I just finished a game with v131.44, which is only slightly tougher regarding AI science than v132. I used Babylon on Emperor, had eight cities, the GL and PT in separate cities, and lost to Siam (Diplomatic Victory) in t269.At the time I was third in science. Here's how I compared to the leaders:

Persia: 205M pop, 3834 beakers, 65 techs
Siam: 72M pop, 3126 beakers, 63 techs
Babylon: 22M pop, 1277 beakers, 55 techs

I had just been passed in population by the Inca, even though I reduced them to one city well after t100.

My unhappiness was in double digits just as I was finally able to build Stadiums. I had a lot of luxuries, CS alliances (less once the UN race began), and all the happiness SP's except for Piety.

I estimated a potential SS launch in the early 300s, which by itself is reasonable given the human nerfs.

I think it's fair to say that with the AI supposedly spending all its gold (not quite in v44) , its population and especially its science are out of whack, in comparison to v31 VEM. The question is, do we see it as a problem, or should we embrace VEM becoming more balanced, and drop down a level or more?

I'm going to play Korea with v132 on King and try a strict tall strategy, then report back with a comparison. But I'm very curious as to how others are doing, what they're trying, and what they think.

Count me as a vote for it becoming more balanced.

Having to drop down a difficulty isn't really an issue to me.

If AI get to fast in science we will just have to chase them.

However doing so result in - at least for me - to fast science progress in general.
Tanks in XII century isn't my type of a game :p

What speed do you play on, MortalD?

On Epic, I'm not finding the turn 'year' any worse than it was in vanilla CiV, which was still way, way off. (That is, Medieval by about 0AD, Industrial by about 1400AD)

I almost always play marathon.
Slowed the research in gamespeeds xml to 360 from 300 and i think its K now.
Better if anything

Need to start new game again. On my current one i went to ahead in everything. To easy.
When AI was busy conquering each other i was able to build 3/4 of ancient wonders.
Can take any land, conquer anyone, build any wonder...
After all this talking about how AI is doing better now i went down to Emperor to test it out and...
...going back to Immortal :king:

Or it may be a sign that we can tone down the population and science bonusses of the AI.

In Vem the AI bonuses are:
:c5science: Science
:c5production: Costs
:c5gold: Cheaper upgrades
:c5trade: Faster worker rate
:c5war: Experience
:c5plus: Starting units
:c5plus: Sight range
:c5plus: Unit supply
I think that's it. There are no population or happiness bonuses, unlike vanilla.

The AI must receive some other sort of gold bonus; it seems literally impossible that they would be able to accrue as much gold as they do without one.:crazyeye:

I suspect AIUnitCostPercent affects both cost and maintenance, even though it only says cost. I don't see a variable named "maintenance" or "upkeep" in the file. Unit maintenance is a significant factor in our expenditures.

Do :c5production: costs affect purchasing rates?

Purchase costs are a multiplier of the production cost, so yes. A monument has a 3x purchase modifier. This means a monument's gold cost is three times whatever its :c5production: cost is set to.

Okay, thanks. Always wondered if that was the case.

I suspect AIUnitCostPercent affects both cost and maintenance, even though it only says cost. I don't see a variable named "maintenance" or "upkeep" in the file. Unit maintenance is a significant factor in our expenditures.

Right next to that line is AIBuildingCostPercent. I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that it might similarly be affecting building maintenance like the unit line.

Something else I've been considering...

Give the AI more gold, reduce :c5science::c5production: bonuses, and let my purchase-algorithm intelligently spend that gold on a variety of benefits. The AI might be more fun to play against this way than a straight-up bonus.

I've actually considered giving the AI more gold, reduce the science/production bonuses, and let the gold-spending algorithm distribute that gold to a variety of benefits.

This may be the ultimate balancer, in that it reduces the out-of-whack population disparity, and the waterfall that flows from there.

That's a good idea. It lets AI Civs with a certain flavour get extra bonuses in that area, instead of a general bonus which might not help them that much. Conquerers would be getting bonus Military Buildings / units instead of extra science they don't particularly need.

Something else I've been considering...

