AI city placement and misc. suggestions

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I updated example 95 with new data: a save file 95.1 (a while ago i mean anyways) one turn before angkor city is planted, and a screenshot 95.2 with the region local view and what i think are ebst spots candidates for settling instead of where the AI settled his city i mean anyways.

I also edited the comment with my thoughts on the best spots and why/how it would be nice if possible if the AI handled it better (especially not settling on food ressources, ideally being aware of sea (food) ressources too and settling with them in large ring radius of the planted city when it is possible to do so while preserving the sheep, for this reason i think this example 95 is very valuable and may hopefully help calibrate the AI towards that i mean anwyays if wished/possible for advciv) if/when you'd want to look into it.

Would you consider improving this in advciv? The details are in example 95's post, see it for details i mean anyways.
Thanks,

 

[f1rpo]

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.

It's an interesting perspective as to what even is the difference between AI and rules changes. They can even solve the same game design problems. E.g. the AI deleting endangered workers vs. restrictions on capturing workers; or the AI being less interested in founding religions vs. additional requirements for founding religions. I usually think of it in terms of AI changes tending to be less controversial and players more at ease with being unaware of them. But you're right that there's a sense of competition against an intelligence, and that ought to be born in mind.

(To not entirely ignore the Banana Cottages here: If Plantation isn't available yet and the AI wants commerce, then I don't know that a Cottage has to be wrong – even if it won't grow past a Hamlet in time. Fresh water for a Farm may also be unavailable. But it could also well be that the AI is failing to set the proper time horizon for its evaluation of the Cottage. And working a Banana Cottage will likely prevent another, more lasting Cottage from getting developed.)

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.

Oh, yes, that's a nice way of putting it. Make sense of what a Cottage represents, a Watermill and a Worker ... (Arguably different things in different situations.)

It would be very nice if there was a strong incentive to not use slavery in later stages of the game [...]

My understanding is that, when playing for a Space victory on Deity, it's common to abandon Slavery by the midgame because it's more valuable to grow the cities (once happiness becomes rather abundant) – and once they grow past a point, Slavery becomes unattractive (due to the food for growth increasing with the population count). At the reduced Slavery output (24 instead of 30 production) in AdvCiv, that point should come sooner. Personally, I dislike the fiddliness of the mechanism – having to time those double-whips precisely – at any point of the game. Playing without Slavery means that other ways to absorb the excess early-game food (already not as abundant in AdvCiv as in BtS) need to be leaned on more: Splitting it between multiple cities, Mines, specialists, carefully paced settler and worker production, early happiness through luxuries, religions. Chopping arguably also becomes more important, which is not so nice. It doesn't feel far less efficient that way to me, doesn't make Emperor difficult to win, but, if I'd try Immortal more, I'd probably see what a difference a few turns can make for a stack of Axemen or also for settlers when starting locations are tight. Perhaps worth pointing out that the No Slavery option in AdvCiv only applies to the human player.

Some way to convert food into production would be nice. No reason for it to be hyper-efficient, and, mechanically, it could expand on the existing conversions: food production (like when producing workers and settlers) and specialists. That should be much more convenient to use. At least as an option, it would be nice to have.

an idea i got, maybe restricting slavery to only granary, barracks, settlers, workers?

Slave armies – while not entirely ahistorical – are especially strange; though perhaps no stranger than slave settlers. In my experience, settlers and workers really don't need to be hurried. Food usually abounds. Once Granaries are in place, hurrying may well be more efficient, of course. I guess you're saying mostly for urgent situations, when a city site is contested. But urgency can arise also when it comes to defenders and wonders. I'd be more inclined to apply this kind of nerf to chopping – restrict it to buildings and ships.

[...] 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.

Well, the current process seems to suit you. I can't commit to having any part in it; hopefully I can go through some of it. Finishing some games and then sorting out personal notes and perhaps only bringing up 10 out of 100 issues, in principle, sounds more efficient to me than these immediate reports every few turns, also from the angle of getting me to act on what you find most pressing. But that process may not align with the trajectory of your interest in the subject – a month from now you might just not care. Perhaps communicating all those details as you encounter them is the most convenient, and it's all for the best.

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,

Sure, don't let me tie you up in lengthy back and forths.

[...] 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, [...]

This came up earlier this year: my post

[...] same price for corn (8 gold per turn in this example), than for crab and clam

The AI does check for present buildings when setting the price. I don't think it tries to predict future buildings. But resource trades can be renegotiated after 10 turns, so evaluating the present game state should suffice. It's a different matter when placing cities; perhaps future buildings should be given impact (more impact? don't know off the top of my head if they have any) when evaluating resources in that context.

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

About slavery and such i mean anyways, yes it is less and less valuable at later stages of the game which is why i don't mind as much how the game works currently because eventually slavery becomes less relevant and "worth it" i mean anyways as i intend and enjoy to play. The "No slavery" applying only to me would not go well with my enjoyment i mean anyways. My idea was not to nerf it but rather offer/have the possibility of an alternative kind of gameplay, affecting all players alike i mean anyways. I just thought the game would play differently if me and AI could not slave, i may enjoy it more this way (especially slaving units which i don't like but is how it is i mean anyways), at least i would be interested in trying such an option. The idea i got and suggested i mean anyways was also intended to be applied to all players (human and AI) to try a different way of playing the game i mean anyways at least for me anyways. This is also why i suggested in/if such an option (existed) to increase tech costs a bit as cities would grow and spread i mean anyways a bit slower, it would be weird to have few cities and be far in tech (even though not nonsensical i mean anyways).

Also, since i tend to play in tighter maps for faster gameplay or it's how i may enjoy it or not i mean anyways, so not slaving would mean the AI gets the spot before me, there is no good way (except being (very) lucky with first city sites i mean anyways) to have enough food to out settle the AI especially early, and even though i don't play the few higher/highest difficulties i assume it would be even so harder in those but i can't say for sure as i don't play these i mean anyways.

