Search results

Only if you ignore the fact that just about all of humanity migrated out of there starting a few tens of thousands of years ago... If we'd been keeping records since the dawn of our species, there'd be no such thing as exploration ;).

A couple things: First, if there is truly a balance in the game as far as which victory the AI is likely to choose, some favoring one, others favoring another, etc, then over the course of many, many games, we should expect about 1/4 of the civs we encounter to aggressively pursue a military...

That's a great observation. IMO it would be flat wrong if the AI is universally prevented from deficit spending. Are you sure this isn't taken into account further downstream?

Excellent posts last night, Aristos, thanks!

I think we're saying the same thing dexters. I was just getting into the nitty gritty about which constant is being referred to in that algorithm...it would have to be the value applied when a civ is rolled, not the hard-coded base value, unless there is no longer any variation in civ...

More specifically, if the loss in GPT reduces below 0 that particular AI's likelihood to war given a particular roll for a particular game, it won't war. So, it's an interaction between cost effectiveness of going to war and the AI's "natural inclination" to go to war, all other things being equal.

"If I understand this correctly, a potential fix could then be to bump up that constant for the warmongers as an easy fix, assuming all people care about is seeing early wars or being afraid of one. Might be interesting if someone increased this value for some Civs and see if we get a more...

To break down the crucial part of the code, here's how I read it: // sanity check - if we will go negative from war with this player, don't go to war This threw me at first, as it sounds like it's staying, if revenue goes negative, don't war. But, I'm pretty sure it's saying something else. See...

It's just an algorithm to determine exactly what the blow to the AI will be due to a loss in trade incurred by DoWing a given civ. How heavily the AI weighs the results of the calculation is handled by another algorithm elsewhere in the code.

I mean, I couldn't possibly address all permutations of scenarios that lead to a lack of war against the human player. The overall point is, there seem to be a LOT of new, interrelated, dynamic elements at play, and I think a lot of them can conspire to make war an unfavorable choice. In many...

It would be interesting to observe the likelihood of early wars of aggression for a coastal civ (i.e., 2 or 3 early cities on the coast) with: -continental neighbors -early discovery of inter-continental civs -early establishment of cargo ship trade routes -lack (or relative lack) of caravan...

Or if you're Shoshone and choose it!

That's awesome Teleon...I would be curious to know if/how it would affect your friend's strategy if in the early game a small alliance of builders flooded his territory with semi-lucrative (for him) trade routes...if he declares on one of you, you all declare on him, simply to deprive him of all...

:beer:

I have, at times, had nearly 100 GPT coming in from trade alone...it would be pretty challenging to instantly wipe that out and then get revenues back to that level before running into serious problems.

Awesome, thanks! I'll update tonight and then wrestle between engaging in one form of geeking out and another...playing Civ or reading/tweaking it ;).

Aristos, out of curiosity, in what directory/file did you find that snippet? Good hunting...I want to explore :)

I think even that depends. For instance, I sometimes devise a strategy that causes me to lag behind for awhile with the idea that when I reach a certain point I'll leap forward and take the lead. If I were to divert from my strategy in order to deal with the leader at any given time, that leap...

Aristos, fantastic, thanks for digging that up! It matters if they are so reliant on trading with you that going to war will send them negative and tank their economy.

Buccaneer, I guess what's kind of crystallizing for me via this debate is, the priorities of winning by whatever means and of targeting the human player may very well come into conflict. Unless you are deemed to be either a significant threat to their chance of winning or a critical piece of the...