I think i know why AI doesn't build armies!

[MattPilot]

.... maybe because there is no script for it to do so!

Now this is just a speculation, however, what i did was remove the "finish improvement" flag from the leader so the AI would stop rushing spearmen or whatever.

Now all the AI does is keep the Leader sitting around. This leads me to believe the AI doesn't know that it can make an army.

I do know that the AI uses armies when it has one (e.g. it fills it up with units), but unfortunately it can't turn i a leader into an army.

anybody know how to create an AI script ?

[Antrine]

Great Job!! MattPilot! Now with this 'can of worms' I have several fishing poles all ready to cast.

AI scripting; is this a legal copyright use issue? If not, then someone brilliant please step up and build us an easy interface dialog box for us all to write our scripts. Oh, many, many sincere thanks.

[alexman]

MattPilot, the AI built Armies fine before C3C, so that's probably not the problem. They just broke the AI in C3C, but the code to use them should still be there.

What happened with your experiment is that by removing the 'finish improvements' flag, you also removed the 'Leader' AI strategy, which can be checked only if a unit has both the 'finish improvements' and 'build Army' flags.

[Antrine]

Well I think some of those flags are important of course, however I have found that the AI converting Leaders to
Armies is one issue, separate from the AI's routines of using well, said Armies. Once the AI has Armies available and good offensive units to stuff them with and you are attacking, I find it uses said Army well. Or it may start a war with multiple Armies readied and attack first, having them well escorted and supported by other units. So yes, the coded AI routines for Army use is solid.

So the quandary is 'getting there' given the present condition of C3C.

[Alex]

patch patch patch

[player1]

I consider army bug much more serious then "a submarine bug" some poeple are too vocal about.

[Antrine]

Since there is no stacked combat in C3C, when well stuffed Armies show up on the battlefield, it changes things. It grabs your attention, adds feeling and depth, requires your attending, swings the battle and makes every city in the vincinity suspect maybe even a target. When the AI uses Armies it supports them and they are harder to take out.

Why then even if things did work as sold, why so few? Random generation of a few Armies not much fun, especially in first and second Ages. For the Vanilla version I would advocate a little more flavor, even after tweaking what is now there to work.

[MattPilot]

well DUUH! no wonder he didn't do anything with the leader

Well, would it be possible to edit the existing leader script and delete the part that would tell it to rush buildings??

[smellymummy]

that kind of stuff is compiled into the main program. so it's unlikely a fan will be able to fix it

[Dis]

maybe the people who created civ3 should fix this

it would be cool if we could script this ourselves though

[Willem]

Re: I think i know why AI doesn't build armies!

Originally posted by MattPilot
.... maybe because there is no script for it to do so!

Now this is just a speculation, however, what i did was remove the "finish improvement" flag from the leader so the AI would stop rushing spearmen or whatever.

Now all the AI does is keep the Leader sitting around. This leads me to believe the AI doesn't know that it can make an army.

I do know that the AI uses armies when it has one (e.g. it fills it up with units), but unfortunately it can't turn i a leader into an army.

anybody know how to create an AI script ?

No, you've got it wrong. By removing the Finish Improvements flag, the AI strategy for Leaders gets greyed out. This means that the AI no longer knows what to do with a leader unit, period. The same sort of thing used to happen if you deselected any of the Worker actions, the AI didn't know what to do with them so they just end up standing around doing nothing; you couldn't even automate your own.

[MattPilot]

yes thank you - its been pointed out.

If the AI were to have a military academy, would it be smart enough to build armies or would it consider them useless and not build them at all?

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by MattPilot
yes thank you - its been pointed out.

If the AI were to have a military academy, would it be smart enough to build armies or would it consider them useless and not build them at all?

As per Alexman's test....a resounding "No" )to the first question)

[Antrine]

In the AI's scheme of priority, why would it build a single Army unit on cost basis of a whopping 400 when most major Wonders cost less and they are certainly 'high' on the priority list! Reduce the AI's list of priorities. Make the costs (ie. Army) comparable to practical use, for you can easily build 10 or even 20 other units that could long ago carry out some useful objective before the Army hits the field. Is the AI stupid not to build a 400 shield Army (and this after building the Wonder for the privilage of same), plus, have built from other cities three or four prime offensive units and move them to the Army city? I think I would be stupid to carry forward such.

Armies just are not that valuable. I know, my (highly modded)games are full of them, filled with all kinds of combinations of units and there are plenty of ways to confound and defeat them. Twenty units put out early and fast is much more advantageous.

The entry fee is too high and competes with other objectives.
The build fee is rediculously high.
The logistics is completely cumbersome.

Gee, the so-called stupid AI does not under these lousy conditions 'build Armies, I wonder...

[Switch]

It's too bad this isn't the solution...I guess we will have to wait for Firaxis to fix the priority issue with MGLs. It would be cool to see the AI actually take advantage of every aspect of the game...

Now, I awake or so appearing,
Only to find myself in yet
Another dream...

BTW, Antrine, would your sig have anything to do with your thoughts on the current patch?