AI city placement and misc. suggestions

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

As explained in the message just before, here is example 89 with the mongol AI workers still ignoring to improve/connect the banana but instead going for a windmill on a mine.
The banana was ignored for a very long time during the game, and even though i am not sure, i assume mongol AI has calendar since long ago as explained below in at the end of 2nd paragraph if i may say i mean anyways.

I have not installed your code due to trying to be consistent but if it helps this windmill issue, what i would want to focus on here (i mean is why i submit this example i mean anyways) is the priroity of the banana needing a plantation (or much less ideally a fort or possible other ways i would not know about to connect but if there are none, the plantation is quick and cheap to build, i doubt mongol AI still would not have calendar but machinery but i don't know i mean anyways)

Ressources should be given highest or a really high priority to improve when possible/available i mean anyways, but here mongol AI continously ignore it.

I provided save files 89.1 (just one turn before they start the windmill ignoring the banana that (badly) needs a plantation), 89.0 a few turns before that (if the additional data helps maybe i mean anyways), and 2 screenshots 89.2 and 89.3 (mongol AI workers are in spot 1 as shown i mean anyways) (that i hastily took one turn after when they started building the windmill , but as the idea i want to show is the same i mean anyways there was no need to remake a screenshot (but need to blablah all this because i like maybe or maybe i shouldn't spam but i try to go in depth and i mean explain in my own way i mean anyways).

Ideally the banana plantation should be given much higher priority and chosen over then windmill (or any other improvement unless really important i mean anyways), and it was ignored for a very long while.
While some issues about workers may be more minor in comparison, not connecting ressources or/and notearly enough is what i would qualify to be critical, so if you'd want to look at it among other examples too i mean anyways, i hope at that time this example data point may also be helpful if you'd wish to investigate it i mean anyways.

Added also a note about it in example 85 (redundant enough to 85 to not reedit specifically the other examples to mention it plus a bit faster this way i mean anyways).
Thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I have found what looks like a bug that is super weird xd.
It is example 91.
I have provided a save file 91.1 and a screenshot 91.2

edit:
weirdly it is possible a few turns later in example 91.3 save file and example 91.4 screenshot (i did not check exactly from when it became possible i mean anyways, but in save file 91.3 and screenshot 91.4 the mark seems to be working as intended now (a few turns after 91.1 and 91.2) to put a mark on same spot).

Unless i am mistaken or doing something wrong i mean anyways, from save file 91.1, it seems the Alt+X that you taught me about (and that is very very nice and useful mark i mean anyways), seems to not work when applied one tile north west of antium, as shown in screenshot 91.2.

However, if i put a mark anywhere else among the few places i tried, a new mark works, but on this specific spot after exiting the Alt+X mark somehow the mark on the central tile remains but the large ring color is completely lost on all the other tiles except the central one.
I tried reloading the save file and the issue persists so maybe it is a bug or something but i am not sure so i ask here i mean anyways.

Can you reproduce this bug and would you fix it if it is indeed a bug, very weird xd.

Btw i mean anyways, i would like to ask if you could add an entry that seems missing in the sevopedia (in the shortcuts section) as they say this word sevopedia i mean anyways.
For "enter a caption" shortcut (Alt+S) i found after googling and trying i mean anyways, i could not find this entry on the sevopedia unless i missed i mean didn't see it i mean anyways, else i would say this entry is indeed missing and it would be nice to add it. The enter caption shortcut/feature is very useful at least to me i mean anyways.
If "enter a caption" is maybe not clear enough for the average user that may include me or not i mean anyways, what do you think of the suggestion of adding this description to it:
"enter a caption (write a note on a tile on the map)" or something similar for clarity?

What do you think of these?
Would you consider improving or maybe rather fixing these issues here i mean anyways if i was/am not mistaken in finding them i mean anyways.
Thanks,

edit 2:
i found the same issue happen again on the same tile later in the game, but there seems additionally to be a fade time of 0.1s-0.2s approximately when the mark appears then disappears at the end of this fade time, maybe this data point helps, see this post for (minimally more i mean anyways) details: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ai-city-placement-and-misc-suggestions.695343/post-16781741

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

This example is a balance change request.
It is example 92.
I added 2 screenshots 92.1 and 92.2 (the last one in particular compares the 2 to show the differences).

Spoiler edit: i am noob (at least in that case i mean anyways) xd i didn't notice the sumerian courthouse could be built sooner, i don't know if it is balanced but at least it makes sense now xd :

When looking at courthouses, i noticed the aztec courthouse seems to be an upgrade of the sumerian courthouse unless i am mistaken i mean anyways.
It makes the sumerian courthouse seem like a fraud xd, or more politely i mean rather i should say maybe it is not proper of me to say anyways, what i mean is that the aztec courthouse is basically, as things are, a sumerian courthouse with an additonal perk, which i think is a problem or at least not optimal maybe i mean anyways, hence my suggestion in below paragraphs i mean anyways to balance the aztec courthouse.

I thought each civ's unique building or unit should have its own specific perks, not them having tiers between them xd.
To be exhaustive, comparing them, especially in screenshot 92.2, the other buildings seem balanced or at least each has its own perk:

- default courthouse costs 120 hammer no perk
- holy roman courthouse has a nice(? i would say but i don't know i mean anyways is just my opinion) +20% additional maintenance reduction so seems fine
- the sumerian courthouse has a cost reduction of 30 hammers. Not the most amazing (my opinion) but it works.
- but the problem now is that the aztec courthouse seems like a sumerian courthouse with an additional perk xddd. I mean no offense just it seems weird, and to have these buildings be fair and balanced, regardless of how you'd decide to do it i mean anyways is just my suggestion, i would suggest here that each building has its own perk at least not this cumulative hierarchy. If this is an oversight or something you did not notice, or maybe if it was intended design i mean anyways, in both cases i would suggest to either nerf the aztec courthouse, or to buff the sumerian courthouse (but if you buff the sumerian courthouse, would the holy roman courthouse still be on par with the other unique courthouses? So maybe best way is to balance the one that has 2 perks to make it 1 perk like the others, and then work on each perk being about as strong enough? I mean it is my suggestion i mean anyways). So maybe reduce the sumerian courthouse to say 60 hammer total cost i mean anyways? Or maybe increase the aztec courthouse to 120 hammer, so that it only has one perk and not 2 perks (cost reduction of 30 hammers, plus anger management thing i mean anyways would be in total 2 perks unlike the other courthouses).

