AI city placement and misc. suggestions

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

i have provided a few examples of aberrant or inefficient AI decisions that i think are significant enough to consider improving.

I tried to provide the keypoint save file when the AI decision happens, sometimes it's in the span of many turns or i could not pinpoint exactly so i provide all my save files in the range instead. As the files are numberous (screenshots included too), i have provided them in an archive. The password to unzip it is "civ4advciv". Download link here: https://filebin.net/rd9yfus93oui4aes

A few details about the examples:

- example 1: this city spot is bold but a bit too far for willhem AI, plus it's full of jungle to the point it will not be profitable for a long time to settle there, i purposely left the spot after wanting it first as it was not worth it for me, city is easily capturable too so i waited for them to develop the land for me. solution : plant west and closer to their territory, harder to reach for me and more profitable for them, there is copper grassland for example and an expansion to the north

- example 2 : very silly planting spot, it happens in many examples below too, never plant on copper or iron, there is almost never a situation where it is better to do so, to the point i think it could be enforced as a general/global AI rule in all cases. Spot 1 is near but so much better, it's so silly. Favour planting on plains and desert when possible or locally faovurable too if not already implemented, to maximize better near tiles. Note that Vienne in this save file was very nicely planted so when i conquered it i was content to keep it as is

- example 3 : strangely you can vassalize babylon just this turn (later he retracts the possibility and was not available before), vassalize him in diplomacy, then next turn you can see babylon's research : civil service already available by gilgamesh. Would it not be more profitable to search a newer tech ? Or if no tech is worthwhile stop teching and invest in military? Gilgamesh is in bad terms with babylon if i remember correctly (they get invaded by gilgamesh later), but still then in order to win stop teching and up the military? If you vassalize babylon then gilgamesh does not invade them (due to total militay power being quite high). So to sum it up better tech decisions or decisions to not tech in order to survive.

-example 4 : planting very bad spot in comparison to spot 1 (!!!) or 2 or might be 3, 1 is much closer and land si so much better, the idea to plant on desert is cool but this land is not urgent, spot 1 should be highly prioritized to barrage me and take this very nice land.

- example 5 : the one i was talking about about planting very far when not needed (among others worse in vanilla bts but it's not the point i mean), Khmer plants Bantei so far away for little benefits, the ressources are cool but there's no way he can efficiently guard it, at worse he will just develop the land for them and i destroy the city later, else i am happy to make him go bankrupt by keeping this city alive which makes me lose interest due to too silly decision. AI may want to go to spots i have highlighted if he really wants a new city, spot 1 and 2 are not too bad for example among others, else just not plant and up the military maybe, i feel it's a waste of gold and potential to invest in such a far location, too greedy if a human were to do it i think but is just my opinion i mean, not efficient nor worth it. Also if he really wanted to plant there at least plant on the spice (one tile left) the location is so much better i think, still as the AI i would not have planted there, no way he can guard it or benefit from it early enough, but the losses are still constant per turn so really not worth it i think.

- example 6 : plant on a plain (or desert too in other situations) when possible not the hill, here the crab provides enough food to maximize production on both hills, plus there is more coast by choosing a more central plant on this mini island (instead of having a bunch of low value gold ocean tiles), really silly plant, no one is going to invade here to desperately need the plain too i mean..

- example 7 : i have provided all the time span due to not being able to pinpoint precisely what happens and when, after i discover scientific method in 1660 AD (starting point of files share here i mean) AI suddenly becomes much less competitive while it was keeping up with me so far, in 1826 AD they still not have discovered scientific method, not a single one, instead they seem to all research the same techs and never trade with each other, extremely inefficient. If i am ahead in tech they should plan with each other and spread the tech research then trade with each other, if they are in bad terms among them then focus on military, but all in all it seems very inefficient to me, i have conquered the contient so i have a (big) advantage as compared to them but still they could do so much better than this huge stagnation and multiple overriding researches to the point i lost interest to continue the save file, it could have been done much better but i dont know if advciv can implement changes to their algorithms or whatever logic they use i mean, would be nice if possible i mean.

- example 8 : very very weird???? AI has a settler ready in 2200 BC and can plant the very nice spot 1 i highlighted, instead they wait aimlessly with their settler for countless turns to the point its not even fun to play, i assume there are barabarians north or/and west so they wait to go there but it's so silly as the land is uncontestable (or would be a hassle for me to go there, essentially it's most likely to be their land anyway so push south. Maybe tweak the AI logic to favour pushing outside of their boundaries and then finishing later by going back to their uncontestable land, would provide much better early expansion for AI. If such a logic already exists maybe enforce it cause the behaviour of the AI is very very weird. A small note that i just kept skipping turn aimlessly to see if AI moves the settler but it doesnt... until a very long time maybe but i stopped looking i mean. In the actual game i planted spot 1 or close to it as soon as i got the settler. AI logic could be improved so much here i think.

- example 9.1 : again planting on hill copper when there is a much better location, WTH is wrong with the AI (no abd language intended but it's my reaction i mean..), spot 1 or 2 seem much better, there is crab so better maximize production right? also a more central positioin on island like lands is probably generally better, and again plains and deserts as they are generally bad tiles (i think), are most likely to be ebst (or least worse) planting locations unless there is an exception locally, generally do not plant on hills especially if there is no other player and that its a nice production tile and that there is enough food to accomodate it, it's a waste to have a bunch of plains instead. Even if AI didnt know there is copper yet (but i think they know in advance??) still as a general rule do not plant on hills unless there is no benefit to do otherwise, or militarily close to other people or something i would say, rule may be less severely enforced if ti's a desert hill maybe. I may be mistaken abotut is idea/suggestion but it's how i see it i mean and how AI could improve its logic here i mean.

- example 9.2 : why plant kwa city when green spots 1 2 3 or 4 seem so much better in this position i mean, kwa will not be urgently taken and even though there is iron there as i later learn, i think shaka already has iron, even if not i have more urgent spots to plant i mean so there's no way i'll screw my ecenomy and rush there, shaka should also go west in green spots i mentionned, spot 4 could threaten my development and i am not sure it's worth the risk for shaka, but if he has higher military it may be worth it for him i dont know, in all cases go to kwa later maybe if really want but not urgently and focus on keeping a compact landmass of connected troops maybe or something, is jsut my idea of sugegstion of improvement.

What seems most urgent to improve is to not plant on production ressources (food too maybe) unless there is a major advantage (which mroe often than not means it's not worth it i think i mean), but instead plant near them, plus the other suggestions i mentionned of prioritizing plains and desert (further if already existing), possibly closer planting too even if there is overlap as cities dont grow too big especially early and if the land is small having another small city may help, do ot go at the other end of the world for an undefendable land, you'll just make yourself weaker or the enemy stronger when he destroys the city with nice land later, plus your military is split and the economy. Tech trading too may be more cooperative among other AIs especially if they are behind, i think it would be more human like and really interesting, at any rate they would be losing if they keep their strict policies so cooperating (alterning tech searches and trding more largely maybe i mean), would be nice amongst themsleves i mean or another idea like up the military or something. Another thing in these save files is that AI is a bit too indifferent to ongoing wars, i think AI could put more strain on in war players regradless of if they are human or AI, instead of patiently waiting until the war ends and the winner gets stronger, possibly by doing military alliances if they are individually too weak and simultaneous war declaratons. It would be more realistic and challenging too, making the consideration to go to war bigger and the game more serious/harder/interesting to consider strategic decisions i mean.

If you have feedback on these i would like to hear, advciv is quite cool i mean, but i mean it would be nice if AI could be even better i mean, maybe some small fices could make Ai more challenging.

Thanks,

edit: fixed download link

 

[Mr Smith]

i have provided a few examples of aberrant or inefficient AI decisions that i think are significant enough to consider improving.

Hasn't checked how it is in AdvCiv, but in vanilla and K-mod they don't even consider 2nd ring, if they are not Creative, don't have Stonehenge/some other source of free culture. One of the great benefits of allowing 3rd (or even 4th) working ring for cities is that it allows any city to be passable.

