Acken's Minimalistic Balance for singleplayer (and AI improvements)

[Phukit]

I have been having crashing/loading issues with the mod the past few days specifically on archipielago maps.roughly 1/4 loads/reloads causes the game to freeze.

i have no such issue loading/reloading any other map types.

Using Ackens mod and EUI only

 

[Phukit]

I'd be down with this, but not for 5 influence.

It would also really mess with diplomacy, since it's not just your pledges you need to worry about. Say hello to Greece.

And thats just the thing,the AI would have to think really hard before conquering a CS especially one with multiple Pledges to protect.

Declaring war on a CS should also mean a DoW against any of its allies.

Civs that conquer multiple CS should no longer have the ability to be friends/allies with other CS.

Any thoughts on making to the option to pledge to protect only be available once friend status has been achieved.?

 

[Chum]

the AI

think

Yeah...about that...

 

[Acken]

I have been having crashing/loading issues with the mod the past few days specifically on archipielago maps.roughly 1/4 loads/reloads causes the game to freeze.

i have no such issue loading/reloading any other map types.

Using Ackens mod and EUI only

Reloads crash on archipelago ? Also why specifically the past few days I haven't updated the mod since v3.

If you find a game that has trouble loading you can always post it here.

Note that there seems to be crashs if someone try to play the normal game before using my mod, or worse try to load the mod without activating it first, no idea why and this is a problem of many dll mods afaik.

 

[Phukit]

Reloads crash on archipelago ? Also why specifically the past few days I haven't updated the mod since v3.

If you find a game that has trouble loading you can always post it here.

Note that there seems to be crashs if someone try to play the normal game before using my mod, or worse try to load the mod without activating it first, no idea why and this is a problem of many dll mods afaik.

I always load the mod first before i load/reload

And its only the archipielago map,It has only been in the past few days that i have played archipielago in your mod.before that it was always pangea/continents/NQ pangea.

 

[Chum]

That's only a maybe at a way later date because it asks for heavy coding of the AI diplomacy to take it into account.

I've got a better idea about CS's and protection.

Lets say you have a CS between you and your warmonger "friend." They declare on the CS, and you respond by declaring on the warmonger. Killing a barbarian that is adjacent to or inside a CS borders yields 12 influence -- but killing another Civ's units who is at war with that CS doesn't. Clearly the mechanic is there -- the barbarians are technically "At war" with the CS, so you gain influence for protecting them. Could the same be coded for killing units that the CS is at war with?

If Mongolia keeps conquering CS's, shouldn't I gain influence with a CS for killing Mongolian units in and around that CS's borders?

 

[beetle]

I have hardly played the mod, and then only the earlier and limited Workshop version, but I have been following the thread and my experience is consistent with what people are reporting.

I agree that AIs being so aggressive against the CS is a fun-killing problem.

The AI doesn't value luxuries in its conquest of city states so it wouldn't change the frequency of killing... My main purpose with this would be to also help the player in having more randomness in CS luxuries rather than have 5 allies all with the same lux. In a way an attempt to raise the value of the alliance.

I don't see that raising the value of CS to player helps the problem with the CS being killed off. CS allies are already quite valuable. The player already has sufficient motivation to Liberate CS whenever possible. Buffing the CS ally benefits only makes it more frustrating that there is nothing to do for the CS that are not neighbors!

You have explained that making the AI think is not really an option. Can the AIs be made to value pledge-to-protect more highly? I would like to see the AIs fighting against each other more over the CS -- and see the AIs liberating CS more. I would like to see the AI hesitate to DOW a CS with a pledge to protect because they do not want to war with the allied AI. Is that sort of thing reasonably easy to implement?

The root of the dilemma, as I understand it, is that the same algorithms that make the AIs more aggressive with the player cause them to be more aggressive with the CS. Is that correct? The CS are a soft target, and the AIs like soft targets.

I've got a better idea about CS's and protection... If Mongolia keeps conquering CS's, shouldn't I gain influence with a CS for killing Mongolian units in and around that CS's borders?

That is a very compelling change, but more for the main game. I have no idea if it would be easy to implement and it only really helps with close-by CS. Neighbor CS already provide the motivation to liberate. Now, liberating is not as good as helping them not die in the first place -- but the Liberate-the-turn-after-first-being-conquered exploit would still be stronger than helping the CS not die when they first get DOW'd. So I do not your interesting idea helping this problem, since I think the bigger issue is with CS halfway across the map.

 

[Chum]

That is a very compelling change, but more for the main game. I have no idea if it would be easy to implement and it only really helps with close-by CS. Neighbor CS already provide the motivation to liberate. Now, liberating is not as good as helping them not die in the first place -- but the Liberate-the-turn-after-first-being-conquered exploit would still be stronger than helping the CS not die when they first get DOW'd. So I do not your interesting idea helping this problem, since I think the bigger issue is with CS halfway across the map.

That's not a problem. You wanna be the global superpower you claim you are? Then you need to start backing up those pledges.