I had read somewhere about a modmod address this (but not in detail if i remember correctly i mean anyways) by increasing the cost of sacrificial altar (to 120 if i remember correctly). I have no played the aztec civ yet to know for sure, i don't remember if they said the anger thing was op or not (so i can't say for sure if it's too strong or not as some people say or not, just balance the number of perks is what i would say to make it grossly even, and their effectiveness ideally i mean anyways), nor am i too hot or serious about this issue (i didn't play the aztecs yet xd if i am not mistaken so i don't know much about this i mean anyways).

I would also not extensively start my balance changes request armada, or maybe i would but i don't have such ideas for now, this example striked me as odd so i thought it would be good to ask as an example.

What do you think of this? Would you consider balancing this i mean in advciv if wished/possible? Thanks,

based on my spoiler above i added a corrected example 92.3, my mistake xd i humbly apologize xdd (not humbly but i mean at least i restored the truth i mean anyways so i apologize still i mean indeed), thanks,

I don't know if the anger thing is as strong as having the courthouses slightly sooner, but at least they have the same number of perks, the holy roman courthouse only has one perk now unlike the others but it's a strong perk (the additional maintenance), it's not my priority to say if these finer details of balance are fair (if anything it's their unique unit (jaguar) that i would say is too weak (weaker than an axeman for same price, and weaker than a swordsman for not much less, but it is probably not the place to add a new issue on top of a closing one xd so as it is not my core focus i would insist too much on it i mean me anyways, but if someday i gather enough data about what i think is significantly too weak or too strong, then i may submit these in batch maybe or waves i mean anyways, but it is not guaranteed that i would do that i mean anyways, i am much more interested in AI strength and efficiency and beauty i mean of handling things i mean anyways). So i would still ask your opinion, but i would prefer, as i said and and maybe (probably i mean anyways) it is not for me to meddle i mean anyways, that if i were to state my priority, i would prefer that other/more examples would be reviewed rather i mean anyways, but it is only my suggestion again and i should not meddle in what you'd want to do anyways, so for now i go back to playing or doing other things i mean anyways, thanks).

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

weirdly the mark issue in example 91 seems to have solved itself a few turns later (2 turns in this case).
I did not check if 1 turn later worked, but at least it works now i mean anyways.

It is still weird why it did not work in this specific turn when it happened, could have happened before or other times maybe too if i may say i don't know i mean anyways, i added save file 91.3 and screenshot 91.4 showing the mark now working (at least it seems to be working to me now i mean anyways) 2 turns after 91.1 and 91.2 (where it did not work earlier i mean anyways), as shown in edit of example 91, thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I added example 94.
It is a suggestion towards diplomacy which i think is quite critical (not necessarily not working, but way too convenient for the one enacting it i mean anyways, and way too detrimental for the AI to agree to it i mean anyways).
I also don't think i submitted something similar before.

Here, zulu AI is weaker than me militarily, and weaker than China AI. Both me and China AI have a border with him.
But zulu AI is angry with Khmer AI (who he has a border with too i mean anyways) and zulu AI is willing to declare war on him, worse he can be convinced by trade to do so (see example 94.1 save file, end turn then do the trade as in screenshot 94.2).

The big problem with him accepting to declare war by trade, is it is just suicide for him i mean anyways.
In subsequent screenshots if i may say i mean anyways, i show his power ratio with me and China AI which border him.
Even if he has a peace treaty with me due to this trade, China AI can declare war on him anytime they wish if i am not mistaken i mean anyways.
The incentive is extremely strong for China AI as zulu AI is quite weak (and has many nice ressources and good land for most i mean anyways) and as soon as he attacks Khmer AI, it will be the perfect time to capture super easily all his cities.

It is especially too convenient for me since i've been safely stockpiling units in anticipation of this.
Since he took longer somehow to gather his troops, when his actual attack begins, his stack is very low health and some units die, now his cities that were weak are way weaker.
From all the time it took to gather his troops unexpectedly (and also maybe weirdly waiting idle a few turns just after entering Khmer AI's border i mean anyways), now he only has 2 turns of peace treaty remaining, so he will not be protected at all from my backstabbing i mean anyways and i will/should i mean anyways capture all his cities very very easily i mean anyways.
Therefore, if i may say i mean anyways, i think he should not have accepted war, even if he is angry at Khmer AI, put his feelings aside i mean anyways or what is the AI equivalent of it i mean anyways, and say something like:
- "We would love to, but we fear being exposed to our stronger rivals as a result."
or maybe:
- "We are not strong enough to safely afford a war yet."
edit 3: Either of these text infos when hovering on his war declaration possibility in trade, would active when all other conditions are met (as in this case) for zulu AI to be willing to be convinced into a trade for war against another AI (here Khmer AI), if it is not safe to do so (zulu AI not strong enough to protect his land while invading, plus as in edit if it's a war against a common ennemy (i.e. the one asking the war trade is already at war with the player that he wants zulu AI to join into the war) then as said in edit2 (with details there i mean anyways for my reasons why i think this i mean anyways) in this case an exception could be made, but else or/and as a general rule maybe i mean anyways it would be a lot better or so much nicer if the AI was reluctant to this war trade until strong enough to afford it militarily i mean anyways (without risking death too much i mean anyways).

This situation reminds me of what i could do in civ3 i mean anyways, giving any random thing to an AI 1 who attacks AI 2, both weaken each other and i can finish them off both with minimal losses and huge benefits.

It would be very nice if zulu AI understood in this position/situation that due to being weaker, he can't accept a war trade even though he would love to (way too risky for him).
But if the AI was strong enough, such a restriction could be lifted maybe.
It is just to self preserve the AI and not make it do very detrimental things to him.
Even if i didn't backstab him (yet), he is still very vulnerable to China AI now, so it would be so much better if when weaker, AIs would be more reluctant to agree to a war trade, just for their own benefit, and if strong enough why not maybe though i mean anyways.