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

About the ring of cities if you mean by that that it's the area around a city where you can affect citizens and that the larger rings means affecting citizens far and farther from city plant point then i am fine with the way advciv and vanilla bts works, i think it makes it more strategic to choose optimal city points rather, hence why i think AI should be improved, partially related to city planting points, or at least that it would be nice if it could be improved this way among the other example points i raised/showed i mean

edit : one thing that would be nice to change is that if you plant on a resource you get the base + upgraded ressource bonuses (when required tech is discovered, else you only get the base ressource bonuses), for example in example 2 it is very tempting to plant on spot 2 (in the cow tile) but doing so you dont gain the bonuses of the cow tile, it is weird because when you plant on a plain hills you get a bonus hammer, then why if you plant on grassland hills you get none? Or why in flood plains or in wheat or pig or cow is it the same as planting in desert? It is nice to upgrade desert plants or plain plants, but why not upgrade plants based on the resource on it, it would be very nice (and would not break much things since the tile is in the city anyways, at best an early boost based on plant but it would be fair i think, if you want to make it really fair you may want to require workers to build imrpovements in the city tile but it's maybe overkill and may even break things based on how it is coded i dont know i mean, in all cases it seems resources in city plant points are already gained (gems for example or spices) when required tech is discovered regardless of if there as or as not an improvement on the tile before, similarly jungle is removed automatically so why not just give the resource bonuses (for example for cow +1 food before required tech is discovered, and after tech is discovered additionnally an extra +1 food + 2 hammer) ? Even AI may get stronger due to their weird plants, and sometimes you really have to plant on a ressource. Also, if you are not planting on the ressource you are going to upgrade it anyway and get its bonuses so it's the same, just more convenient. Does advciv intend to implement this (or has an existing option to do so)? Yields would be something like this for city plant point :

food/hammer/gold
Desert : 2/1/1
Plains : 2/1/1
Grassland : 2/1/1 or 3/0/1 (basically take the best of each tile, grassland has 2 food anyway so it's the same; or go for selective upgrade which here would be 3/0/1 nerfs grassland while also boositng it so i think it's nice strategy)
Hills Desert : 2/2/1
Hills Plains : 2/2/1
Hills Grassland: 2/2/1 or 3/1/1 (nonsensical why hills plains is a better plant than grassland hills they should be both upgraded or none as they are both hills)
Flood Plains : 3/1/1 or 4/0/1 (but no matter how i think about it the 0 hammer in a city design is not practical, the only way to make it viable is make them reach 2 population as soon as possible
Tundra : 2/1/1 or 2/0/1 (tundra is bad enough already so having it 2/0/1 is like saying the terrain is same as mountains : unusable, but then why would grasslands be 3/0/1 and the only tile harmed by no hammer and not tundra, it would be not logical, unless advciv solves this by giving some advantage to tundra that makes 2/0/1 viable/worth it, another problem is that now desert is better than tundra, if tundra is 2/0/1 then desert should be 1/1/1 but it's not practical too, so maybe buffing everything works better, for example add tile yield directly to base city yield, but that may change many things, for example base city yield is always 2/1/1 (a citizen) + 1 gold for city somehow, and you add the terrain yield, for example desert is 0/1/0 so 2+0/1+1/1+0 = 2/2/1 for desert and for tundra 1/0/0 so 2+1/1+0/0+1 = 3/1/1, however grassland would be 2/0/0 so 2+2/1+0/0+1 = 4/1/1 and like that it's balanced but it changes a lot of city growth now so not sure it is really fair or relevant to do it this way)

bonuses:
plant near fresh water: +1 gold in city plant point (same as in the tile)
plant on a ressource : get the upgraded resource bonuses when required tech gives it, for example
plant on grassland cow: +1/0/0 if animal husbandry is not discovered, then after it is discovered +2/2/0 in city plant point, so total would be 3/1/1 (2+1/1+0/1+0) or 4/0/1 (3+1/0+0/1+0) before required tech is discovered and 4/3/1 (2+1+1/1+0+2/1+0+0) or 5/2/1 (3+1+1/0+0+2/1+0+0)

so all in all i am really not sure about modifying city yield based on city point terrain, it's probably too much hassle to be worth implementing (you'd probably need to increase costs of buildings to accomodate these base higher city tiles and maybe slightly of early techs too (later in the game it would not matter too much i think i mean)) (but ignoring that doesnt solve why planting on hills plain is magically better than hills grassland though, where is the balance or consistency/strategy in that, one is just better without downside for not much reason (plus defensive bonus)), but giving the resource bonus seems nice though and quite logical, i mean the ressoruce is in the city anyway

could/would advciv consider adding these, even as a custom option ?

Thanks,

 

[Mr Smith]

hence why i think AI should be improved

Easier to say than do, Civ4 can only use 1 processor core and in my experience it already struggles with settling spot estimations that are done every turn for all the unsettled land. And even if it aknowledges orphaning other potential spots, it's very crude.

one thing that would be nice to change is that if you plant on a resource you get the base + upgraded ressource bonuses

Full yield is too much, it would make settling on resources too good. I found half more than enough, since in HR resources provide less yields in general and improvement base yields are higher.

it is weird because when you plant on a plain hills you get a bonus hammer, then why if you plant on grassland hills you get none?

Yeah, some mods address this by raising minimum city yields, but I prefer replacing them entirely with extra yields - this way every type of tile is special and no resource yield is wasted.

food/hammer/gold

All of that you can do as personal tweaks in XML.

 

[f1rpo]

Hasn't checked how it is in AdvCiv, but in vanilla and K-mod they don't even consider 2nd ring, if they are not Creative, don't have Stonehenge/some other source of free culture. One of the great benefits of allowing 3rd (or even 4th) working ring for cities is that it allows any city to be passable.

The main tile evaluation loop goes through all 21 tiles already in BtS: CvPlayerAI.cpp#L1862

one thing that would be nice to change is that if you plant on a resource you get the base + upgraded ressource bonuses (when required tech is discovered, else you only get the base ressource bonuses), [...] Does advciv intend to implement this (or has an existing option to do so)?

Through XML (Civ4YieldInfos.xml), iMinCity, iCityChange and iPopulationChangeOffset/Divisor can be modified. iMinCity is the 2F1P1C that city tile yields get raised to. The others are unused and will just add free yields – which makes the characteristics of the tile matter even less than it does now. So no, there is no such option. The BtS/AdvCiv rule is the maximum of 2F1P1C and of the actual tile yields. I think you're essentially proposing 2F1P1C plus the non-terrain yields (plus some more from tech/resources and some special rule for Flood Plains, which, as a feature, can't coexist with cities). I would not want to increase city tile yields overall. They're already a big reward for founding a new city. And making all Hills tiles desirable city sites would not be a good change in my book either. Yes, it's odd that Plains Hills have this special role, but it works quite well imo in terms of -sometimes- encouraging cities on Hills. I've already added a preview of city tile yields to the found-city button to make these rules a little less obscure. And we probably differ somewhat on the merits of founding on top of a resource under the current rules. I think it's frequently worth considering. Some of the veterans in the Strategy & Tips forum will even found on Gold resources occasionally. (The AI should play things more by the book of course.)

Thanks for the savegames. I guess I should re-read the post as you seem to have edited it. But I guess the savegames are unchanged. I didn't see what you mean by "spot 1" etc. when I took a look at them; are there supposed to be highlighted tiles? I have been able to obtain AI log files that document the city site evaluation from saves 1, 4, 5 and 9.1. I'm attaching those. Not sure if they're really comprehensible, but it'll take me a while to go through everything, so maybe better than nothing for the time being. The corresonding code is in CitySiteEvaluator.cpp. The calculation sums up the per-tile values ("Plot in radius") in a manner that gives higher weight to high-value tiles (because a few good tiles are better than many mediocre ones). Plus something for the center ("home") plot and values for non-yield benefits of resources and some miscellanea. Multiplicative adjustments in the end to account for more strategic considerations. On a brief look, I can tell that Willem, in your first example, is very interested in the Ivory. He also is treated as an "ambitious" personality (not my idea - but diversifying AI city placement somehow is a good thought) due to the combination of Creative trait and a low peace weight. His is an odd personality, really rather ruthless but not very warlike.

 

[Mr Smith]

The main tile evaluation loop goes through all 21 tiles already in BtS: CvPlayerAI.cpp#L1862

Ah, must've been K-mod's contribution and I assumed wrong.