About how i post issues, there's no way i would be able to remember all these, i don't care i mean not put in a bad way but that many issues spawn close tied to each other, however it's much easier to do them when i have them and then proceed and forget them (until they are reviewed separately if they are i mean anyways), it is indeed much more efficient for me this way. Whether i care or not in a month about the issue/the game, it could still be revisited and not likely to be lost or forgotten/not wanting to post but i speak for me i mean anyways.

I do have priorities though, it's true that issues piled a bit too much, and there are some issues i would like to review in priority if/when you'd want to, for starters defintiely example 37.
I believe there's no way to enjoy the game with what AI did.

I agree and it may be in my interest too i mean anyways that you'd focus, at least first, on the issues i find most important. However, i don't think there's much benefit for me to hold back on sending or processing the ones i want to send. It is indeed easier for me this way i mean anyways indeed anyways.

I'll try to compile a list of issues i'd like you to review first or in higher priorities after skimming through all the examples i mean anyways.

Again, i wish i had organized the issues, it would make navigating them much easier, but i wanted to keep the process simple and not create a drive or something.

As for if you'd review some or most, i can only hope so xd but in the end it is up to what you want/can/like or other things to do xd, i would not tie you up too xd, thanks for the consideration.

That being said, if you'd review (or peek at least maybe?) at the examples i'll mention after these, i'd like it if it aligns/goes with how you'd like to proceed, too, of course if i may say i mean anyways. This also includes how you'd want to approach issues that may drag you too deep into it making you question or not why you'd even start or continue it. So i'll try to be more straightforward xd and to the point i mean anyways, there are definitely issues i'd want you to look at first, even though i think most i sent are worth consideration, but up to what you want/can/like or other things to do i mean anyways i don't meddle as i said any times xd i mean anyways.

Thanks,

edit: about banana cottages i'm almost sure mongol AI had the calendar tech (i could trade incense with him, plus he had mathematics and could not receive calendar that i had, i am not 100% certain but like 90%, you'd know if you'd look at the save file. More than building the wrong improvement, the issue is ignoring the right kind of improvement when available. I have more data on that that i'll try to aggregate and synthetize if i may say i mean anyways in the post below that gives examples priorities, thanks)

edit 2: i detailed my reasoning for why i think it was a big mistake for him to do a cottage on banana, mostly that i think he has calendar but not 100% sure (but quite highly sure), see this post for details too hehe xd i mean anyways, thanks, https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ai-city-placement-and-misc-suggestions.695343/post-16779771, i didn't get all the explanation about your post so i'd may i mean anyways read it maybe a bit more later, the city notification in screenshot did seem like one warning me of something happening in the city, but i may be mistaken, i will/may look into it later or not i mean anwyays (ideally i should xd), thanks,

edit 3: about the corn and crab no value is definitely off, for Julius AI crab is the same as pig, so (and to cover broader games/maps) my point is crab/clam/fish should not be worth much more than pig/deer/cow/cattle, and defintiely not worth the same as corn/wheat/rice which are much more useful, and adjustment would be nice to better and accurately reflect the utility and "worth" of each ressource at least these ones, but is just a/my suggestion i mean anyways, thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

Post edited as i go through the examples if i may say i mean anyways:
Here is which version i use for each example (i try to put the version tag (especially for early versions but may not always do so to be kept in mind ideally i mean anyways), for some of these versions it is not official version name just a name i chose to categorize i mean anyways the latest version i downloaded at that time that i used for all a specific group of examples i mean anyways):
- examples 1-16: advciv 1.11
- examples 17-123: what i call advciv 1.12 (not official version name, latest i could download 03 february 2025 if i'm not mistaken i mean anyways)
- examples 124-189: what i call advciv 1.12.2 (not official version name, latest i could download 25 february 2025 if i'm not mistaken i mean anyways)
- examples 190+: what i call advciv 1.12.3 (not official version name, latest i could download 11 march 2025 if i'm not mistaken i mean anyways)
(would have liked to provide git commit id i mean anyways but i used download zip from web interface (did not clone manually myself i mean anyways) and it seems git current commit and git files are not in the downloaded zip i mean anyways, but maybe this data can help of approximative latest at download date i mean anyways)
See examples's posts for details on thoughts about each example i mean anyways.