Give the AI more gold, reduce :c5science::c5production: bonuses, and let my purchase-algorithm intelligently spend that gold on a variety of benefits. The AI might be more fun to play against this way than a straight-up bonus.

In theory it also makes the AI more adaptable. They can use their gold to purchase down one specialist path, but then switch gears if/when decided.

One thought I had: I suspect the increasing-per-era AI Science help modifier is, as an unintended side effect, making tech runaway leader problems worse.

The question is if you shift to a gold bonus wether Genghis for example would neglect his science and production too much? And Siam would just end up buying city state after city state without building up infrastructure? I guess it would need a lot of rebalancing and testing again ;)

One thought I had: I suspect the increasing-per-era AI Science help modifier is, as an unintended side effect, making tech runaway leader problems worse.

It depends on the human player's era, not the AI's era.

@mitsho
Each leader flavor is used as a weighted probability. This means that unless the flavor is 0 the leader will sometimes buy that type of unit/building.

Playing with v133.52 (I think) on King, China had 5 cities on t79. That seems more accelerated than the WWGD happiness nerf would allow, and is likely a result of the other AI bonuses (plus gold spending). Shifting the AI edge to gold ought to limit too-rapid early expansion along with way-high pop.

Did she ally with a maritime citystate? Zetain likes forming citystate alliances, and the extra food would speed early settlers.

Did she ally with a maritime citystate? Zetain likes forming citystate alliances, and the extra food would speed early settlers.

Maybe one, and yes, that would help explain it. She was up to 7 cities at t100, by which time I controlled all the CS (although she could theoretically be a Friend.)

My general sense is that the AI build a second city well before me (could be approach) but settle down at around four for a while. Going Honor/right-hand side Trad/1st 3 Liberty, I still tend to get my first 3-4 cities built where I want them 67% of the time.

In my Korea game (v132) America is now awash in gold, but that has presumably been addressed in subsequent mods. I want to trace the pop/sci breakdown in this game, as further impetus for trying to shift the AI bonuses to gold rather than production (and to a lesser degree, science). Korea has 7 cities in t300, and a staggering amount of GWs: Mausoleum, GL, HG, HS, PT, ND, TM, BB and SoL (with SOH on the horizon). Korea had a huge beaker lead early on (with the now-nerfed free tech), and is now barely ahead:

t165:

America 4.4M pop/180 bpt
Korea 1.7M pop/262 "

t185:

America 6.6/224
Korea 2.0/388

t250:

America 20.9/610
Korea 4.5/728

t300:

America 48.4/1076
Korea 6.1/1130

As you can see, I'm squeezing a lot of science out of not much population (and would have a larger pop with less science). But America's growth is insane, and we are even in techs. I could probably launch ahead of anyone in the 330s, but would lose if America builds the UN first and guns for it.

America did that exact thing last game - spent the whole game seemingly behind, caught up in the last 200 turns, and went for UN and won.

Is Washington supposed to do that? I actually found it pretty fun.

I would like to add one aspect to the discussion: I also played a game with Korea on Epic Speed/Standard Map Size/Continents Plus/King (v131.56) and launched my Spaceship very early at turn 389/1758 AD. That happened party due to the free tech but I think the biggest contributer was the fact that I was able to build 2 Observatories (and I only had 3 cities). My :c5capital: capital had a science output of roughly 1.2k :c5science: beakers per turn at the end. :crazyeye:

-> What is the general perception on Observatories? I think they are too map-dependent and, well, extreme: "Must-build as soon as possible" if you can and completely useless otherwise. They also favor tall civs more than wide ones because they multiply the already high base output of big cities and offer an extra scientist slot. Edit: All other buildings are always somewhat useful and very useful in a few situations... Why not the observatory?

@pthmix: I agree, the Observatory is a bit odd... in terms of gameplay, the Science bonus is to compensate for having one or more unworkable tiles close by during the early bit of the game, I suppose.

I'd prefer to seeing it add base +:c5science:beakers (maybe some straight-up and a little bit per-population) instead of a +% modifier. The Scientist slot I'm okay with: player choice is good.

