Does the AI give up?

nationalist · March 19, 2002, 19:10

It seems to me that when a war breaks out between me and the AI the AI defenders do great jobs. Its not uncommon for me to lose veteran or elite Panzers to conscript riflemen. However, as the war progresses and I start conquering and razing cities, the AI's defensive units start to perform worse and worse. By the time I take the last cit yor two my veteran Panzers are taking out veteran or elite infantry with barely a scratch. Does this happen with anyone else? Does the AI have a point where it gets demoralized and gives up, effecting the performances of their defenders?

Skanky Burns · March 19, 2002, 19:39

Its more to do with the luck of the roll, IMO.

Locus · March 19, 2002, 20:14

Garrisoned defenders get bonuses based upon the size of the city as well as the number of improvements in the city. Most likely, you are attacking his biggest cities first and then mopping up his smaller ones.

nationalist · March 19, 2002, 21:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Locus
Garrisoned defenders get bonuses based upon the size of the city as well as the number of improvements in the city. Most likely, you are attacking his biggest cities first and then mopping up his smaller ones.

I'm aware of this fact, and its not what I do. I usually take out the border cities first, kill the offensive troops, then head for the larger cities in the heart of the empire. I tend to save the capital for last, and the capital is usually one of the largest cities. I guess other people don't experience this same phenomenon.

PatLasch · March 19, 2002, 21:29

I've seen ai cities completely undefended when I have overwhelming force and they are down to the last few cities. In essence they have given up and I can just take them easily.

Sabre2th · March 19, 2002, 22:00

Quote:

Originally posted by PatLasch
I've seen ai cities completely undefended when I have overwhelming force and they are down to the last few cities. In essence they have given up and I can just take them easily.

Or more likely....you already killed all of their units and they can't build them fast enough to compete.

Dienstag · March 19, 2002, 22:42

I haven't noticed changes in AI combat performance, but you'd think that if they were getting demoralized, they'd sue for peace a little quicker, no?

The Rook · March 20, 2002, 00:02

I haven't noticed that, but I did notice that the AI has some crappy strategies for conducting a war.

1) First of all why does the AI go to war with an obviously more powerful nation in the first place? I could have 50 cities, and the next thing I know, the Aztecs with 3 cities is declaring war against me.

2) I can't seem to keep up with the AI civs unit for unit. A Civ juat as large as mine will usually have a far superior offensive force. However, when a war starts, after 2 or 3 turns, most of that nation's troops have been destroyed by me and my army of artillary units and clean up crew. If I have railroads, there is no way a single civ could hope to win against me. Their invading force is pounded by my artillary and then I send in troops to finish them off. If the Civ would just utilize artillery as effective as I do, it might stand a chance.

Zachriel · March 20, 2002, 10:53

Quote:

Originally posted by The Rook
I haven't noticed that, but I did notice that the AI has some crappy strategies for conducting a war.

1) First of all why does the AI go to war with an obviously more powerful nation in the first place? I could have 50 cities, and the next thing I know, the Aztecs with 3 cities is declaring war against me.

2) . . . If the Civ would just utilize artillery as effective as I do, it might stand a chance.

1. I don't know. Why did Japan attack the U.S. in 1941?

2. Yes, that would be a major improvement in the AI.

godinex · March 20, 2002, 11:52

I think the AI gives up after they have inferiority (or wathever spell it) in the combat zone... if the has reinforcesment on the way it will not cry out for peace.

campmajor! · March 20, 2002, 12:26

Personally I agree with Skanky Burns that it is more a fact that if you increase the number of fights, the odds of winning are increasing. I have noticed this phenomenon several times. You also see this when you attack with a conscipt unit, you will loose. But if you attack with an elite unit, you start loosing, but after you have lost 2 or 3 hp, suddenly you start winning.....

So, I try to start a fight with only vets and elites if I have them.

dengidavai · March 20, 2002, 13:44

I have had the same experience as Nationalist. It sometimes happens that after one or two turns of battles, the AI that has declared war on me just seems to give up and stops attacking, if I've been putting up a good defense. At that point, depending on my mood and my strategy, I'll either wipe him off the face of the earth or capture two or three of his cities. Two seems to be the magic number for getting the AI to stop "refusing to hear my envoy" and give me a peace treaty plus lump sum gold, per turn gold plus whatever else I can squeeze out of it. Then I get back to what I was doing before the attack.

nationalist · March 20, 2002, 14:22

I've also noticed that AI conscripts seem to hold out long against my atacks than AI vets or elite. Does the computer give them higher random numbers?