High priority:
- units baited: AI suiciding troops/getting baited, in particular example 37: impossible to enjoy the game where AI freely suicides 14 troops out of capital range on an unroaded tile just next to my catphract and catapult stack, cataphracts that can directly attack his very nice capital, and his units could have defended his capital instead of suiciding uselessly/inefficently i mean anyways, almost as bad in example 161, almost as bad in example 180 (the part that is worse is that many of the units in the AI's stack are catapults i mean anyways and they got baited too and are now in direct range of my invading stack without having even bombarded my invading stack), a bit less but similar but also example 230 (Rome AI stack is in attacking range of my troops and his capital is much less guarded) that also contains a suggestion to add a "war-like" state where AIs respond to big stack moves of non "friendly" rivals i mean anyways without going full out in war mode but almost with the idea that this extra time may help them defend better their core cities if out of position or have a bit more units or something else i mean anyways, quite similar but also example 35, different but also AI getting baited by empty city despite much stronger enemy stack waiting to ambush + does not pillage sheep pasture tile it was on nor retreats (example 160 problem 5), a bit less example 56, a bit less catapult getting baited but worse attacking one unit instead of 2 (example 54), less but also axeman city defender in weakly guraded city gets baited against its counter unit type instead of being a nice city defender (example 207 problem 1), less but also example 148 point 2 if i am not mistaken last surviving city defenders attack during their turn and die in combat in the game i mean anyways so city is left empty next turn i mean anyways, much less but also examples 32, 36, 38, 43, 50, 51
- the part about enemy stack attacking city while being undernumbered (4 enemy units vs 15 swordsmen guarding city i mean anyways) (example 59)
- ressources not improved or/and having forts on them. Most importantly, worker building fort on an already improved pasture sheep (example 81) or on spices plantation (example 130), definitely something wrong here, on top of the fort improvement itself not being efficient/cheap and pastures already if not always available, less but also example 41 (ressources are in city radius and could benefit from ressource-specific i mean anyways improvements instead of fort, + is cheaper to build than a fort i mean anyways)
- workers building another type of improvement on tiles with ressources (mine on marble hills plains in this example i mean anyways) instead of ressource-specific ones (quarry in this example i mean anyways) or none (would be a lot more efficient to wait for masonry at least in the game i mean anyways and do other improvements in the meantime, rather than having to overwrite this mine marble into quarry marble very inefficiently later i mean anyways (example 191 problem 2)). Similar point for other tiles with ressources. Mentions also the fort issue, and takes into account briefly i mean anyways the case of forts being useful as canals or other similar uses where exceptions could be made maybe ideally i mean anyways of the general rule i suggest to disallow non ressource-specific improvements on tiles with ressources to increase worker efficiency i mean anyways. Also added in this example a suggestion to prioritize chopping forest that are close to the border in case the tiles culture swap so the player gets the chop forest hammer yield before that i mean anyways.
- prioritize nearby food when settling, especially example 95 (the part about AI settling on sheep grassland where could have gone nearby for sheep+fish or sheep+crab+iron(if revealed)), a bit less but also AI settling very low food location instead of nearby double clam + ivory site (example 214), less important but also example 48 (the part about AI ignoring crabs and blocking almost all settling spots with its central plant getting no sea ressource, less but also example 24 (for the corn nearby ignored/not settled near city radius i mean anyways), less but also example 127 (AI favouring ice/hills/tundra non coastal plant over one tile east a coastal plant with 6 coast tiles, yields more gold and should be much more valuable for no food cost), even less but also example 26 (for the deer ressource + more open location if i may say i mean anyways), also but even less example 30.a.1 (a bit more grassland tiles/farms potential i mean anyways, less desertic/plains ones, less cultural pressure on this spot)
- do not start war then withdraw just the turn (or soon i mean anyways) after invasion without city attack, very unimmersive/unrealistic/unefficient, gather a bit more troops if want to don't do this weird fake war declaration if i may say i mean anyways: example 16 (advciv 1.11), example 17 (advciv 1.12), 25, 27, 76
- the part about better estimating relative power, so that AI does not declare war if he is not strong enough to attack ideally (example 160 problem 1), also make naval units value much less (if not already existing i mean anyways) in total relative power due to their inability to conquer cities or kill land units if i'm not mistaken i mean anyways (example 148 point 3)
- the part about AI not retreating when enemy stack is stronger than his or strong enough to be better for the AI to not attack or/and withdraw ideally (example 160 problem 2)
- Shanghai city is almost not improved at all in 325 AD despite being founded in 2320 BC (save files included in that range i mean anyways) (example 208 problem 1)
- AI settling very far instead of preparing for war, he splits his troops and increases economy cost at critical time, plus does not use it instead to build units (example 47)
- declaring war to far away rivals being left defenseless instead of closer ones or none (example 83), except if they have a low risk and quite high gain in doing so (example 208 edit 2)

