 |
| |
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
A little observation about the way AI builds nukes. Generally, it does not, that's the observation  .
Note: I decreasedprice for both the Tac. Nuke and ICBM to make them stronger.
When an AI civ has reached tech level where it can build a nuke, it often will, but usually stops at low numbers of Nukes, such as 1 or 2. And maybe that's OK, the AI shouldn't be building nukes as long as they're not supposed to be used, but... what about the way AI handles nukes?
Soren, I'll be happy if you read this .
If the AI has built an ICBM, it will happily use it. I have declared war on an ICBM owning Civ, and got nuked the next turn. This is pretty OK, the AI will use Nukes to defend itself. But, if the AI built a Tactical Nuke, it's not that good. I've been invading a civ owning Tactical Nukes with Modern Armor. They resided on an average island, that's not even a continent. At one point, when approching their cities, I stacked like 40 Modern Armor together. Now, why didn't the AI put its Nuke to use? I would then have like 10 damaged Armor remaining, what certainly does make a difference. OK, no long-time difference, I'd just bring back 80 more Armor, but the AI got to fight for its survival.
Instead, when I captured one of their cities, I destroyed the Nuke. So, the AI wasted shields on producing it. There are a few units that you got to actually use if you build them, like the Cruise Missile and Nukes. I see this as an incomplete thing.
Another thing. I saw Greece being a great powerhouse, and certainly loving subs (BTW, that's something new). Alex built quite some subs, later started cranking out Nuclear Subs. And, very odd, while he has groups of Nuclear Subs sailing around, he doesn't have a single nuke loaded. Actually, he has no Nukes at all - and yes, he does have the resources. If you got Nuclear Subs, arm them, making them powerful. Moreover, I got a 4 transport capacity for them...
Soren: I know your goal is to make a fun AI, but, IMHO, seeing the AI use nukes brings a lot of fun.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
|
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
Have you not increased attack for submarines? I have, as much as to give Subs a real chance vs. Battleships. However, it can still go either way.
I agree on not building Tacticals after Satellites, they're just not worth it, though cheaper. Coolness of tactical nuke with nuke subs is that you put such subs around continent of potential enemy, and, should the war come, BOOM, several cities feel the wrath. But with ICBMs it's pointless, you can strike anywhere.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Excelsior84
|
|
Alabama
Jun 2002
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
A little observation about the way AI builds nukes. Generally, it does not, that's the observation .
When an AI civ has reached tech level where it can build a nuke, it often will, but usually stops at low numbers of Nukes, such as 1 or 2. And maybe that's OK, the AI shouldn't be building nukes as long as they're not supposed to be used, but... what about the way AI handles nukes?
|
An observation I made from a game I played a long time ago was that the AI seems to build more nukes if the player builds more nukes. In the game, I had lowered the cost of ICBMs to a third their normal cost and, just for the heck of it, I started cranking them out like crazy. The Chinese, who at the time had only a couple of nukes and the English, who had none, seemed to notice and started building their own. By the time the game ended, I had 87 ICBMs, the Chinese had 26, and the English had 6 or 7. It was enormous fun watching the entire world go up in smoke when I fired all 87 of them the turn before I completed my spaceship. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
W4r_Machine
|
 |
of Nothing! Canada, where the sun freezes
Jun 2002
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Excelsior84
An observation I made from a game I played a long time ago was that the AI seems to build more nukes if the player builds more nukes. In the game, I had lowered the cost of ICBMs to a third their normal cost and, just for the heck of it, I started cranking them out like crazy. The Chinese, who at the time had only a couple of nukes and the English, who had none, seemed to notice and started building their own. By the time the game ended, I had 87 ICBMs, the Chinese had 26, and the English had 6 or 7. It was enormous fun watching the entire world go up in smoke when I fired all 87 of them the turn before I completed my spaceship. |
D@mn! For me as soon as ICBM comes in I crank them till I have twenty, just for safety. A nuke for every city for those massive stacks and thats it. Enemy AI with ICBM usually launches one the first turns of war. Personally, I'ld like the AI to use them more effectively, like targetting the capitaL or the biggest city you have.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Experimentalist
I tihnk it would be nice if you had a 50% chance of being able to fire off a tactical nuke from a nuclear submarine if you were attacked and sunk. |
That's not the way nukes work dude! It's not something you just shoot during ASW!!
