Fall patch

blackcatatonic · Jul 25, 2013

Buccaneer said:
As an amendment to the world congress, please do not let the opponents be bought so very easily at higher difficulties.

As an additional point to this: if an AI has submitted a proposal, they should not be able to be convinced to vote against their own proposal for any price.

I couldn't believe how easily I was able to bribe Pocatello to vote against his suggestion in my first game - he didn't even like me!

Chiatroll · Jul 25, 2013

Kordanor said:
-Make great work combos less complicated (especially louvre which is a pain in the ass in multiplayer)

I hate the exploration tree in general it feels so.. randomly put together.

Here's some hammer and happiness bonuses for wide empires.

Then you have some gold and trade bonuses for money which feels like a money focus which I'll admit is a bit useful for everyone except long range navel trade is risky during domination.

Then you have a couple navel bonuses for if you on an islands map and want to have a mobile navy domination.

Then you have archaeologists sites and the louvre for a wonder which makes it sound like it's for a culture win.

I'm just not sure where this tree is trying to go unlike almost every other policy tree.

liberty says wide, aesthetics says tourism, piety says religion, tradition says tall, honor says domination, and rationalism says science, but exploration says "meh, whatever"

blackcatatonic · Jul 25, 2013

Uncle_Joe said:
Ugh, I hope they don't wait till some distant 'Fall Patch' to at least add an OPTION to increase AI aggressiveness/expansionism.

People can argue it till they are blue in the face, but in the end, it's clear that a LOT of people would like the AI to be less passive.

As my signature suggests, I am very much hoping that they do not make any changes whatsoever to increase AI aggressiveness in the game by default.

I can't argue against the idea that there should be a 'more aggressive AI' option to toggle in Advanced Settings, though, for people who enjoy that sort of thing. It's a good idea.

Kordanor · Jul 25, 2013

Chiatroll said:
I hate the exploration tree in general it feels so.. randomly put together.

Now that you mention it, I'd love to see a revamp of this tree as well. ^^
It looks like this tree is made for culture due to the louvre and the hidden digsites as "finisher". However everything else seems to be random stuff. And even if you unlock the louvre its not granted that you actually get it. Same goes for the hidden digsites - if anyone else is faster, you will have wasted all your points (because culture choices in other trees would have been better). Right now this tree is really horrible.

And while we are at it:
Please make all possible perks in the ideology tree visible at all times and not just when first taking an ideology.

Kordanor · Jul 25, 2013

blackcatatonic said:
As my signature suggests, I am very much hoping that they do not make any changes whatsoever to increase AI aggressiveness in the game by default.

I can't argue against the idea that there should be a 'more aggressive AI' option to toggle in Advanced Settings, though, for people who enjoy that sort of thing. It's a good idea.

Well as far as I can see it the aggressiveness is mainly broken in the early game and works ok from industrial onwards. Aggressive Civs should be aggressive and peaceful civs should be peaceful. Both Civs should take their opportunities.
So I think a fix is needed to get this "in line".
In addition however I think it would be pretty easy for the developers to implement a "peaceful civs" or an "aggressive civs" check at game start.

blackcatatonic · Jul 25, 2013

I can't argue against your experiences, but in my games so far, aggressive Civs being aggressive and peaceful Civs being peaceful is exactly what I've found. What I have noticed is that the AI is much better at winning the game peacefully without needing to recourse to war. I really haven't noticed any indication of any problems, much less it being 'broken'.

Pre-BNW, your nearest AI neighbour - regardless of who they were - would attack you early game. Almost every time. I have around 1,800 hours' worth of games and over 90% of the time this was the case. It was just How The Game Worked. I found it tiresome and predictable. Now that still happens sometimes, but not always. Which makes the game more variable, more difficult to anticipate, and more fun. Instead I'm facing challenges in terms of other Civs' expansion, City-State influence, aggressive religion, tech rates, Wonder races... and yes, still war, but the AI doesn't rely on conquest the way that it used to.

But as I say, I'm all for making aggression levels customisable, and the likes of Attila, Augustus, etc. should attack early. Just don't force everyone to go back to the pre-BNW 'oh look, I've started within 12 tiles of Gandhi's capital, TIME FOR WAR!' charade.

Senteliks · Jul 25, 2013

blackcatatonic said:
I can't argue against your experiences, but in my games so far, aggressive Civs being aggressive and peaceful Civs being peaceful is exactly what I've found. What I have noticed is that the AI is much better at winning the game peacefully without needing to recourse to war. I really haven't noticed any indication of any problems, much less it being 'broken'.

Pre-BNW, your nearest AI neighbour - regardless of who they were - would attack you early game. Almost every time. I have around 1,800 hours' worth of games and over 90% of the time this was the case. It was just How The Game Worked. I found it tiresome and predictable. Now that still happens sometimes, but not always. Which makes the game more variable, more difficult to anticipate, and more fun. Instead I'm facing challenges in terms of other Civs' expansion, City-State influence, aggressive religion, tech rates, Wonder races... and yes, still war, but the AI doesn't rely on conquest the way that it used to.

