OK looks like I'm in this nightmare as Wepwawet. As for Strat. I agree on horses and gold as most important. The only hope I see is to beat down someone early and try to extort techs from them throughout by remaining more powerful and occasionally wacking a bunch of their troops. We also need one or 2 friendly civs for protection and possible gifts. Will depend how the religions pan out. For now the obvious thing is grab as much land as possible. Rosey is usually pretty nice and weak on military, good whipping boy. Wang I don;t know.
Acid_04: The final frontier
- Thread starter acidsatyr
- Start date
what wrong with Wepwawet? It's a silly name i admit...
Acid, I can not use game.
You did not created it with betetr AI as a loaded mod and I do not want to make it permanently active.
I do not trust it, it's creators start to mess up with think I do not believe they should mess with. If I post they do not even read what I post.
I am too old and tied to to try to teach unwilling people. It they do not want to think I can not be bothered any longer.
So, I am not sure how we could solve it.
You did not created it with betetr AI as a loaded mod and I do not want to make it permanently active.
I do not trust it, it's creators start to mess up with think I do not believe they should mess with. If I post they do not even read what I post.
I am too old and tied to to try to teach unwilling people. It they do not want to think I can not be bothered any longer.
So, I am not sure how we could solve it.
Its quite easy (if you know how) to change the save so it uses a mod instead...
Here is a modified version of the last save that assumes the mod is found in Mods\BetterAI\ dir
(the dll would have to be placed in Mods\BetterAI\Assets\ dir )
Mutineer, if you drop the DLL in the CustomAssets folder then you can simply rename it to deactivate it.
TO be clear, that's the CustomAssets folder in the my documents Warlords folder (the name of THAT folder depends on what your CIV4 Warlords folder is called). There will normally not be a DLL in that folder. You put the dll in that folder and it'll be loaded automatically. If you rename it to something else it wont be loaded. I just add ".bak" to the end of the filename if I want to deactivate Better AI
There is also the "Assets" folder in your Warlords game folder. That Assets folder WILL have an existing DLL in it. DO NOT REPLACE THAT DLL EVER. "CustomAssets" good, "Assets" bad.
You did not humor me with a reply in the Better AI thread so I don't know whether you think we're doing too little or too much when it comes to AI gold evaluation+usage and you probably just ignored what I said about loss of personality being considered a bug. I (and presumably Iustus also) do read absolutely all posts (even if there's too much to respond to) and take opinions expressed into consideration although it's obviously very much a balancing act.
TO be clear, that's the CustomAssets folder in the my documents Warlords folder (the name of THAT folder depends on what your CIV4 Warlords folder is called). There will normally not be a DLL in that folder. You put the dll in that folder and it'll be loaded automatically. If you rename it to something else it wont be loaded. I just add ".bak" to the end of the filename if I want to deactivate Better AI
There is also the "Assets" folder in your Warlords game folder. That Assets folder WILL have an existing DLL in it. DO NOT REPLACE THAT DLL EVER. "CustomAssets" good, "Assets" bad.
You did not humor me with a reply in the Better AI thread so I don't know whether you think we're doing too little or too much when it comes to AI gold evaluation+usage and you probably just ignored what I said about loss of personality being considered a bug. I (and presumably Iustus also) do read absolutely all posts (even if there's too much to respond to) and take opinions expressed into consideration although it's obviously very much a balancing act.
You took my statment that you didi not look on system alltegether as an insult. It is not insult, it is statment. You did not read what you sad, or if you did you did not think.
I repeate again.
Money were devalued by firaxis in trade in order to avoide Civ 3 stile of play, then players did not had to self research, but were able to rely on buying tech for money.
In addition, to reduce tech trading firaxis introduce WFYBTA limit.
Money are not easy to get from AI in 1.61, they do not have mach. If you teach AI To use this little excess money they had in trade you practically remove money from trade exchange of any kind. AI valued money mach less then Tech beakers, so for bying tech or entice AI to war, et. money had no use.
That statment never advocate revert to 1.61 behaviour, where did I sad that? What I sad that you need to rework all this components in order to keep game rich, not just render a feature complitly useless. You accuse me of exploiting feature in order to wn on higher level when I propouse increase value of money wheich would make such exploite less effective.