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

Easier to say than do, Civ4 can only use 1 processor core and in my experience it already struggles with settling spot estimations that are done every turn for all the unsettled land. And even if it aknowledges orphaning other potential spots, it's very crude.

Full yield is too much, it would make settling on resources too good. I found half more than enough, since in HR resources provide less yields in general and improvement base yields are higher.

Yeah, some mods address this by raising minimum city yields, but I prefer replacing them entirely with extra yields - this way every type of tile is special and no resource yield is wasted.

All of that you can do as personal tweaks in XML.

I did not understand your whole explanation but i got the main points i think, if the performance is too high it may not be as worth to tweak the logic especially if the possibilities are limited from what i understand of your explanation.

It's true that full yield on top of base city yield (2/1/1) is a bit too much, it's like having 2 citizens, eventually you'd get the ressorce when you have many citizens, but starting at size 2 makes cities built on ressources a bit too strong, to the point everyone would try to plant everytime on a ressource instead of a sort of harmony in city plantings, so maybe this is what @f1rpo meant about it being maybe not desirable if i got this explanation correctly too i mean.

I understand the possiblity of tweaking XML that i did not know about (i just play civ4 quite regularly but still without advanced knowledge especially regarding to mods), thanks for this suggestion, but the recent messages here that you all did i mean makes me consider if it's truly worth it to add such bonus yields, if it's something non breaking like +1 food on cow maybe it's nice (sort of like in civ3 that i played a lot more before), but if it's too big of a bonus just for the sake of being "fair" it's probably not optimal as it would change all the balance between cities and possibly many decisions in planting, not sure the fairer game is a point in itself i mean, would need to think about it but maybe not worth then, possibly just a ressource base yield maybe (without the upgraded yield) just as a small bonus (for example +1 food if it's a food/health ressource, +1 hammer if it's a hammer ressource, +1 gold if it's a happy ressource just as a small bonus, just to cover the loss of planting on this ressource, i dont know if it's worth implementing still though)

As for me i may or not do so in the future but for now i'll stick to what mods provide in the present without doing my own mod, at least for now i mean

edit: another thought too i had and forgot to write i mean, is that if you make cities 3 or 4 ring large, then all lands on average are the same right? (or about the same), meaning that each city has on average the same number of ideal tiles and of average bad tiles, if so if cities are on average identical, what remains of the strategy except applying the same optimal strategy on all cities? For example in a terrain high in production but low food you may want to go military (for example), but if there's more like a gold environment (river/grassland etc) with no hill or hammer, maybe go diplomatic or religious/culture route rather, so having all cities big enough would average the gameplay and reduce strategy no? Would it be as entertaining (genuine question i mean, as for me i would prefer to compete on a few local nice spots rather than having everyone have decent cities but i did not try it i mean so i dont know for sure if it would be better like this at least for me i mean, i would like more strategy than peace as a general rule but i dont know in this specific case i mean which i would favour due to not having experience to know for sure about these large ring cities, maybe if you change other things like having super big cities (20-30+ population then you may gain an advantage based on this or that strategy, else wouldnt it make the game more flat?))

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

The main tile evaluation loop goes through all 21 tiles already in BtS: CvPlayerAI.cpp#L1862
Through XML (Civ4YieldInfos.xml), iMinCity, iCityChange and iPopulationChangeOffset/Divisor can be modified. iMinCity is the 2F1P1C that city tile yields get raised to. The others are unused and will just add free yields – which makes the characteristics of the tile matter even less than it does now. So no, there is no such option. The BtS/AdvCiv rule is the maximum of 2F1P1C and of the actual tile yields. I think you're essentially proposing 2F1P1C plus the non-terrain yields (plus some more from tech/resources and some special rule for Flood Plains, which, as a feature, can't coexist with cities). I would not want to increase city tile yields overall. They're already a big reward for founding a new city. And making all Hills tiles desirable city sites would not be a good change in my book either. Yes, it's odd that Plains Hills have this special role, but it works quite well imo in terms of -sometimes- encouraging cities on Hills. I've already added a preview of city tile yields to the found-city button to make these rules a little less obscure. And we probably differ somewhat on the merits of founding on top of a resource under the current rules. I think it's frequently worth considering. Some of the veterans in the Strategy & Tips forum will even found on Gold resources occasionally. (The AI should play things more by the book of course.)

Thanks for the savegames. I guess I should re-read the post as you seem to have edited it. But I guess the savegames are unchanged. I didn't see what you mean by "spot 1" etc. when I took a look at them; are there supposed to be highlighted tiles? I have been able to obtain AI log files that document the city site evaluation from saves 1, 4, 5 and 9.1. I'm attaching those. Not sure if they're really comprehensible, but it'll take me a while to go through everything, so maybe better than nothing for the time being. The corresonding code is in CitySiteEvaluator.cpp. The calculation sums up the per-tile values ("Plot in radius") in a manner that gives higher weight to high-value tiles (because a few good tiles are better than many mediocre ones). Plus something for the center ("home") plot and values for non-yield benefits of resources and some miscellanea. Multiplicative adjustments in the end to account for more strategic considerations. On a brief look, I can tell that Willem, in your first example, is very interested in the Ivory. He also is treated as an "ambitious" personality (not my idea - but diversifying AI city placement somehow is a good thought) due to the combination of Creative trait and a low peace weight. His is an odd personality, really rather ruthless but not very warlike.

For the savegames what i meant by "spot 1" is in the corresponding screenshot in the archive, for example "example 2.png" has a spot "1" one tile north west i mean of tolosa, this spot 1 is the spot that i think would have been much better for the AI to plant on. I dont know how to use in game notes (as i dont use/know more advanced features in the game), i know they existed but i did not even consider/was not aware of using them like this), anyways what i mean here is that these spots are in these examples alternative planting spots that i think AI should have favoured, at least if it intended to plant. In these screenshots i also use a circle or similar shape around city spots that are planted or aobut to be planted by the AI, the numbers being alternatives possibilities that i want the AI to consider and possibly favour if they are indeed better in the game i mean.

I have basic knowledge in programming, nothing advanced especially regarding C++, so i would stick to your explanations (that still interest me i mean) rather than going deep in the code (i may peek a bit though i mean anyways i mean). XML editing/modding should not be too hard but as i said in the comment before for now i'll take what the existing mods provide and i'm fine with that, just suggesting ways to enhance them, i may or may not change this view in the future but for now is fine i mean i think

About the bonus yield feature thinking about it again it's maybe too much to add the full bonus, it's true that cities still give 2/1/1 regardless which is quite nice as a starter so giving a full big bonus is like starting at 2 population and may make planting a bit chaotic in order to always plant on resources, it may also make cities with resources too much favoured as compared to ressourceless so less balance, as i said in the comment before, this idea, that i just had quite quick is maybe not a good one, to add fairness just for fairness, maybe with additional modifications but not sure it is immediately worth it for me at least i mean. I would still consider a base +1 food or +1 hammer or +1 gold max based on ressource it is planted on

As for the edits many typos so many edits.. xd (edit: or other ideas too i mean anyways...)