I understand you would want the AI to interact more with the player and not be passive, if i understand correctly i mean anyways, but here it is (too) detrimental to do so, so i think it would best erve him when weaker to not be baited/tempted into wars, especially from stronger rivals (but even if a weaker or same strength rival suggested it, the consequence would be the same that he would be exposed to strong rivals while attacking someone else, risking no less than losing the game if he agrees to it i mean anyways), so i would suggest caution as best AI policy here i mean anyways, but if AI is strong enough as i said i mean anyways why not declare war though (even though i would suggest to only declare war for profit, as long as he can defend like Rome AI did when i tried to backstab him while he was atatcking Babylon AI, i.e. if AI is strong enugh why not, but if AI is weaker than other (especially bordering) rivals, i would (quite strongly) advise against it, but it is just i mean my sugestion anyways even though i feel quite strongly about it i mean anwyays but it is my suggestion i mean.

What do you think of this?
Would you consider implementing it in advciv, would be very nice if wished/possible for advciv i mean anyways.
Thanks,

edit: maybe an exception should be made if player 1 already at war with AI 1 asks AI 2 to declare war on AI 1.
i had this situation i mean anyways happen a few maps ago and i think in this case as they both sort of make a common front it is more understandable but also safer i mean anyways that they ally against a common foe i mean anyways, this way AI 1 agreeing to war is more likely to have minimal losses, so still being able to defend his land (but if AI 1 is really really weak maybe he may be a bit more reluctant? But then he risks offending the stronger asker. Still, in the case of a common ennemy, then the trade would make more sense on top of being safer. Humans could still abuse this i mean anyways but the cost would be greater for them, as they would be hit with warmongerer penalty many times due to declaring war and then backstabbing, plus would be weakened by the AI they declare war on making the whole proposition/idea of baiting an AI into a war to backstab him later less attractive i mean anyways, plus not too likely as many AIs would probably refuse and no guarantee the one the human wants to target the most would be especially willing to join the war, so in this case it would make more sense to allow this AI trade maybe i mean anyways, but as a general rule if an AI is too weak and baited by another civ not at war with AI 2 to declare war on AI 2, it is still convenient i think and should be avoided if the AI is not strong enough to defend himself in the attempt of a backstabbing by the human player or other nearby strong AI anyways. What do you think of this? Thanks,

edit 2: also the cost is maybe not enough, the cost of zulu AI losing many units and not being able to rebuild them, plus having many wounded that will take time to heal, is not enough for just a few hundred gold. If anything, i may get it back or most back if not more when capturing his cities (i got this gold from conquest actually xd mostly i mean anyways, even though i could have stopped teching but i had enough from conquest i mean anyways). Considering the risk he takes, maybe the price should be higher? What do you think of this i mean anyways, thanks,

edit 4: maybe it is or fancy or twisted, but maybe make the AI half ass involve himself in a war when it is weaker, even though he agreed to it? This way he could defend his land while still getting the trade gold. It would be quite realistic too, but maybe it's a bad design, as maybe the AI should just decline the trade i mean anyways if it doesn't intend to follow through it rather than create this mess and having to deal with it for little relatively profit (and possibly way higher losses if i may say i mean anyways)? What do you think of this? Thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I also added an example 95 of a quite rare AI planting on a food ressource (sheep here i mean anyways).
I provided example 95 (1 save file and 2 screenshots i mean anyways).

In screenshot 95.0, an early view i had on the city is shown i mean anyways. It is very unoptimally planted on the sheep which would be so nice i mean anyways if the AI could avoid doing it i mean anyways. The spot 1 would not be my prefered location now (see below screenshot 95.2's explanation).
I also provided a save file 95.1 before the city was planted i mean anyways if want to investigate it and/or possibly try to make the Ai settle somewhere else (that ideally preserves the sheep i mean anyways).

In screenshot 95.2 with the new map information i mean anyways, i added a spot 2 which should work much better because it gets the iron.
If AI didn't have iron working, then spot 1 should be the best (fish+sheep), if AI did have iron working then i would suggest spot 2 (crab+sheep+iron).

In all cases, there is no benefit for the AI to settle on the sheep, and both spot 1 and spot 2 preserve the sheep (which should be very valuable early so AI ideally should not plant on it).
So what i mean is if possible/wished for advciv i mean anyways, it would be very nice if you could make it so that they value food ressources more, settling near them when they are near (example 24 and 48 for example), and not settling on them when possible (which should be almost always if not always unless i'm mistaken i mean anyways).

Maybe this issue can be approached with other food prioritizing city examples (example 24 for the corn, example 48 for the crabs on coast ignored too by AI i mean anyways, possibly other issues too i mean anyways but these are the ones who come to my mind quick i mean anyways).

Could it also be linked to the tight landmass issue in example 48 somehow (where AI didn't settle on the coast to get the crabs, and here handles weirdly sea food ressources and possibly also the tight landmass width of a few tiles if i am not mistaken i mean anyways)?

Trying to maximize planting with food in large (or inner too) ring should be very valuable and hopefully make AI stronger i mean anyways, as food is very important for growth and also production (slavery, or more citizens to work more tiles or specialists later, etc i mean anyways) (but keep enough hammer tiles too maybe i mean anyways).

Maybe this example, which is really rare (i didn't find AI planting on food ressources unless i'm mistaken) help make AI stronger and very interesting, at least i submit this example now as it is significant enough i think i mean anyways.

Thanks,

edit: added a note in examples 24 and 48 mentionning this example 95, thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

Also, i don't understand a lot of it so may be mistaken, however when reading this https://github.com/f1rpo/AdvCiv/com...89931b16187ae7f26bea76d671aee172f1R8117-R8119, based on my (little) understanding i mean anyways, isn't this what contributes (among other possible factors?) to AI ignoring food (especially food ressource improvement yields?) (such as in example 95 and the ones i mentionned in examples 95 too)?