But as I say, I'm all for making aggression levels customisable, and the likes of Attila, Augustus, etc. should attack early. Just don't force everyone to go back to the pre-BNW 'oh look, I've started within 12 tiles of Gandhi's capital, TIME FOR WAR!' charade.

I agree with him,aggressive AI should be optional (an option in advanced menu to be so that people who prefer aggressive AI can activate and play the game,while us who like new AI can avoid aggressive AI)

oddtail · Jul 25, 2013

Senteliks said:
I agree with him,aggressive AI should be optional (an option in advanced menu to be so that people who prefer aggressive AI can activate and play the game,while us who like new AI can avoid aggressive AI)

I partially agree as well.

My experience is somewhat similar - now aggressive civilizations tend to be aggressive, and non-aggressive tend to leave you alone.

Personally I think the current situation is better than the previous one.

Why don't I agree more than just "partially"? Because I still think the aggression *should* be ramped up. I just think the change should be rather slight.

On an arbitrary scale where aggression pre-BNW is 10, and the current aggression is 0, I think the perfect level of aggression should be about 2, maybe 3. Even peaceful civilizations SHOULD occasionally attack if you leave yourself wide open, and they currently never seem to if they are not aggressively inclined.

Chiatroll · Jul 25, 2013

Senteliks said:
I agree with him,aggressive AI should be optional (an option in advanced menu to be so that people who prefer aggressive AI can activate and play the game,while us who like new AI can avoid aggressive AI)

I think you can never hurt a game by having more adjustable options. Having various adjustable AI overall aggression levels would be nice.

I often find BWN a little too peaceful also but I'll admit everyone attacked everyone for almost no reason in some games before BWN.

Uncle_Joe · Jul 25, 2013

blackcatatonic said:
I can't argue against your experiences, but in my games so far, aggressive Civs being aggressive and peaceful Civs being peaceful is exactly what I've found. What I have noticed is that the AI is much better at winning the game peacefully without needing to recourse to war. I really haven't noticed any indication of any problems, much less it being 'broken'.

Pre-BNW, your nearest AI neighbour - regardless of who they were - would attack you early game. Almost every time. I have around 1,800 hours' worth of games and over 90% of the time this was the case. It was just How The Game Worked. I found it tiresome and predictable. Now that still happens sometimes, but not always. Which makes the game more variable, more difficult to anticipate, and more fun. Instead I'm facing challenges in terms of other Civs' expansion, City-State influence, aggressive religion, tech rates, Wonder races... and yes, still war, but the AI doesn't rely on conquest the way that it used to.

But as I say, I'm all for making aggression levels customisable, and the likes of Attila, Augustus, etc. should attack early. Just don't force everyone to go back to the pre-BNW 'oh look, I've started within 12 tiles of Gandhi's capital, TIME FOR WAR!' charade.

I don't disagree that the AI in G&K was a bit psychotic and that yeah, it would often banzai out of the blue and just throw themselves at you for little to no good reason.

But BNW is the polar opposite. It doesn't WHAT I do or how little military I have, the AI has not attacked me.

That is not Civ either IMO. And I don't want ONLY the 'aggressive' Civs to ever attack because again, the challenge is removed if you KNOW that Civ 'x' or 'y' wont bother you.

The AI needs to take advantage of a military situation just like it should take advantage of economic/political ones.

The problem of making it 'optional' only is that at that point, they are trying to balance the game for two entirely different sets of circumstance. For example, currently, I find the game stupidly easy on difficulty levels higher than I played G&K simply because I have so much money and production available from ignoring a military. On the other hand, if I am being attacked left and right (as in G&K), I can stagnate very easily.

I guess what I'm saying is that there HAS to be some viable middle-ground between G&K and BNW. I don't want the bloodthirsty AI of G&K back, but the BNW passive ignore me AI isn't any better IMO.

footslogger · Jul 25, 2013

What I'd like to see is a completely reworked combat system, replacing 1upt, which the AI can actually use effectively and thereby make the human player fear attack rather than see it as an easy opportunity to gain a nice lot of unit promotions and to cripple even a far stronger opponent. Ah, but that will have to wait until civ6...

Chiatroll · Jul 25, 2013

footslogger said:
What I'd like to see is a completely reworked combat system, replacing 1upt, which the AI can actually use effectively and thereby make the human player fear attack rather than see it as an easy opportunity to gain a nice lot of unit promotions and to cripple even a far stronger opponent. Ah, but that will have to wait until civ6...

1upt is a core game mechanic in civ 5 and redoing it would change to much so.. yeah.

Anyway I hate the old stack of doom.

I'd rather just have the AI improved so it has some resemblance of tactics rather then slowly approaching the hills as fodder for my tinier army.

Liufeng · Jul 25, 2013

Chiatroll said:
I hate the exploration tree in general it feels so.. randomly put together.

Here's some hammer and happiness bonuses for wide empires.