Alternatively (since I'm always flogging for workable mountain tiles :P), we could have something like this:
Upon discovering Engineering, Mountains become workable for 1:c5production:.
Observatory: +2 :c5science:, +1:c5science: per 2:c5citizen:. One nearby Mountain tile gains 8:c5science:; all other Mountain tiles gain 3:c5science:.
Monastery: +4:c5culture:, +2:c5culture: on Incense and Wine (as now). Nearby Mountain tiles gain 3:c5culture:.

Thematically, the Monastery change could work since monks often live holed up in mountains/away from society.

Despite what u said Pthmix i do like the "decision making" observatories bring.
Should i build city here next to a river or move it 1 hex further to be next to mountain ...
If early in game then maybe river as watermill boost production, but w8 w8 this spot got lot of food and when i discover this and that i will be able to build observatory... and so on.

One or even a few unworkable tiles are not really a setback. There are usually enough good tiles to work and even if there are only a few you can balance it out with buildings. I just tried to show how observatories can unbalance a game because I think the effectiveness of :c5science: science buildings is balanced to not take observatories into account (it feels this way).

And yeah, I love the phase of the game you describe MortalD. Only there is this random part of it: Is there a mountain? Is there a river? Who gets to benefit from water mills and observatories?

I like your ideas for mountains wobuffet, I think that would be fun! It's possible and shouldn't be too hard, but will require some scripting, so it won't be in today's version. I'll want to test and debug it first before releasing it. :goodjob:

In the meantime I'll change observatories from a percentage to a fixed value, as a quick temporary solution.

How about changing the Observatory so that it is effective/ can be built if it is within 2 or 3 tiles of a mountain. That would allow better city placement choices and allow more cities to utilize it.
Might require a nerf if this is the case.

Id rather keep it stronger but make it require being closer because otherwise it wont be a decision to make when placing the city, (example as above, either next to river or close enough to mountain)

@Dunkah
I tried that a year ago, but it did not work, because of a bug with how lua reads mod-altered database files. I reported that bug (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=10650979#post10650979) last summer but it hasn't been fixed. However, I think I have enough lua knowledge now that I could work around the bug, even if it can't be solved directly. If we did change it, it would require a mountain within 2 tiles like Machu Picchu.

-> What is the general perception on Observatories?

They also favor tall civs more than wide ones because they multiply the already high base output of big cities and offer an extra scientist slot.

I agree that the Observatory is unbalanced, and Thal has already adjusted it. But it was one of the few remaining assets for a tall civ to compete scientifically in a VEM that is now strongly tilted toward wide AI civs . (See my last two games.)

@pthmix: I agree, the Observatory is a bit odd... in terms of gameplay, the Science bonus is to compensate for having one or more unworkable tiles close by during the early bit of the game, I suppose.

I'd prefer to seeing it add base +:c5science:beakers (maybe some straight-up and a little bit per-population) instead of a +% modifier.

Alternatively (since I'm always flogging for workable mountain tiles :P), we could have something like this:
Upon discovering Engineering, Mountains become workable for 1:c5production:.
Observatory: +2 :c5science:, +1:c5science: per 2:c5citizen:. One nearby Mountain tile gains 8:c5science:; all other Mountain tiles gain 3:c5science:.
Monastery: +4:c5culture:, +2:c5culture: on Incense and Wine (as now). Nearby Mountain tiles gain 3:c5culture:.

Thematically, the Monastery change could work since monks often live holed up in mountains/away from society.

Although I realize that with the Vanguard rule we are already descending down a slippery slope regarding the use of mountains, I still don't like being able to work mountains, because their basic purpose is to be impassable.

The Observatory and Monastery suggestions doesn't make literal sense: observatories aren't built on multiple sites, and monks were much more likely to build monasteries in hills rather than mountains; wine and incense don't grow there, as far as I know. But the proposed buffs don't place anyone on the mountains, and do compensate for pthmix's point about otherwise unusable tiles. I would make the yields very low (if any) since they otherwise may unbalance the improvement (particularly the monasteries).

I would be sort of against all mountains getting bonuses as well. Its fine if one might but I also like the idea that they are just barriers.

