Armies

[Ahriman]

Personally I think that the human exploit of saving up gold and NEVER dealing with war because the AI is afraid of your bankroll (current game) is worse than the human exploit of saving up gold and having to spend it quickly on units after duping the AI into war (proposal). At least in the latter, the gold is spent, and the player needs to be proactive in his/her deterrence method.

This makes sense to me.
You end up getting diplomatic warmonger penalties if you conquer enemy cities even if you didn't start the war, so the gains from "goading the enemy into war" aren't that large.

[Thalassicus]

Do you happen to know which variables control the AI's valuation of gold for military purposes? I didn't find anything with a search for "gold" in GlobalDiplomacyAIDefines.xml, and there's hundreds of variables to search through.

[Sneaks]

		<!--Economic Strength of Other Player-->
		<Row Name="ECONOMIC_STRENGTH_RATIO_MULTIPLIER">
			<Value>100</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="ECONOMIC_STRENGTH_IMMENSE_THRESHOLD">
			<Value>250</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="ECONOMIC_STRENGTH_POWERFUL_THRESHOLD">
			<Value>153</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="ECONOMIC_STRENGTH_STRONG_THRESHOLD">
			<Value>120</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="ECONOMIC_STRENGTH_AVERAGE_THRESHOLD">
			<Value>83</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="ECONOMIC_STRENGTH_POOR_THRESHOLD">
			<Value>65</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="ECONOMIC_STRENGTH_WEAK_THRESHOLD">
			<Value>40</Value>
		</Row>

		<Row Name="WAR_PROJECTION_THEIR_ECONOMIC_STRENGTH_WEAK">
			<Value>30</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="WAR_PROJECTION_THEIR_ECONOMIC_STRENGTH_POOR">
			<Value>12</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="WAR_PROJECTION_THEIR_ECONOMIC_STRENGTH_AVERAGE">
			<Value>0</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="WAR_PROJECTION_THEIR_ECONOMIC_STRENGTH_STRONG">
			<Value>-12</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="WAR_PROJECTION_THEIR_ECONOMIC_STRENGTH_POWERFUL">
			<Value>-30</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="WAR_PROJECTION_THEIR_ECONOMIC_STRENGTH_IMMENSE">
			<Value>-50</Value>
		</Row>

[Sneaks]

Obviously changing projections is what fixes it.

[Dunkah]

I like the direction this conversation is going. Forcing the Ai to spend extra cash is big.

I would like to see a variable resistance secondary timer. Possibly having the time decreased if you maintain a miliatary presence in the city.

Also I noticed in version 104 that the hover over for the angry resistance fist wasn't working in the normal view. I had to go into the city view and hover to see how many turns were left for resistance.

[Thalassicus]

@Dunkah
I noticed the tooltip bug too, and I think I fixed that in a more recent version.

[Thalassicus]

In v108.1 beta I increased healing in unowned territory from 2 to 3. This mainly affects exploration and clearing barbarian camps, activities where the heal rate felt too slow. Most important healing in inter-civ warfare is done in owned territory, which was not changed.

In addition, conquest victories require owning all capitals and 30% of the world’s land (was 0%). This mainly affects the strategy of razing or selling all non-capital cities, which I felt was somewhat "gamey."

[Txurce]

Originally Posted by Thalassicus

In v108.1 beta I increased healing in unowned territory from 2 to 3. This mainly affects exploration and clearing barbarian camps, activities where the heal rate felt too slow. Most important healing in inter-civ warfare is done in owned territory, which was not changed.

That will make Scouts able to be more aggressive and then not be sidelined for what always seems like way too long. This is good for gameplay.

[GamerKG]

Originally Posted by Thalassicus

In v108.1 beta I increased healing in unowned territory from 2 to 3. This mainly affects exploration and clearing barbarian camps, activities where the heal rate felt too slow. Most important healing in inter-civ warfare is done in owned territory, which was not changed.

In addition, conquest victories require owning all capitals and 30% of the world’s land (was 0%). This mainly affects the strategy of razing or selling all non-capital cities, which I felt was somewhat "gamey."

Must own all capitals? That is different from "last capital standing". Did you actually change that? Because that should be made clear.

[Sneaks]

He probably meant still last capital standing as this is the only mechanic built into the victories table right now.

[Thalassicus]

I think they're equivalent... do you know of an exception?

1. If we own all capitals on the victory screen, our capital is the last standing.
2. If our capital is the last standing, we own all capitals on the victory screen.

[Txurce]

Originally Posted by Thalassicus

I think they're equivalent... do you know of an exception?

1. If we own all capitals on the victory screen, our capital is the last standing.
2. If our capital is the last standing, we own all capitals on the victory screen.

In vanilla you win by Conquest when you are the only player in possession of your own capital. In theory one civ could conquer every other capital, but you would win if you took theirs.

[Thalassicus]

If one civ conquered every other capital, they own all the capitals, and theirs is the last one standing. I don't see a difference...

Edit: I think I see now. So if two players swap capitals: player A conquers capital B, and player B conquers capital A... then player C would win (who still owns their capital). Does it work this way, or do we win when we own all the capitals?

[Txurce]

To be more precise, if one civ conquers every capital except yours, and you subsequently conquer theirs, you win a Conquest victory.

[Thalassicus]

Does it actually work that way? A small, peaceful, scientific empire can "conquer" the world by sitting back and letting someone else do all the conquest... then take 1 city and win. That's bizzare!

[Txurce]

Originally Posted by Thalassicus

Does it actually work that way? It wouldn't make much sense to "conquer" the world by nearly losing.

That's how it works. I've won my share of Conquest victories where I didn't take every single capital.

[Thalassicus]

v108.3 beta
Armies

• Targeting: +10/10/15% vs Wounded and Naval units (was 20/20/20% vs naval units).
• Removed the Hunter promotion from naval units (+25% vs wounded and +1 movement).

A ship with Targeting 3 has these bonuses:

Before
0% vs full health land
0% vs wounded land
60% vs full health ships
60% vs wounded ships

After
0% vs full health land
35% vs wounded land
35% vs full health ships
70% vs wounded ships

[tlaurila]

Have to say I am not a fan of making "bonus vs wounded units" more prevalent. It gives too much an edge to the human player. Fighting with full-health units and rotating fresh ones to the front is already perhaps the biggest AI disadvantage in the game. Further reducing the power of wounded units, which the AI disproportionately ends up fighting with, only punishes the AI more for its tactical moronity.

[EsoEs]

I liked the +1 moves on the hunter promotion, maybe we could find a way to add that into the new naval promotion line? Presumably a ship that is dedicated to fighting other ships would have more maneuverability than a ship that is set up to bombard land units.

[Ahriman]

I'd favor replacing Hunter with a Wolfpack promotion accessible only to subs, but not surface vessels.