Spoiler edit: reading the file name "CvCityAI", i'm realizing maybe this applies to food management in an already founded city and not city planting spots choosing xddd (if i understand it correctly i mean anyways), if so it would make more sense to increase say the hammer target if the city can grow fast enough, so maybe nevermind this message if i am not mistaken i mean anyways. But i still think the general idea of valuing food a lot even in an already planted city may be good/better longterm (but such corrections/AI preferences set up may already apply and i don't know about it xd i mean anyways), as when more tiles are filled (city grows) due to more food, naturally the higher hammer tiles would increase the production too even if a bit later (plus maybe a bit more commerce as a result due to total citizen number?) i mean anyways :

I would say there is no such thing as too much food, only not enough hammers rather perhaps.
If you can have as much food as possible, it can always be good (city growth, slavery, specialists, etc.) if it can be achieved, the only issue is if maximum food results in significantly less total hammer in city radius, then maybe tone down a bit the food in favour of more hammer. But if you can have a lot of food with significantly enough hammers, there is no reason to hold back on it i would say i mean anyways.
It may even be enough/fine i mean anyways to have enough food and be a bit lacking early in city development in hammer output, the high hammer tiles should naturally fill as the city grows and perhaps this approach is stronger (plus slavery means food is same as hammer xd i mean anyways so it should especially be fine to focus on food first no)? But it is just my impression/suggestion i mean anyways.

Another thing that may possibly significantly outweigh the food yields is perhaps an existence (abundance) of other ressources nearby, especially happiness ressources as they say i mean anyways as they help the whole economy.

I may be mistaken again in my understanding, but i would say food is almost if not always good, the more the better, the only bad things is not enough hammers, and to a (much) lesser extent, not enough commerce.
About the commerce in particular, maybe there is not much need to fine tune it (unless a city spot is crazy rich in commerce), whatever commerce yields are in city radius should be enough for the AI as long as his cities grow and produce enough, he should till get stronger as a result (but this is just my thought/opinion i mean anyways).

You may reply to this later or now as you see fit, i probably shouldn't say that but i don't know i mean anyways so maybe i just say it i mean anyways, in all cases i mean anyways i don't meddle xd i mean anyways as i should or should not say maybe i mean anyways, and continue my game play or other things i mean anyways,
Thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

Here is also an example of something very cool the AI could do if possible/wished for advciv i mean anyways.
It is example 100, and i did not send a similar example unless i'm mistaken.

From this save file, it would be very nice if mongol AI would retreat/move away his naval units from (inside the) cities, as they are about to be destroyed if i am not mistaken, if the city is captured i mean anyways.
In this specific example, it is a trireme and a work boat, having them stay there achieves no purpose (to be more clear i mean anyways, there is no benefit for mongol AI, assuming no naval threat nearby, to keep them inside the city, however there is a clear downside of them being destroyed "for free" as city is conquered, but if AI had the behaviour (which would be quite human or realistic i mean anyways in this situation i mean anyways) to make the naval units go away from the city (even if just by one tile, or possibly more) to a safer naval location (or/and un unthreatened city perhaps i mean anyways?), then in other maps/games or circumstances, maybe this behaviour would (possibly) make a (beneficial) difference for the AI? Or/and it would be very cool to see i mean if i may say i mean anyways. Plus, if there are many units, the risks (of not having this behaviour) and benefits (of having it) would be higher making this behaviour perhaps more interesting/relevant?
This is in theory at least, in practice i am not sure these naval units play a key importance, but just having them stand there is a bit uncool i mean anyways, on top of being not optimal which interests me the most if i may say i mean anyways.

The city has a very strong chance to fall next turn (but even if a stack quite big but not too big comes, it would not be nonsensical and has i think no downside for the AI unless i'm mistaken i mean anyways, and assuming no naval threat is nearby too i mean anyways, to have units leave the city tile.
In this specific example it may not change much, as the ultimate outcome would be of mongol AI losing the game i mean anyways and that would still remain i mean anyways, but as a general rule, it may be something very cool to enforce and/or see the AI do i mean anyways.

What do you think of this?
Would you consider implementing it in advciv? Thanks,

edit:
note: if same behaviour but for land units i mean anyways could be applied to workers, here 5 workers in ning city could move to beshbalik which is safer (not under immediate likeliness to fall the next turn and more guarded too perhaps i mean anyways but just not likely to fall right now. It would be quite realistic too if possible/wished for advciv but is again (just or not just i mean anyways) my suggestion.
What do you think of this? Thanks,

 

[f1rpo]

reading the file name "CvCityAI", i'm realizing maybe this applies to food management in an already founded city and not city planting spots [...].

Yes, that's correct, only for managing existing cities. Before founding cities, the AI does not figure out the specific improvements that will go on each tile. But the Git commit also doesn't really change the balance between yields in that context. While this is one of numerous places in the AI code where some variant of a (baseline) 2-2-1 relationship between food, production and commerce is established (here specifically 1-0.8-0.4), I've only refactored (rephrased, say) that part. The actual functional tweak in the commit concerns deliberate biases in the leader personalities toward different improvements (e.g. some tending to prefer Mines, others Windmills).

On another random note, I hadn't really been aware that the Sacrificial Altar has a cost discount – and indeed the same as the Ziggurat. The earlier tech requirement of Ziggurat strikes me as pretty useless as it's not at all an early-game building and avoiding Code of Laws past the midgame would be unusual. Good to be aware at least; don't really know what I might do with that awareness. Not exactly one of the (rare) cases where a balance tweak will clearly make everything both simpler and better. The Altar without the cost discount would probably be rather badly diminished. Not sure I've ever played with that building. Either I have Slavery disabled via game option or have decided not to use it as a self-imposed rule, or I don't happen to have the Aztec. So I don't feel competent to decide that their UB should be nerfed. Ziggurat being underpowered is easier to see, but so are many UB.

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

It seems the issue with the antium north west mark (example 91) appeared again later in the game.
Could have happened a few turns before or later, i did not check.