@Txurce, rhammer640: My thought was to leave Mountains economically unproductive (in terms of :c5citizen: growth as well as :c5production:, :c5gold:, etc.) in the early game, but situationally worthwhile economically by the mid-late game. In terms of this goal, the Monastery and Observatory come a bit early in the Tech tree, although they fit best thematically... I'd be more than okay with delaying some or all of the Mountain benefits until the mid-late Renaissance or so (Archaeology & Scientific Theory?).

The way I see it, unless you're the Inca, spawning near a Mountain range is a bit of a raw deal right now: your cultural expansion goes towards tiles that will never produce anything for you, and there is no direct gameplay benefit from – or, more accurately, compensation for – having 2, 3, or more such unproductive tiles within your borders as opposed to just 1. This applies to settling near a Mountain range, too, so what it boils down to is that where it's worthwhile to settle Cities depends even more on random map luck than it has to, taking away potentially fun decision-making responsibility from the player. Tradeoffs like early game disadvantage, late game advantage are fun; blanket advantages and disadvantages involving no player choice at all are not.

As far as the defensive military benefit to Mountains, there are typically lots of Hills around them anyway. More to the point, I think not making it too easy for humans to turtle up and be completely protected from AI civs is a good thing anyhow.


I agree that the Observatory is unbalanced, and Thal has already adjusted it. But it was one of the few remaining assets for a tall civ to compete scientifically in a VEM that is now strongly tilted toward wide AI civs . (See my last two games.)
My take is that this is generally a good thing, at least to some extent (to which extent, we may well disagree on): it's harder for humans to manage wide empires reasonably well than it is for AIs to (i.e., AIs are just as incompetent at running 11 cities as they are 3). So making it harder for humans to go tall and succeed is a positive change, in my book.

The Observatory and Monastery suggestions doesn't make literal sense: observatories aren't built on multiple sites...
Well, it's a bit of an ad hoc rationalization, but consider this: having many mountains as opposed to just one to choose from increases the chances that you can find a really great spot for an Observatory. :D

I'd be okay with this if it was late in the game (industrial/early modern?), maybe even move the observatory later as well. I can't claim to know much about observatories, but that strikes me as more realistic, and mountains are rarely claimed by culture until it's the last possible option anyway. Maybe give mountains some innate yield at Railroads?

The way I see it, unless you're the Inca, spawning near a Mountain range is a bit of a raw deal right now: your cultural expansion goes towards tiles that will never produce anything for you, and there is no direct gameplay benefit from – or, more accurately, compensation for – having 2, 3, or more such unproductive tiles within your borders as opposed to just 1.

This applies to settling near a Mountain range, too, so what it boils down to is that where it's worthwhile to settle Cities depends even more on random map luck than it has to, taking away potentially fun decision-making responsibility from the player. (Yes, I think there should be some special, specific advantage to playing as the Inca, but I don't think my proposal takes that way from them.)

As far as the defensive military benefit to Mountains, there are typically lots of Hills around them anyway. More to the point, I think not making it too easy for humans to turtle up and be completely protected from AI civs is a good thing anyhow.

Different strokes for different folks. I love mountain ranges, because they allow a tall civ to develop much more peacefully. I wouldn't worry about being "completely protected" by mountains, since I have never seen this short of a bottleneck. I also always make quick use of the observatory improvement, and would not object to restoring it to its pre v137 strength to make mountains more appealing to those who have an issue with them.

Given these advantages, I don't think mountains are any more of a raw deal than tundra or desert, for example. In fact, I have yet to see anyone in these forums complain about too many mountains in their territory (the way they have about tundra and desert).

I also don't see the added strategic choice of building near mountains if they become resources. In fact, I see the opposite - I can build anywhere, without concern about the shape of the map. I'd much rather make strategic choices about whether I want protection/science vs production.

Finally, cultural expansion into mountains is pretty much the last place it happens. In today's VEM, that is really late. I don't think it hampers one's efforts in a meaningful way. When you factor in that Vanguards moving onto mountains is... controversial... I would leave this door closed. It changes too much of the game's inherent structure.

