Done per request
Yes, I do hope this not needed, as an additional factor to consider against AI. There are no obvious in-game strategies to prevent AI coming to cancel resource deals.
That will have to be fixed somehow.
Doesn't sound like something that would happen repeatedly within a few turns. Though of course there could be more than one coding error.
Or just something about air bombardment – considering that no OOS errors occurred until the late game. On-screen messages shouldn't normally interfere with the synchronized game state. By the way, I've recently (for v0.97) removed the delay from bombardment messages.
If you don't have any logs, then it sounds like some problem with the (Steam) installation or OS permissions. As far as I can tell, RandLog = 1 and MessageLog = 1 in My Games\Beyond the Sword\CivilizationIV.ini should enable MPLog.txt and OOSLog. (Or if a custom .ini file is loaded through a Civ4BeyondSword.exe shortcut, then the logging setting in that .ini file count.)
I guess I won't even need a debugger to generate the logs. But I'd need a save that will (or at least might randomly) go OOS if I take a particular action. Otherwise, I'd better set up a MP game state myself with a lot of aircraft through Auto Play and WB. I'll have to do some multiplayer tests at some point in any case.
Some obviously uninteresting offers in the late game are Open Borders and dead-end techs. I'm aware of those, it's just a matter of getting around to fixing it.
The Gandhi leader-head has some resemblance with E.T. now that you mention it.
When you conquer a city that has been spreading culture for hundreds of turns and none of your own cities are nearby, then you start with 0 tile culture against several thousand. (The UI doesn't show the absolute tile culture values; only percentages.) In BtS, this means that most of the tiles will never flip unless you conquer more cities. I've added a tile culture decay rate to make it easier to flip tiles after conquest. Decay is faster on tiles that a civ can't work. So, normally, some tiles should flip after a few dozen turns, or earlier if you manage to generate some city culture (e.g. Theater, which also allows an Artist specialist); which is, admittedly, difficult if the city is completely engulfed. Also, if the surrounding cities have high culture levels, you may just never catch up. So, from your description, it might work as intended. The decay rate can be adjusted through XML (GlobalDefines_advc.xml: TILE_CULTURE_DECAY_PER_MILL, CITY_RADIUS_DECAY; and there's the OWN_EXCLUSIVE_RADIUS option).
Thanks for all the feedback. Further testing – nothing specific comes to mind. If you play multiplayer with Realism Invictus or Dune Wars as you had mentioned elsewhere, I'll also be curious to know how it goes.
Thanks a lot. I think I got it (Git commit). Wrong sign of the iChange variable in one expression. This had lead the AI to evaluate the resource from the human point of view, which it should only do for the corporation value or when knowing a sufficient number of human cities.
I think the error occurred because Bismarck knew only 2 of your 5 cities; that's rather unusual.
Nice!
I'll try it out for sure. Unrelated to your fix I saw from opening the commit; it is entertaining to see an inline comment below, in a very good way 
:yes, i thought bout that, probably steam is interfering.
i took a short break from updating civ,so i havent seen the recent merges you did.
actually, the ai didnt bug us with offers, and most of the deals were reasonable i enjoyed that part of ai diplo quite much.
my friend, which playing in this mp game , was the first game for him to civ ever.
Not sure if this one is the same issue. The green-color -25% should be red-color under the defending Lion?
Or the Steam logs folder is ... somewhere else.
kMission - I guess that's a delay for bombardment animations. The delay for on-screen messages comes from the bForce parameter of addMessage. Here's the commit.
In my games, I usually make all the resource trades I can whenever the resource trade alert triggers, so I don't really give the AI a chance to propose resource trades. That's something I should test someday. Perhaps by disabling AI-AI resource trades through the DLL, running a game on AI Auto Play for some time and then end my turn a few times to see if the AI will propose any resource trades. In theory, it should – the per-turn probability (assuming that the AI can find a legal and resonable trade) is, personality-based, between 5% and 50% (Civ4LeaderHeadInfos.xml).
"Pleased" isn't normally difficult to reach, but most leaders actually require "Friendly". The attitude needs to be strictly better than the threshold in LeaderHead XML. While having extra rewards for "Friendly" (which is much harder to reach than "Pleased") is nice, some of the thresholds should probably be lowered. I've already lowered Bismarck. Octavian (Augustus) also wasn't averse to joining arms with his rivals. There are probably others where a good argument could be made for a lower threshold on historical grounds.
That should be it. It's among the bugfixes that I already merged over the last few weeks. I'm through with ~30% of the MNAI commits I had bookmarked.
Civilopedia shows it and the tech tree also does (not for Warrior though). I hope the new-tech splash screen also shows it; forgot to check. A good time to show it might be when hovering for movement over an invalid tile. Or where would you show it?