You did not stop and think even for a second on what I sad.
You need to look on how mach AI value money in trade and posible on WFYBTA limit.
Second point which were complitly ignored was Warmonder respect values.
I repeat, it is ballancing feature that made it less lickly for warmonder AI to get locked in unending war with each other. In addition, it stimulate trade between warmonder AI. It does not in any way prevent wars between them complitly if there only them on continents, as there are some warmoneder AI that will attack friendly, like Mounty and Cesar, and most of them will attack pleased. What it does stop is them sitting hating, not trading with each other when peacefull AI run away.
That is true for case when they are on there own continent and in case when they are mixed with builders AI.
And I repeate and it is not an insult, it is just statment of fact.
You do not look on system as interlinked entity. You do not know enogth or simple do not have enogth expirience. If you had been my employer after this kind of reaction I would let you to imrove perticular features, but will keep you from general design as far as posible.
I repeate again.
Money were devalued by firaxis in trade in order to avoide Civ 3 stile of play, then players did not had to self research, but were able to rely on buying tech for money.
In addition, to reduce tech trading firaxis introduce WFYBTA limit.
Money are not easy to get from AI in 1.61, they do not have mach. If you teach AI To use this little excess money they had in trade you practically remove money from trade exchange of any kind. AI valued money mach less then Tech beakers, so for bying tech or entice AI to war, et. money had no use.
That statment never advocate revert to 1.61 behaviour, where did I sad that? What I sad that you need to rework all this components in order to keep game rich, not just render a feature complitly useless. You accuse me of exploiting feature in order to wn on higher level when I propouse increase value of money wheich would make such exploite less effective.
You did not stop and think even for a second on what I sad.
You need to look on how mach AI value money in trade and posible on WFYBTA limit.
Second point which were complitly ignored was Warmonder respect values.
I repeat, it is ballancing feature that made it less lickly for warmonder AI to get locked in unending war with each other. In addition, it stimulate trade between warmonder AI. It does not in any way prevent wars between them complitly if there only them on continents, as there are some warmoneder AI that will attack friendly, like Mounty and Cesar, and most of them will attack pleased. What it does stop is them sitting hating, not trading with each other when peacefull AI run away.
That is true for case when they are on there own continent and in case when they are mixed with builders AI.
And I repeate and it is not an insult, it is just statment of fact.
You do not look on system as interlinked entity. You do not know enogth or simple do not have enogth expirience. If you had been my employer after this kind of reaction I would let you to imrove perticular features, but will keep you from general design as far as posible.
About the game - Thanks Gyathaar.
I think we need to have a first discussion: Where are to selttle?
WE are creative, so we do have 5 turns border expancion.
We have choise between:
1) Setling near coast river taking in fat Hourses and 2 food resources and leaving gold and furs away.
We are getting a potentially good city and getting access to hourses. probably nisest fat cross components.
In addition city will be instantly connected for +2 trade commmerce.
2) Settling to in coast tundra to get gold and crabs and hourses in fat cross.
Mediorce city but with immidiate access to gold (Commerce and happiness) and hourses.
3) Settling in other coast tundra to get Crabs, gold and furs in fat cross.
Getting 2 happiness resources in fat cross, but no hourses.
Practically settling define our plan for nearest future.
Settle one or 3 we are getting best general cites and we need to settle bouth of them in order to get in full war readiness.
SEttling 2 for immidiate max benefits, prepare to fastest war posible, but practically loosing other options for some time and will need early war at any cost to succeed.
I think we need to have a first discussion: Where are to selttle?
WE are creative, so we do have 5 turns border expancion.
We have choise between:
1) Setling near coast river taking in fat Hourses and 2 food resources and leaving gold and furs away.
We are getting a potentially good city and getting access to hourses. probably nisest fat cross components.
In addition city will be instantly connected for +2 trade commmerce.
2) Settling to in coast tundra to get gold and crabs and hourses in fat cross.
Mediorce city but with immidiate access to gold (Commerce and happiness) and hourses.
3) Settling in other coast tundra to get Crabs, gold and furs in fat cross.
Getting 2 happiness resources in fat cross, but no hourses.
Practically settling define our plan for nearest future.
Settle one or 3 we are getting best general cites and we need to settle bouth of them in order to get in full war readiness.
