AI conquered city problem.....

**Mikeus Caesar** · 12-22-2004, 12:32

On my greek campaign, i conquered patavium from the julii. My usual thing to do when i conquer a city is to destroy the temple and build my own. But when i look for the temple, i notice that the julii haven't destroyed the old gallic temple, even though they held patavium for 200+ years. Methinks that the reason the AI has trouble holding cities, and always has rebellions is because of their failure to replace other civ's buildings and temple. Has anyone got any info to back this up?

**The_Emperor** · 12-22-2004, 15:06

Not really, if you notice the AI Cities require hardly any garisson compared to yours and rarely go rebel. I have seen AI cities with no troops in the garisson suffer riots, but have hardly ever seen them fully go rebel unless there was major unrest there to begin with and a huge culture penalty.

Check the map out next time and count how many troops you have garrissoned in your large cities compared to the AI... I'll bet their cities would be nearly empty with all their armies wandering the map while yours are stuck on peasant watching duties.

**Tora** · 12-22-2004, 15:19

I think the AI is simply indolent when it comes to town and city planning.
I've retaken towns 15 or 20 years after being turfed out only to find:

1.The town is still a town, nothing having changed since I left.

2. The enemy never did get round to mending the holes in the wall they'd made all that time ago.

**The_Emperor** · 12-22-2004, 15:57

Originally Posted by Tora

I think the AI is simply indolent when it comes to town and city planning.
I've retaken towns 15 or 20 years after being turfed out only to find:

1.The town is still a town, nothing having changed since I left.

2. The enemy never did get round to mending the holes in the wall they'd made all that time ago.

This is also true.

New Buildings do seem to be very low down ont he list of priorities for the AI. I think it concentrates on troop numbers more, which is part of the problem (hence all those cheap armies of barb Warbands and other cheapness).

**KiOwA** · 12-22-2004, 17:37

If the AI is Roman, they seem to only build highways on the Italian peninsula. Even for cities outside Italy that have been in Roman hands for decades, the AI simply declines to build highways.

**Mikeus Caesar** · 12-23-2004, 14:31

1)

If the AI is Roman, they seem to only build highways on the Italian peninsula

Not true. On my wonderful greek campaign, they captured thermon off me, and built some highways. How kind of them, because when i came back, i took the city back. I din't even need to build a ram though, i just went in through the holes that they made.

2)

I think it concentrates on troop numbers more

Also not true. There is one thing they concentrate on more than that: Boats. They build massive navies absolutely everywhere (including the caspian and the red sea. Why?) which means that everything else is even lower down on the list of priorities.

**HarunTaiwan** · 12-24-2004, 04:31

I wonder if they build navy so much to stop the player from making Inchon style landings everywhere?

Of course it happens anyways but once in a while the billion boat navies clog up the lanes.

**Spino** · 12-24-2004, 07:06

Originally Posted by HarunTaiwan

I wonder if they build navy so much to stop the player from making Inchon style landings everywhere?

Of course it happens anyways but once in a while the billion boat navies clog up the lanes.

Even by modding ships to be obscenely expensive and taking many more turns to build the AI still loves its boats, although it's not nearly as bad as with the default settings. I really really really hope CA fixed the AI's obsession with navies in the upcoming patch.

**Praylak** · 12-24-2004, 21:38

The whole system with boats and fleets is really bizarre. Why does the AI make so many and send them to all corners of the world? Shouldn't they be used to block their enemies ports and guard their own? All they seem to do now is accumulate in the adriatic to the point nothing can move. Sad display.

**Spino** · 12-24-2004, 22:55

Originally Posted by Praylak

The whole system with boats and fleets is really bizarre. Why does the AI make so many and send them to all corners of the world? Shouldn't they be used to block their enemies ports and guard their own? All they seem to do now is accumulate in the adriatic to the point nothing can move. Sad display.

You have echoed the same questions raised by countless people both here and in the official forums after the game was released. I think it's safe to say CA has done something about it in the upcoming patch. The biggest question is whether their fixes address the problem effectively.

You're absolutely right. Having fleets scattered all over the map is ridiculous, each faction should bunch as many ships into as few fleets as possible, thus better reflecting reality and keeping its overall investment safer. Having these same fleets being used wisely (i.e. on blockade or transport missions) instead of scattering and wandering all over the place for no apparent reason must also be fixed.

In the very least I expect that CA has drastically lowered the build priorities for ships in the upcoming patch. Beyond this I would be ecstatic to learn that the AI has been programmed to gauge whether or not it actually needs a large navy and set its build priorities accordingly. I've lost track of how many times a faction was beaten (i.e. Greek City States or Spain) because it spent most of its time and money building fleets when it should have been building armies or investing in troop or income related buildings. Lastly, it would be completely fantastic if the AI actually knew when to stop building ships once it achieves relative or absolute naval superiority.

I'd also love it if the patch allowed the AI to liquidate its navy to save money. When pressed by a stronger power on land the last thing the AI needs is a massive flotilla sucking precious funds from its treasury.