About Wilhem i was not aware he valued the ivory, i thought he wanted the spices and banana too, as well as the river location, plus it's a choke point i mean, hence i think/thought it was too ambitious (edit 2 : i dont knwo too much about each leader's tendency, except montezuma and ragnar and such that i know a bit more i mean.. so thanks for providing these details, because i dont know these in detail is also why i qualified it as "greedy" as i would if a human did that, i mean it's playable but probably not worth the advantages if the opponent against who you do this is strong enough i mean) as he can't defend it and would end up just developing the land for me later at a deficit for him (too much jungle too) and a bit too far for him, i understand better now, but if you have more detailed explanations i would like to know i mean.

edit: as for me i am not an expert i mean, i play monarch and now trying to switch to emperor which seems to go smoothly so i dont know about the future but what i mean is that possibly my evaluation of ideal/optimal locally or globally planting spots would be quite different from that of a more advanced player, in the examples i provided it seems to me that a nearer tile allows to preserve the ressource and still get in the radius enough food/hammer/gold, what i saw more advanced players do from the little that i watched of them i mean is they cramp their cities sometimes more than i would do, but if ressources are limited or penalties really high in higher difficulties maybe going compact is more efficient, for example to share worker imrpovements faster or rare food and micro optimize maybe? i guess it would be the general idea or a part of it, still i find quite outrageous (xd) planting (the example 2 for example i mean..) on things like copper or iron, especially if hammer around the city are otherwise very low (unless you maybe intend to slave a lot and go for peaceful victory type?), or expect invasions and always plant on hills, it's true i dont have enough experience or knowledge to play in such a way or even consider it, so far it seems in monarch/emperor i can space cities quite a bit, sometimes cramping them a bit to share some rare resources (especially food, sometimes hammer too), if you have detailed feedback about the examples or more general feedback about my suggestions i would like to know them i mean, i understand it may take some time though i mean but if you have such explanations at some point i would like to know them i mean, thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

They're already a big reward for founding a new city. And making all Hills tiles desirable city sites would not be a good change in my book either. Yes, it's odd that Plains Hills have this special role, but it works quite well imo in terms of -sometimes- encouraging cities on Hills.

About this, how about the idea to simply reduce plain hills (as a planting point) to 2/1/1 like any other terrain then? This terrain gives defensive bonus which is maybe incentive enough, if anything it would probably make the game more balanced like this no? (and not have some cities start at 2 hammer).

I find your explanation to be quite contradicting without wanting to be offensive i mean, on one point it would be good to have incentive for some tiles (plains hills) due to bonuses, but on another point having bonuses on top of base city point yield would be too much as the reward would be big enough just for planting (which i sort of agree about this point as 2/1/1 is quite nice as a starter 1st population, hence why i retract my first idea of overly boosting city plant points based on all of you people's feedback i mean).

Then, why not simply make plains hills 2/1/1 too then? Is this possible on the XML too (specifically for this terrain i mean). Would advciv consider to implement it too also i mean? Thanks,

edit: also, if always incentivizing (if that is a word i mean anyways..) to plant on hills is maybe not desirable, would it not be better to make plain hills 2/1/1 as a planting point? Hence you can still plant on plain hills if you want (the defensive bonus, or dont mind the loss of production), but you don't get too incentivized, i think it may be worth trying, but again is just my opinion i mean, i would like to know if advciv would consider implementing this change?

edit2 : would changing, in "\Sid Meier's Civilization IV Beyond the Sword\Beyond the Sword\Mods\AdvCiv\Assets\XML\Terrain\CIV4YieldInfos.xml":
<iHillsChange>1</iHillsChange>
to:
<iHillsChange>0</iHillsChange>
fix/address that? If i understood quite correctly your explanation i mean? Thanks,

 

[f1rpo]

Oh, the PNGs, I see. I had just dragged the whole folder into my Saves folder, and of course Civ will then only show the savegame files. I'll take a look. This ambitious/ greedy/ aggressive settling would make more sense for Gilgamesh than Willem. I think Gilgamesh would actually also behave that way. Perhaps the peace weight value (in Civ4LeaderHeadInfos.xml) is not great as the (sole) criterion. You're right that the very dense city placement on high difficulty levels also has to do with the high distance maintenance – and also the player's ability to swap overlapping tiles between cities as needed, which the AI doesn't know how to do at all. On the other hand, with High sea level, your map is an especially crowded one. I think some of the city placement decisions were a bit desperate. Not Willem's, but maybe the very remote Khmer city. The maintenance for that is btw not somehow crippling; it's actually profitable (screenshot attached).

On a side note, notes ("signs") can be placed with Alt+S. A city site (with surrounding radius) can be placed with Alt+X (that's a BUG feature). The autosave interval is configurable in My Games\Beyond the Sword\CivilizationIV.ini.

I would still consider a base +1 food or +1 hammer or +1 gold max based on ressource it is planted on

I think I've seriously considered that at some point, but then the treatment of Hills becomes even weirder. At least the BtS formula is simple.

As for the edits many typos so many edits.. xd (edit: or other ideas too i mean anyways...)

Didn't mean to complain; the edits probably make it easier to read. Thanks also for timing the savegames so carefully. The ones that I got the log files for were just one turn away from the city getting founded. One can even still take control of the AI to see the map from their angle (through Alt+Z with the "chipotle" cheat code entered in CivilizationIV.ini).

Edit: No, the iHillsChange would affect all tiles, not just city tiles. I don't think you can accomplish what you want through XML. And I'm just saying that the BtS rules for city tile yields aren't too bad. Mostly not intuitive. Certainly not what I'd use if I were making a new game or even a more comprehensive mod like Realism Invictus. But they strike an OK balance, they're simple, robust. And specifically taking away the Plains Hills advantage: – extra defense will pretty much only be valuable in border cities. And a bit of an advantage for Plains over Grassland is also nice for once. One could give other advantages to Hills, e.g. +0.5 health. Every departure from the original rules has a complexity cost.

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

Thanks for all your feedback, ok i see thanks, as for the shortcuts i'll try them maybe to see, i'm sure they can help or just to know/try them i mean, thanks.

As for the hills and similar balance changes, yes the cost of complexity is maybe not worth it, i tried to play a bit of realism invictus before to be honest, not that i mean to criticize it but the complexity just for complexity is not necessarily better, in fact i prefer the base bts tech tree for example that is really straightforward and fast, in realism invictus i still found units such as the warband too op to stomp the AI (but i was on lowest difficulty i think chieftain just to try it). But my point i mean is that yes if a game can be simple in the sense that it is efficient and clean i would like that, i can focus more on the strategy like that rather than having 100 000 micro things in mind (hence why i would like a stronger AI rather than having to micro tiles which would not be too fun to me, even though i did not try it much to be honest, but a thing such as a stronger/smarter AI is not always possible/easy i mean so any change is welcome i mean i am thankful and i enjoy that in my games i mean thanks).

So as the city hills bonus rule, well maybe it's fine as it is, it would not majorly change the flow of the game, just a bit weird, but after all hills plain is one of the best tiles for production i would say so there is a bit of loss on planting on it as compared to say desert hill, even if it's not totally "sensical" (as opposed to nonsensical i mean anyways...), it's playable and maybe not the most important, so maybe it's fine or not too bad as is, i think i can agree with that actually.

Another unrelated thing i would want to suggest is possibly slightly increase the early tech costs, things like agriculture are fine, but techs like writing iron working and such are researched and gone to the next tech i mean a bit too fast i think, perhaps slightly increasing mid ancient techs would allow for relatively a bit more time to build things like libraries, perhaps 1-2 more cities, and some early units to be more relevant (in that sense i think the swordsman is a bit op so getting it a bit later would be no harm i think)

About the AI view whoaa it's very very cool i mean thanks, it seems that it's still profitable strangely, i would have really went one space left to plant this city though if i were the AI i mean, less cultural pressure but most importantly access to fish and rice and hill grassland if i am not mistaken, at the cost of a banana and fresh water (river) loss if i am not mistaken i mean, i still think that it's maybe not profitable due to putting a global number of cities cost burden too, however it's probably small here, very interesting to see that even like this AI can still make profit of this city area, at least not deficit, i have doubts that AI can defend it though and it's the main other problem, tbh i'm just waiting for AI to develop the land for me and if/when i feel like expanding just crush and destroy his city xd, it splits his army too so either the other cities are less guarded or military maintenance per turn is increased even if so slightly i would say i mean..

Thanks for your feedback and encouragement, i try to make my comments clear but sometimes i dont edit i mean or my edits add more mess too xd.. but generally i try to correct the typos or some of those i mean.., and make it clearer too indeed, thanks for your feedback, about the other examples whenever you have feedback on them, soon or not, i would like to know too, but i understand it may not be soon though (godo if it is though btu maybe it would not be i mean i would understand i guess i mean), in all cases thanks,

edit: about example 5, the nothern peninsula may have been a safer haven, it has fish and horse, a hill grassland, and no jungle, much safer militarily to develop (not near the angry expansionist backstabber human i mean), and possible to expand too, in all cases thanks..

edit 2: about the nobamba example, i did not want to spoil myself i mean with the retire screen i mean, but now i have advanced enough and have access to the world map so i could give a just before savefile too i mean, but now i saw that it was founded planted on 1125BC, by loading the 1200BC save file, and skip a few turns until 1125BC i mean, could you also tell me why they planted on the copper hills on the spot i would have favoured, i would like to know their logic there too if possible i mean, or the explanation of it rather if possible i mean, also i mean would that be something advciv would want to/could improve? Thanks,

 

[Mr Smith]

if it's too big of a bonus just for the sake of being "fair" it's probably not optimal as it would change all the balance between cities and possibly many decisions in planting

Well, the solution is pretty obvious - there should be a worker action to "improve" the city resource, but maybe at an opportunity cost of longer turns and it should either be limited to 1 extra yield or substract 2 food (because that's the cost of a citizen). Another solution is to bump any resource to the nearest resourceless tile in city's range, should be very easy for F1rpo.