I think I merely lost a minus sign somewhere along the way, i.e. it should be +25% in green, which is also what BtS does. The modifier gets subtracted from the defender strength, but that's true for all the non-generic strength bonuses (screenshot attached).
In a quick test, I see a Forest Attack bonus in green on the attacker's side. That seems to be consistent with the other non-generic bonuses.
I haven't noticed such a stark difference. It's intentional on my part that revolts become easier to suppress in the late game when there isn't much time left for conquered cities to amortize. With respect to game balance, I see revolts mostly as a means of slowing down wars of conquest in the early game and midgame, or to encourage opportunistic wars with limited objectives. Moving units around to suppress revolts is a bit fiddly, so I think it also makes sense from a usability perspective to dial that down toward the late game when micromanagement becomes really tedious overall. That being said, the exact numbers may well be off.
I second on this. Also, In a few games, I found a losing AI never offered peace to me. AI lost several cities and military powers were down to half or lower, compared to mine. For the same games, peace was reached between other warring AI's, with something of tech offer as settlement. Frequently this was just for losing one city of AI to another AI. Maybe this is AI's personality I'm unfamiliar with, e.g. Asoka of India or Pericles of Greek, or other factors. Hopefully AI would show up at door for more positive requests, at least comparable with other AI to AI interactions.
I meant e.g. when hovering over the Workboat icon within the Sailing tech box. There's no icon at Astronomy saying "Workboat can now enter Ocean," and I agree that this would clutter up the tech tree. OK, I'll see what I can do about the movement hover. Should arguably also show an explanation in some other situations, namely when a move is illegal because the damage limit is exceeded and, possibly, when trying to move into borders that can't be entered without declaring war.
I think I see you mean. Will have to get back to you on that tomorrow. (I told Leoreth the same thing a few weeks ago. Sorry. I had meant to.)
I don't think I've ever noticed that. I've just looked at another game and all AI civs promptly moved their second Settlers. There should be no lack of planned city sites early on. AI city sites are shown in Debug mode when yield icons are enabled. (One may have to enter a city screen after enabling yield icons to make the game draw the circles.) So I would guess that the AI lacks an escort if it doesn't move its Settler. In my test game (Prince difficulty, i.e. same free units as the human player), the AI had two units in its capital when the Settler was completed and then one accompanied the Settler. I guess the AI civs also had a third unit for scouting, so they must have trained two military units before the Settler (I should've paid more attention to that).
I've checked: The current status is that, when air units are moved into a city, production is immediately interrupted. Apparently, this doesn't work when production finishes on an air unit and another air unit is queued; instead, unless the city owner notices the problem, one turn of production is lost. That shouldn't be too difficult to fix. It's a little strange that production is interrupted even if the unit at the head of the queue takes more than 1 turn to complete. I guess one has to imagine that an aircraft under construction already occupies a hangar or so.
I do want to slow conquests down. I guess I didn't think this through.
Good idea. Some sort of breakdown. Though it's a bit embarassing to communicate these details to the player. The whole system is far from elegant.
The GG ability halves the final probability I believe. The final step of the CvCity::revoltProbability computation is:
double r = std::max(0.0, (1.0 - (iGarrison / (double)iCityStrength))) *
getRevoltTestProbability() * occupationFactor;std::min(1.0, ((iREVOLT_TEST_PROB * (100 - iBestModifier)) / 100.0)
/ GC.getInfo(GC.getGame().getGameSpeedType()).getVictoryDelayPercent());There are some known issues that can cause the AI to assume that an enemy is distracted by another war; see e.g. this post. It doesn't sound like that's what you're describing though. AI leaders with a high MakePeaceRand value (Civ4LeaderHeadInfos.xml) are reluctant to pay for peace (that value had a different function in BtS), but Asoka's value is actually low and Pericles' medium, and the impact isn't that great anyway.
I've checked: The current status is that, when air units are moved into a city, production is immediately interrupted. Apparently, this doesn't work when production finishes on an air unit and another air unit is queued; instead, unless the city owner notices the problem, one turn of production is lost. That shouldn't be too difficult to fix. It's a little strange that production is interrupted even if the unit at the head of the queue takes more than 1 turn to complete. I guess one has to imagine that an aircraft under construction already occupies a hangar or so.
Disabling the rule change would also be easy. Through another rule change in the mod, "bumped" units have all their movement points spent. That means, one could look at the bumped air units as a move that the game forces the player to make as opposed to some act of magic. It's still confusing when units appear in a city that didn't produce them though, so I tend to prefer the current approach.I do want to slow conquests down. I guess I didn't think this through.
