AI Artillery and razing cities

[whosurdaddy]

Has anyone ever seen the AI use artillery type weapons in a massed and effective way. I have never, and was wondering if anybody else thinks this issue should be addressed in the future. I mean having an entire class of weapons basically ignored by the AI seems like a serious defect to me.

And does anyone else hate the concept of razing cities. These huge wars will break out where the AI will do nothing but raze each other's cities, and I'll wind up with a map where half the map is nothing but wasteland. How on earth will scenarios be possible anyway, if for example, the Germans raze all the cities in Western Europe upon their capture in a ww2 scenario? Basically, i think there should be a way to turn off razing.

[Jaybe]

Re: AI Artillery and the razing of cities.
Agreed on both points.

Of course, the spectre of massed, effective artillery use by the AI could REALLY reduce the warmongering by the player!
The only problem with massed artillery is if it were to be captured. The AI would have to be able to make sure it is secure -- 'cause we know what might happen if we had such an inviting target as 1-2 dozen artillery units on one tile.

Now that culture flipping is down to a reasonable level, Firaxis can (already are???) work on limiting razing so that it isn't an instantaneous thing. And if cities or metropolis' leave ruins in industrial/modern ages when they are razed, that would be okay too.

[Pius Popprasch]

Isn't razing the best strategy? The A.I. has to play effectively. And Artillery would be an easy target. You can make a lot of temples from captured artillery units.

[alexman]

Artilery suggestion

As it is, a single artilery unit alone is almost useless. It seems to me that a good way to eliminate the artilery problem would be to increase the number of shots it takes during bombardment. We would, of course, need to also increase its cost (shields) to preserve game balance.

This change would:
1) Reduce the level of micromanagement.
2) Make the AI look smarter, since it would be no longer necessary to stack dozens of units to be effective.
3) Increase reality, since we would no longer need to use more support units than infantry in an assault

[The Andy-Man]

whats the point of having an artilerry happy AI? it wins its wars by mass producing warriors anyway.....

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
whats the point of having an artilerry happy AI? it wins its wars by mass producing warriors anyway.....

There have been posts since the 1.17 patch of the AI being more prone to (gasp!!) UPGRADE their units. I know I have certainly experienced it (AI mech infantry all over the place)!

[Blaupanzer]

When the AI razes cities, I fill in the space myself. Burning cities to the ground is a "strategy" from the Iron Age and the later Ghenghiz Khan experience. This AI behaviour would have big implications for scenarios, if anyone could actually create any.

As to artillery, the AI does not use it well in the offense, although it seems to use bombers very well. The AI does defend with catapults/cannons/artillery, etc. However, when I take a city where a cannon whacked the head off my first attacker, I don't capture the guns, they disappear. I have caught AI catapults in the field, on the road between cities, and captured it after killing the units with it. However, in cities, the guns seem to have been destroyed whether I keep the city or raze it.

[whosurdaddy]

True, sometimes razing can be the best strategy, but there will be times, such as in scenarios, when razing just shouldn’t be an option (all though we don’t have to worry about this apparently for a long time L) . Also, mass razing of whole civilizations is extremely un-aesthetically pleasing, and not realistic, especially in the modern age. Can anyone give me an example of any large modern cities ever being completely wiped off the face of the earth in real world history after say, the year 1400? Even the cities razed by Sherman in the south during the american civil war eventually grew back, as did cities such as Tenolchtichan in Mexico (or however u spell it???) which were “razed” by Spaniards but eventually grew back to become colonial spanish cities.

What the concept of razing does, is it means that one no longer has to be able to defend your conquest in order to be effective. For example, a player can launch reckless surprise attacks against a much larger civ with the mere hope of netting a few large cities, which can then be instantly razed to the ground. The whole concept of being able to counterattack and retake conquered land is completely negated.

In the game I am playing now, the Persians razed every other civilization on the planet. All this time, I had been building up in order to launch a war to basically conquer the world, and now I find there is nothing left to conquer but a single Persian civ, which only has like 30 cities, the rest of the world is a vast wasteland. Where is the fun in this? And when has real world history ever followed anything even remotely similar to this model, even remotely??? When has something like this ever even been possible???

[Blaupanzer]

Have you heard about nuclear war. The city built on the site of the old Hiroshima is also called Hiroshima. However, so little was left of the old city that those few pieces are amuseum. It is possible.

[SpencerH]

I was stunned to see effective use of artillery in my very first game of CIV3 (possibly played at regent). The AI (Germans) were way ahead of me technologically and materially. When I started a war over one of their typical border intrusions they blasted me to dust in a few turns. I havent seen effective artillery use since then, but I have seen very effective use of naval bombardment to facilitate amphibious landings (especially when the AI was ahead late in the game).

[whosurdaddy]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Have you heard about nuclear war. The city built on the site of the old Hiroshima is also called Hiroshima. However, so little was left of the old city that those few pieces are amuseum. It is possible.

Yea, uhh, i have, but im not talking about nuclear war, im talking about razing cities, and the bad effects that this has on both gameplay and realism.

[Zachriel]

Re: AI Artillery and razing cities

Originally posted by whosurdaddy
Has anyone ever seen the AI use artillery type weapons in a massed and effective way. . . .

And does anyone else hate the concept of razing cities. . . .

Yes, it would be a good addition to AI strategies to have effective use of artillery. It would slow a lot of blitz attacks, though.

I hate razing. I even rescue other Civs when you are being razed. However, it is a legitimate strategy. I just hope that in the long run, humanistic philosophy will triumph in the end.

The good guys win only if they are very, very careful.

[Zachriel]

Razing

Genocide and ethnic cleansing are close cousins to razing.

Khmer Rouge v. Cambodia
Iraq v. Kurds
Germans v. Jews
Serbs v. Muslims
Christians v. Jews throughout the last millenneum.
Germans v. French (Hitler gave orders to raze Paris, but was ignored by his generals)
Germans razed many towns in Russia. Many of these events are just being documented.
America v. various Indian tribes

[Skanky Burns]

Re: AI Artillery and razing cities

Originally posted by whosurdaddy
Has anyone ever seen the AI use artillery type weapons in a massed and effective way. I have never, and was wondering if anybody else thinks this issue should be addressed in the future. I mean having an entire class of weapons basically ignored by the AI seems like a serious defect to me.

In the recent chat, Soren said he didn't have the AI mass its artillery for an attack... for some reason, can't quite recall...
But to get to the point, he also said that he wanted to rectify this in the next patch.

So by 1.18f, the AI should be bombarding the hell out of you before attacking