Let's be serious

[mkorin]

Actually Wiglaf, my post was not directed at you. Rather the two or three people that have done nothing but post negative posts for the last couple months. They admit they haven't tried, but they want to critizize it. Your opinion is valid and I apoligize that you thought i was trying to be argumentative with you.
Mike

[Wiglaf]

Sorry for the misunderstanding

[Lambiorix_be]

FOR ME TO POOP ON :MAD:

Seriously, the tactical AI is hilarious now. I played a game where I put a citadel near an enemy city, and they never attacked it. Their army just kept losing hit points before disbanding, no doubt terrorized by my fearsome and totally unoccupied fortress. I didn't get a negative diplo modifier for this, though a "-5 You Have Broken Our AI Subroutines!" would not even be in the top 5 of the most ridiculous diplomatic penalties this turd of a game awards.

I agree that AI is not good at combat. I was standing with a machine gun an and one infantry next to an ennemy city. The AI had a rifleman next to the city too. The AI then decided to attack the one barbarian warrior that was a bit further away (the city and the rifleman attacked those and left me untouched). Off course that way conquering cities is easy...

That must be something that can be fixed I think. It is a matter of prioritizing potential targets and attack the ones with the highest threat priority...

[mkorin]

I agree that AI is not good at combat. I was standing with a machine gun an and one infantry next to an ennemy city. The AI had a rifleman next to the city too. The AI then decided to attack the one barbarian warrior that was a bit further away (the city and the rifleman attacked those and left me untouched). Off course that way conquering cities is easy...

That must be something that can be fixed I think. It is a matter of prioritizing potential targets and attack the ones with the highest threat priority...

It would be almost impossible to fix as everyone has different priorities and would never agree. In your scenerio, if the barb was about to destroy a resource the AI needed and they had reinforcements coming, it might have been the correct move. Of course, I know that wasn't true, but just an example of logic that some might think leads to poor decisions by the AI. As long as things work correctly, I will work around the design choices made by firaxis.
Mike

[Elok]

FOR ME TO POOP ON :MAD:

Seriously, the tactical AI is hilarious now. I played a game where I put a citadel near an enemy city, and they never attacked it. Their army just kept losing hit points before disbanding, no doubt terrorized by my fearsome and totally unoccupied fortress. I didn't get a negative diplo modifier for this, though a "-5 You Have Broken Our AI Subroutines!" would not even be in the top 5 of the most ridiculous diplomatic penalties this turd of a game awards.

Let me get this straight: they created a tile improvement that auto-damages all foreign units that come near it, and didn't get around to teaching the AI that this thing is an enemy, threat, or something to be avoided?

[Wiglaf]

The way it works is, you can now build Citadels in enemy territory, so long as their territory is adjacent to yours. You can effectively claim new territory with a citadel. And the territory is toxic to AI units nearby, in their own territory, by a margin of -20 HP per turn. And the AI is oblivious to this incursion, both strategically and tactically. They do not tell you to stop. Even if they declare war on you for unrelated reasons, they do not attack the citadel and prefer instead to use their cities and nearby units to attack barbarians, or to just idle nearby. Presumably, the AI reasons that each unit has a low chance of success against the citadel (which is true, but besides the point, since multiple units could easily overrun the citadel), so it prefers instead to target weaker adjacent units -- at a substantial health cost per turn. The AI does build its own citadels, but usually leaves them empty and unguarded and places them far from choke points. Ed Beach

Speaking of the AI, I approve of this takedown: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=466406

[Elok]

Can you get overlapping fields of fire from multiple citadels and turn the enemy's backyard into a WWI no man's land? That might almost be fun for a little while.

[Wiglaf]

Yes

It's worth noting played Civ 5 multiplayer last night with a friend and 5 random people. 4 of them quit within a few turns (~15 minutes of game time) after one of them made a point of calling me gay, and my friend told me today he thinks he has the flu and can't get out of bed.

[Elok]

It sounds like there's basically limitless potential for abuse there, especially with 1UPT. Do they at least shoot at the things if they outrange them? Can you surround your city's borders with citadels and make it utterly immune to AI assault until air units come along? How about plunking one down next to a resource and hosing down all the workers the enemy sends to claim his cow/wine/iron? Can you observe the AI's preferred naval invasion path, plunk a citadel down on convenient islands/peninsulas en route and watch unit after unit sail the gauntlet and get shot to tatters before even approaching land?

[Wiglaf]

I have never seen a ranged attack against a unit in a citadel, even when the AI had rocket artillery and there was a rifleman in the citadel, but in fairness I only saw that situation once. Surrounding your borders with citadels is hard because you usually don't get enough citadels to do it, but if geography is on your side + you focus on great generals, it's pretty easy to develop a completely impervious border. The AI just can't intelligently get past a system citadels to get through your borders, it's really not even close to being able to handle it. I've never cut off AI access to resources with citadels, so I can't comment on that, but I'd imagine it's a good idea (I prefer to cut off their own cities). As for naval units, I haven't tried that, since I play continents maps and never have little islands where they'd need to be for this to work. I have a feeling this would not hurt the AI too much anyway since Civ5 naval units have so many movement points that they'd rarely stop by a citadel.

[Elok]

Ah, well. Thanks for answering all those questions. I often find you can have fun exploiting the brokenness of a game even if it sucks too much to enjoy on merit.

[Sir Og]

.
.
.
They do not tell you to stop.
.
.
.

I built a citadel which stole 1 hex from Denmark and thier leader immediately called and said he is not happy with that.
I could not see how the AI would use it's units vs the citadel because I rolled them over. They never had a chance to go near the citadel.

[MxM]

deleted due to being double.

[MxM]

You can effectively claim new territory with a citadel. And the territory is toxic to AI units nearby, in their own territory, by a margin of -20 HP per turn. And the AI is oblivious to this incursion, both strategically and tactically. They do not tell you to stop.

I do not understand what you are saying. It does not "effectively" claim new territory. It BECOMES your territory - the border changes. The hexes around citadel becomes your territory, which of course is "toxic"

As for them not telling your to stop, THEY DO!. Taking land by citadel has clear diplomatic consequences. You will see it in diplomacy tooltip that shows positives and negatives for your relation to particular civ. Even single hex that you take with citadel can screw your relationship.

[Wiglaf]

You seem to be a foreign-language speaker, so I'm not going to listen to your prattle about my use of the word "effectively," which was appropriate.

I do not care that they tell you to stop taking their land. It completely decimates their entire tactical AI, which renders its diplomatic AI's attitude moot. It does no good to know you are being dominated if you don't know what to do about it.

Also, who cares about a small minus modifier for buying up their land? You probably already have a much bigger negative modifier for simply having close borders. The game is just a failure.