Medium priority:
- Trading bugs or/and inconsistencies: they do are broken and would be nice if looked into:
/- asking him what he wants for cow he says deal is not possible but manually inputting 3 gold per turn in exchange he is ok (example 31)
/- 4 of my items against 30 gold per turn he is ok but giving an extra 5th item for free for the same 30 gold per turn he doesn't want anymore (example 34)
/- he is ok to accept 3 of my ressources against one of his deer, but asking him what he wants for deer he says nothing (examples 68.1 and 68.2)
/- 2 of my ressources + 14 gold per turn vs his deer+spices he is ok but 3 of my ressources against deer+spices he says a deal is not possible (but he accepted these 3 ressources vs his deer in 68.1) (examples 68.3 and 68.4)
/- 3 of my ressources + 14 gold per turn vs his deer+spices he says a deal is not possible (however he agreed to a less generous trade in 68.3) (example 68.5)
/- clam+crab is 14 gold but clam+pig is also 14 gold (however he values pig less (6 gold) than clam/crab (8 gold)) (example 105.1),
/- crab+pig is 14 gold but the same pig+crab is 12 gold (same items in an other order in trade table should not be at a different trade price) (example 105.2)
/- group trade clam+crab+corn is not possible, but the same trade separated in batches of first clam+crab and accept and then trade again corn separately works in the same turn (example 106)
/- trading in one go fish+clam is only 14 gold, but trading in batches first fish 8 gold then accept then trade again and trade clam for 8 gold now is in total 16 gold, more than the previous 14 gold (example 113)
/- new gold per turn "magically" appears after a first trade and is now available for extra trades during same turn (but hard to guess and does not always happen (depends on the circumstances of the game) which is inconvenient, ideally total gold AI is willing to trade during the turn would all be visible/available i mean anyways), also less but in this same example this new gold creates a mismatch of sheep+sugar is 6 gold in one go vs 6 sheep then 2 sugar is 8 gold total (same as in example 113 but example 113 didn't have the new gold magically appearing issue if i remember correctly i mean anyways) (example 147)
- make AI gauge i mean anyways more accurately the effective value of ressources it trades, effectively often crab/clam/fish is in most cities and stages of the game only giving 1 health, in some rare cases 2 or late in the game, therefore the value of crab/clam/fish should be close if not equal to pig/deer/cow/sheep, and definitely not the same as corn/wheat/rice which almost always provide 2 health and in all cities and stages of the game (example 104)
- make AI more willing to trade his extra ressources in exchange for other players' ressources, especially strategic ones they don't have, and especially before currency (to avoid the requiring 2+ ressources of other players vs only one of theirs, which would mean they would trade much less and develop less in the game i mean anyways): quite bad in the example where India AI has 5 sugar but does not want (or not soon enough i mean anyways) to trade it vs horse i mean anyways that should be more valuable (example 217), similar but the horse is even more strategic for this AI player: Ramses AI does not want to trade his extra deer for horse which should be much more valuable (example 205)
- AI asking gold for peace while clearly losing: most importantly example 64, less but also example 22
- squeeze more cities in tight spot/landmass: example 48 (the part about AI squeezing more cities on tight landmass, but not in a way that would result in planting on food ressources (as in example 95 (i don't know if i developped this point in the example explanation but: the fact i mean anyways that not settling on sheep grassland would block a potential 2nd city spot i mean anyways, still not a reason (according to me i mean anyways) to settle on the (very valuable) sheep grassland if i may say i mean anyways)), example 40 (Japan AI not settling the eastern coast, which would be even more possible if tokyo city was planted one tile north i mean anyways)
- make wounded enough units (say below 60% health/strength) units go back to safe cities and/or tiles, not in range of ennemies i mean anyways (example 84)
- make AI units more reluctant to attack their counter types i mean anyways, for example axeman not(/less liekly) attacking chariot, chariot not (/less likely) attacking spearmen, etc i mean anyways (example 207 problem 3)
- make weaker AIs unwilling to declare war on someone else by trade as they could be backstabbed by the one they trade with, or by other stronger rivals while they become even more defenseless (example 94 (except 94.3) (detailed a bit in the edit 4 of example's 94 post)
- weird that China AI (strong military power) can accept a war trade to declare war on Zara Yaqob AI (score leader) despite +3 relationship modifier with him i mean anyways, way too convenient for me, see full explanation in the post below for details (example 101)
- attacker should attack from highest defense bonus tile if possible (example 55, example 160 problem 4)
- zulu AI continuing his offensive despite me threatening his core cities i mean anyways (example 97)
- trick the AI into thinking all his cities are conquered even unconquered ones, perhaps to spread his stack more or have it fall back to bigger cities that are left undefended almost as he is attacked, instead of the stack staying parked in a very weak conquered city (same as what happened in example 61) (example 136)
- the part about making unit promotions more accurate, more often city garrison for archers/longbowmen, more often strength for mounted units, etc i mean anyways) (example 49), and the part about the weird/inefficient woodsman promotion in this context i mean anyways (example 53)
- the part about buffing woodsman promotion by giving it same attack bonus as defense bonus it provides (may apply to jungle/forest bonus units gain separately too i mean anyways) (example 160 problem 3 (i don't know if i also mentionned it in example 53))
- mongol AI blatantly building a windmill next to a banana cottage, ignoring to improve banana into a plantation if i am not mistaken (and should have calendar unless i'm mistaken i mean anyways) i mean anyways (example 89), a bit less but also mongol AI building a cottage on banana tile when plantation is most likely available and not building a plantation (but would need to check tech of mongol AI to be sure i mean anyways) (examples 85.1 and 85.2), less but linked zulu AI building cottage on another banana tile (maybe does not have calendar though), but there are better tasks to do (chop jungle grassland, chop forest plains, mine hills plains among others) before doing an improvement (banana cottage) that would be removed later (into a plantation) (examples 85.3.1 and 85.3.2)
- should not escort settlers out of cities during wartime, especially near my troops: examples 14 (after i destroy his city, advciv 1.11) and 15 (keeping his city alive he still wants to move the settler there in combat zone though i mean anyways advciv 1.11), examples 19 (advciv 1.12), 67.1
- why China AI converts to judaism while he has (i think) no benefits to do so unless i'm mistaken and much more potential losses (as all/most big rivals have all the former religion China AI had before this conversion) i mean anyways. After reading your reply, i am not convinced xd (i mean i rather agree with you that i find it very questionable if not plain not optimal/ideal i mean anyways), i think it's worth investigating and a change perhaps, as it is quite problematic i think, the roleplaying is very uneeded i would say, AI hurts itself way too much (only benefit i see is theocracy for military units getting more exp but it should not be worth making the entire planet (of strong rivals from your friends to your hated foes xd i mean anyways), some variety maybe, but not when it hurts (too much) the AI (for in this case about no benefit), so i would suggest this again i mean anyways (example 110)
- the part about making workers improve first unimproved tiles in city radius that are high enough in yields after improvement (for example jungle/forest grassland, hills, etc i mean anyways), rather than overwriting existing improvements while unimproved tiles could be done first i mean anyways (example 142)
- unumbered suggestion to make workers not improve tiles outside of city radius until they are done improving all tiles in city radius (except chain irrigation or similar cases i mean anyways)
- rerandomize (lower performance cost than direct tile swapping maybe i mean anyways) every few dozen turns in overlapping cities, when city has enough of the high yield tiles for itself, so that it doesn't hog all ressources for itself while overlapping city(cities i mean anyways) has(have) much less i mean anyways (example 164 point 2)
- have a small delay before planting of 2-3 turns before key techs are discovered in case a key ressource (especially close by i mean anyways) is missed due to planting too soon i mean anyways (example 164 point 3, maybe example 132 files where copper was close to city radiuses could be used as a base?).
- do not plant on metals: additional sample files i mean anyways. Especially if on grassland or similar tiles, very rare now but sometimes still happens (example 164 point 1), also examples 75-B and 141 (see example 164's post -> point 3 -> edit 4 for details i mean anyways). Or try to plant with them in city radius when they are near (example 132 files) (see example 164's post -> point 3 -> edit 4 for details i mean anyways).
- why not enough chopping and all forest is still not chopped at turn 150+ i mean anyways? Isn't it more valuable to do these chops early enough in the game? (example 164 point 4)
- do not keep naval units in city as city is about to be conquered (which would destroy said units i mean anyways) (very bad in example 148 point 1, less but also example 100)
- make AI production/ratio of military land vs naval units depend on the number of players that are reachable by land (create more naval units if more players need naval units to reach them, and more importantly (much) less naval units if most players are connected/reachable by land i mean anyways (military production capacity i mean anyways would be much better used for land units or/and buildings or/and other things i mean anyways) (example 148 point 4)
- give players alternative colors if a color type (for example "blueish" i mean anyways) is alredy picked by other players, to improve map readability i mean anywyas (example 209)
- 2 slave revolts happen in same city 2 turns in a row, + suggestion that if "pay and investigate grieviances" option is chosen, city would be immune from subsequent slave revolts for some turns (maybe 10 turns for example) (and a few turns later a 3rd event (not slave revolt) happens in same city again i mean anyways) (example 227)

