CARRIERS: How Does One Make AI Use Them?

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

Just what the subject line implies. If it's one thing that could really make the game more challenging versus the AI, it would be if the latter used carriers!

Can you imagine the extra strategy one would have to employ if the AI made use of loaded carriers as it does transports and submarines? I mean, the possibility of a massive air strike from the Russians in Europe would be very real, even if you were playing a New World power. It would be the same if the AI actually brought fully-loaded attack subs over. (Granted, some Apolytoners think the AI is too flagrant with cruise missiles already )

Back to AI carriers, though. What would be some method that would induce the AI to build and load them naturally? Right now they cost 160 shields. Would lowering the cost work (it did with cruise missiles ... the AI now uses them against a variety of land units, instead of just certain ships)? I've taken a preliminary step by increasing the defense factor to 10d, instead of the usual 9d. Would upping the attack factor a bit help (right now it's naturally a 1a, but I think putting it to 3a or 4a ... or even higher ... would be nice ... after all, carriers have some formidable attack/defense systems nowadays)?

Please help me! You can sign me ...

... desperately seeking a mean AI w/o having to use Civ II MPE .

CYBERAmazon

(P.S. Yes, this is also posted in the Civ II General Forum. Seems to be slow as molasses over there tonight, though.)

[poppawoppa]

No real ideas for carriers. T'would be nice tho.
How about borrowing some ideas from the Barbarians?
The AI Civs I have encountered put 1 cruise missle on a submarine, or one or two troops on an 8 place transport. However, I've seen a Barbarian Galleon with 6 units on it...maybe that is 4 Legions, one Barb King, and the Ship itself....Barb Kings may not count for anything since they are bribed into no support shield Diplomats. he he he.

-----------------------

The man who dies with the most toys..........is DEAD.

[Ming]

I don't think there is anything you can do to make the AI understand how to use a carrier.

As an experiment, I gave a loaded carrier to an AI. On the next turn, the carrier moved up to one of my costal cities, AND ATTACKED... it went down in flames with the 4 stealth fighters and 4 stealth bombers it had on board, which never got off the flight deck. Funny stuff

I really don't understand why they didn't include better programming for AI carrier use... sigh...
Maybe in CivIII...

[rah]

poppawoppa, last time I checked diplos/spys don't generate shield support.

RAH

quote: Originally posted by rah on 12-01-2000 08:56 AM poppawoppa, last time I checked diplos/spys don't generate shield support.

Isn't that what he said? That maybe they didn't count in the total of units because they don't require shield support. Not all that important but anyhoo...

On the original topic:

Check out this thread:
The AI uses carriers!
by MWHC - particularly the latter half of it. It seems to indicate that the AI's lack of interest in the unit is slot-related. Maybe if you have the guts to try and experiment with the rearrangement of some of the units in different slots you'll be able to educate the AI a little on its use of Carriers.

But be careful! Make backups or keep a full log of the things you change so you can reset it afterwards. Even small alterations to the game's files can have huge ramifications on the game.

[Blaupanzer]

Although the AI bombers do go home, they don't seem to have the same strict limitations that ours do. So, the prevailing response is "why bother with a carrier?" Not sure how one would program a ship that's a landing field for effective offensive use. Think about it. It's a leap humans make intuitively, but programming the logic would be quite daunting.

[Richard Bruns]

Maybe the AI wouldn't be so stupid with carriers if you gave them an attack value of zero. Having an attack of 1 is just silly, because it means instant death if the human player accidently bumps into anything. And since their role is "naval superiority" the AI will use them to attack like Ming showed. Carriers should be like transports, with no attack value. It might also help if you gave them the "Sea Tansport" role so the AI doesn't think it is an attack unit.

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

Thanks for the tips. As of this writing, I've bumped up the attack to 4a, the defense to 14d while leaving the cost, firepower and hitpoints alone. The AI still doesn't seem inclined to use use it in the experiment game I'm running w/o a human player.

I've noticed the "naval superiority" tag, too, and was wondering whether the "transport" tag would make more sense. BTW, I've really "customized" my rules.txt file w/o any problems in the past ...

I did see MWHC's carrier post. I've copied his specs onto my computer and will do some comparing with the existing stats on the carrier w/i my rules.txt fiel. Perhaps I'll simply make the carrier into a super carrier right off the bat, as I'm already using the three customized units that came with the game elsewhere within the program (airship, elite corps and stingray transport).

CYBERAmazon

[Hermann the Lombard]

<<
I really don't understand why they didn't include better programming for AI carrier use... sigh...
>>

Ming, shame on you! You know the answer to that question. It's because they wanted to entertain us with the AI Comedy Show. (Nothing to do with the sheer difficulty of the AI programming, not at all...)

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 12-01-2000 08:14 AM I don't think there is anything you can do to make the AI understand how to use a carrier. As an experiment, I gave a loaded carrier to an AI. On the next turn, the carrier moved up to one of my costal cities, AND ATTACKED... it went down in flames with the 4 stealth fighters and 4 stealth bombers it had on board, which never got off the flight deck. Funny stuff I really don't understand why they didn't include better programming for AI carrier use... sigh... Maybe in CivIII...

LOL!



------------------
Go Redskins!

Email me at
SilverDragon141@aol.com