Anyways i mean anyways, i added this data point as examples 91.4.0 save file (one turn before) and 91.4.1 save file (the turn during which north west mark of antium does not work).

This 91.4.1 save file in particular may be interesting because there is a fade time, which i did not see in the earlier 91.1, 91.2, and 91.3 save files i sent files if i am not mistaken.

The mark appears but leaves like 0.1s - 0.2s later i mean anyways.
So there does seem to be indeed an issue about this, i don't know if it helps but i hope so xd i mean anyways.
I added a note about it above in example 91.
Thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

Well yes, the aztec courthouse seemed to me like a sumerian courthouse with an upgrade xd, which was very funny.
I would say maybe that unlocking the courthouse earlier is not a big advantage because as you said generally a player would build courthouses later in the game.
I also did not play the aztec civ so i don't know about how good or not the anger effect of their aztec courthouse may or may not be.
Due to how their special unit is a bit underwhelming too if i may say, maybe it's fine to leave it as is.
But, preferably if you'd want to adress it, i would suggest reducing the cost of the sumerian courthouse. My reasoning is the holy roman courthouse is strong enough to be worth its full price, and the small cost reduction does not make a difference significant enough for the sumerian courthouse to be on par with the holy roman one.
Having the sumerian courthouse as is is not impressive i mean anyways even though it is not so cool of me to say but anyways.
But the aztec courthouse (even though i didn't test it so i don't know for sure), probably works fine as is. With its additional cost reduction plus the anger effect, it should be on par with the holy roman one if not better than the holy roman one, so only the sumerian courthouse would be in the shadows xd.
In light of this, maybe reducing the cost of the sumerian courthouse would make it (as) competitive (as) the other courthouses hopefully (problem is Gilgamesh AI may become a bit op xd, but the zulu barracks are way too op (i mean they work very well at least) so maybe it's fine i mean anyways)

If you'd want i could compile a suggestion of balance issues, at least raising what i find odd and not necessarily hard suggesting a specific fix.
If so, i would start with the aztec unit which is really weak i think.
But on that regard, i would suggest to start by buffing the woodsman promotion that is very weak i think (for example giving it same attack bonuses as it has defense bonuses, there is no reason from a pratical point of view why a jungle warrior would be good at defense in the jungle but bad at offense in the jungle xd, if he is good in jungle he should be good at both defense and offense, no real reason to differentiate this i would say. And since the woodsman promotion is bad/weak (at least i consider it to be so, meaning more practically i would never choose it xd i mean anyways), buffing it in such a way should be fine i mean anyways maybe even welcome but is just my opinion (may raise the percentage numbers too perhaps because woodsman is so situational, in fact not even that, it's rare where it would make a critical difference in a war, so i would try to find ways to buff or/and rethink it a bit maybe i mean anyways but is also again just my view on it i mean anyways that i still (greedily if i may say) share i mean anyways. Even then, the aztec unit may be a bit weak but a bit more competitive perhaps.

But since the list of my examples is so long, it would only overload more, however, from my limited knowledge and also from my game experience, i would be happy to provide balance sugegstions or points of view (at least what i find critical or ingenious if i may praise myself xd), i'll try to compile them in a text or wherever i find it suiting me to do so if i want/like to do it (so i don't promise xd), and if i do this and the list is big enough (but again no promise), i may submit them as batch xd

About the code explanation you gave me thanks too.
I like to understand these a bit deeper but i would be a bit limited in going too deep in the technical details (but very interesting to try to understand this).
I do have a bit of coding knowledge (not too big but not so bad either i mean anyways) xd though so i understand what refactoring is and such, i know not a lot about C++ though except the basics, and don't understand (maybe more rather know but not understanding necessarily all or most of it either maybe i mean anyways) much of the structure of how Civ4 code is set up but it's okay as i follow through what changes may trigger what (or hope to address what) and what i can expect as i apply (download thanks xd) them for my next game (also not sending 100 more examples of an issue that may have just been fixed until i try the new code xd). So this is all interesting and cool to know and follow for me at least i mean anyways. The technical idea in particular of leader specific improvement sounds or maybe is very cool too. If an agricultural civ does more farms and say a production one has workshops or mines everywhere, i would fear the army of the production civ xd but i don't know which would be more dangerous. Like in some multiplayer (as in other multiplayer video games i mean anyways) games, that change things every while, i like the approach of varying things that don't affect gameplay taste (not changing core game mechanics (but even then may be fine but i'd be less reluctant at least at first xd)), i would be fairly conservative at first but if it's innovative things that make my expeirence fairly similar (very selfish of me or not but anyways) why not i mean anyways, but it is not my game/mod alone.. Hence i make these suggestions happily (with selfish motives in mind too maybe but i like to help maybe too i mean anyways...) i mean anyways, that being said i continue my game or do other things xd,

Thanks,

edit: about the sumerian courthouse, an additional point against it is i mean anyways that priesthood and code of laws are not that far to make that much of a difference i mean anyways, but even if it was available at say agriculture i'd rather build barracks and granaries or units (workers, military, settlers) and such), so maybe actually reworking this effect may be better than reducing cost (after all courthouses are nice to have so they deserve a bit of their price i mean anyways. How about having the sumerian courthouse at code of laws too (or maybe later), but replace the tech earlier perk with another effect (historically accurate if you find one, else one that makes sense), as i have no idea about this if i think of something i'll edit this too or add a quick (disorganized) post i mean anyways, thanks,

edit 2: example idea i got quick of reworking the woodsman promotion
(on top of giving it same attack bonus)
gives +10% retreat chance in forest/jungle (which is also quite realistic i would say, if a unit is good in the jungle, it should know more paths and such to escape if needed)
possibly also add or alternatively
+1 first strike when attacking in a jungle/forest tile (which is also realistic), but with first strike maybe the attack bonus (if you'd choose to add it too i mean anyways) would/could be halved as first strike should be good enough (enough though i don't know much how it works i mean anyways), still woodsman with these changes would not be my first choice but if i were to choose it it (or have some of my units have it) would not be so bad