Low priority:
- worker leaving the city unescorted, instead of staying in city or in safe tiles: very bad in example 57, a bit less in example 52
- do not start war then not invading at all (example 69)
- wounded unit very weirdly staying idle instead of following the retreat i mean anyways (example 77)
- the part about city defender (axeman) leaving city to go i don't know where i don't know why i mean anyways away from his city i mean anyways (but not to attack my incoming stack) (example 53)
- invading units staying weirdly idle in enemy territory instead of retreating (example 67)
- Mansa Musa AI improving 2 identical tiles already improved (farm plains), the same turn, into 2 plains cottages, which seems unoptimal to me i mean anywyays, possibly do other tasks first? Added the data point with extra save, added these in case it may related to oscillation issues or/and you'd want to investigate or/and tweak i mean anyways maybe this data point can help maybe (the tiles are also are next to each other) (example 128)
- weird need to adopt bureaucracy else no tradeable tech (example 12)
- very inefficient tech path/trade with other AIs: example 3 (advciv 1.11), less or different but also example 7
- make sure improved ressources are connected, in this case the road connection involves roading in enemy territory (my territory), they have no problem building the quarry to improve the stone and road the stone tile, but leave without roading back one more tile to the rest of my route network, i consider pillage threat in the specific post (example 58.1)
- better settle tight spot (small island i mean anyways) (example 6)
- settler inefficient wandering/back and forth i mean anyways: examples 28, 30.b.1, 30.a.2
- the part about revolt being too high especially in the early part of the game i mean anyways when culture production capacity is low i mean anyways (no code of laws or/and no caste system or/and no music or/and not being able to build culture or/and lowly developped cities i mean anyways with low population count that can't sustain high number of artists i mean anyways) resulting in (at least me i mean anyways) producing more units than needed to, not to keep pushing but just to stabilize my economy (and not getting attacked), not sure it's the best approach but it worked, culture was ineffective in reducing revolts soon enough to develop economy or/and having enough military power to keep being invaded/declared war on later i mean anyways (example 59).
- avoid cities (especially new ones) being destroyed/captured by barbarians due to low garrison (but not require too much garrison else cities would be built (+/- too much i mean anyways) later), +/- move troops closer to edge cities not so much central ones (example 30 should address this, i may have also talked about this in other examples in the detail of their topic may see it maybe while looking at the example detailed post i mean anyways (from memory example 4 did mention it possibly among others too i mean anyways, i unfortunately did not note it in the filenames so can't pinpoint which exactly just from filename, but i assume i talked about it in a few other examples as you pointed in your summary too i mean anyways (would need to check but i may not do so in this case i mean anyways)
- inconsistent rival stack move based on the unrelated move of my own military stack (but at peace and quite good relation (in +/- score i mean anyways) with this AI), would be nice to look into but maybe complicated or/and not easy, i don't know if wished/possible for advciv to make it more consistent i mean anyways and not affected by unrelated units's moves i mean anyways (example 33)
- weird that AI axeman chooses to attack its counter type (chariot i mean anyways) and even weirder that it wins, much more weird even that this axeman winning is almost full health after combat i mean anyways (example 207 problem 2)
- is so many low strength units (19 archers in this case i mean anyways) so early in the game, in capital city for Mehmet AI not too much and is it efficient for his economy i mean anyways, even though he is at war with Stalin AI, (and seems to have copper)? (example 129.1 and 129.2)
- units split unevenly between cities despite an enemy stack approaching a weakly guarded city, and a stronger city guarded (much) more than needed, maybe spread more evenly the forces between cities (may guard strongest/best cities more but still afford enough guard on weaker cities if there is enough excess guarding units available, not concentrate them all too much in one place, hence losing cities as a result despite having enough total military power to repell the attacker i mean anyways) (example 129.3)
- save file automatically ends turn as soon as it is loaded, unlike the other save files without option change (example 143)
- UI: add a "willing to become vassal" icon in Foreign Advisor/Glance (example 145)
- UI: add peace treaty icons for AIs too in Foreign Advisor/Glance (example 148 point 5)
- UI: add great person icon for buildings/wonders in city view i mean anyways (example 39)
- the part about having pathfinder choose the path with most roads, if movement cost is equal, instead of a path with more non roaded tiles, would help a lot if i want or the player wants i mean anyways to actually change last order in the game i mean anyways, then it would already be on a roaded tile and this potential movement i mean anwyays would be faster (example 161 edit 3)
- seemingly another pathfinder bug: suggests an extremely long route moving 2 tiles into Japan AI's territory (at peace and no open borders with him i mean anyways), but moving one tile into his territory works fine it seems i mean anyways (example 178 problem 1)
- related pathfinder red circle questions (is it a bug?): pathfinder shows a red circle despite no enemy unit being there (without vision: example 178 problem 2) (with vision: example 178 problem 3), and pathfinder doesn't show a red circle when walking on tile with only workers on it (example 178 problem 4)
- great person total percentage seems bugged: total chance is 100% + 2% instead of 98% + 2% or 100% (total of each type of great person should not be higher than 100% unless i'm mistaken i mean anyways) (example 229 has most data for this i mean anyways, also happened in example 208 problem 2)