SEttling 2 for immidiate max benefits, prepare to fastest war posible, but practically loosing other options for some time and will need early war at any cost to succeed.
ThERat
Deity
I actually pointed out before that I think we should settle 1 NW to grab 2 sea resources and horses. We might get a gold city later on.
I think we need to plan a little ahead of time and not go for a long term so-so city...so I opt for #1
I think we need to plan a little ahead of time and not go for a long term so-so city...so I opt for #1
acidsatyr
be water my friend...
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,166
Excellent analysis Mutineer.
I choose # 2, exactly for the reason you mentioned:
- it is best early overall city.
- we have early access to our UU
- instead of wasting shields for another city, use them to mass produce war chariots and take out nearest opponent, probably Roosevelt.
This very aggressive rush from the beginning, imo, is better than trying to squeeze our two cities. It is also probably the only way to gain adventage on this setting.
So I say one S of crabs.
I choose # 2, exactly for the reason you mentioned:
- it is best early overall city.
- we have early access to our UU
- instead of wasting shields for another city, use them to mass produce war chariots and take out nearest opponent, probably Roosevelt.
This very aggressive rush from the beginning, imo, is better than trying to squeeze our two cities. It is also probably the only way to gain adventage on this setting.
So I say one S of crabs.
ThERat
Deity
if we settle #2, then earliest possible war should be in order...
by the way, Mutineer, I like your analysis of the AI.It's just the way you put it across, that some people might not really understand what you are trying to say. And I am sure Iustus and Blake are trying their best to improve the game...Maybe this game can help to refine some balancing issues...
by the way, Mutineer, I like your analysis of the AI.It's just the way you put it across, that some people might not really understand what you are trying to say. And I am sure Iustus and Blake are trying their best to improve the game...Maybe this game can help to refine some balancing issues...
acidsatyr
be water my friend...
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,166
well, for every turn we wait, the window of opportunity to use our UU gets substantially smaller. We are lucky to have early UU here.
Lets see how others vote I'm curious. Also not sure what Mutinner voted for.
As for Blake's AI. It's a lot of work invested. no doubt. I also agree with pretty much evrything Mut said in his last post. Its the way it works. It is OK to do lots of smaller improvements for AI that will speed him up a bit, but it is rather dangerous to do major changes without fully realizing implications in the game. That all said, I am still do see and feel the difference with Blake's AI. I said this in his thread. Maybe it's the way i play or level i play (he did mention that the higher the lever the less results), but i simply dont see that big AI improvement in play. It is not worse! But not better either.
Hmmm.
Is Deity too easy?
I kind of don't see the point in optimizing the AI for Immortal+ when the only real direction which could be taken is "Stomp the puny humans". In the next version the AI will have more of a "hornet nest" response to being attacked like if you surprise it with an attack it'll start really spamming out units.
I can guarantee you that I could optimize the Deity AI to hand a human attacker his ass pretty much every time. Towards what ends?
Is Deity too easy?
I kind of don't see the point in optimizing the AI for Immortal+ when the only real direction which could be taken is "Stomp the puny humans". In the next version the AI will have more of a "hornet nest" response to being attacked like if you surprise it with an attack it'll start really spamming out units.
I can guarantee you that I could optimize the Deity AI to hand a human attacker his ass pretty much every time. Towards what ends?
ThERat
Deity
the issue for a better AI is, that in the end the insane bonus for the AI should be reduced to make the game more enjoyable.
Of course, there is no need to improve the AI for deity at this moment as it's most likely not winnable. So, a hornet's nest strategy sounds really good. But, it should not come with minimal build and units + upgrade cost. There must be some balance
Of course, there is no need to improve the AI for deity at this moment as it's most likely not winnable. So, a hornet's nest strategy sounds really good. But, it should not come with minimal build and units + upgrade cost. There must be some balance
I didn't. Maybe someone else did, but I didn't.Mutineer said:
Well that makes perfect sense.
That's lovely now what does it have to do with me?
I haven't changed warmonger respect, I haven't said anything about changing warmonger respect. I think it works fine as it is.
I'm not going to post an "I agree" to every point I agree with, nor an "I disagree" for that matter. There's too many posts for that.