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

About the sumerian courthouse, a quick googling shows it is a religious building or so it seems, if so having say, being able to turn 1-2 citizens into a priest may not be so nonsensical instead of reducing cost, but is just an example of suggestion i mean anyways (will add to a data if i someday do and/or compile and/or publish such a data but no promise maybe i would do maybe not xd), thanks,

 

[f1rpo]

I've sketched a balance and historicity overhaul along those lines for most of the game's content at some point. Indeed, for the Ziggurat, my idea was to give it all the effects of a Temple (1 happiness, 1 culture, 1 Priest slot – but not tied to any religion) in addition to the maintenance reduction. Priesthood tech already fits. (On that note, Priesthood is a surprisingly cheap tech. Though Code of Laws also tends to come earlier than its cost and position suggest – through Priesthood and the Oracle or a Great Person.) There is, for the most part, no need to point out to me how illogical and arbitrary the effects are – and usually not particularly well balanced either. I've abandoned this comprehensive overhaul. Too much nonsense will remain for such a project to be really satisfactory for me. I felt there might be a sweet spot where things are not too different but much nicer and more interesting, but now I don't know. Maybe just tweaking some numbers (e.g. cheaper Ziggurat) would strike a balance that's equally valid. I guess that appeals (even) less to me personally. Changing only what causes problems has the benefit of taking the least effort.

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

Well your suggestion is quite interesting too i mean anyways, only i would say it would rather be for the cost of 120 hammer though else the effect would be a bit too op for its price, but as you've said, and also in a similar manner about how i stated i prefer to focus on the AI gameplay the most (i mean point out things about it rather), it's also the part i enjoy the most, may be a more suitable direction perhaps, at least it's what i would be more focused on, speaking of me xd i mean anyways.

Regardless of how balance is made or not, in the end i play against an AI, and if it does cottages on bananas (among other issues that may or not be improvable easily or not i mean anyways), then maybe the sumerian courthouse cost may be discussed later xd (not to say it's irrelevant or rather not interesting or worth mention i mean anyways), but in the end i play against an AI and what i enjoy most even besides that is seeing how efficient and smart and challenging sometimes daring it can be to me if i may say.

While doing a few changes here and there might not hurt, it can quickly become something and suddenly you'd find yourself wanting to make sense of all of that. As for me, i tried to do it quick and i found myself not knowing the specifics of many civs xd, questioning the point of me starting or continuing this balance overhaul as you said xd if i may say this word i mean anyways. I'd rather discover them (these civs i mean anyways) one by one as i play them or/and against them i mean anyways.

I would still say it's worth a little tweaks, at least if it's some minimal changes, they can be appreciable if a human player plays said civ, but as i said many times if i'd have to choose i'd much rather focus my submissions of suggestions and such i mean anyways on AI things because it's what i enjoy the most i mean anyways.

In my current map, my strategy to bait Zulu AI into a war failed, i was overconfident and became thin militarily (as well as started developping my economy more/too much and building buildings (redundant word choice i mean for lack of a better vocabulary at least in this case for me i mean anyways..) and basically lost xd, but reloading a bit earlier, and going fully/most military (i.e. altering my tech choices and production choices a bit but over a long period of a dozen or few dozen turns, as well as some worker actions and map positions and such), i could be strong enough to not be threatened, so AI switched to another target (in the attempt i lost, China AI had like 35 units of quite high strength with nice promotions, it was very impressive at around 1460 AD from memory), so this is the kind of things i enjoy the most. By tweaking my gameplay i can be more competitive or/and efficient and this is a great thing i enjoy i mean when playing, so i'd like to continue submitting AI suggestions at least not redundant ones, however since i submitted so many i should hold back a bit unless they are really significant xd, but maybe you'd want to look at them still and i shouldn't decide maybe, in which case i keep them unsent in case i'd want to send them later, or i send them anyway if i think they are significant enough and if they are not rewiewed or not leading to a change so be it at least i would have submitted it.

If you'd do a few (or why not a lot if you'd want to i mean anyways all good xdd but as you fit as i said many times if i may say i mean anyways) more changes in advciv 1.12, maybe AI could be even more challenging, at least it's what i would hope. I'd rather reduce the difficulty if AI is smart enough than up difficulty and grind (i'm not too good at it, plus i don't find it fun when civ4 becomes math xd i enjoy more the broad strategy, just because i can slave 10 units in 2 turns in many cities and swap tiles every turn, counting food bar and such against super buffed bonuses AIs, it's quite a different game and i would enjoy it less (not necessarily too hard but very tedious), i also feel it's like finding loopholes/downfalls (hoping it plays bad, i.e. there's no way you could win/could have won if AI was not dumb and capitalized on its advantage i mean anyways, at this point i would lose interest playing and consider having lost) of the AI rather than playing with it/against it and wishing it plays well and challenges you i mean anyways.
But watching the AI do smart things makes me gain interest more on what strategies i could use and such, in this specific game reloading when i feel i blundered with a settler (choosing not to settle inefficient cities, then maybe gifting the settler, then waiting until i raze a city to use it, very inefficient but it was really interesting, from this i could see in hindsight that maybe i could have done, among other possibilities maybe i mean anyways, what follows: ) i chose to settle 2 inefficient cities, that would however bring me ressources that would help in the long run. I had too many cities first a few games ago, and now too few, i tried to maximize tech and city efficiency (max food hammer commerce per population (partly also due to me expecting to conquer their cities rather, finding less point to settle these inefficient (moslty low food but also low hammer relatively ones) however they defended themselves xd i mean anyways and i was not focused enough on being strong enough militarily, so it was a nice lesson xd and i was glad the AI was sharp like this, very much enjoyed, i mean anyways) so i find that rather more interesting to have/try a broader view on the game based on how the game goes, at least it's my perspective view on it i mean anyway, and not just rewash the same strategy ideally.
Thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

About your slavery note i read a bit too fast and missed it somehow my bad anyways..

But to comment on it, i think slavery is good and nice, but i don't like that it can be used at later stages of the game (what's the point of building all these nice cities and populations to shrink them down just to defeat a player xd, maybe the whole approach should/could be changed into, for example not needing it (especially if other players can't use it either) past a certain stage of the game (but that may create a whole lot of issues like players delaying tech to keep being able to use slavery xd, not very fun maybe or not i don't know but it would seem to be so).