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
hi ,
has any of you ever thought to let the AI start with up to 25 tactical nukes , .....
sometimes there are intresting results this way , .... 
and yes the AI does build nukes , ....
it does seems that when its after 2050 and you have won the game and continue to play the AI builds more nukes and uses them more , ...
the higher the level the more use of a nuke , ...
when the AI builds nukes its funny to see them sometimes get in a race with them , lets say three nations build them , then they each shall try to get the number of the other , .... plus one , ...
sometimes its really funny this way , ...
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Williams
|
|
Ithaca, NY
Apr 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
First of all, I think I've seen tactical nukes intercepted by SDI, but I could be wrong.
Second, in the event of a nuclear war it's likely that all subs, once coming under attack, would have standing orders to fire their nukes at pre-designated targets (had they not already launched them). In the game, this would pose problems, serveing mostly as a detterant to sinking subs  .
There are so many problems with nukes already that I don't think you can see this as a huge problem in comparison. I think there should be some penalty for building or having ICBM's, this would make tactical nukes more appealing, but mostly I wish Fraxis would get off their ass and stop shortchanging us in the nuke department (no, I'm sure they're working hard over there ), the nuclear age was a major part of world history, you can't cover it with a few units and a little pollution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nakar Gabab
|
|
of Pedantic Nitpicking
May 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
A few nitpicks:
1) A sub shouldn't go off nuclear-armageddon style if you sink it. Nuclear weapons aren't THAT unstable. Not sure about the launch-if-sunk thing... what if you don't WANT to fire the nuke?
2) The AI might not have nuked the big stack of MA because you were invading their territory. The AI is probably programmed not to self-destruct its own territory when faced with an attack, possibly because it isn't quite smart enough to know the difference between "1 infantryman, NUKE HIS ASS!" and "40 modern armor, it's an acceptable loss compared to losing my whole empire."
3) The AI might have a compulsion against nuking its own cities. If you were close to their city, the splash damage might have threatened to hit a nearby city, which would've caused untold havoc.
4) The AI doesn't use artillery well. It doesn't use bombers well. And it's not unreasonable to presume it probably uses nukes poorly.
I have, personally, dropped an ICBM on my own empire (I aimed it at the ocean and only nuked 3 squares, which contained two landed enemy stacks). It was a risk I was willing to take. But I know the difference between three enemies (which I can easily take out with my token counterattack force) and fifty (which could spread out and decimate my improvements without actually ATTACKING my cities, meaning I'd have to produce more counterattackers, etc.) at a glance. The AI might not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
|
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
Good post, Nakar.
Maybe you're right the AI tries to save it's own butt, but from a strategy viewpoint, it isn't always the right thing to do. Like, if I got 40 MA there, they can certainly cause much more casualities than the AI would cause itself should it use a nuke there.
SDI? Oh my, I've never seen it, didn't play it this late into the game.
I want nukes to be altered in PtW. I'd like them to have more difference between ICBM and Tac. Nuke. Tac. Nukes could still be small weapons like they are now, more or less the same effect.
An ICBM should: If dropped on a small town, it gets wiped. Any unit in the square where ICBM gets dropped has a 85% chance of dying. If city is bigger than 6, population gets reduced by 75-90%, each improvement has a 75% chance of being destroyed.
Blast radius: each adjacent square to the attacked one loses all improvements, units 66% chance to die. Squares 2 tiles apart 50% losing improvements, 50% chance for units to die. Squares 3 tiles apart 33% chance of losing improvement, 25% chance for unit to die.
To counter this stronger ICBM, usage of such should also cause regard with other civs go down even when allied. As it is, your allies are very happy if you nuke a mutual enemy. Also, usage of ICBMs should make some of your citizens unhappy. This would probably make you think twice about using it. Oh, and such an ICBM would really be worth 300 shields.
However, I'd like a CtP style disaster model. My last Modern Age game, I launched like 30 Nukes in the Modern Age, and only saw a couple of squares turn into desert. Nonsense. With such massive pollution, there should be a chance of water levels to rize dramatically, submerging cities. This would really put everyone at a slight risk in case of nuclear war.
Remember SMAC? There huge eco-damage could be killing you, you would have to deal with many dozens of Mindworms each turn, having a chance to kill you off completely. Or CtP, where you lost some good cities to a disaster.
Gimme stronger effects to Nukes and their effect on global ecology!
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-07-2002 20:53
. 
|