Then you have some gold and trade bonuses for money which feels like a money focus which I'll admit is a bit useful for everyone except long range navel trade is risky during domination.

Then you have a couple navel bonuses for if you on an islands map and want to have a mobile navy domination.

Then you have archaeologists sites and the louvre for a wonder which makes it sound like it's for a culture win.

I'm just not sure where this tree is trying to go unlike almost every other policy tree.

liberty says wide, aesthetics says tourism, piety says religion, tradition says tall, honor says domination, and rationalism says science, but exploration says "meh, whatever"

Not quite. Exploration is not "meh, whatever", but rather sea bonus. The happiness bonus, the production bonus, the money bonus, are all sea related. It's the tree for naval empires, and a must for civs like Carthage, Polynesia or Portugal.

jaldaen · Jul 25, 2013

blackcatatonic said:
As an additional point to this: if an AI has submitted a proposal, they should not be able to be convinced to vote against their own proposal for any price.

I couldn't believe how easily I was able to bribe Pocatello to vote against his suggestion in my first game - he didn't even like me!

Actually, in my games I've had to propose things I didn't really want just because I ran out of "good" options. I can see the AI running into this same issue. I do however think that it should be harder to get them to vote against their proposal, but not impossible. Also, I think the AI should recognize when things change and be able to vote against their own proposal when it would actually hurt them.

For example, Monty proposes banning Wine, but somehow gets access to wine before the proposal comes up. 1) I should be able to easily bribe him to not ban wine at that point. 2) He should realize he has wine and want to avoid banning it.

As long as the AI can do this and as long as more proposals are added to make it so I don't have to propose things I don't want, then I'm fine with them being more difficult to bribe on the stuff that hurts me more than them.

Chiatroll · Jul 25, 2013

Liufeng said:
Not quite. Exploration is not "meh, whatever", but rather sea bonus. The happiness bonus, the production bonus, the money bonus, are all sea related. It's the tree for naval empires, and a must for civs like Carthage, Polynesia or Portugal.

how does the louve and hidden sites help someone with "sea" also "sea" feels weird and general and more about the map even if some civs like ottoman have good sea bonuses. Sometimes it's about sea money sometimes it's about production at sea and some people go for different things on a navel map.

I could say it had mostly coastal stuff then it randomly has culture stuff and I throw my hands up and say "whatever!"

KrikkitTwo · Jul 25, 2013

Chiatroll said:
how does the louve and hidden sites help someone with "sea" also "sea" feels weird and general and more about the map even if some civs like ottoman have good sea bonuses. Sometimes it's about sea money sometimes it's about production at sea and some people go for different things on a navel map.

I could say it had mostly coastal stuff then it randomly has culture stuff and I throw my hands up and say "whatever!"

The Louvre/hidden artifacts are bonuses for going overseas to other continents to get those artifacts.

Pythakoreas · Jul 25, 2013

KrikkitTwo said:
The Louvre/hidden artifacts are bonuses for going overseas to other continents to get those artifacts.

You can still send Archaeologists overseas without completing Exploration tree though...

TheMarshmallowBear · Jul 25, 2013

Pythakoreas said:
You can still send Archaeologists overseas without completing Exploration tree though...

You don't need Exploration to get the themeing bonus, hell, on Warlord I got that bonus quite quickly because there were 2 nearby sites that had two different artefacts (an Aztec ruin plunder and mine classical ruin plunder) mix that with Medieval and Renaissance art works from Spain and Portgual and voila +8 with Aestethic finisher.

Homewrecker · Jul 25, 2013

Chiatroll said:
1upt is a core game mechanic in civ 5 and redoing it would change to much so.. yeah.

Anyway I hate the old stack of doom.

I'd rather just have the AI improved so it has some resemblance of tactics rather then slowly approaching the hills as fodder for my tinier army.

A workable compromise might be a variation on 2upt.

You would be allowed to have two units per tile; however, only one unit could attack from one tile per turn. Currently, the AI gets stuck in a shuffle because they constantly block themselves with their own units. They have an idea of where they want their units to end up, but their other units block each other constantly. With allowing two units to at least occupy the same space temporarily, the AI could move their units more easily through each other.

While this isn't a perfect solution and probably has some problems I'm not thinking of, I believe this would go a long way to solving the AI's logistical problems.

KrikkitTwo · Jul 25, 2013

The best compromise would be
Multiple units-> one "army"

The army then acts as a single unit
it attacks once with all of its strength, unlike a SOD
if attacked it defends with all of its strength and takes damage as a whole

Pythakoreas said:
You can still send Archaeologists overseas without completing Exploration tree though...

Yes, but with the exploration tree you will
1. have seen more of other continents [free admiral, +vision+movement on naval vessels, more naval production]
2. have a better ability to defend your archaeologists, or conquer overseas areas with digs available

Fall patch

Queen of Meme

Warlord

Queen of Meme

Warlord

Warlord

Queen of Meme

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Prince

Warlord

Warlord

A man of his time

Prince

Warlord

Immortal

Chef Tain

Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom

Chieftain

Immortal

Similar threads