CS's across the map getting swallowed up isn't as big of a problem as you claim it is. So you can't win a diplo victory? That's about the extent of the problem. If you don't like it, go liberate them. You can do so with a navy on most maps since most CS's are coastal. You might lose out on a few situated in the middle of a pangaea, but honestly, those wouldn't be providing you much benefit anyway since you wouldn't be in a position to complete their camp quests etc.

 

[beetle]

Then you need to start backing up those pledges.

I am not making pledge to protect. The 5 influence is not worth the bother.

CS's across the map getting swallowed up isn't as big of a problem as you claim it is.

Are you not experience that behavior? Or are you just saying that the behavior is not a problem?

So you can't win a diplo victory?

I am not morning the loss of the option to win by diplo. I agree that Diplo VC is terribly uninteresting in the base game.

That's about the extent of the problem.

I disagree. It is now like every AI civ now has Austria's UA. As with most players, I really like the CS. They add a great deal of flavor and interest. A game mechanic that merely progressively deletes a core feature from the game is, by definition, making the game less. The problem is extensive, and fun killing.

If you don't like it, go liberate them. You can do so with a navy on most maps since most CS's are coastal.

I would never be position to spare the units. Acken's mod kept me on my toes with the just the neighbors!

You might lose out on a few situated in the middle of a pangaea, but honestly, those wouldn't be providing you much benefit anyway since you wouldn't be in a position to complete their camp quests etc.

That is not accurate at all. A single mobile unit can work camp quests all over the map. Conversion quests are not limited to neighbors, but as with camps, they are available sooner and easier to do. Quests to acquire resources can get an ally across the map. Gifts of money and units do not depend on proximity. The buffs one gets from CS are not degraded by distance. Actually, aside from not wanting a neighbor CS to flip on you, how does CS proximity even much matter?

 

[Chum]

Are you not experience that behavior? Or are you just saying that the behavior is not a problem?

I don't agree it's a problem, and like the mechanic.

I disagree. It is now like every AI civ now has Austria's UA. As with most players, I really like the CS. They add a great deal of flavor and interest. A game mechanic that merely progressively deletes a core feature from the game is, by definition, making the game less. The problem is extensive, and fun killing.

Well, I reckon we don't have much to talk about then.

 

[Acken]

@Beettle As long as you can maintain your 5-7 neighbouring CS as friends or with support that is fine. I do not see a problem with not being able to ally CSs accross the map. Making the luxuries more diverse increase the value of those 5-7 CS and the power of Patronage as a result.

What I could see as an issue is if you really cannot keep this amount of allies at all or if they really all disappear. It's also important to remember that while they get eat left and right on NQ Pangea, my experience has been more gentle on other maps.

The AI attacks CS because its CS aggression IS higher. This is a voluntary thing to help warmonger AI being a threat and, until I find a better solution, make Diplomacy tough to win. The AI does differentiate between CS and players but it doesn't really understand what CS it should keep and which it should kill. The main reason why I took this decision is so that the AI will eventually roll through a CS to reach someone behind it. Warmonger AIs have a lot of trouble doing that in the base game. It also rewards their agressive behavior with easy conquests while someone else will make more cities. It also reduces the silliness that I think allying 16CS is.

I view them as small states like in EU4 that need alliance to survive. So my design goal from now on is to help/reward you protecting them rather than diminishing aggression. For example the idea to give influence when you kill units next to a CS is something that I'm really likely to do since it goes in that direction.

Equivalently, I can also make Pledging AI more likely to gift units to their protected CS.

 

[Erneiz Hyde]

Allying 16 CS is pretty much the definition of DV

If you're hell bent on this direction Acken, I think you need to also completely redefine DV and massively rework the Patronage tree, which in turn doesn't really make it a "minimalistic balance" anymore.

 

[Acken]

I don't think so. Giving you enough tools to reach the required number of votes to win diplomacy should be how that victory is played. It's mindblowing to me that you can win diplomacy without liberating without globalization without passing +2 resolutions etc. In other words, without playing the victory. The AI is so nice with you and CS that a simple +2 will give you a win in many cases.

Now you'll have to work all game long to make sure someone doesn't gobble up all the CS and that you defend and acquire your votes. If it's not possible at all right now I'm sorry and will work on the diplomacy victory at a later point. But there is simply no way we'll get back to getting a massive amount of CS allies. I want them to be there, which is why I'd work on making sure some live with proper defense, to have a presence but they shouldn't be bonus pinata for the human player to exploit. Winning diplomacy should be about being a protector against the warmongers and I'm pretty sure making gifting easier and rewarding city state defense will go in that direction.

The mod has no room for strategies like Small Piety where you turtle at -20% literacy and spam the CSs of gold gifts to get a free DV.

 

[beetle]

Regarding CS and patronage it's a bit difficult to fix. I don't want an easy alliance with 16CS, the warmonger AI needs to eat them because of 1UPT (otherwise it won't attack behind a CS) and it's difficult to explain to it easily which CS are fair game and which aren't based on relative positions. On the other hand I want some CS to still be available.