As for me i may or not do so in the future but for now i'll stick to what mods provide in the present without doing my own mod, at least for now i mean

Editing CIV4YieldInfos.xml is very easy, you can even do in in the most basic Notepad, just make sure to save in UTF-8 coding.

For example in a terrain high in production but low food you may want to go military (for example)

You still need food to go production, what makes a good production city is the lack of distracting commerce resources/rivers.

Would it be as entertaining (genuine question i mean, as for me i would prefer to compete on a few local nice spots rather than having everyone have decent cities

In the mod I copied this functionality from, extra working range is tied to culture levels and not just 3rd, but the one after that, so it still requires a serious effort to benefit in time, but at the same time relieves a lot of stress for OCD people like me. In other mods you would need to build a costly building to enable the 3rd ring. Maybe culture is already at the good spot in AdvCiv, but in BTS and other K-mod derivatives it's seriously underpowered and could use extra effects. I sure had a lot of fun with all mods that allow extra working range, but it requires a lot of infrastructure to be able to work most of tiles with that, so it's not that big of a deal. And don't forget that cities require more and more food to grow with each population, as well as Health and Happiness - it's still better to build a new city than to offset the growing expenses of a big one, but being able to grab extra resources/towns pre-grown by others for a specialized city is very nice. And you might not know, but Number of Cities maintenance gradually increases by 100% every 18 population (at least in BTS), so it can become quite significant even with Courthouse built and it will keep spiking every time you settle/conquer a new city.

maybe going compact is more efficient

Sharing resources is fine, but it always costs development potential, so a few ovarlapping plants may be fine, but mostly if you plan to whip them non-stop.

About this, how about the idea to simply reduce plain hills (as a planting point) to 2/1/1 like any other terrain then?

You can either make every hill 2 hammers like in Civ5, or make plains' hill 11 just by editing CIV4TerrainInfos.xml, or raise minimal city hammers to 2 like in RI.
But if you want to make every settled resource count, you should replace minimal yiels with extra yields. It would also solve the problem of plains hills being too good.

in that sense i think the swordsman is a bit op so getting it a bit later would be no harm i think

Well, why won't you think about civs that have no copper and must try for iron if they don't want to become sitting ducks?

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

About the previous message i am fine with how civ4/advciv works so i did not reply, also i would not want too much complications regarding these areas so as much as i would want to apologize for not replying i think i cant as it's what i have chosen i mean. I may also not always agree with your suggested approach or view so all in all i think it's really best i did not follow up on this, even though it's still what i chose.

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I would like to submit 2 weird behaviours i had in advciv, one of which is also occuring in civ4 bts vanilla if i am not mistaken, i have attached save files here: https://filebin.net/rd9yfus93oui4aes.

- example 10 : AI is strictly ahead of me by 4 techs, and i have no tech over them, yet they dont want to trade with me due to : "We fear you are becoming too advanced". But they are the ones getting too advanced not me so please trade i mean... Would advciv fix this or is this somehow intended behaviour (doesnt seem normal but just in case i ask). This behaviour spans during many turns not just one, i have more save files if you want to investigate the timeline or action that triggered it.

- example 11 : This is more like a feature request, in vanilla bts if i am not mistaken this happens too, but i had this happen to me in this save file. I think it is default behaviour, but i would like to ask if it could be improved by advciv : When an AI is "Pleased" or higher satisfaction state, i can ask them to give me techs or/and other things (gold, world map, etc.). But if they refuse a spare as friends request before that, then the request that would before that be accepted is now rejected. However, reloading the save file, if i request the 2nd request first directly, then AI accepts it. Here is an example in this save file :
-> success: ask mansa musa to spare as friends "archery", he accepts.
-> failure: ask mansa musa to spare as friends another tech, for example "writing", he rejects it, but then if you ask him again to spare "archery" then he rejects this request that he would have accepted before.
I find this behaviour quite nonsensical, or at least suboptimal, but i understand it was probably there in bts vanilla i mean.
In all cases, would there be a way civ4 advciv could improve that? I am think of 2 ideas, if it possible i mean, both technically but also as a choice intended for adciv i mean :
1- just fix the behaviour: if i request "writing" to be spared as friends and it is rejected, then i can still after that request "archery" and it would be accepted, regardless of past rejections, as long as AI intended to accept it if i asked it first.
2- enhancement proposal/suggestion: make the spare as friends mechanic behave the same way as ""What would you give me for this?" type of mechanic, i think it works quite nicely for peace treaty in advciv (unlike in bts vanilla i did not notice this nice behaviour i mean where when i want peace i have to ask all possible things and increment and toggle until AI accepts, if it wants). This would be for example "What could you spare me as friend?" option, and if AI has nothing he says sorry it's not possible we are pressed too hard or something, else AI proposes for example max gold amoung or/and tech or/and thing it wants to give to me, and and i would have the option to accept or negotiate, for example if he is ok to gift me meditation (hypothetic example), but in another example say he would also be okay to give instead archery, but not both, then i would like to prompt the AI to see if it would agree to -spare as friends- any request i make. Ideally, this 2- suggestion would also fix the behaviour where when another request is rejected then the request that would be accepted before is now rejected.

Or is this intended behaviour and i did not understand correctly how the spare as friends emchanic works? In all cases, it's not too convenient to reload every time i try an option, and ideally i would like to know if i have possibilities from the AI i am not aware of, even more ideally a "we would like to give you this as friend (accept/negotiate/reject)" popup when a new turn starts (would be quite the dream xd).

So would advciv consider this?

Also, about the other examples i submitted before, do you have some feedback about some behaviours advciv may want to fix/change? Or simply just an explanation if it is possible i mean as i would like to understand a bit deeper these things if possible i mean, thanks,

 

[Mr Smith]

"We fear you are becoming too advanced"

May be exacerbated, but this is an intended design for K-mod. Shouldn't be surprising on higher difficulties.

I find this behaviour quite nonsensical, or at least suboptimal

This is also an inteded design, you shouldn't be able to get maximum out of "begging", especially in the multiplayer. It's a gamble how much to ask for and any request puts it on a cooldown of at least 10 turns, I remember reading it only wears off with a chance.

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

after additional research, it seems indeed that example 10 is the intended behaviour (https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/we-fear-you-are-becoming-too-advanced.176596/), thanks for this feedback, even though to be fair it confused me first as it seemed to me that based on the civ4 generic description it really was not intended, but now i understand that contrary to what it says it's not about the number of techs i have as compared to the other one i trade with, but instead to the number of trades i did overall. I find it quite confusing and not a correct way to guess this meaning based on the civ4 generic description, so i would have liked a bit longer or rather clearer explanation but it is me who didnt get it at first, so thanks for this reply i mean.

