Warlord-AI

V.O.C.'02 · May 23, 2002, 10:14

IMHO the chieftan and warlord AI is a ***** when it comes to making war. When it dares to start a war at all, and our armies are about equal it never goes voor the big push but just sends a couple of units. It just leans back and goes for the defendse, I've never seen an AI with a great offensive power yet.

I haven't really tried monarch or higher yet, because I think I need some more experience with the Civ3 basics, but I'm thinking of giving it a try. Are there big diferences here concerning my question?

Jon Shafer · May 23, 2002, 13:03

The differences are frightening, to say the least. Once on diety, I fought off (successfully, just barely) a column of 48 Swordsmen in 200 AD. It was scary.

But Regent is okay. Just enough difficulty to keep you on your toes, but not those stinkin' uber-stacks.

Arrian · May 23, 2002, 13:59

The AI has less productive capacity on chieftain and warlord, compared to say... Diety. Much less. Thus, it has less troops (especially when you count the free units it gets on the higher levels). When the AI feels it has enough units to hurt you, it will definitely try - ala that 48 swordsman stack Trip mentioned.

-Arrian

FrantzX · May 23, 2002, 17:29

You are going to be crying when you try the harder difficulty levels...

Theseus · May 23, 2002, 20:07

Agreed, much of the AI's war strategy is driven by available funds. Even on the higher levels, though, the AI is still missing the boat on some things.

In the epic Egyptian game, I should have been crushed by now, but the lack of artillery on the AI's part has let me turn the tide of the war.

From a "fun" perspective though, having 100s of enemy show up on your doorstep certainly puts you on the edge of your seat.

Coracle · May 23, 2002, 20:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
Agreed, much of the AI's war strategy is driven by available funds. Even on the higher levels, though, the AI is still missing the boat on some things.

In the epic Egyptian game, I should have been crushed by now, but the lack of artillery on the AI's part has let me turn the tide of the war.

From a "fun" perspective though, having 100s of enemy show up on your doorstep certainly puts you on the edge of your seat.

I once went into the Editor and told the French to buld more artillery.

When I checked what the French were up to when they invaded me, the AI had left ALL the cannon in their cities. Dumb. Before tanks arrive, artillery should be the prime offensive mover, as it was in the Napoleonic wars.

Ethelred · May 23, 2002, 20:48

Quote:

IMHO the chieftan and warlord AI is a ***** when it comes to making war.

Allegedly there is no difference in the AI by difficulty level. I think there is increased aggressiveness on higher levels but they may be more due to the increased number of units the AI can produce than an actual attitude change.

What you are seeing is that the AI is moderatly handicapped on Warlord and just plain crippled on Chieftan. It sounds like its time for you to move up a level. Moving up two levels to Monarch could be a real shock. It took me three games before I won my first on Monarch and I won my second game when I tried Emperor.

GeneralTacticus · May 23, 2002, 21:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

I once went into the Editor and told the French to buld more artillery.

When I checked what the French were up to when they invaded me, the AI had left ALL the cannon in their cities. Dumb. Before tanks arrive, artillery should be the prime offensive mover, as it was in the Napoleonic wars.

Artillery was never the 'prime offensive mover', it was essential to attacking because it weakened the enemy so the rest of the army could finish it off. Imagine what would happen if someone was stupid enough to launch an attack with artillery alone...

Playa del Carmen · May 23, 2002, 23:06

Quote:

Originally posted by V.O.C.'02
IMHO the chieftan and warlord AI is a ***** when it comes to making war. When it dares to start a war at all, and our armies are about equal it never goes voor the big push but just sends a couple of units. It just leans back and goes for the defendse, I've never seen an AI with a great offensive power yet.

I've seen them with what I'd call a fair number of attacking units. Once, about 12-14 units (a few swordsmen, but mostly longbowmen) from the Germans went rambling around some un-claimed territory in a cheiftain game I was playing once. Never found out what they were doing...

Also, in a game, I had to deal with an onslaught of Egyptian war chariots, though my legions did pick them off pretty easily, it was a pain with the sheer number that came storming through.

Jon Shafer · May 24, 2002, 00:27

Until recent times (20th century and beyond) artillery was fairly unimportant. Cannonballs didn't explode, so the only damage they did was when they hit men as they flew across the landscape. Artillery is credited with less than 15 percent of all casualties in most cases (and consider the cost spent on artillery compared with regular infantrymen), which is very low. In some battles after 1810, Napoleon had as few as 50 guns at his command, while the Russians and others would have maybe 500 or more. That didn't stop Napoleon from crushing his opponents more often than not. Artillery was mainly used to demoralize enemy troops than anything else. Until explosive munitions were developed, artillery was only a support factor to other arms.

Theseus · May 24, 2002, 00:32

Trip, agreed. I very much apprecitate the jump from cannon to arty... in a way, one of the most reasonable matches to RL in the game.

