NoAIPatrol=0 ?

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Like everyone who restored the Barbarian "brain" to the ptw level can confirm, adding this line to the conquest.ini will make the game a bit harder.

But, after seeing how it clearly was supposed to be, playing with braindead Yokels and defiant AIs parking an Archer on a Mountain for 4000 years, feels like a major exploit.

The problem is: AFAIK, there's now way to check for this setting in the save.

So, my question is:
What is the 'official' position of the GotM staff on the issue? Should restored Barbarian Activity at least be encouraged?

(More info on the Fix >>here<<, thanks again watorrey and JustusII )

[ainwood]

Well, of course I would like it if everybody would do this so that the barbs would work.

However, unfortunately, short of distributing a new .ini file (which would like cause more problems than it solves with all players losing there other custom settings), there is no real way to ensure that everyone is on a level playing field.

I would certainly encourage people to play with this setting turned on, if only to actually make their own games more interesting. As far as I can tell, it will have to be on an honor system, though.

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Thanks ainwood, that's what I hoped to hear.
Nothing more could be done about it, too bad.


Edit: 110 more views, and nobody has an opinion on this topic?

[smackster]

I haven't tried this, but if it works like suggested then this should be the recommended setting for COTM. Maybe a sticky of the thread, and put a further message in the game introduction.

This way most people will change it. There doesn't appear to be a way to force this setting. Maybe if people started to put this at the top of their spoiler posts.

smackster

[gozpel]

I and INI-files = not compatible.

When other things are on the schedule are fixed that I have whinged about, so much that people almost start to hate me, then I consider this change.

Generally, I do like it. But someone has to make it foolproof for me to even try it. I can screw up the easiest things.

[ainwood]

Originally Posted by gozpel

I and INI-files = not compatible.

When other things are on the schedule are fixed that I have whinged about, so much that people almost start to hate me, then I consider this change.

Generally, I do like it. But someone has to make it foolproof for me to even try it. I can screw up the easiest things.

Its not that difficult!

Give me an hour or two, and I'll post a utility to add this line automatically.

[zamint3]

Originally Posted by ainwood

Its not that difficult!

If I understand this correct, you just add the line : NoAIPatrol=0, anywhere in the conquest.ini file, right?

I've done that and will test it in COTM6.

..... ...we have sedentary barbs, doesn't that mean : no barbs?

[Tone]

Thanks for posting this. I never knew about this fix. I guess I should visit other areas of the site more often. It should certainly make the games more interesting although have only a limited affect on the new COTM game with minimal barbs. I shall try it this evening!

[gozpel]

Give me an hour or two, and I'll post a utility to add this line automatically.

Crap, I thought someone would listen to me.

That's it, we better start a poll then.

I want to play fair and will add that silly line to my INI. Like that makes a difference, comparing to the main faults.

Thanks Doc!

[ainwood]

@Gozpel: here ya go

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

@Gozpel:
If you mean the Palace Jump etc issues, I fully agree with you anyway.

@ainwood:
Does your tool also allow for changing to NoAIPatrol=1, when this is required (SGs, late game!)?

@all:
Sedentary Barbs still mean Barbs from Huts (for the non-EXP Civs). IMHO, those early Yokels are even more important to restore than those at era advance, since you don't have Pikes at that time...

[Roland Ehnström]

I have now added the line NoAIPatrol=0 to my conquests.ini. I hope everyone will do it!

-- Roland

[eldar]

Well I stuck it in for an SG I just started (at Doc's suggestion, may I add...). Of course, I wish I hadn't, because the Barbs have been a pain in the butt so far, but it's good (I think) to see them back.

Neil.

[ainwood]

Originally Posted by Doc Tsiolkovski

@ainwood:
Does your tool also allow for changing to NoAIPatrol=1, when this is required (SGs, late game!)?

DIdn't think of that - its currently a one-way trip.

[Dianthus]

Originally Posted by Doc Tsiolkovski

Edit: 110 more views, and nobody has an opinion on this topic?

Well, here's another view, and an opinion to go with it . This sounds like something we ought to recommend for GOTM even if it can't be checked. I've just added the line to my conquests.ini.

[Tone]

I've just tried it and it makes the early game much more interesting. IMHO it should be a GOTM requirement. I know it cannot be checked but the whole comp is based on an honour system anyway as those that are intent on cheating will find a way. The rest of us just play to enjoy the game and I prefer a game with challenges.

[Ambiorix]

Originally Posted by Doc Tsiolkovski

Edit: 110 more views, and nobody has an opinion on this topic?

I silently added the line to my .ini file.

[Sandman2003]

Doc do you really need an affirmation from everyone reading this thread that it is a good idea? If you want a lot of traffic in this thread you need someone to make it more controversial by coming up with a reason NOT to do this! But it won't be me.

I'll add the line prior to downloading COTM06.

[ainwood]

Originally Posted by Sandman2003

Doc do you really need an affirmation from everyone reading this thread that it is a good idea? If you want a lot of traffic in this thread you need someone to make it more controversial by coming up with a reason NOT to do this!

You've made it controversial by posting that!

It is a topic worthy of discussion, because it is something that requires a change to the default settings, the users to do it themselves, and has to work on the honour system.

[solenoozerec]

Originally Posted by Sandman2003

Doc do you really need an affirmation from everyone reading this thread that it is a good idea? If you want a lot of traffic in this thread you need someone to make it more controversial by coming up with a reason NOT to do this! But it won't be me.

I'll add the line prior to downloading COTM06.

I will alter my .ini file too before starting COTM6.
However, what might be another reason (other than what Ainwood mentioned) against it?
I was thinking maybe there is a different kind of challenge. In conquest, barbs are seating at the same spot for a very long time if not disturbed and they grow to very large numbers.
When they are at such large numbers, it is hard to eliminate them rapidly.
To illustrate my point here is a quote from SirPleb’s last spoiler on COTM4 (I do not think that such a situation is possible in the classic civilization):

Originally Posted by SirPleb

It took me unti 1020AD to deal with all the barbarians which had accumulated on this island. I handled most of them by just absorbing their attacks, settling towns where I could draw them out and then letting them pillage the towns. (I never had much gold left at the end of a turn so this didn't hurt.)