Edit: by the way, as with the Vanguard mountain-crossing rule, is all this something the AI would be unable to use?

as with the Vanguard mountain-crossing rule, is all this something the AI would be unable to use?

Mountain crossing is the same as subs going under ice, and I've seen the AI do both. I didn't see any AI problems in my tests. Path-finding algorithms are perfectly okay with "holes" in the grid.

I believe mountains providing yields would also be something the AI can handle. I suspect we could even make mountain-specific improvements and workers would deal with it like any other tile. I'm personally okay with mountains being holes in the map, but want to clarify there's no AI limitations here. :)

Mountain crossing is the same as subs going under ice, and I've seen the AI do both. I didn't see any AI problems in my tests. Path-finding algorithms are perfectly okay with "holes" in the grid.

I believe mountains providing yields would also be something the AI can handle. I suspect we could even make mountain-specific improvements and workers would deal with it like any other tile. I'm personally okay with mountains being holes in the map, but want to clarify there's no AI limitations here. :)

Really? I don't even want to think about the number of hours I've played VEM, and with the ungodly number of promoted Vanguard units the AI produces, I've never seen one show up through a mountain. How weird.

I instructed the AI to not get the Recon promotions for land units because Recon 1 and 2 provide no combat bonuses. The combat bonuses on guerrilla/trenches are more useful in most games. I only get Recon for vanguards in maybe... one out of ten games.

On the other hand, I did tell the AI to get Recon for ships, because the capability to pass a block of ice while circumnavigating a continent is useful in almost every game. I often see the AI doing that with ships.

Different strokes for different folks. I love mountain ranges, because they allow a tall civ to develop much more peacefully. I wouldn't worry about being "completely protected" by mountains, since I have never seen this short of a bottleneck. I also always make quick use of the observatory improvement, and would not object to restoring it to its pre v137 strength to make mountains more appealing to those who have an issue with them.

Fair enough. I agree Mountains shouldn't typically be powerhouse tiles, even at the endgame – only in particular circumstances: probably for tall civs (who have enough population to work a :c5food:-less tile) playing Cultural or Science games.

I'd like to keep the Observatory powerful too. I do think the +50%:c5science: was probably a bit too much though: they were pretty much worth building right away no matter what victory type, no matter what the circumstances (= not interesting gameplay). Especially with a couple Academies (and the large :c5happy:Happiness bonus for tall empires if we're talking about the Capital), +50% represents a simply enormous increase in beaker output.


@Thal:
Yeah, a Mountain-specific improvement would probably be better balanced than my original proposal. Would a choice (mini-Observatory for :c5science: vs mini-Monastery for :c5culture:) be too much, you think?

Or just 3:c5culture: as a natural yield upon building a Monastery (leaving the mountain untouched lets the natural beauty influence culture), +1:c5culture: upon discovering Archaeology, and -2:c5culture: +3:c5science: if improved with a Mountain Laboratory (Scientific Theory)... but I'm not sure negative yields are possible for Improvements.

Fair enough. I agree Mountains shouldn't typically be powerhouse tiles, even at the endgame – only in particular circumstances: probably for tall civs (who have enough pop to work a :c5food:-less tile) playing Cultural or Science games.

I'd like to keep the Observatory powerful too. I do think the +50%:c5science: was probably a bit too much though: with a couple Academies, that's an enormous net increase in beakers (= pretty much worth building right away no matter what victory type, no matter what the circumstances).


@Thal:
Yeah, a Mountain-specific improvement would probably be better balanced than my original proposal. Would a choice (mini-Observatory for :c5science: vs mini-Monastery for :c5culture:) be too much, you think?

Or just 3:c5culture: as a natural yield upon building a Monastery (leaving the mountain untouched lets the natural beauty influence culture), +1:c5culture: upon discovering Archaeology, and -2:c5culture: +3:c5science: if improved with a Mountain Laboratory (Scientific Theory)... but I'm not sure negative yields are possible for Improvements.