Jon Shafer · May 24, 2002, 00:38

Unfortuneatly that is something you can always fix in the current editor. You can make any unit stronger, but you can't change the effects of it.

V.O.C.'02 · May 24, 2002, 05:20

But are there more exact ways during the game to know when your army is big enough to kill one's another! Does it get less vague then, "compared to these guys, we've got an avarege army

Skanky Burns · May 24, 2002, 06:53

Don't trust that comparison at all - it only compares numbers of units IIRC, including settlers and workers.

When you get spies in the enemy nation, then you can judge your military against theirs.

campmajor! · May 24, 2002, 07:05

Quote:

Originally posted by V.O.C.'02
But are there more exact ways during the game to know when your army is big enough to kill one's another! Does it get less vague then, "compared to these guys, we've got an avarege army

Yes: "compared to these guys, we've got a strong army".

When you see that one, it is time to crush them!

Allthough on higher levels it is better to provoke the AI, then to just declare war....

Because War Weariness can bring your economy to a full stop...

campmajor! · May 24, 2002, 07:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Don't trust that comparison at all - it only compares numbers of units IIRC, including settlers and workers.

When you get spies in the enemy nation, then you can judge your military against theirs.

True, but usually the AI doesn't upgrade, so if you have more units, you are really much better!

campmajor! · May 24, 2002, 07:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
Until recent times (20th century and beyond) artillery was fairly unimportant. Cannonballs didn't explode, so the only damage they did was when they hit men as they flew across the landscape. Artillery is credited with less than 15 percent of all casualties in most cases (and consider the cost spent on artillery compared with regular infantrymen), which is very low. In some battles after 1810, Napoleon had as few as 50 guns at his command, while the Russians and others would have maybe 500 or more. That didn't stop Napoleon from crushing his opponents more often than not. Artillery was mainly used to demoralize enemy troops than anything else. Until explosive munitions were developed, artillery was only a support factor to other arms.

Well, the cannon was good against walls! I don't see that effect back in civ3....

V.O.C.'02 · May 24, 2002, 07:10

O.K. but maybe I,ve got like 50 workers more, and he has got a much more advanced army. I still can't see whether that's true or not.

P.S. how can I see what's happening within other civs capitols?

campmajor! · May 24, 2002, 07:15

You need a spy to view actual troops, but you can also use your embassy to spy on them. But it is expensive AND risky! If you get caught, you are the ****...

campmajor! · May 24, 2002, 07:17

Quote:

Originally posted by campmajor!
You need a spy to view actual troops, but you can also use your embassy to spy on them. But it is expensive AND risky! If you get caught, you are the ****...

You've got a real problem if your name is Richard...

V.O.C.'02 · May 24, 2002, 08:56

I do not understand this...are you quoting yourself

you sound a bit schitzofrenic

Jon Shafer · May 24, 2002, 16:42

Quote:

Originally posted by campmajor!
Well, the cannon was good against walls! I don't see that effect back in civ3....

Yes, this is Civ III. That means warfare is limited to attack VS defense values for each seperate unit.

What do you think this is anyways? EU2? Preposterous!

campmajor! · May 27, 2002, 06:39

Quote:

Originally posted by V.O.C.'02
I do not understand this...are you quoting yourself

you sound a bit schitzofrenic

I was referring to the "Censuur"...

campmajor! · May 27, 2002, 06:41

I mean if your name is Richard, you are probably called D!ck, instead of ****.

campmajor! · May 27, 2002, 06:42

Oh well, **** ****!

V.O.C.'02 · May 27, 2002, 07:16

Point well taken, you ***** ****** ***** ******, and your *** can **** **** ***** me (

)

V.O.C.'02 · May 27, 2002, 07:18

Thought about it, still acnnot work out the richard-bit, please explain

Ethelred · May 27, 2002, 08:01

I just sent you a PM. Hopefully the censor bot will not fill it full of *******************************************
*******************************************

otherwise it won't make much sense.

V.O.C.'02 · May 27, 2002, 08:17

Ah, yes... read your PM. Make sense now.

I'm sorry, I am only familiar with the Dutch East-side slang.

Will be paying more attention in the future, thanks

Panag · May 27, 2002, 14:56

Quote:

Originally posted by V.O.C.'02
IMHO the chieftan and warlord AI is a ***** when it comes to making war. When it dares to start a war at all, and our armies are about equal it never goes voor the big push but just sends a couple of units. It just leans back and goes for the defendse, I've never seen an AI with a great offensive power yet.

I haven't really tried monarch or higher yet, because I think I need some more experience with the Civ3 basics, but I'm thinking of giving it a try. Are there big diferences here concerning my question?

hi ,

try to set the default level in the editor for the AI at deity , ....

that really make one go "zap" , .....

have a nice day