Very low priority:
- the part about the Alt+X mark not working during some turns but working fine during some other turns i mean anyways (example 91), also similar in example 156
- the part about adding Alt+S shortcut "enter a caption" in sevopedia if it is indeed missing if i am not mistaken i mean anyways (example 91)
- AI not using great prophet (spawns in holy city too) to create a shrine i mean anyways if enemy military units are in direct range of holy city i mean anyways, instead great prophet keeps skipping turn, ideally should use it as soon as possible for the city he wants to to use it too i mean anyways (example 112)
- AI unit production pace is low after war (example 23)
- pillage tile if possible (example 20)
- moai timer is not refreshed in map view i mean anyways immediately after trading stone, need to manually enter then leave city view i mean anyways to refresh it (example 165)
- technology advisor timer of currently researched tech i mean anyways is consistently not synchronized (inaccurate and with a mismatch in problem 1, inaccurate and with a missing value in problem 2) with the tech timer of top bar (accurate it seems i mean anyways) i mean anyways (example 175)
- no production in cities or tech prompt after ending turn just before win turn i mean anyways, seems like a bug though if i am not mistaken i mean anyways (example 69.3)
- worker capture chance: examples 21, 86
- increase worker efficiency by spreading/splitting their tasks i mean anyways (example 58.0)
- plant sooner if location is good enough and an enemy settler is nearby (threatening to plant thus i mean anyways) (example 46.1)
- fancy worker improvement tiles order (start with high food terrain (e.g. i mean anyways grassland before plains) for farm and cottages, not plains), but not sure it is easy to implement, would be nice though if possible may increase AI strength or/and be nice to look if i may say i mean anyways, very low priority due to maybe unlikely to be implemented at least not fast in advciv or maybe it is wished/possible for advciv i mean anyways (example 82)
- balance changes i mean anyways (example 92)
- trading issue of lower priority i mean anyways: when AI is ending a previously per turn trade, some items (here silks in this example i mean anyways) cannot be removed manually, only "clear table" works i mean anyways, however all the other items can be removed manually. I think there is no real reason to specifically prevent the manual removal even if AI doesn't want this item later, unless i'm mistaken i mean anyways (example 63)
- make weaker AI not obligated to go all out on the war they agreed to (example 94.3)
- not a numbered example, but great artist output may be too high especially early, maybe reduce it from 700 per era (as it seems to be i mean anyways) to 600 per era?
- clarify message "We have enough on our hands right now" when it applies to a refusal to accept a vassal proposition, as it could be assumed to be related to war preparations rather than vassal refusal. Something like "We would have to join you in the war if we did so" or "we don't want to be dragged into a war right now, our hands are full" would be much clearer (example 149)
- not a numbered example, but have civs have different colors if many already use a color (especially if nearby), happened many times in my games where 3 civs next to each other are orange/yellow with slight variations or nuances of green or other colors that look similar on the map and are hard to read, would be nice if in that case they would switch to another unused color for more contrast as much as possible i mean anyways
- UI: very misleading that grocer is shown available at currency next to markets i mean anyways, however ideally a difference should be made in the UI between a tech that allows to build something vs a tech that is only one of the requirements for this thing to build i mean anyways (example 167)

Should send:
- avoid rocky chains i mean anyways and prioritize nearby food (city placement) i mean anyways (example 79)
- use a great artist on a vassal's city i mean anyways (but maybe it is possible?) (example 74)
- building a questionable watermill on top of farm, would/should it be improved in advciv if wished/possible, is my understanding correct that the farm is better in this hilly/plains city if i may say i mean anyways (example 90.1)
- i don't know if defying resolution is worth it for China AI i mean anyways (example 102)
- mongol AI not using catapults in city to weaken enemy stack next to city (catapults are much weaker/less useful as defenders if i am not mistaken i mean anyways) (example 99)

Maybe send:
- prioritize nearby food to include the banana (city placement i mean anyways), but not sure the spot is better, because although banana would be gained later in the game (early city plant), it would result in more sea/coast tiles (not coastal city), that would be less valuable than more land tiles, so not sure to send this i mean anyways (example 78)
- make AI use great artists more often as culture bombs, especially in war/border context may change a lot of things, i don't know if such behaviour exists or is wished/possible for advciv i mean anyways (example 75)

Maybe send after/if i'd look later at it:
- why can i not irrigate/create farm on this tile: examples 62, 96 (even though i have civil service and a nearby farm to a city is irrigated, city from which worker tile is adjacent to i mean anyways), 108

Possibly solved? (i don't know):
- the part about settling tighter to my borders in spot 1, a direct expansion from his land that provides nice ressources and good land i mean anyways (example 8 (advciv 1.11))
- watermill at the angle of river (example 44)
- worker mine windmill chainloop (example 70)
- "rebuilding effort" with message but most importantly yellow exclamation mark in city as if something happened in the city (why put this exclamation mark if forge was not destroyed), would need to check your comment to (try to) understand if this is indeed solved or expected design if i may say or not maybe i mean anyways (example 103)
- AI keeping his 10+ unit stack in a 1 population conquered city, while all his core 10+ population cities are almost defenseless yet he does not retreat (or attempt to to defend them) i mean anyways. Seems rationnal but i'm not sure if AI is very smart or just broken i mean anyways (example 61). After reading your reply i mean anyways thanks, ok, the AI behaviour is very unoptimal but it seems it is not easy (even though much desirable as you said i mean anyways ideally i mean anyways) to change, i would keep it in possibly sovled at least to remind it, technically i think the issue is a valid concern, just the implementation not easy (but it's not me who does it xd), thanks,
- open borders "not right now" but rest of the trade table is "never trade with you our worst enemy", a few turns later all the table including open borders is "never trade with you our worst ennemy", seems like a bug or may be intended (example 65). After reading your reply it seems to make sense to you i mean anyways (i didn't get all xd but if it's how it's intended so be it). I am not sure this design is ideal, if you want to take a look the file is there. Possibly solved if behaving as intended, if want to look into i added the save file just to be sure, thanks,