There was some confusion going around when someone asked if warmongerrespect is used for other decision making in BetterAI - it's not in any way whatsoever. That confusion seemed to die down after a couple of posts so I didn't respond.
While looking for your post on warmonger respect I found out why I didn't bother paying much attention to your posts:
mutineer said:
To be fair I did basically ignore you after reading those charming comments. These things happen. Such blatant ignorance (the lack of knowledge rather than derogatory term) causes me to not take one seriously. I refuse to apologize for this, if you say that you haven't played the mod, I'm not going to take your suggestions on what I'm doing right or wrong seriously!
I am not combative. That I am responding to you indicates that I AM trying to understand your point on gold value (actually was, because I do understand it now, I think).
PS. Sorry about semi-hijacking this thread but I'd rather the discussion take place here than the Better AI thread.
City #1 would be my choice. It's an extremely close thing though... I'd also somewhat favor a between #2 and #3 city, that is the forestless tundra coast, bringing in the crabs immediately and gold. The furs are within the 2nd border expansion. This is working on the assumption that the furs are too marginal to bother with a city to get. That city site also has an extra cottagable grassland.
The gold and furs are not of immediate priority (at least for happy) since we do have the ivory and we do have ample hills to mine, I don't see the need for a happy cap above 5 just yet. That's why I favor the horse/fish site.
If playing from the start I would've possibly founded my second city to the south to claim the Horses and Ivory, probably on the desert river but more scouting would've been needed to make an informed decision. This may seem like a strange choice but it's a technique to prevent close borders - Wangkon will place a city there and our capitals borders will culturally oppress it and he will get pissed and he does have that evil UU. Blocking off the resources prevents this nonsense, but the effectiveness varies greatly.
From the first post, the blue circles:
As for founding on Ivory, it's better than not founding on ivory. Imagine you have a vast expanse of grassland and plains and a single plains ivory. If you found on the Ivory you get +1h. If you found on plains you get +1 from working the ivory. Ok so that's equal, now all we need to do is look at possible improvements. The ivory basically needs to be camped (if we want the resource), which gives +1h +1c. Now that is NOT a wonderful improvement. A farm or cottage would probably be better.
That's why you found on plains ivory - it avoids wasting an otherwise productive tile with a camp. The same logic doesn't work for grassland ivory (which loses the +1h) or for Financial ivory on river, which results in a +1h +2c camp (cottage will still be better, but farm less so).
The gold and furs are not of immediate priority (at least for happy) since we do have the ivory and we do have ample hills to mine, I don't see the need for a happy cap above 5 just yet. That's why I favor the horse/fish site.
If playing from the start I would've possibly founded my second city to the south to claim the Horses and Ivory, probably on the desert river but more scouting would've been needed to make an informed decision. This may seem like a strange choice but it's a technique to prevent close borders - Wangkon will place a city there and our capitals borders will culturally oppress it and he will get pissed and he does have that evil UU. Blocking off the resources prevents this nonsense, but the effectiveness varies greatly.
From the first post, the blue circles:
At the start of the game blue circles are basically garbage in garbage out. Since they can't give you advice based on what is in the black they are basically operating on the few revealed tiles and as such give - and must give - nonsense results. What changed is that they now REALLY can't see into the black, previously they operated on a residue cached foundValue from earlier in the map generation process - still garbage because the normalizer changes everything. I'm considering making it always place the blue circle under the settler if it's turn 0, but it'll STILL be garbage since there may be a better site.
As for founding on Ivory, it's better than not founding on ivory. Imagine you have a vast expanse of grassland and plains and a single plains ivory. If you found on the Ivory you get +1h. If you found on plains you get +1 from working the ivory. Ok so that's equal, now all we need to do is look at possible improvements. The ivory basically needs to be camped (if we want the resource), which gives +1h +1c. Now that is NOT a wonderful improvement. A farm or cottage would probably be better.
That's why you found on plains ivory - it avoids wasting an otherwise productive tile with a camp. The same logic doesn't work for grassland ivory (which loses the +1h) or for Financial ivory on river, which results in a +1h +2c camp (cottage will still be better, but farm less so).
acidsatyr
be water my friend...