I absolutely agree that a player being able to get an easy alliance with 16 CS is horribly broken.

I also appreciate that the warmonger AI needs to eat them -- for the reasons you list.

As long as you can maintain your 5-7 neighboring CS as friends or with support that is fine.

I don't really have any idea how to fix it, but it seems like a pretty big gap to me between 16 and 5-7! I would very much prefer mechanics where more stayed alive, but also where the majority stayed out of reach as allied status. I agree with you that the CS should be motivated to join up with major powers as allies. But why should the player be the only major power that cares for CS?

 

[Acken]

Yes me too I'd preffer that but the reality is that it's not easy to teach the AI to complete quest and be competitive with it. It kind of get allies by accident and mostly need gold to do it which is why base Civ5 CS competition is only a thing at Deity.

Maybe at one point I'll focus on it and see what can be done. Meanwhile I'm also not willing to just give bonuses too that would simulate this competition.

 

[Phukit]

I don't think so. Giving you enough tools to reach the required number of votes to win diplomacy should be how that victory is played. It's mindblowing to me that you can win diplomacy without liberating without globalization without passing +2 resolutions etc. In other words, without playing the victory. The AI is so nice with you and CS that a simple +2 will give you a win in many cases.

Now you'll have to work all game long to make sure someone doesn't gobble up all the CS and that you defend and acquire your votes. If it's not possible at all right now I'm sorry and will work on the diplomacy victory at a later point. But there is simply no way we'll get back to getting a massive amount of CS allies. I want them to be there, which is why I'd work on making sure some live with proper defense, to have a presence but they shouldn't be bonus pinata for the human player to exploit. Winning diplomacy should be about being a protector against the warmongers and I'm pretty sure making gifting easier and rewarding city state defense will go in that direction.

The mod has no room for strategies like Small Piety where you turtle at -20% literacy and spam the CSs of gold gifts to get a free DV.

I agree with all this.

I dont want an easy way to maintain 16CS allies.

But I do want there to be a reasonable amount of CS left by midgame for me to at least compete for.

I still think that pledge to protect should only be available at friend/allied status.Why would you pledge to protect a CS that you are neutral with? Historically a pledge to protect was tantamount to being allies.

Dow against a CS should also be a DoW against allies or friends with PTP as well.(I will refrain from using the term "think" when referring to the AI since some people are just looking for any excuse to make some snide douchy comment),this would give the AI another set of variables to evaluate before choosing wether or not to attack a CS.

 

[Erneiz Hyde]

One major flaw in this reworking is that the repercussions of AI gobbling up CSes are outright nil. Maybe making puppet CS cost twice in unhappiness to maintain and not removable with courthouses will deter wanton destruction. 16 CS allies may be ridiculous (which I don't agree btw), but I think 3 CS left in the majority of end game is beyond ridiculous. Might as well play DomV, less cities to capture, or even capture those CSes yourself and snowball harder since DV is pointless anyway.

Phukit's suggestion is very interesting though. Make it so pledge to protect become something like Coalition in EU4. Make everything connected to the pledge become one temporary "faction" with all their military might combined. To prevent abuse, you can make pledge to protect cost money or available on friends, and you can invite AIs to get in that coalition as well (like defense pact).

 

[Acken]

I've been back on working on the mod.
This update won't touch civilizations yet and while it will be named v4 it won't have major updates beyond changes here and there. It will be savegame compatible too.

A few comments on suggestions I had and what I've been doing so far:
-I'm working on trying to make CS more attractive to protect and easier to protect. The agression has been slightly reduced, the influence for gifts has been increased and CS now "choose" a luxury out of a pool of 6 luxuries rather than 3. I'll also add influence for killing units the CS is at war with but that's a bit of work.
-Anti Tank and Helicopter have been buffed
-I agree with the short LS->Muskets time frame. Sadly moving Muskets to Metallurgy creates the same problem with Muskets and Riflemen. I've currently simply increased Gunpowder cost to a tier 2 renaissance tech (+45%). I'm not sure I really have to keep the "same tier=same cost" original design which doesn't make sense in a game where there are variable numbers of prerequisites and key techs.
Right now gunpowder is the only tech affected but doing such a change is simpler than trying to add/remove requisites. This also reduces the strength of that beeline which doesnt have a lot of prerequisites.
-I've made the ocean tiles changes suggested (work boats better, lighthouse less, and buildings buffing all tiles instead of just ressources). I agree but will have to see if there aren't too many sea ressources too.
-Pantheon has a fixed cost of 20, the AI is more likely to get one though and the AI is more likely to get a religion than in current v3 too.
- +1 Theme bonus buff has been removed.

 

[Erneiz Hyde]

With theme bonus buff removed, now there is no reason to swap artifacts around and keeping a few GWAMs to pop them at the same era. Yay for less micro!

 

[Acken]

No, the themes bonus still exist. But the +1 tourism buff provided by the mod was removed.