Solved:
- planting choices: examples 1 (bold but too far from him and too close from me + lot of jungle i mean anyways), 4 (too far away or/and better sites (iron-corn-cow vs stone-sheep-incense-desert-copper)) and 5 (too far away from his land is it economically worth it i mean anyways on top of hard to defend if i attack it after he improves the land for me i mean anyways)
- the part about the settler waiting idle in city many turns (example 8)
- planting on metals not near them if possible/maybe better i mean anyways: examples 2 (hils plains iron), 9 (hills desert copper), 13 (copper grassland)
- "fear too advanced" misleading text (example 10)
- spare as friends works only once for same request (example 11)
- hut luck random vs auto i mean anyways (example 18)
- open borders pathfinding bug i mean anyways (example 80)
- refused to stop trading with worst enemy is -5 relationship modifier??? Is it a bug or intended or/and i am mistaken or not maybe or not i mean anyways in this case mean anyways? After looking you are correct it seems to have started at -2 around 500 BC approximately and increased to -4 then -5 (didn't look in detail but every few turns so seems solved, at least it's not -5 in one go as i thought xd so all good i mean anyways) (example 88)
- share water improvements between cities i mean anyways, for example moai giving bonus in overlapping city, or lighthouse giving +1 food in overlapping city that doesnt have lighthouse (not nonsensical) but i don't know if easy or wished/possible to implement in advciv or maybe already existing(? if i may say i mean anyways) i mean anyways (example 73). After looking at your reply i mean anyways thanks, yes this was a (flavour) idea i had, not having too much of a strong opinion on it, thanks,
- making an AI make peace with another player would give positive relationship modifier (kind of how but opposite bringing a war ennemy in deteriorates if i may say i mean anyways relationship (negative modifier) i mean anyways) (example 60). After reading your reply, i might disagree a bit, here i am doing Alexander AI a favour as his rival is crushing him if i remember correctly, but perhaps a weak ally in the game i mean anyways might just be defeated and die in the game i mean anyways. So i would not agree (edit: meant argue (as in develop etc this point i mean anyways) i think i mean anyways) too much further on it, it is also not the core of AI changes i would much want to have, thanks, but i think/thought the idea is still a bit, perhaps not the most convenient/practical in practice if that makes sense i mean anyways, thanks,
- why after conquering mongol city, large city radius of utretch is not fully unlocked i mean anyways (example 90.2)? After reading your reply, ok, seems not the most convenient or rather necessary i would say maybe or not i mean anyways but at least there is an explanation and it is not a bug i mean anyways, so i would consider it solved, thanks,
- why when trading banana+sheep with Zara Yaqob AI, who is the worst enemy of Julius AI, it doesn't give me a -1 relationship modifier i mean anyways with Julius AI "You traded with our worst enemy"? (example 118)
- why when switching i mean anyways from "hereditary rule" civic to "representation" civic, i lose Ragnar AI's "You chose wisely your civics" relationship modifier bonus i mean anyways (expected), but i did not gain the "You chose wisely your civics" relationship modifier bonus i mean anyways with Julius AI (unexpected) (example 121)?
- Ragnar AI is "pleased" but he doesn't want to trade world map due to "we don't like you enough" trade status i mean anyways. (example 123)

Possibly not valid (i don't know for sure but most likely maybe or not i mean anyways) :
- add relationship modifier "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (example 42)
- (not sent): cities being 2 tiles apart while i thought minimal distance between cities was 3 tiles, i assume and after a quick research possibly since they are on other landmasses it's possible maybe (example 66)
- (not sent): worker building farm on floodplains then immediately cancelling it (i assume because a barbarian threat was nearby and i didn't see it maybe i mean anyways, or/and just he would resume it later maybe i mean anyways; and example 72.1 (not sent) same with worker building cottage then stopping it (example 71)
- (not sent): declaring war results in much more favourable random event (could be just how the game is i mean anyways (example 111)

