147.4 Few minor bugs

[Seek]

- I set the Barb bonus to 10% (removing the "--"s) in the Options sql, but it's showing up as 15% in game.

- The recent change to ancient ruins has resulted in zero ruins on my subcontinent (it's me and Russia, whose cap is ten tiles away). This includes the area behind my capital away from Moscow which got to early and very much doubt was scouted before me. Later I started another game and saw three ruins on my continent (but only got one) - none were near my capital. I suppose this isn't really a bug since it's intended, but it would be nice to have more ruins. Of course, I might have just been unlucky!

- Russia's capital has 6 gold on the city tile at turn 20 - it's on a river and should be one - I can't think of any building or policy that could have this effect this early. I think this went in hand with the ancient ruins change ... I find it disconcerting in that it slaps you in the face with AI bonuses. Can it be hidden?

- Russia settled into me on turn 26. The following turn brought the (now typical) "Please don't settle near us" message. I know it's been mentioned before but I would really, really love to see this fixed.

- Catherine has a two-horse tile improved in Moscow, but has 10 horses available for trade. It's around turn 50 - I don't see how she could be allied with that many CSs, none of whom I've met since there's only one with horses and she's not allied with it.

 

[Txurce]

Catherine has a two-horse tile improved in Moscow, but has 10 horses available for trade. It's around turn 50 - I don't see how she could be allied with that many CSs, none of whom I've met since there's only one with horses and she's not allied with it.

This happened to me recently (8 Aztec swordsmen). He had zero iron developed, and there was no way he had traded for that much so early in the game.

 

[Thalassicus]

The options file loads before everything else... hm. I don't think there's a way to fix the barb bonus thing while also making it look nice. I'll have to put more lines in.

Gold on an AI's city tile is unintentional - I moved that to a building.

The immediate acquisition of ruins near AI capitals was added half a year ago. I usually get 2-4 per game, similar to vanilla. Vem doesn't give AIs extra resources, nor change how resources are acquired or distributed. The resources you see on the tiles are what's available.

"Please don't settle near us" message. I know it's been mentioned before but I would really, really love to see this fixed.

I don't know what might cause this, or what variables control it.

 

[Seek]

I'm sorry, I thought this was a recent change. From the 146.3 patch notes:

WWGD:
Ancient ruins removed around AI start locations no longer give them yields. Click for details.

Was it just an expansion to seven tiles?

Regarding the "don't settle near us" thing: do the flavors for LAND_DISPUTE in the AIdefines file have anything to do with it? I think this started showing up after number of small adjustments were made to make militaristic civs more successful.

Perhaps as an alternative we could change the flavor text in the "don't settle near us" messages to something like "our close borders are causing tensions, settling more cities in the area may force us to war" or "we have discovered an ancient de jure claim on your lands, settling more cities will only increase our glory when we take them!" Something that sounds less incongruous when we haven't settled any cities, in other words.

 

[Thalassicus]

In the old version, when the system found a ruin it deleted the ruin and gave yields to the AI. Now it only deletes the ruin, without giving any yields.

It used to be that settling past the 1/2-way mark between our capital and theirs is what triggered "don't settle near" complaints. Something changed that, and I didn't do it directly or intentionally, so I don't know what caused it. I haven't seen variables that might control it. The land_dispute values have not changed in half a year.

I'd be surprised if militaristic-civ adjustments affected land disputes. I removed the experience bonus from peaceful AIs in a war with militaristic AIs, peaceful AI's don't get partisans when cities are captured by militaristic AIs, militaristic AIs get a city siege bonus, and other similar combat-related effects. It'd be highly unusual if things like that could alter a fundamental part of diplomacy.

Does there seem to be any pattern to who protests about close borders? Is it only the militaristic AIs, or all of them?

 

[Txurce]

Given the number of recent changes, isolating what brought the recent surge in "don't settle" must be really hard. I always think of comparing the last VEM version not to have this issue with the first one that did, but I'm sure that's occurred to you, too.

 

[Thalassicus]

The problem is Firaxis does not organize their code well. Logically the land_dispute stuff Seek pointed out would be the one and only thing controlling land disputes. That makes sense, right? But those variables have not changed in half a year, so it's gotta be something else, a mislabeled or ambiguous variable which looks like it does something totally different. Most of the AI is in the game core, so without access to that it's nearly impossible to figure out what's going on. AI responses are difficult to create tests for.

 

[Seek]

Does there seem to be any pattern to who protests about close borders? Is it only the militaristic AIs, or all of them?