As for clarifying this in advciv, would advciv consider (if possible/wished to implement i mean) adding another text just for clarity, something like "We fear you are doing too much trades" or "We fear you would out-trade us". or something similar? And leave the original message "We fear you are becoming too advanced" for the actual case where their reason for not trading is me having too much techs over them. I understand experienced players know the meaning behind this generic message, but if possible to fix and clarify why not fix it mean? So would advciv consider implementing this change or a similar one based on this idea i mean?

additionally, i have another example which i find quite weird,

- example 12 (added in same download link above (https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/advanced-civ.614217/post-16754101)) : adopting bureaucracy results in a tech trade opportunity, but not adopting bureaucracy causes the AI to trade with someone else so i dont have the trade opportunity. To reproduce this, load example 12 save file, then do these actions :
1- to get the tech trade opportunity :
in 475 AD ask Korea to give Civil Service in exchange for requested gold they ask.
in same turn, adopt bureaucracy (important)
end turn
in 500 AD, you can now get Feudalism from Mansa Musa, and the tech leader Korea doesnt trade for it (to get Feudalism from Mansa Musa) which is quite weird since they have many techs and could easily give another tech in exchange
(Bonus: in 525 AD, Korea gains a lot of gold, and luckily you can give them Feudalism in exchange of most of their gold)
2- the weird difference
in 475 AD ask Korea to give Civil Service in exchange for requested gold they ask.
then end turn without adopting bureaucracy
in 500 AD, now instead as compared to 1-, Korea has Feudalism (i assume traded from Mansa Musa in excange of civil service), so civil service that i posess is now quite useless in comparison. This is very weird because the only difference with 1- is me adopting bureaucracy, is AI reluctant to trade with me based on my chosen civics? But AIs Korea and Mansa Musa have a postiive score and did not held back techs from me based on not liking enough though it seems if i am not mistaken, is it because me not getting Bureaucracy makes somehow Mansa Musa wary of potentially trading with me so he trades with Korea sooner? Or is it because me adopting bureaucracy somehow makes the civil service tech less attractive to get for Mansa Musa so he holds back on it one more turn? is this behaviour normal or intended? it is quite weird and requires to juggle quite randomly between actions in save files.

What would seem most sensical to me is that regardless of my current civic (unless it is favourite civic of the or moving away from their favourite civic, but then it should not affect how they choose to trade with someone else or withold it, which should be independent from me) AI has a consistent behaviour where it trades civil service or doesnt trade to other AIs it regardless of my actions. Ideally too, that AI would notice it has many techs and can easily give one of their techs to get Feudalism, or at least not pay all their gold for a tech (Feudalism) that they can get freely the same turn just by trading with another AI. It feels/seems quite random and reduces quite a bit the enjoyment of the game, unless maybe it's a more advanced trick/notion i mean that more advanced players know about or a local thing the AI does regularly and consistently in similar situations? (still weird though to me but maybe it's known behaviour and not random?) Is this the limit of how civ4 AI can be programmed, or some things could/would be considered to be tweaked in advciv?
I understand it may take some time, but i would like to know if this advciv behaviour (which may also be in vanilla bts?) is intended and would it stay this way in adciv in the future (i ask the question as i do not know i mean and would like to learn/understand but also submit this suggestion if it is possible/wished to modify in advciv in the future i mean)
Thanks,

 

[f1rpo]

Yes, I think these are working as intended and essentially as in BtS. "You're getting too advanced" is a misleading explanation text. In the code, the condition is referred to as "DENIAL_TECH_WHORE" and it's based on the total number of techs traded by a player (with a slow memory decay). It's a crude mechanism to rein in frequent tech trades. And the asking for a gift is a push-your-luck mechanism. Letting the player try any number of requests would get tiresome. A granted gift also comes with a peace treaty. So, if the AI is preparing war against the player, it'll always refuse to grant a gift. To make the AI more difficult to read, AdvCiv lets the AI sometimes, randomly, deny even tiny gift requests regardless of war plans. The one-sided peace treaties from Kek-Mod could remove this wrinkle. On the other hand, the possibility of getting a peace treaty is strategically interesting. I guess ideally there should be an option to offer a gift to the AI – resulting in a peace treaty. And the requests for a gift should then mostly serve as a way to obtain some small trade item when having nothing of similar value to offer in return. Currently, there is an incentive to ask for something every 20-something turns (when the previous request has likely been forgotten), which is rather tedious. Perhaps the AI willingness to make gifts should instead be restored by gifts or trade advantages granted by the player – friendship being a two-way street. E.g. after gifting a 50-beaker tech, the AI would expect twice or three times as much in return before feeling generous again. Well, it's all too much work.

I've now taken a close look at the first three city placement decisions (examples 1, 2 and 4) you had criticized.

this city spot is bold but a bit too far for willhem AI, plus it's full of jungle to the point it will not be profitable for a long time to settle there, i purposely left the spot after wanting it first as it was not worth it for me, city is easily capturable too so i waited for them to develop the land for me. solution : plant west and closer to their territory, harder to reach for me and more profitable for them, there is copper grassland for example and an expansion to the north

Willem's capital is at the happiness cap, the other two cities are getting there. The Ivory will be immediately useful. The bad health from the Jungle is not problematic. However, there is really no tile with decent yields prior to Iron Working. The Jungle Ivory Camp is going to be the best and then (non-river) Grassland Forest.

The closeness of the other cities makes Willem especially interested in claiming the site fast. This logic of the AI and the handling of culture pressure are muddled together in the K-Mod code. It's also a problem in example 4 – where I agree that the AI (Huayna Capac) should hurry to settle the Iron-Corn-Cow site (somewhat) close to your capital. In that case, the distance is slightly too big for the AI to realize that the site is contested. I'm not going to rewrite this cleanly, but I've tweaked it a bit so that Willem is neither encouraged nor discouraged from settling close to your capital and so that Capac does see some urgency to settle near you.

And I've tied the "ambitious" settling behavior to the "build-unit prob" of the AI leader instead of the "peace weight". This should mean that Willem and Catherine no longer act ambitiously (though the Creative trait will still make them settle somewhat aggressively – hopefully in a rational way) while Zara Yaqob becomes ambitious. If that in fact makes him overambitious, that's fine with me; he tends to do too well compared with most of the other AI leaders.

As for the Copper site that Willem could settle alternatively, this one too will only have one good tile to work – the Copper. Willem already has Chariots, but no metals (the Iron near his capital isn't revealed yet). I've tried to get him to value the Copper a little more highly, but, well, this really has only made a small difference. I've also been reminded of a known issue with the yield evaluation of resource tiles. The AI doesn't count the improvement yields that don't depend on the resource, i.e. the +2 production from the Mine. It's kind of that way by design (not my design). I'm now adding half of those non-resource improvement yields (i.e. 1 production) to the resource-specific improvement yields as a stop-gap measure. In summary, some evaluations (Copper, Ivory) are still off, but not far enough off and not easy enough to improve to bother further.

example 2 : very silly planting spot, it happens in many examples below too, never plant on copper or iron, there is almost never a situation where it is better to do so, to the point i think it could be enforced as a general/global AI rule in all cases. Spot 1 is near but so much better, it's so silly. Favour planting on plains and desert when possible or locally faovurable too if not already implemented, to maximize better near tiles. Note that Vienne in this save file was very nicely planted so when i conquered it i was content to keep it as is

Tolosa was founded in 1100 BC. I assume that Iron was not yet revealed then. Which would also mean that Boudica got lucky with the Iron near Vienne (which was founded even earlier than Tolosa). Tolosa is a pretty lousy location at any rate; I guess Boudica had nowhere else to go. Founding on the Cow for double Fish (a spot you've marked in your screenshot) isn't considered by the AI because there's 0 production unless tiles are swapped from the capital. No rocket science to add this capability to the AI, but also not quite worth my while. Well, ruling out such sites categorically seems a little drastic. I've tweaked the (K-Mod) penalty for lack of production, – but Boudica still won't settle this particular site, at least not until the Industrial era; or maybe if she desperately wants another city.

There may also be an issue with the AI settling on Copper and Iron too readily. Maybe one of your other savegames will shed more light on that. Perhaps my tweak to the counting of the Mine production yield already helps.

planting very bad spot in comparison to spot 1 (!!!) or 2 or might be 3, 1 is much closer and land si so much better, the idea to plant on desert is cool but this land is not urgent, spot 1 should be highly prioritized to barrage me and take this very nice land.

Pre-empting you in spot 1 is a valid point, I think (see above). Despite the desert, the site that Capac chooses has two strong tiles in terms of yield: green Sheep and Copper. Calendar for Incense is available. But mostly Capac really wants the Stone. Pyramids, Hanging Gardens, Great Wall are all still available, the Moai Status also can be constructed immediately, and more Stone buildings are coming up in the Medieval era. Many of those aren't good, but the AI doesn't evaluate the specific effects of each building at that point, and, when just counting buildings, I don't think the AI should work an assumption that buildings tend to be weak. Still; I've dialed down the values a little bit for buildings that can't immediately be constructed.