Personally, if i may say i mean anyways, i don't like to use slavery when my cities are big enough (more than medium size perhaps i mean anyways), at this point i'd prefer my cities to grow naturally.

It would be very nice if there was a strong incentive to not use slavery in later stages of the game, or simply having a tech cap or something (but again may have issues with how people approach games especially at higher difficulties.. but truth to be told xd.. i don't care xdddd as i only play games that i would enjoy, and i don't like to go too high on the difficulties (especially considering i would not be too good at it), ideally if AI got smarter i could stick to difficulties i choose and/or find optimal and/or fun for me i mean anyways (could be seen if you peek in savefiles as i play them i mean anwyays which may or ont change i mean anyways)

But where i disagree with you i mean anyways, is that slavery is good early, getting a granary or barracks at first city pop points that get back quick is nice, but slaving 5 units against an enemy rush not so much, i'd rather plan/develop the economy and plots and such so that i don't have to do that (maybe why i don't like higher difficulties too i mean anyways). If ennemies were playing with similar constraints, i would be able to focus more on other things i mean anyways, but unless i'm mistaken i've rarely seen AI switch back to slavery or staying in slavery in mid late game so maybe the games works in a way that suits me regarding this. In the end, maybe each person uses or not options in ways they find enjoyable or that they want to try/play with, it is not of me to meddle, and i choose or not choose my own options xd too (could peek them too i mean anyways, they may or not change but what i mean is i play (or try to play i mean anyways) as i want and/or think i would enjoy, in all cases i do what i want or try to xd if that makes sense. but i tend to agree a bit on slavery with you, just my reluctance is only in later stages of the game, early it speeds up city growth quite nicely i mean anyways (especially slaving settlers when needing, lower no food city time for example i mean anyways or/and getting a badly needed spot after which i can play the more relaxed or maybe rather developped/growth gameplay i want or not depending on how the game goes and how i would or would not want it i mean anyways)

Thanks,

edit: an idea i got, maybe restricting slavery to only granary, barracks, settlers, workers? I would like to try such an option if it existed. What about it? The current no slavery (that i didnt try but that i assume would do what follows: ) may slow the early game pace a bit too much, perhaps requring to increase tech costs relatively to city growth speed, or possibly add mroe rivals so they fight sooner but is just my opinion view/perception/thoguth on it i mean anyways. What do you think of this? I would also like to ask if you'd consider adding it in advciv (but it's maybe a bit too specific?) if wished/possible i mean anyways? Thanks,

edit 2: that being said i continue playing or doing other things xd or not, it's a bit long to write all these messages even though i may enjoy or not (i do but now is rest time for me i mean anyways xd), thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

A quick note about example 49, what i thought to be medic promotions on archers/longbowmen and crossbows (a bit less for crossbows though as they can be used in offense more maybe or not i mean anyways) was in fact guerilla (the icon is similar to a cross xd it is my mistake i mean anyways).
I still think city garrison would be stronger as these units are more (most likely to be useful as?) likely to be city defenders, and sometimes where they plant is not always a hill, but i would advocate about it less strongly, see example 49 edit4's notes for the updated comment (i updated other example's posts referring to this example 49 issue).

My main point about some promotions (such as woodsman on axemen early) not being optimal for the AI still remains, but it may not be as often as i thought it to be, still maybe it could be improved, in all cases this is a small note to update (a big of my misunderstanding i mean anyways) on this issue, thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I found a quite weird bug or what seems like it i mean anyways.
It is example 103.
I added a save file and screenshots to show each step of the problem and why i think it's a bug i mean anyways.

Here after ending turn from save file example 103.1, a prompt message appears to pay money to save the forge ("organize rebuilding effort") or other alternatives that may or not destroy the forge.
The bug (or what seems like it i mean anyways) is, as shown in the following screenshots (after 103.1 i mean anyways), that when i click on "Organize rebuilding effort" (pay money to not destroy the building i mean anyways), i still get a notification message that the building was destroyed, plus i also get a notification icon near the city (here Hamburg in this example i mean anyways) (big yellow exclamation mark).
However, when looking inside the city, the forge still seems to be there.

Am i correct in my understanding that this is indeed a bug xd i mean if i may say anyways.
It is not critical so i can still continue the game (same as how i can work around the oracle bug, here as long as i can play and not lose the forge it is functionally the same), but if you'd want to fix it the data is there xd i mean anyways.

note: i will also soon (but i can't promise how soon i mean anyways) be able to capture angkor city and at that time provide the save file for example 95, also update screenshots as there is a better spot now that i have world map, thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

This is an example that shows AI has sometimes an inaccurate perception of the value of the item it trades, making it agree to trades (whether with humans or AI vs AI trades too i mean anyways) that are significantly bad for the AI. It would be very nice if the AI had a better understanding (at least in critical or edge/most blatant if i may say i mean anyways cases i would say i mean anyways) of the actual//effective value of the items it trades (whether it is export or import) i mean anyways.
It is example 104.
I also wanted to send such an example as it happened before in my games i mean anyways but i didn't think to do or/and didn't actually do it.

Here Julius AI, as shown also in the screenshots of this example 104 i mean anyways, is willing to pay same price for corn (8 gold per turn in this example), than for crab and clam (8 gold per turn for them too).
However, corn should be (much) more valuable because:
- it is the equivalent of 2 health almost (since almost if not all cities have a granary very early in the game), while crab and clam give only 1 health in most cases
- the 2nd health point of crab and clam is unlocked much later in the game when required tech is discovered
- plus you need a harbor that would take further time and hammers could be used for other things (harbor is not that much of a mandatory or rather critical/core/key building i would say i mean anyways),
- and even if you build a harbor in all eligible cities i mean anyways, at best only coastal cities can get this extra health bonus.

Based on this, ressources that give higher bonuses should cost (or rather be valued i mean anyways) more, or/and ressources giving less bonuses cost less.

