Winning Conditions

[Miravlix]

If you remove winning conditions in game options, does it change the AI's behavior?

Seeing all the threads where people whine about aggressiveness, I'm wondering why no one, simply only select domination as winning.

 

[sherbz]

I dont think the aggression is that bad actually. Admittedly my first game was rather passive, but maybe thats because i was a gargantuan moster and no one dared to attack me. Now im a lot smaller, only 4 cities, have a small army, and am constantly threatened by the Zulu's, who are huge. I think because G + K was so war crazy, and BNW isnt, this leads people into thinking that its too passive. Im not sure that it is though. I have yet to make up my mind fully though, as i have yet to see the AI rush (although this is only after 2 play throughs, and neither of which did i spawn right next to the AI, so i dont think i can comment.

 

[gazzcoigne]

If you remove winning conditions in game options, does it change the AI's behavior?

Seeing all the threads where people whine about aggressiveness, I'm wondering why no one, simply only select domination as winning.

I've always have that doubt, if we only choose Domination as the victory type available would that change the AI behavior and strategy for trying to win?

 

[Gabriel Pyyrhic]

I've always have that doubt, if we only choose Domination as the victory type available would that change the AI behavior and strategy for trying to win?

It does now, was not always the case.

The code has specific lines for checking if different victory conditions are enabled. I cannot remember if this pertains only to the player or both AI and player. I would imagine both but am not sure.

IIRC each AI does not look at a Victory Condition until a set number of turns in, I think 50 but cant remember, so you would not see any behavioural changes until that point was reached.

Just remember you are altering a Victory Condition, not aggression. In other words it will not make everyone attack one another immediately, but will make each Civ pursue conquest on their own terms.

If you want aggression, the best way of doing it is to cramp the civs (this shifts civs into a CLOSER distance category when they consider any aggressive action and also increases the chance of Conquest being chosen as a victory path (or used to as of G+K, have not confirmed via code in BNW yet, too many things to look at and to much code to go through).

The main reason why peoples ideas of aggression vary post BNW is that there are certain settings which increase/decrease its likelihood.

For example people always mention Shaka, his war approach rating is high (and can be up to 10 or 11 if he rolls high on the RNG), additionally some of his other AI stats are geared towards warfare. Alternatively he could roll low and become a lot more passive.

The Map Size and Number of Civs is a big factor. Civ density is not preserved between Map Sizes, people playing on HUGE maps are likely to experience the least aggression because everyone spawns further away from each other then on any other map. Once borders begin to grow and touch this changes, but as the AI is not as expansion happy as it was this does not always happen.

Finally Civ choice. As there are so many Civs right now, and most people seem to play on standard maps, the chances of getting more peacfull or less expansionistic Civs is actually quite high. If you want aggression, choose some Civs with high base values for expansion, then choose some with high base value for Aggression. The result will be a greater degree of aggression then players are used too.

There is more but this post is already long enough

Hope this helps

BTW Note that Civs pursuing a cultural victory will keep city number low, additionally Civs with a low number of cities are more likely to go Culture (or were prior to BNW, have to confirm when I have time). AT some point I will post the code (and interpretation) that govern the choice of Civ Grand Strategy (ie Conquest, Culture etc), be aware that some of them have more specific criteria then others (Ie some are fallbacks just like some Civs do not have a start bias so that there will always be plots available during seeding).

 

[Gabriel Pyyrhic]

I've always have that doubt, if we only choose Domination as the victory type available would that change the AI behavior and strategy for trying to win?

Just double checked.

Here is a code-segment taken from the cpp file that governs AI Grand Strategy choice.

// If Conquest Victory isn't even available then don't bother with anything
	VictoryTypes eVictory = (VictoryTypes) GC.getInfoTypeForString("VICTORY_DOMINATION", true);
	if(eVictory == NO_VICTORY || !GC.getGame().isVictoryValid(eVictory))
	{
		if(!GC.getGame().areNoVictoriesValid())
		{
			return -100;
		}
	}

As is clear from the comment (if you cant interpret the code its self), if a Conquest victory was not available it would not be considered as a valid choice. Similar entries for the other victory types should be found in the functions pertaining to other Victory types.

 

[Gyra Solune]

I think it is indeed the default distance settings that are the big deal here. On my current game as Morocco, I put 24 civs and 41 city-states on a Large Terra map. Needless to say, Attila's Court is property of America, the Huns current capital is Ulundi, the Zulus' current capital is Assur, Assyria's current capital is Moson Kahni, and the Shoshone have been chilling in Agaidika for the past few centuries. Plenty of aggression on that side of the map. On my end I got nearly swarmed by Rome and was almost certainly going to lose my capital, but they bafflingly accepted a pure peace treaty. Of course now into the Renaissance/Industrial era I have Siam and England getting cranky with me and Rome building a second attack, and the only reason I'm alive right now is Persia acting as a friendly buffer state.

 

[Gabriel Pyyrhic]

I think it is indeed the default distance settings that are the big deal here. On my current game as Morocco, I put 24 civs and 41 city-states on a Large Terra map. Needless to say, Attila's Court is property of America, the Huns current capital is Ulundi, the Zulus' current capital is Assur, Assyria's current capital is Moson Kahni, and the Shoshone have been chilling in Agaidika for the past few centuries. Plenty of aggression on that side of the map. On my end I got nearly swarmed by Rome and was almost certainly going to lose my capital, but they bafflingly accepted a pure peace treaty. Of course now into the Renaissance/Industrial era I have Siam and England getting cranky with me and Rome building a second attack, and the only reason I'm alive right now is Persia acting as a friendly buffer state.

Yeah you are mostly right. What you are noticing is that you can increase the aggressiveness by doing as you suggested. This does not work because this was toned down, it works because the other factors that influence aggression are being overridden by metrics that affect aggression from Civ number and Civ density.

I have badly worded that !

So in other words its not the problem, but it is a way of providing a solution.

The only problem with using lots of Civs is that it breaks the balance of the game in terms of other things. Can't really go into details as there are so many and its late, but suffice to say in many ways the game becomes easier if you overuse Civs.

Please do not take that the wrong way, each to their own playstyle (and I like lots of Civs too), unfortunately each playstyle brings its own set of issues with core game balance and AI performance.

FYI I would generally recommend adding up to 2 Civs on large maps and 2-3 Civs on huge to ensure game balance is not too adversely affected. Remember to preserve CS-Civ ratio add 2 CS per Civ.