In terms of yields, your spot 1 is of course better (Cow, Corn, Iron and the lakes also have potential), but it lacks the non-yield resource value of Stone (and to a lesser extent Incense). With a boost for closeness to a rival, the AI still prefers the Stone spot, but it's now very close.

So as the city hills bonus rule, well maybe it's fine as it is, it would not majorly change the flow of the game, just a bit weird, but after all hills plain is one of the best tiles for production i would say so there is a bit of loss on planting on it as compared to say desert hill, even if it's not totally "sensical" (as opposed to nonsensical i mean anyways...), it's playable and maybe not the most important, so maybe it's fine or not too bad as is, i think i can agree with that actually.

If I were to change it, then 2F1P1C plus the unimproved resource yield (1F/1P/1C) would seem like a good approach. Not complicated this way. Hills should then get some other perk, e.g. health or enable or speed up some building(s) or so. And perhaps some restrictions for settling on Desert and Ice. One problem with the current rules that I'm recalling now is that Plains Hills with a resource can provide 3P, which arguably encourages Warrior rushes too much. "it's playable and maybe not the most important" – I do think that a lot of times.

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

Thanks i really understand much better now thanks, i maybe didnt get all of it but most of it i think thanks,

About what you explained in example 4, i chose spot 3 because if i move it one tile north i mean then the nice spot 1 would have to move north too making it slightly less interesting. I understand as a general rule that some tweaks may be a hassle or/and too complicated i mean to implement, so when it is possible to find efficient solutions it's nice i mean if they improve things. I also did not consider as much the importance of these resources such as stone or incense for example, as i rarely focus on wonders except a few i find worthwhile (maybe buff a bit some wonders? or slightly change their effects?), but if the AI values these ressources more due to that i would understand. Even though it is planted on desert, it did seem after looking at it, as you say too, that the spot is not so bad, it misses the freshwater but gets a few resources, as long as city is not too big there is enough grassland for cottages maybe and a few hills grassland too, forest for chopping or health. Just that barraging me and missing the nice ressources just next is in comparison much worse. But overall it's not so bad, the other problem is that it's not as urgent for the AI, it may be a bit too far for me to go where AI planted for the incense, if AI plants spot 1 then it would cut me in half to go there, doable but not as much peace of mind kind of worth it i mean, but it's just my opinion i mean anyways..

About Wilhem, I undervalued the ivory indeed (did not even notice/consider it in fact i mean, anyways..), i was mostly focused on the river grassland potential of this site. If early potential of the copper site is small (especially if AIs dont see resources in advance (before required tech is discovered to reveal them) contrary to what i thought? I'm also asking myself about the example below too i mean)

As for example 2, i thought that the AI "cheated" and knows in advance where the resource are, it was like this in civ3 if i am not mistaken from what people say if i am not mistaken, i assumed it was the same in civ4 but if AI doesnt know where iron is then it would explain why the AI prioritized this hill for tolosa if i understand it correctly. I provided an example 2.0 file in 1100 BC if it could help investigate this i mean in the download link provided here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/advanced-civ.614217/post-16754101 . I think though that the AI has at least one more city spot in the barbarian city north, but it's true that it's qutie cramped. I generally go for high sea level for a faster game i mean. In this game i barraged Boudica's expansion as soon as i could.

It makes me wonder about another thing. Generally i dont plant in my 4000 BC location, and move one or a few turns/tiles. Especially favouring high food tiles (but perhaps also hammer to a lesser extent?), would advciv consider implementing a code/feature to make AI not plant if a (much) better location is available nearby? Just moving 1 or 2 turns (possibly more turns like 3-4 turns at most?) may significantly affect the rest of the game i think. If spawning location is strangely too bad, it would not be nonsensical to move like up to 5 turns possibly maybe to a very nice spot, what woudl advciv thnk of this? Personally i think moving 1-2 tiles unless spawn is super lucky could always imrpvoe quite a bit, generally going for the coast where there is fish or similar, going for freshwater for health for otherwise same/similar food or hammer or equivalent, going away from too much jungle in neighborhood (but may produce unexpected results liek AIs all flocked together, early, not sure it would be a good idea in that case). Also, considering all bonuses AIs get in higher difficulties, i am not sure, too i mean, if this would really impact enough the gameplay or overall performance of the AI. What would advciv do abotu this? Personally i tink just like 1-2 turns may provide some nice benefits and be really cool, so what would advciv think of this idea i mean?

I also noticed but forgot to mention that in the original archive i sent there are 4 Hammurabi save files, these correspond to example 8 and i forgot to group them in a specific folder and/or to rename them too i mean. I understand that it may take a lot of time, but if you want to look into it too, then sometime when you are finished looking into this example and the other ones too i mean, i would like to know more about why this happens, is my evaluation/understanding of the situation correct, and would advciv consider fixing these. Example 8 was very very weird with a settler standing idle when a spot nearby is available, really slowing his early pace, so if you have info/feedback on this too i would like to know i mean too thanks.

About the hills bonus production, it's true that it favours rushes at lower difficulties, but even in the early having one bonus hammer is quite nice (especially when the city is small). I was thinking briefly about this and maybe nerfing the warrior would fix this (for example give the warrior -25% city attack, but then barbarians would be too weak), but i am not sure it is a/the right approach, partially because production has a global effect (i mean it impacts/relates to many other things too i mean). Based on that, maybe it would be a cool idea to provide hills alternative benefits instead of production, for example health, or possibly food? (but food may affect too much the balance). As for settling on tundra or desert, i was rather of the opinion to buff them if possible, i mean the tiles are bad enough so nerfing them any more would make these spots unplantable (not worth it i mean). Maybe tundra tiles could provide one extra commerce? I dont know if it's balanced it's just an example of idea i mean. As for desert, maybe settling on the desert, regardless of whether its a hilld desert or just flat(land) desert would give one more hammer? In all cases a mild change may not be bad. Personally, i find the early growth of cities a tad bit slow i mean, in normal game speed i mean, so maybe there is some room for some changes that slightly increase the early/base food output of some tiles in some conditions, even though health is much milder and still significant so maybe 1 health bonus for hills is a good idea?

In all cases even if some changes are small, perhaps the cumulative effect of these would make the game more enjoyable and perhaps a different path especialyl if it affects somethign as early and all game impacting as city planting spots i mean. Yes, bumping the AI preference for settling towards the player may make it slightly harder for the human player so i think it would be interesting i mean, an extra awareness of not being too close while doing so is interesting too.

If i understand it correctly, advciv aims to be quite close to vanilla bts, however i think it make some small and nice changes, what i mean by that is when i look at wonders something seems to be improvable. I think advciv probably considered it before i mean, but maybe a small rebalance would help? To me, it seems that a few wonders are really useful and most are soso at best, yet AI favours them somehow. Some may be situational i mean, or/and it's me who has a not enough diverse or strong enough strategy perhaps, i tried playing emperor and it seems the religious techs value much more (edit 2: trying again in another map it seems the scientific rush route for alphabet is much more fruitful, i tried it with another leader of the same civ as in previous map i mean), since the AI doesnt rush these, i can always get a trade out of these when they get Alphabet before me for example, but bronze working is quite useless as most AIs already have them. This seems to be the case in the first emperor game i tried (which is example 12 btw anyways), what i mean is that maybe a tweak around wonders would be nice, possibly slightly changing some effects or buffing some or nerfing some maybe.

But yes i mean as long as it's playable maybe it's not always worth the bother to change fix some things, for example the "too far ahead" in tech message is really not accurate and as you said misleading i mean, it would be very cool to fix it, but once i have the issue i know what it means so it's not as much of an issue anymore i mean, so nice but not ultra majorly essential as i know how it works now, but still cool if possible yet not urgent or absolutely required i mean.