Going along with this general line of thought, and using the Observatory as a precedent, I could see culture coming early-game from mountains (as I could with forests). Each mountain could provide a modest amount of culture to temples (or a new building); obviously it would have to be minor to not make the buildings OP. Late game, I could see all mountains giving a small amount of production, not by mining them, but by having them within range of a factory (or even later production) building. This also goes along with what pthmix proposed earlier. I don't think the game needs it, but doubt it would throw off its "ecosystem."

Going along with this general line of thought, and using the Observatory as a precedent, I could see culture coming early-game from mountains (as I could with forests).
Gods & Kings will allow you (at least when playing as the Celts, I think) to gain Faith – the new Religion yield – from working Forests. :)

I do think the early game (pre-Renaissance, say) yields would have to be at least 2:c5culture:1:c5gold: or so to ever be worth working. But I'd be more than happy with your suggestions. (Or all Mountains could simply generate at least 1 Coal each, accessible either via Improvement or a Building...)

Ocean tiles as well, I believe. That's what I had in mind in imagining culture coming from mountains. Late-game production is easier to imagine, just like shale oil becoming viable.

In lieu of a possible shift to gold vs sci/prod bonuses for the AI, or as an interim adjustment, would it make sense to cut back on the AI's production from the mid-game on? I bring this up strictly with regard to controlling population, and its waterfall effects. Runaway population seems to be not from conquest (which I would find acceptable anyway), but from multipliers. But rather than nerf a civ (like Siam) I'd prefer to reduce the base bonus, and then let certain AI civs stand out.

Ah, interesting... leave AI :c5science:Science bonuses as small, but increasing over time, but do the opposite for the AI's :c5production:Production and/or :c5food:Food bonuses?

As far as I can see, this could be a permanent solution to the "1 or 2 :c5science:Science runaway AI Civs" problem, not just an interim solution!

Yes. Era-based changes have always seemed smoother to me. I don't think there are actual food bonuses, but cutting back on production should reduce population directly (not to mention those gigantic, useless armies) and science indirectly. And science bonuses scaling up as needed would keep AI units (and science) current, should they focus on it.

Is the Science Bonus the AI receives tied to the era they are in or to the one you are in. The latter should stop runaway civs since the bonus would run up against the higher prices of the techs and help out the lower ranking ones?

I'm happy with science being nerfed by raising RA prices. However, I've noticed that I often scrape together the gold for an RA, then have a hard time finding partners. I find myself making loans more than half the time. Would it make sense to increase the size of the AI's treasury by era, so that they are more likely to not spend themselves down before they have a chance to buy an RA?

I'm happy with science being nerfed by raising RA prices. However, I've noticed that I often scrape together the gold for an RA, then have a hard time finding partners. I find myself making loans more than half the time. Would it make sense to increase the size of the AI's treasury by era, so that they are more likely to not spend themselves down before they have a chance to buy an RA?

My only concern with this is that if they have a minimum treasury limit then they might not be able to spend that 'in a pinch' if they are being invaded etc where they need every bit of gold they have. Maybe something where when they are at war they can spend it but will save it if at peace?

I meant a maximum, rather than a minimum. They can spend it whenever they want - they just don't have to, until a higher threshold is reached. That gives everyone more of a shot at being able to afford an RA. The human player can't exploit this, because of his own lack of gold.

Does that make sense?

Ok that makes a lot more sense. I would second that.

Is the Science Bonus the AI receives tied to the era they are in or to the one you are in. The latter should stop runaway civs since the bonus would run up against the higher prices of the techs and help out the lower ranking ones?
One thought I had: I suspect the increasing-per-era AI Science help modifier is, as an unintended side effect, making tech runaway leader problems worse.
It depends on the human player's era, not the AI's era.

;) Great minds?

And Txurce's proposal sounds great... I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to link AI "target" treasury levels with (some fraction of) the cost of a contemporary RA?

Is the Science Bonus the AI receives tied to the era they are in or to the one you are in. The latter should stop runaway civs since the bonus would run up against the higher prices of the techs and help out the lower ranking ones?