I've only encountered this from militaristic AIs, but mitsho in the other thread mentioned Persia as a culprit.

Any thoughts on at least changing the text to make it less of a "WTH?" moment when it happens?

 

[albie_123]

You could simply make it a text that refers more to coveting lands, since the negative modifier tends to appear at the same time they make the 'Don't settle near us' demand.

 

[Thalassicus]

Here's the current text. What should we change it to?

• I couldn't help but notice that you seem to be expanding into lands which I regard to be mine. I request that you reconsider this.
• Your habit of claiming every bit of land you've spotted has not gone unnoticed. I advise you to discontinue this.
• If you should continue to expand your empire in lands I feel are mine it can only ruin the possibility of friendship between us.
• The settling of your people near my sovereign territory is placing a strain upon relations between our two nations.

• Our apologies, we'll refrain from this settling near you in the future.
• We'll settle what lands we please.

 

[Thalassicus]

It could be that the "FLAVOR_EXPANSION" value affects this. I changed AI flavors when I added the AI gold purchase system, and the stronger land disputes appeared to happen at the same time. I'll change the land dispute thresholds to see if that has any effect.

 

[gunnergoz]

In my past two games, I've had AI states complain about my expansion into their territory on first contact, when my own had only just been founded and had not even expanded past the original 7 hexes. Next time I'll try to notice which ones are complaining and report them.

 

[Seek]

Here's the current text. What should we change it to?

• I couldn't help but notice that you seem to be expanding into lands which I regard to be mine. I request that you reconsider this.
• Your habit of claiming every bit of land you've spotted has not gone unnoticed. I advise you to discontinue this.
• If you should continue to expand your empire in lands I feel are mine it can only ruin the possibility of friendship between us.
• The settling of your people near my sovereign territory is placing a strain upon relations between our two nations.

• Our apologies, we'll refrain from this settling near you in the future.
• We'll settle what lands we please.

Some ideas:

• The proximity of our nations is causing tensions between our nations. Settle no new cities near me so that we may continue to work in harmony.
• My willingness to work with you dwindles as the borders of our nations draw nearer. I demand you not settle near my borders, lest you wish me to take action.
• As the borders of our nations draw nearer each year, my warmth toward you cools. Settling new cities near my sovereign territory could strain our relations beyond repair.
• We have discovered an ancient de jure claim on the lands between here and your capital. Should you expand further into our rightful dominion, it will only increase our glory when we usurp them!
• I've noticed your borders have been expanding at an alarming rate. Settling cities near my territory could ruin any possibility of friendship for our nations.
• Ancient histories of my people tell of a migration from the lands you currently occupy. We will let you keep the lands for now, but we shall not hesitate to take action if you expand further into the lands of our ancestors.

a. Our apologies, we'll refrain from settling near you.
b. We'll claim what lands we please!
​

 

[Seek]

I spawned in my current 149 game near Arabia, with Japan somewhat far away and Denmark farther still. I got no "don't settle near us" messages from any of them, but when I met Spain on turn 90 she gave it to me the following turn. I still don't know where her capital is at turn 100 - needless to say it isn't anywhere near me, and there's a strait between our landmasses.

 

[Thalassicus]

That's very strange. I wonder if the distance variables for land disputes are inverted? Far is near, near is far...

 

[Tids]

I generally get the messages when the AI build a city near one of my own, or when I put a city in what seems to be their future area of expansion.

 

[Txurce]

I'm still getting "near" warnings as well on v149.

 

[albie_123]

No change from the last version.

EDIT: Turn 145, Germany has founded NO more cities, and Suleiman has founded one. I conquered Greece, and it had two cities at its greatest strength.

Not sure if this is related to you rechanging the FLAVOR_EXPANSION but it very well could be.

EDIT EDIT: I also checked what policies they had. Suleiman and Alexander both had at least one liberty policy, Germany only had honour. I suspect that the AI has simply stopped producing settlers.

 

[wobuffet]

Yeah, I have the Inca at one City at turn 90. Washington only had one too when I conquered him around the same time, although Barbs got at least one of his Settlers and I got two.

 

[Thalassicus]

Not sure if this is related to you rechanging the FLAVOR_EXPANSION but it very well could be.

Hmm... I did not change flavor_expansion. I altered the "land dispute threshold" values in GlobalDiplomacyAIDefines, which should have had no effect on their preference for settlers. Are you sure their settlers did not get captured by barbarians?