AI don't build Knights/Cavalry

[Nuctemeronn]

What the hell?
In my current game (1.21 patch) early Industrial, War-Time, i saw stacks with tons of Infantry/Longbowman/Swordsman/Pikeman aproaching my cities, but didn't see any mounted unit!! Cannon Fodder for my artilleries and cavalry. Eventually there's a horseman roaming there, but nothing else.
And neither develop Military Tradition nor Chivalry!

Any way to fix this strange behavior?

[Cyclotron]

Ummm... the AI has no horses? Or, no iron for knights and no saltpeter for cav? Check their resources first.

[Nuctemeronn]

I check it. The AI has lots of resources. I see Swordmen (Iron), Horsemen (horses) and Musketeers (saltpeter). It's my 5th game with the 1.21 patch and i rarely see any mounted unit (only spot a roman knight far away my empire).
Hope at least he build Tanks in the future, if not, the game become so boring...
Difficulty level is Monarch. I'm iroquois and at war with Egypt (second power in the world). Maybe egyptians have only checked in the civilization tab of the editor to build often deffensive units?
Going to check this later.

[dunk]

I think the AI looks at only the attack value for offensive units (Longbowmen have 4, Kinghts also have 4, so the AI will build Longbowmen... much cheaper and no resource requirements) and only defensive value for defensive units (Pikemen have 3, Knights also have 3, so the AI will build Pikemen, cheaper and only need iron).

I've also noticed in 1.21 that the AI will attack with "defensive" units. I attacked Germany and was countered with a couple Knights at first and then finished off with Spearmen. Used to be that the Spearmen would fortify in the city under attack. Instead they whooped upon me. Also, the Zulu seem to use Impi on the offensive a lot.

[Spatzimaus]

I've seen the AI use mounted units, the problem is that he's not using them correctly. He charges across the border to capture a Worker (which he then can't get back to his own side, so he disbands it), instead of attacking a city. He attacks with all of his cavalry as soon as he can, against whatever city is closest. Problem is, he only attacks with 2 or 3 and so never gets through the defenses. By the time I'm attacking his territory he doesn't have any mounted units left to counterattack.

It seems to be related to what the others have said; the AI, when deciding to build units during a war, decides what role he wants to fill and picks the cheapest and best unit for that role. This results in a lot of Longbowmen (except for Persia, which makes Immortals). During peacetime he'll build more expensive units, but then throw them all away on the first couple turns of the war.

A similar problem happens once you have Cavalry and Infantry (but before Tanks); the AI attacks with the Infantry since they're cheaper and have the same attack value.

There are some solutions. Make Knights 5/2/2 instead of 4/3/2, so that the AI prefers them on offense even with their high cost. Tag Knights as a defensive unit. Make Chivalry cheaper so that the AI goes for that tech before Invention.

What we REALLY need is an editable table of AI weighting. How much does it factor movement in when deciding what to build? How much does it factor cost in? Does this change for offensive vs. defensive?

Also, government plays a part. In a Monarchy you'd want a large number of cheap units to act as police. In a Republic you'd want a few good units to keep army upkeep down.

[Jack_www]

The first game I played with new patch was as the americans. I noticed too that the computer now uses defensive units to attack my troops. But the problem with the computer is that it sends every mounted unit at you in the first turns of the war. I kill all of them, and then after that there is nothing left except defensive units, and the AI starts to build really cheap units. But I have seen lots of mounted units in my game.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

If the AI is only looking at offensive value and cost, looks like we need to do a total overhaul of offensive and defensive stats. Seems kinda funny to me that assuming we can go at least to 99/99 that almost every unit is under 10. Seems like we can distinguish units alot more my expanding the values upwardly. Plus with HP bonuses, we can further distinguish units with similar values.

[dunk]

We could multiply all units values by 4. This makes all the numbers higher and we can keep the same ratios (Modern Armor and Battleship would be 96... not over 99).

And UUs with attack or defense mods could be 50% higher than the original. So, a warrior replacement would 6/4/1 or 4/6/1 while the regular warrior would be 4/4/1. This would balance out UUs throughout the game. Cavalry would be 24/12/3 and Cossacks would be 24/18/3. Modern units would be limited to being altered like the Cossack (on its lower value) or movement.

[Grrr]

That is a way to get rid of the spearman/tank problem too dunk.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Grrr
That is a way to get rid of the spearman/tank problem too dunk.

No it wouldn't! (putting aside the fact that there _isn't_ a problem) The ratios would all remain the _same_. Thus, the ability for a spearman to defeat a tank would remain the same that it has now, negligable.

[SirSebastian]

Hmm.... this explains why the AI absolutely SWARMED me with infantry, and before that, riflemen. Of course, my very strong defensive position fell to the sheer numbers of the attack, so I'm hardly going to say it's a major bug. They seem to use my captured artillery fairly well too, but if they really learn how to use them, we're all in trouble. The title is off, because, there certainly were cavalry and knights, they just took on an ancillary role instead of a "core" role. Kind of like how I play. I like it!

[delfino]

this is where the poverty of the computer strategy shows in all its "glory"! First it sends off all its reservs. Depending on the amount of reserves it will take more or less time to fall. After the reserves are exhausted it will send the cheapest, quickest unit, regardless of the forces it is going to face. Stripped from the bonus of the higher levels the Civ3 "AI" shows finally what it is "artificial stupidity". I wonder, and I must confess I am a complete "zero" regarding programming, how difficult it could be to make the computer follow simple rules:
isolated cities inside enemy´s territory = bad
isolated units in enemy´s territory = bad
when loosing a battle, sending spearman/settler combo = bad
and what I think is the biggest flaw:
comparing just the number of units regardless of their attack and defence value = very bad
But then again, I am probably wrong and this is difficult to code.

[LaRusso]

ai is not smart. but it often puts up appearance of smartness and i am very very satisfied.