In this example, it is unfair for the AI that i can sell him crab + clam for 16 gold per turn, he would get 2 health points but give me 16 gold per turn which is quite a rip off i mean anyways, however he could get the corn for same bonuses and half price (8 gold per turn).

Here is below a list of how i think this could be adjusted, ideally to make the AI be more competitive and also more sensical, it is not so much of a balance change as all game mechanics and price of game elements players can do are the same, only the AI's perception should be adjusted to make them stronger i also fairer/more accurate for lack of a better word i mean anyways.

This is how i would suggest to adjust how the AI values ressources ("health price" is the price in gold per turn for 1 health point (for example what pig provides i mean anyways)) :

- wheat, corn, and rice : same as corn, should be about 1.8-2 health price
- clam, crab and fish: should be around 1.2 health price (much less likely to benefit from the extra health i mean anyways)
- banana: 1.5-1.6 health price, grocer is a quite likely building to build i mean anyways, and all cities could benefit from it not just coastal ones, still less likely and early than granary though i mean anyways
- cow, pig, sheep, deer: 1 health price obviously if i may say i mean anyways.

If you'd want to fine tune it further, in this specific example Julius AI has almost no coastal cities or/and they are weak ones, so he will barely benefit from this extra health point, therefore in Julius AI's eyes if i may say i mean anyways it would not be nonsensical i mean anyways for this clam and crab to be worth the same as pig i would say i mean anyways (and definitely not the same as corn i mean anyways, so he would/should give only (edit: 4) 6 gold (same value as pig in this example i mean anyways) per turn for clam or crab i think is how it should be i mean anyways).

(edit 2: or/and corn/rice/wheat's value for Julius AI should be about double of pig/cow/deer/sheep, so if pig is 6 gold then corn/rice/wheat would/should (i think i mean anyways) be 10-12 gold, and if corn/rice/wheat is 8 gold then clam/crab/fish should be 4-5 gold while pig/cow/deer/sheep. This would reflect their effective gold cost per health better/more accurately if i may say i think i mean anyways)

Similarly, you could apply the same reasoning about happiness ressources and do something like (but i am not going too in depth about it i mean anyways as i was mostly focusing on crab and such i mean health ressources blatantly not worth the same yet (what seems to me like unfairly) valued at same price by the AI i mean anyways, making it agree to deals that are bad for him i mean anyways) :

- sugar: 1 happy price + 0.5 health price (similar reasoning than for banana with the grocer health bonus being quite (likely to be) useful and potentially in all cities but not always and not at all stages of the game)
- other ressources: etc (i did not look too deep beyond that but you would get the point i would want to show i mean anyways, i am also not sure it is worth it to fine tune more than that (even though would be very nice if the AI had a per bonus worth understanding of ressources).

Would you consider adjusting this in advciv if possible/wished i mean anyways? It seems really unfair i can sell crab and clam for same price as corn and wheat.
Thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I found another few trading bugs, it is example 105.
Actually 2 bugs, this is very broken even though not game changing but very very weird.
Although i submitted several trading bugs (examples 31,34, 68, 105, 106, if i hopefully didn't forget others i mean anyways, i also added a note in them mentioning this example 105 i mean anyways), i did not encounter one like this before unless i'm mistaken, so i'll add a note in these examples mentioning this one if you'd want to review them in group maybe i mean anyways.

From the same save file as in example 104.

As shown in the screenshots of example 105, if i ask Julius AI what he wants for:

Problem 105.1: AI pricing is broken/inconsistent (2 ressources that are worth the same are not worth the same).
- Julius AI values crab 8 gold, clam 8 gold, pig 6 gold. Based on this, you'd assume the price for clam+pig would be different (less) than of clam+crab?
- No. To reproduce this, ask what he thinks of crab+clam, he says 14 gold (screenshot 105.1.1).
- Then, remove only the crab, keep the clam, remove also his gold, add the pig, then ask what he thinks of clam+pig. He says 14 gold (screenshot 105.1.2). However, to be consistent, i would expect clam+crab to be worth more than clam+pig based on the worth of each item.

Problem 105.2: The order of the items affects the pricing (crab+pig (14 gold) is not worth the same as pig+crab (12 gold))
- the funniest thing/bug now if i may say i mean anyways. Now clear table, then put these items in this specific order: first the crab, then the pig, then asks what he wants for it. He says 14 gold (screenshot 105.2.1). So crab+pig is 14 gold?
- No, clear table, now put first the pig (important), then the crab, asks what he thinks of it. As shown in screenshot 105.2.2, he says now 12 gold??? So crab+pig is worth 14 gold but the same pig+crab (same items but in a different order) is worth 12 gold??

To fix this:
- make clam+pig be same price as crab+pig, unless i am mistaken there should be no reason to differentiate them as clam and crab have the same value i mean anyways.
- make clam+pig and crab+pig less than clam+crab (same reasoning again)
- make sure the order of the requests does not affect the value (crab+pig is worth 14 gold in 105.2.1, but the same pig+crab is worth 12 gold in 105.2.2. To fix this, make both of these cost the same price.

I'll add a note in linked examples as said above i mean anyways about trading bugs, maybe you'd want to approach them together, thanks,

edit: fixed screenshot 105.2.1 (inadvertedly i mean anyways sent the wrong one i mean anyways, now fixed), thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

Another weird trading bug (unless maybe it is intended i mean anyways but if so i wold suggested fixing it as i explain below i mean anyways) but fairly straightforward one if i may say i mean anyways.
It is example 106.

From the same save file of example 104, and as shown in screenshots.

- 106.1: trading clam+crab+corn in one go is not possible with Julius AI
- 106.2 and 106.3: however, first trading clam+crab and then trading again but only the corn now it works

To fix this, make same trading conditions apply regardless of if they are made in batches or in one go.
So far the trading bugs are examples 31, 34, 68, 105, 106 (may edit later or not this if i find other ones i mean anyways), added a note in them.

Thanks,

edit: added example 106.3 for clarity if i may say and exhaustiveness i mean anyways, that shows the trade window for the corn i mean anyways, thanks