The experience, production, and science bonuses are tied to the human's current era.

yieldModPerEra = handicapInfo.AIResearchPercentPerEra/100 * activePlayer:GetCurrentEra()

Would it make sense to increase the size of the AI's treasury by era, so that they are more likely to not spend themselves down before they have a chance to buy an RA?

This is how it works:

goldTarget = 2 * GameInfo.Eras[activePlayer:GetCurrentEra()].ResearchAgreementCost
budget = goldStored - (0.5 * goldTarget)The budget is how much the AI can spend. If its budget is under 50 it skips the turn. It attempts to spend gold in the following order. If any purchase succeeds, it waits to do another until the next turn.


Citystate influence (if the UN is available).
Unit upgrades (if militaristic or at war with the human).
Leader preferences.

Happiness preference depends on current happiness.
Unit preferences depend on if the leader is militaristic or at war with the human.

Citystate influence (if nothing affordable can be purchased with the chosen leader preference, and more than 300 budget is available). Choice of citystate depends on:

Distance
Influence
Rival influence
Personality
Trait
Resources

Citystate influence (if human is in ancient era, and more than 100 budget is available).
If all of the above fail, the budget is saved for a better purchase next turn.

This is how it works:

goldTarget = 2 * GameInfo.Eras[activePlayer:GetCurrentEra()].ResearchAgreementCost
budget = goldStored - (0.5 * goldTarget)

The budget is how much the AI can spend. If its budget is under 50 it skips the turn.

Okay, but would raising the treasury target make it more likely that they would have the gold for an RA?

The algorithm does not drop AI gold below the cost of a research agreement (unless in the ancient era where none can be signed). Raising the target would help the AIs sign more agreements among themselves, speeding up AI research, which would be counterproductive to the goal of slowing down AI research. Since they'd spend more gold on AI agreements they would not likely have more gold overall than before. I think it's better to just give AIs loans when needed for signing agreements.

Raising the target would help the AIs sign more agreements among themselves, speeding up AI research, which would be counterproductive to the goal of slowing down AI research.

I think it's better to just give AIs loans when needed for signing agreements.

Thanks for the clarification. The present system seems to hurt tall civs (wide runaway pop/sci civs, fewer RA's, even the nerfed Observatory) and this has yet to be balanced. I don't think it's worth focusing on tall vs wide in human play, though, until we are happy with AI balance.

Going back to the observatory discussion. I see mountains as obstacles which give you a defensive advantage by forming chokepoints and they shouldn't have any resources on them, even in the late game, apart from a few exceptions like Machu Picchu as that's really cool :)

How about needing to be within 1 hex of a mountain to build an observatory which doesn't have a scientist slot, but converts 1 mountain tile into an academy (affected by tech and policy boosts to academies) and gives 10% :c5science: to the city. Would probably need to up the :c5production: cost. It's slightly better for tall as someone has to be up their working in the observatory to get the most out of it.

And I also like the idea of a culture equivalent, mountain shrine, which also needs to be within 1 hex of the city and creates a landmark up a mountain. Would these need to be mutually exclusive though?

If you think you there are too many mountains near a potential city spot, settle somewhere else, you should be gently pushed toward settling on a river unless you really want the science (or culture) boost.

All of that sounds fine to me.

You could also have a (ski) ressort for commerce ;-)

I'm not sure if we need those, but why not. Depends on how far the Enhancement aspect of the mod goes (regarding ADDING stuff), f.e. the game is in dire need of some more late game wonders in my mind, but I don't feel it's right to add them in the mod, it's vanilla enhancement after all.

Mountain Shrine sounds wrong though, however I don't really have a better idea right now...

As for additional buildings, I'd like a "National Park" Building that enhances (doubles?) the value of Natural Wonders, would also strengthen Spain a bit.

On second thoughts, buildings that convert mountains into workable tiles might be treading on the toes of natural wonders actually. Better off keeping a base rate, the specialist slot and maybe a low multiplier perhaps? Simpler too.

Mountain shrine was intended to be something similar to Buddhist monasteries/shrines in the Himalayas and Japan, but it might be a bit superfluous.

P.S. what happens if you build Machu Picchu next to a natural wonder as your only mountain, do the resources stack? And can you culture bomb it into your civ?