About the one sided peace treaties, if i understand it correctly you mean that only one civ gets a peace treaty but the other civ of the trade can declare war if it wants right? Therefore you cant "lock" an AI in a stupid peace treaty (even though indeed strategically beneficial potentially i mean anyways..), did i get this right? And this would fix the AI being reluctant to accept gifts as it doesnt always want to withold the possibility of going to war? Is my understanding correct regarding that too i mean? Thanks,

 

[Mr Smith]

Maybe tundra tiles could provide one extra commerce? I dont know if it's balanced it's just an example of idea i mean. As for desert, maybe settling on the desert, regardless of whether its a hilld desert or just flat(land) desert would give one more hammer?

Little by little you keep reinventing my modmod

To me, it seems that a few wonders are really useful and most are soso at best

Just providing a lot of culture that will also double after 1000 years is enough to justify any early wonder, especially for Industrious.

 

[f1rpo]

About what you explained in example 4, i chose spot 3 because if i move it one tile north i mean then the nice spot 1 would have to move north too making it slightly less interesting. [...]

Looking at the matter from Capac's position, I'd really be inclined to also place that desert city; attaching a screenshot. The Sheep is the only food source that can supply the eastern part of the peninsula. Sad to neither have freshwater nor a Lighthouse for the lake tiles, but still. The Silver can go with the Clam (a humble spot, maybe the Moai can go there once Stone is available), meaning that the Silver can't be paired with the Sheep. The NW spot seems obvious. Prioritizing that would also help alleviate Barbarian pressure. Well, given that Ollantaytambo is about to be lost to the Barbarians, it might actually be best to resettle that city 1 SE of the approaching Swordsman.

As for example 2, i thought that the AI "cheated" and knows in advance where the resource are, it was like this in civ3 if i am not mistaken from what people say if i am not mistaken, i assumed it was the same in civ4 but if AI doesnt know where iron is then it would explain why the AI prioritized this hill for tolosa if i understand it correctly. [...]

The Civ 4 AI does not cheat with resource visibility. Well, it might be that this isn't entirely waterproof in BtS, but I'm pretty sure that the AdvCiv code for AI city placement entirely ignores unrevealed resources. The choice of the starting locations takes into account unrevealed resources in BtS, but it doesn't in AdvCiv – so a rather poor starting location does not hint at Horse, Copper or Iron.

Generally i dont plant in my 4000 BC location, and move one or a few turns/tiles. Especially favouring high food tiles (but perhaps also hammer to a lesser extent?), would advciv consider implementing a code/feature to make AI not plant if a (much) better location is available nearby? Just moving 1 or 2 turns (possibly more turns like 3-4 turns at most?) may significantly affect the rest of the game i think. If spawning location is strangely too bad, it would not be nonsensical to move like up to 5 turns possibly maybe to a very nice spot, what woudl advciv thnk of this? [...]

AdvCiv already allows the AI to move its starting settler. Moving one tile and still founding on turn 0 or founding only on turn 1 is fairly common. The movement of the starting settler might be the most discussed subject of the Strategy & Tips forum. Almost always, an initially visible tile is recommended, meaning that the city gets founded on turn 0 or turn 1. AdvCiv reveals slightly more tiles initially, but, considering that AdvCiv maps are also slightly more crowded by default and the pontential for unfairly boxing in the human player by moving an AI settler for multiple turns, I don't think up to 5 turns is reasonable. On rare occasions, I think, the AdvCiv AI may found as late as turn 2. When I just gave it one try, 3 out of 8 civs moved their starting settler by one tile (small yellow markers added to the attached screenshot). In Gilgamesh's case, the capital won't be founded until turn 1.

As for settling on tundra or desert, i was rather of the opinion to buff them if possible, i mean the tiles are bad enough so nerfing them any more would make these spots unplantable (not worth it i mean).

It's a bit strange that the game encourages settling on the tiles most hostile to human habitation. Even if I'm willing to embrace the logic of not putting houses on the best farmland. I think it would be more immersive if settling on Desert required freshwater. That would also give Oasis a bigger role, and riverside Desert Hills and Desert river corners (where AdvCiv doesn't place Flood Plains) would gain a special purpose (rather than being just another flavor of useless). An XML tag bFoundFreshWater even exists already. There's also bFoundCoast which could make sense for Ice. Well, within the context of AdvCiv, I expect many players would find such changes unexpected and uncalled for.

But yes i mean as long as it's playable maybe it's not always worth the bother to change fix some things, for example the "too far ahead" in tech message is really not accurate and as you said misleading i mean, it would be very cool to fix it, but once i have the issue i know what it means so it's not as much of an issue anymore i mean, so nice but not ultra majorly essential as i know how it works now, but still cool if possible yet not urgent or absolutely required i mean.

Changing the tooltip would be very easy, e.g. "We feel you've been advancing too fast." But, then, it's not much more clear that way, and may cause players to wonder whether the underlying mechanism has been changed. Or the AI behavior could match the "We fear you're getting too advanced" more closely, meaning that an AI civ that is a good deal ahead would always trade. But I don't think it would be good for the game balance if AI civs that are already far ahead become more willing to trade. And just because a (human) player is still somewhat behind, doesn't mean that unrestricted tech trading won't make it too easy to catch up. On the highest difficulty levels, closing the tech gap that usually opens up during the early game (due to the AI starting advantages) is perhaps the main challenge. Most of the AI reasons for not trading tech are largely irrational ("not yet," "not with you," "not while we're building this wonder"). The proper fix imo would be to attach some kind of substantial cost or cooldown to tech trades. That would give the AI a good reason to be a reluctant tech trader.

About the one sided peace treaties, if i understand it correctly you mean that only one civ gets a peace treaty but the other civ of the trade can declare war if it wants right? Therefore you cant "lock" an AI in a stupid peace treaty (even though indeed strategically beneficial potentially i mean anyways..), did i get this right? And this would fix the AI being reluctant to accept gifts as it doesnt always want to withold the possibility of going to war? Is my understanding correct regarding that too i mean? Thanks,

Yes, when asking the AI for a gift, only the human player should be prohibited from declaring war on the AI. And when the AI asks for help or tribute and the human player accepts, then only the AI should be bound by the resulting peace treaty. Come to think of it, it might be best if a peace treaty for either or both sides could just always be added to the trade table. And then a human player asking for a gift wouldn't have to result in any peace treaty – unless that is part of the gift asked or offered in return (meaning that it's really a trade and not a gift). If it's a gift not involving a peace treaty, the AI would not need to randomly refuse.

Is any of this relevant for your contention that a denied gift request shouldn't affect subsequent gift requests? I'm not sure. I guess, if a gift request was denied because the AI is secretly preparing war, then allowing the human player to try again would make it obvious that the AI will not agree to any gift. Whereas, if the first denial is final, it could also be that the requested item was just a little too valuable. But I also don't want players to figure out the most that the AI is willing to give through trial and error. Yes, letting the AI make an offer would alleviate that problem. But this approach is still in the spirit of letting the player periodically extract an economical advantage from the AI. If I were to put work into the gift requests, I'd want to steer away from that.

To me, it seems that a few wonders are really useful and most are soso at best, yet AI favours them somehow. Some may be situational i mean, or/and it's me who has a not enough diverse or strong enough strategy perhaps, [...] what i mean is that maybe a tweak around wonders would be nice, possibly slightly changing some effects or buffing some or nerfing some maybe.

AdvCiv already nerfs the Great Lighthouse a little, the Great Wall has been reworked. The Pyramids ... Representation is a little too good. Patch 1.61 had reduced the happiness boost to +2, Warlords 2.08 restored it to +3. Well, I don't really think the Pyramids are too powerful. I like to think that some broader balance changes in AdvCiv – revolts that hamper wars of conquest, weakened Slavery – already make buildings more attractive. I don't think I'd want to add little buffs here and there to e.g. make the Parthenon, Temple of Artemis, University of Sankoré, Notre Dame a little better. Some of the weakest wonders would really need different effects altogether: Chichen Itza, Statue of Zeus, Hagia Sophia. The current effects imo would get too strange if they were dialed up. I'd like Chichen Itza to have a Jungle agriculture (milpa) effect. Maybe one day I'll get around to it.

I haven't looked into the Bureaucracy savegames yet, but it sounds like it could just be a butterfly effect, so to speak. Tech trades between AI civs are randomized and the game uses a single stream of random numbers for all randomization. So anything you do on your turn that could affect the use of random numbers can very well change the trades that occur during the AI turns.