to counter attack but will fail miserably because they are trying to counter attack with garison type (defensive) units like infantry and riflemen. So I just sit there for 2 or 3 turns and let computer bang its head against my assault force, then I casually stroll into the now near-empty cities. The computer would be far better off doing som "garison shuffle" and just sitting tight.
OK, hope this makes more sense now. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SomeOneElse
...and its not like humans arent known to make dumb mistakes too. makes the game seem realistic from time to time to see follies equivalent to rl maginot line or hitlers invasion of ussr |
hi ,
its intresting that the AI uses it panzers for a nice sneak attack , BUT , there is almost no air support , no artillery support , and the fast moving panzers leave their flanks unprotected to often , ....
they are acting just like humans , ....
or they come with stacks of cavalry , they thing they have a nice prey , buth in fact its an ambush , or a tactical set-up , just to slow them down , long enough to bring in the heavy guns , ....
yeah , the AI should think a bit more before he goes to attack you , .....
however , most times the AI declares war , and sent's what ever it has , after a while , mostly after 30 turns his Quality starts to improve , he start's to send his best units over , .....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:20
|
|
hi bad0cat,
You're absolutely right, the AI does still need tweaking, not just for the navy, but in general! Like I said earlier, though, this is a fact which I feel Mike appreciates, and certainly he relishes the challenge of making the AI a major challenge for the player! Also, because you offered constructive suggestions on how to tweak things, I'm almost certain that we'll see these kinds of tweaks in future patches.
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bad0cat
OK, I'll concede that the military AI is adequate (and yes, btw, I have played many games on deity and emporer). I still think it misuses units too much but overall it does a pretty good job - I'm jut nit-picking 
...BUT...
You have to admit that the AI does need some tweaking as far as navy goes. In every game I've ever played; once I control an entire continent I am never attacked again (well not succesfully anyway), because the computer doesn't build sea units like it should! |
hi ,
 > editor , civ , what does one build a lot , ....
 , and it even helps if you flag all the "build often" units and buildings , .....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bad0cat
. . .BASIC MILITARY CONCEPTS THE AI STILL DOESNT GRASP:
1) On a map with a decent amount of water and seperation between continents, one battleship is worth 10 infantry. This is a no-brainer to humans but the AI still can't grasp the most basic naval concepts. Coastlines need to be garrisoned with ships, troop carriers should be escorted, and most importantly - aggresors can't launch a massive land assault if they can't make it to your shores allive.
-fix-
Geography desperately needs to be part of the AI calculations for building and deploying troops. On a "continent/island" map, naval units should be integral to a civ's military. This makes for a better game and is also more historically accurate.
2) The AI still doesn't seem to get that some units are offensive and others are defensive. It will often throw stacks of infantry headlong against fortified tanks in a vain effort to counter attack, when these infantry would be far better off defending cities. By the same token, some civs will build disproportionate numbers of cavalry and tanks and use them only to garison cities... ?
-fix-
Flag units as either defensive or offensive. Have the AI build the appropriate units for its overall strategy. Then, more importantly, they must USE the units accordingly in combat. Currently, the AI will often EMPTY towns in a ridiculous effort to fight a stack of advancing units that is fortified in mountains....
OK - there are other areas that I think the military AI could improve but these are the "big two". Both of these changes could be implemented with little to moderate work on the AI and would make for a much more interesting MP and SP game.
Thoughts anyone? |
Actually, in one of the very few areas where the Civ 3 AI is slightly better than Civ 2 is naval escort. Civ 2 NEVER did it. In Civ 3 it sometimes does, a little. But still inadequate.
Naval warfare is a lame abstraction in Civ 3 even worse than in Civ 2.
The reason the AI throws stacks of infantry is because of two reasons: the AI has no idea how to use artillery offensively, and there is no Shock Troops unit - the offensive foot soldiers that were first introduced in 1917 and would have a higher attack strength than infantry.
Units can be flagged offensive or defensive in the Editor. With 1.21 the AI flagged infantry as offensive as the game lacks that Shock Troops unit and they had no choice, but they still need to use artillery on the offensive.
quote:
and its not like humans arent known to make dumb mistakes too. makes the game seem realistic from time to time to see follies equivalent to rl maginot line or hitlers invasion of ussr |
The Maginot Line was not a tactical mistake. Hitler's invasion of the USSR almost worked.
As for the AI, the difference is the human learns; this AI in the same game does not and repeats the same stupidity over and over. The programmers could learn and fix it, but nah. They won't. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-06-2002 10:35
|