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,166
Well, it is safe to assume that that fur tile is not going to be worked really (assuming there's no food east). If we settle NW, with extra happiness, we can work horses, fish and hire two scientists from fast library. That is all good and well. My only concearn is that somebody will take that gold spot which would be major bummer. The problem with #3 is that it has lots of useless tiles. Again, tuff call. But if i had to pick one now, Id go for #2. I dont like risks like that. It is also why i didnt went down to pick the spot, rather north to grab that gold asap. So what if angry Korean settles spot there? In fact i do hope he settles his sity there so it touches our border, once we get library, that city should be our.
As for ivory. My statment wasn't fully correct. Yes, you can settle. It is immidiate adventage whats important. Working that ivory camp is like working mined grasland hill next to river - with one extra commerce. It is perfect for early production, given food. Obviously it would be bad choice if i choose to settle on that ivory rather than forest hill.
Btw, even if we settle one S of crabs, we can still settle 3 tiles left later on to get the fish and run scientists.
As for ivory. My statment wasn't fully correct. Yes, you can settle. It is immidiate adventage whats important. Working that ivory camp is like working mined grasland hill next to river - with one extra commerce. It is perfect for early production, given food. Obviously it would be bad choice if i choose to settle on that ivory rather than forest hill.
Btw, even if we settle one S of crabs, we can still settle 3 tiles left later on to get the fish and run scientists.
Played 20 turns.
OK, there was 2 voites for cite 1 and one voite for cite 2.
Seens I am playing and I voited for cite 2, I have power to choise on tie 2/2 voites.
I choise cite 2.
My reasons.
All AI near by. I think attack one of AI is the only way out of the corner.
So, I went with do or die option. On sligtly lover dificulty level I would be opting for cite 1, but I am afraide on deaty I can not risk it.
If there were no furs there would be no discussion at all, but I love furs.
It is +1 instant happiness and +1 with Markets, that I allways build early.
I actially made a little mistake in worker managment
wasted 2 turns, I move it on forest did not noticed we did not had BW yet, had to build road.
Othewize, Found second city, workboat-barrack
Choped workboat.
IN main city I had choise. Befor hourses were connected what to do. I opted for warrior and scout, to scout invasion route.
SEnd scout to America, as probably the most probable target.
Research went BW-Writing-Alphavit.
I considered BW-Pottery-Writing, but decided that we do not have mach food excess for whipping, so we do not need early pottery.
Open borders on other hand will let as to scout whom to invide and give as foreign trade.
Amarica build GW. Scoting reveal 1 spear, axes and swords. Boston by some reason full of achers (I count 6).
So, capital were building War Chariots and second city prepares to build WC.
If we attack America, we should open border to Korea for foreign trade routes.
I tend to keep close borders, no more then nessesary open border to have enogth foreign trade routes. Prevent AI from deciding to attack week point.
So, situation:
Army:
OK, there was 2 voites for cite 1 and one voite for cite 2.
Seens I am playing and I voited for cite 2, I have power to choise on tie 2/2 voites.
I choise cite 2.
My reasons.
All AI near by. I think attack one of AI is the only way out of the corner.
So, I went with do or die option. On sligtly lover dificulty level I would be opting for cite 1, but I am afraide on deaty I can not risk it.
If there were no furs there would be no discussion at all, but I love furs.
It is +1 instant happiness and +1 with Markets, that I allways build early.
I actially made a little mistake in worker managment
wasted 2 turns, I move it on forest did not noticed we did not had BW yet, had to build road.Othewize, Found second city, workboat-barrack
Choped workboat.
IN main city I had choise. Befor hourses were connected what to do. I opted for warrior and scout, to scout invasion route.
SEnd scout to America, as probably the most probable target.
Research went BW-Writing-Alphavit.
I considered BW-Pottery-Writing, but decided that we do not have mach food excess for whipping, so we do not need early pottery.
Open borders on other hand will let as to scout whom to invide and give as foreign trade.
Amarica build GW. Scoting reveal 1 spear, axes and swords. Boston by some reason full of achers (I count 6).
So, capital were building War Chariots and second city prepares to build WC.
If we attack America, we should open border to Korea for foreign trade routes.
I tend to keep close borders, no more then nessesary open border to have enogth foreign trade routes. Prevent AI from deciding to attack week point.
So, situation:
Army:
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
