AI's determination of War and Peace

[latka]

This thread is actually a spin-off from the bombardment thread, but now it is deviating from the original topic.

Originally posted by latka
I am curious to know how nbarclay defeats heavily defended cites when behind in advances. In my most recent game, I sent 11 legioneers against 2 pikemen and one spearman. I lost everything. The city did not have walls and was on plains. I did not hardly do any damage to any of the three units. I would have at least thought that 4 legioneers, two elite and two vetern would elminate one regular spearman that was fortified. All I did was make regular units into elite units and got my b*tt kicked

What do you do when you don't have truely superior units, but do have numbers. I finally took the city when I got knights. It took me two attacks with five knights and seven catapults.

At the same time, I lost a city with one fortified elite pikeman to a regular archer. Arrrg!

Were your legionaires veterans? If not, that could go a long way toward explaining the problem, but even then it sounds like a run of pretty bad luck. (The only non-vet units I deliberately build are normally my first handful of scouting warriors and warriors a city with one food surplus builds while waiting for the food for a worker, although I do occasionally forget to build a barracks before putting a city on building a unit.)

There are two main reasons I don't have any more use for artillery than I do. First, I'm good at the research/builder aspect of the game, so it's almost unheard of for me to be permanently stuck in a situation where I can't get unit superiority. And second, I pick the timing on my wars carefully - for example, if I'm going to need to attack to get more room, I try to make sure I attack before technology reaches the point where my opponent will have pikes. Between those two factors, my skills with "legions against pikemen" type fighting haven't evolved all that far.

I definitely recognize the value of artillery when (for example) taking on infantry before tanks are available. I've even used that type of strategy once or twice when I had a special reason for doing so. But my normal solution is to wait until I have tanks or, more likely still, modern armor upgraded from tanks, and then I can stomp to my heart's content with minimal difficulty.

(I know a lot of players love the thrill of a tough, hard-fought war, but the real fun for me is the economic contest. Quick, easy wars are my prize for doing well in that economic contest.)

Nathan

Surprising enough, all my (legioneers/swordsman) were vetern and elite. I was playing the Aztecs, so the advancement of my units to elite was quick. I try to never build units without barracks. The extra hit point is just too valuable, especially in the early game.

There are two things that could have affected the outcome other than just bad luck, now that I have taken the city.

One, I was attacking a capitol. Is there a special modifier for units in a capitol?

Two, the enemy had the Great Wall wonder in that city. It is my understanding, though that this only affects cities with walls when being attacked by non-barbarians. Is this correct? This city did not have any walls.

I do not like hard fought wars, and I would have been content to maintain the status quo, if my enemy did not attack me.

This game has been confusing to me. I have not been aggressive, but all the Civs seem to hate me, declaring war on me at will. I am not the most powerful in the game, but I am the most powerful on my continent. I would think, that the distant civs would not have any good reason to wage war on me and I wouldn't think that they were bought off by the other civs on my continent, because those that are close to me are poor and stupid. I can only attribute this to me being the Aztecs.

The extent of my aggression has been asking two civs to remove their units from my territory. Granted, I built my cities to block off a good chunk of the continent, so that only I could populate it later. Still, I have been extra friendly, selling tech advances to everyone, giving money away, establishing trade with the other civs, and trading maps.

[Theseus]

Please post a SAV.

No defense bonus for a capitol.

[bongo]

The AI will often declare war on you for no good reason if they are stronger than you(check your military advisor 'F3'). They will also declare war on you when they are weaker but distance makes the threat from you very low.

I find that the AI are most peaceful when any(or all) of the following conditions are met.
1) You are stronger than them
2) You have troops positioned for a fast attack
3) You are trading with them, heavily.

[Dis]

Distance definately plays a factor. I had real trouble making peace with a nation from another continent.

[Kingof the Apes]

Have you broken agreements in the past? That might attribute to the other civ's behavior.

[Bonaparte]

Originally posted by Dissident
Distance definately plays a factor. I had real trouble making peace with a nation from another continent.

I don't even try to make peace under that circumstance. I instead build up a large force and then sail them to the enemies nearest costal city. Soon as you take the city they will ask for peace.

[Dis]

I have broken agreements with civs in the ancient age. In fact, I always do . But the civs I fight in the industrial or modern age aren't the civs that I broke the agreement with (they are usually gone). I know breaking treaties affects other civs, but I thought that effect would go away after 2 or 3 ages have passed.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

i sometimes think the AI was written by a woman. They NEVER EVER forget any transgression, and you will hear about it even thousands of years later

[theNiceOne]

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64
i sometimes think the AI was written by a woman. They NEVER EVER forget any transgression, and you will hear about it even thousands of years later

But do you play otherwise?

I've seen lots of players complain that the AI never forget, but when I read stories of played games, those stories almost always show that the human player never forgets either.

It seems to me that the pattern is that if an AI civ threathens or attacks the human player in the ancient age, the human player remembers this and will attack the AI as soon as the opportunity arises. So an AI that don't forget is very realistic

[bongo]

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64
i sometimes think the AI was written by a woman. They NEVER EVER forget any transgression, and you will hear about it even thousands of years later

Do you dare to repeat that to girlfriend

[HolyWarrior]

Originally posted by theNiceOne

But do you play otherwise?

I've seen lots of players complain that the AI never forget, but when I read stories of played games, those stories almost always show that the human player never forgets either.

It seems to me that the pattern is that if an AI civ threathens or attacks the human player in the ancient age, the human player remembers this and will attack the AI as soon as the opportunity arises. So an AI that don't forget is very realistic

I'll testify to that I'm playing a game now as the Japanese and the evil Russkies attacked early. Fortunately, my spearmen held them off. Eventually, they declared peace. Fast forward to the middle ages, and the Ethiopians (custom civ) declared war on them. By this time I had samurai, so I declared military alliance quickly and joined in. Turned out Russia must've pissed EVERYONE off, since their cities were taken by Iroquois, Ethiopians, Aztecs, and Romans in addition to myself. The once mighty Russians were annihilated.

[bongo]

Strange, I have also seen the world unite against russia. They went from #1 to last on the powerscale.

[Brundlefly]

I have seen the world unite against Aztecs and Germans like that. Both times those civs were weak. The others just picked them apart like a pack of hungry wolves.

[Tattila the Hun]

Doesn't palace give some defencive bonus?

[Alex]

palace? I don't think so.