Willem · March 20, 2002, 16:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

1. I don't know. Why did Japan attack the U.S. in 1941?

Militarily, Japan was just as powerful as the US at the time. The physical size of a country has very little to do with strength of arms, just look at Britain being able to conquer India in the colonial period.

Zachriel · March 20, 2002, 16:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Militarily, Japan was just as powerful as the US at the time. The physical size of a country has very little to do with strength of arms, just look at Britain being able to conquer India in the colonial period.

That is correct, of course, but I was responding to a post concerning a smaller country attacking a larger one. There are many other examples, probably better ones.

Willem · March 20, 2002, 16:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

That is correct, of course, but I was responding to a post concerning a smaller country attacking a larger one. There are many other examples, probably better ones.

Well I guess these civs that attack your 50 cities, when they only have 3 themselves, are suffering from an over-exaggerated sense of their self importance. Kind of like Mussolini during WWII.

The Rook · March 20, 2002, 18:03

In this game the size of your empire does usually have an impact on the size of your army. That's what I was refering to. I don't know of any country that has ever attacked another country if they didn't think they could win. It's basically suicide. It's like Haiti declaring war on the US. The only reason a small country like that might ever go to war with a superpower would be if they were allied with another superpower.

Zachriel · March 20, 2002, 18:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Well I guess these civs that attack your 50 cities, when they only have 3 themselves, are suffering from an over-exaggerated sense of their self importance. Kind of like Mussolini during WWII.

Zachriel · March 20, 2002, 18:59

Quote:

Originally posted by The Rook
I don't know of any country that has ever attacked another country if they didn't think they could win.

People miscalculate based on mistaken ideas or limited information. For instance, Hitler thought the western democracies were rotten in their cores, that they couldn't and wouldn't fight, and that the mixing of the races had bred an inferior people. He was wrong on all counts, so blundered his nation into a self-destructive war against a pan-global alliance.

Also, a nation may start a war it can't "win," if it thinks it can make the enemy's cost of victory unacceptably high, for instance, the American Revolution. There was never any chance that the Americans would actually "win" in the sense of invading England, but they did win by accomplishing their goal of independence.

Elucidus · March 20, 2002, 19:52

Yeah the AI usually sends all its units to your attackers. If they are together then they attack that way, but usually there are large numbers of straglers. So instead of focusing it's forces (not to mention Artillery) it just attacks for the first few turns, as soon as it can get a unit to you. Defend yourself until the units die down, then attack again. I usually take a city I think I can easily defend for a while.

ZigZac · March 20, 2002, 22:05

I had a little bit of the same problem. I was attacking the Romans and there conscript warriors were killing my Elite knights and Swordmen. The cities weren't all that big to begin with, maybe about 4 or 5. But after a while of attacking I broke through their defences and wiped them off the map.

linjon · March 21, 2002, 00:40

I have noticed this too. It's probably just an illusion, like if i have a huge battle and barely win on my last 1 or 2 attacks it sticks in my mind, so winning quickly seems unusual and stands out. But yes, i have said to myself " i've got him on the run and his troops aren't putting up much of a fight. " it would be cool to have the opponent burn/raze his city and have the last defenders retreat if he's losing.

Zachriel · March 21, 2002, 08:48

Quote:

Originally posted by linjon
I have noticed this too. It's probably just an illusion, like if i have a huge battle and barely win on my last 1 or 2 attacks it sticks in my mind, so winning quickly seems unusual and stands out. But yes, i have said to myself " i've got him on the run and his troops aren't putting up much of a fight. " it would be cool to have the opponent burn/raze his city and have the last defenders retreat if he's losing.

There is a thread around here about how communists will draft everybody in a city, in effect keeping the conqueror from capturing anything of value, plus replenishing the diminished ranks of the communist army.

Zachriel · March 21, 2002, 08:50

Quote:

Originally posted by ZigZac
I had a little bit of the same problem. I was attacking the Romans and there conscript warriors were killing my Elite knights and Swordmen. The cities weren't all that big to begin with, maybe about 4 or 5. But after a while of attacking I broke through their defences and wiped them off the map.

It's not that the Civ gives up, but they throw everything they have at the invaders. Once that is gone, they are defenseless, and can rarely produce a second army quick enough.

Arrian · March 21, 2002, 10:21

I lost two straight elite Cavalry units last night to the conscript rifleman defender of an AI civ's last city, so no, they don't give up.

It does get easier, however, once you have weathered the AI counterattack. Once you get to the core, you've destroyed their offensive units, for the most part. At this point, the AI starts drafting like crazy and destroys its own productivity, so all you see are defenders. Plus, all the drafting drops their cities down to size, removing the defensive bonus.

-Arrian

nbarclay · March 21, 2002, 22:36

I used to read a lot about World War II, especially air and naval aspects, and Japan's basic concept was something like:

1) Hurt the U.S. so seriously we'd get demoralized.

2) Use the time while we were recovering from the initial attack to build up a strong defensive perimeter through the Pacific so we'd have a hard time hitting them back.

3) Hope the U.S. wouldn't have the stomach for a long, drawn-out war.

Fortunately, Japan's initial attack missed our aircraft carriers, and democracies are a lot tougher in a fight than the Japanese realized, at least when they have enough at stake.

A weaker nation in Civ 3 might attack a stronger one with a similar philosophy of hoping it can make some quick gains and then talk the stronger civ into peace before it gets hit back hard. That's especially true if the smaller civ has comparable military forces for the moment but less production capacity. Of course the most likely result of such action is probably more like what happened to Japan in WWII, but if you're desperate enough...

Nathan

Zachriel · March 22, 2002, 00:11

Quote:

Originally posted by nbarclay
A weaker nation in Civ 3 might attack a stronger one with a similar philosophy of hoping it can make some quick gains and then talk the stronger civ into peace before it gets hit back hard. That's especially true if the smaller civ has comparable military forces for the moment but less production capacity. Of course the most likely result of such action is probably more like what happened to Japan in WWII, but if you're desperate enough...

I have found in Civ3 that it is quite possible to make peace when necessary. For instance, a common strategy is to conquer just one or two enemy cities, set up strong defenses and set the diplomats to work. Once the enemy wastes their attacks on your prepared defenses, they will usually be ready for peace.

As long as you keep your agreements, it is usually fairly easy to convince your adversary to accept a new peace treaty. Always cancel the peace treaty before attacking and never sneak attack. Keep in mind that peace treaties last 20 turns and can then be cancelled without dishonor.

The Rook · March 22, 2002, 09:29

People are still missing my point. Japan and Germany were not weak countries. They had armies, Navies, modern weapons, and the production capabilities to win the war. They almost pulled it off. If they had a smarter man than Hitler in power, they could have.

But I am not talking about countries like that. I'm talking about little dinky, good for nothing, nations. Three cities is about equal to a small country like maybe Portugal. Now, what could portugal have to possibly gain by going to war alone with the US? What if they packed a 1000 guys on a ship and did a surprise invasion of New York? With those 1000 guys, and a good plan, they could possibly take the city, but they couldn't hold it. The next thing they would know was their country was completely taken over by the US. The government overthrown and they are paying reparations.

When a 3 City civ declares war on you, it is very much like this example.

Hitler and Japan COULD have won the war. Portugal could not.

Why would a civ like Portugal invade the US? I suppose there could be some kind of political nonsense for it, but the game Civ3 doesn't support anything as intricate, so the answer is. No civ that small should ever declare war on a civ so much larger. It makes the game too easy for the human player.

nbarclay · March 23, 2002, 01:29

I agree that a 3-city nation attacking a 50-city nation is ridiculous. But lest you think such stupidity always benefits the human player, I once cancelled my plans for world domination because the Zulus were crazy enough to attack the much-stronger Egyptians and got themselves wiped out. That destroyed my plan to take out the Zulus myself to give me a relatively secure beachhead through which to airlift troops to attack Egypt.

(I was getting close enough to a space race victory that launching a direct naval invasion against a distant significant power directly didn't seem worth it.)

The Japan/U.S. situation in WWII was more like a 25-city nation attacking a 50-city nation where the 50-city nation has a lot more factories, power plants, and railroads (not to mention banks and resources). Japan started the war with a comparable navy, but their situation was totally and completely hopeless in a prolonged conflict barring MAJOR assistance from the Germans. Their only real hope was to convince us to agree to peace before our industrial strength could weigh in. (And Admiral Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, knew it, although I'm not sure Japan's top leaders were willing to accept that reality.)

Germany did have some real chances at winning the war in Europe before the U.S. got involved, but if I remember right, by the time Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Germany had already squandered its really good chances. Granted, Hitler still had some boneheaded decisions left to make, but I'm skeptical that avoiding them would have done more than delay the inevitable at that point.

Nathan