Not valid (my misunderstanding):
- why no granary nor barracks yet he is a warmonger (example 29). After reading your reply, i understand these builds are lost on city capture or have a chance to be lost i mean anyways
- monument double culture (example 45)
- why AI goes north instead of going back if i plant city one tile east of example 46.1 (example 46.2): maybe he found a (+/- new) spot there i mean anyways
- the part about promotion being medic it was guerilla in fact my mistake (example 49)
- why catapult can't move west 2 tiles without ending turn at first tile (example 98): most likely because they had already spent one movement this turn and i didn't notice/see it i mean anyways, i thought the gray button on their unit icon meant i could move them 2 tiles, but had the issue with other units later too i mean anyways if i am not mistaken i mean anyways so most likely i just didn't notice they spent movement this turn and their unit icon would not have to be yellow always maybe i mean anyways (maybe because i ended turn there or forgot?), but this seems (most likely) not valid i mean anyways
- why catapult stack cannot move 3 tiles and only 2 tiles without spending all movement cost for the turn (example 107): because tile was not roaded unlike what i thought and i didn't see it i mean anyways, silly but solved i mean anyways
- (not sent): AI can accepts a trade to declare war on someone but can't be convinced (i assume it's because i don't have enough gold or other things to trade for this i mean anyways so probably works as intended, not 100% sure but close enough to it in this case i mean anyways so i classified it there i mean anyways) (example 109)
- the part about why no plantation on sugar tile: AI did not have calendar so he could not build a plantation (example 142)
- yield count bug on bottom left view i mean anyways of a marble hills plains mined tile i mean anyways: my mistake, tiles yields 5 hammer as described and intended as it seems to be i mean anyways, just that if mine was replaced with a quarry total yields would be reduced by 1 (hence the "-1" i mean anyways, thanks) (example 191 problem 1)
- make sure to build a road on a ressource tile, for tiles with high worker movement cost ((may exclude fast worker or similar i mean anyways) (hills, forest, etc i mean anyways)) as soon as the tile is improved, to improve worker efficiency, and possibly indirectly helping foreign trade or AI general movement i mean anyways: my mistake tile was connected by water so this example is not valid i mean anyways, as for the rest of the optimizations i suggested maybe they are not necessary if connecting ressources works fast enough, if i notice an unusal case i may or not submit something similar, else is fine as is maybe i mean anyways and/or not urgent if any relevant now i mean anyways, thanks, (example 196)
- some ressources (sheep into pasture in this example i mean anyways) are not improved quite late into the game (turn 70+ in this example i mean anyways). Is maybe not valid too as Boudica AI may not have animal husbandry yet. As a pasture appears some turns later but did not count exactly how much, it is most likely to not be a valid issue (It's not as if Boudica AI had animal husbandry and somehow didn't build the pasture fast enough i mean anyways or so it seems, thanks,) (example 197)

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

Here are 2 more examples i added in the summary list i mean anyways and would be nice if could be improved, they are quite annoying or at least reviewed but not necessarily highest priorities, if you'd wish/want/like to of course if i may say i mean anyways:

- example 112 (low priority): from this save file, if you bring military units in direct range i mean anyways of holy city, AI does not use holy prophet (to create a shrine i mean anyways) the next turn, but if you keep them 2 tiles away from holy city then AI weirdly uses holy prophet i mean anyways. The great prophet should be used immediately this turn actually ideally regardless of what my military units do or where they are ideally i mean anyways. From this save file you can test the influence of nearby military units on great prophet action: one tile from city (on the hill)-> no shrine next turn i mean anyways but 2 tiles away (skip turn in their current position)-> shrine next turn i mean anyways. It is quite annoying i mean maybe rather or not anyways would be nice if fixed if i may i mean anyways. Ideally proximity i mean anyways of military units should not matter as there should be no benefit for the AI to keep the great prophet unused, the presence of enemy military units should not influence it (is it inherited i mean anyways from worker/settler behaviour staying in cities during wartime and not doing tasks?) i think i mean anyways, thanks,

- example 113 (medium priority (with the other trading bugs/inconsistencies i mean anyways)) : fish+clam in one go is 14 gold, but fish 8 gold then exit trading window then reopen it and trade now clam for 8 gold is 16 gold per turn. Why not have consistent behaviour of 16 gold (or 14 maybe but it would be more natural i mean anyways to have total price remain the same regardless of previous trade in the same turn i mean anyways) per turn in both cases whether it is in one go or in batches? Thanks,

edit: also added one more example:
- example 63 (medium very low priority unlike the other trading bugs/inconsistencies i mean anyways): during AI's turn, trading bug where after doing the trade as in first example 63 screenshots, it is impossible to remove the silks from trading table manually (as shown in screenshot 63.3) and only the "clear table" button i mean anyways can remove the silks from the trading table i mean anyways, but all the other items can be removed. Thanks,
edit 4: moved to very low priority, this seems to happen actually because AI doesn't want this item for now or from now on, happened in my game again and after clearing table i realized i mean anyways that AI doesn't want to trade this item, still weird that it would be deletable manually just because AI can't think of it being in a trade now, but it is not game breaking (put it another way, there is no reason to prevent manual removal even if not wanting to retrade for it i mean anyways)

edit 2: also added 1 more example, example 97 (and reordered the list a bit so that examples 94 (except 94.3) and 97 are in direct succession i mean anyways in the list, and 94.3 is separated in low priority part of the list i mean anyways) :
- example 97 (medium priority): i am at war with Zulu AI and started invading his land with a big stack i mean anyways, yet he keeps pushing on his offensive against another AI he is at war with (convinced by trade with me earlier in example 94 i mean anyways), instead of retreating to defend his cities, really very not enjoyable so would be very nice if reviewed ideally fixed if possible/wished for advciv i mean anyways

edit 3: after reading your reply below i mean anyways, i added a few examples from "maybe send" or "should send" sublists i mean anyways, among them, these have a long text so full description is here for reference (a summary is in the list):
- example 101: weird that China AI can accept a war trade to declare war on Zara Yaqob AI despite +3 relationship modifier with him i mean anyways, way too convenient for me, only possible due to common military struggle so very unrealistic and not profitable for China AI as i am taking all his potential easy cities he'd want to conquer i mean anyways, while he weakens his big army against strongest or close to strongest AI player, but maybe it is realistic (even though really not in his best interest i think if i am not mistaken i mean anyways). After reading your reply, i think it's worth a review though i mean anyways, similar to example 94, war trades opportunities are not that rare in my games (happened to me also other times than 94, 101). The problem with this example is it completely changed the game. China was the strongest military player, they were not far from declaring war on me. After making a war trade (for very cheap, perhaps tweak the cost up i mean anyways?) they fight the strongest civ there is, and both end up much weaker to my benefit. I am not totally opposed to war trades but the rationale should be, rather than roleplay or something (unrelated to this example but anyways) that AI makes decisions that it benefits him, else AI is not strong or that enjoyable to
play against. A bit of roleplay or variety or something is fine, but doing thigns that are very unoptimal/detrimental should ideally be improved and if you'd want to review them i'd like it, thanks,

 

[f1rpo]

Just some brief notes about the issues you haven't expounded on yet, perhaps to save you time in some cases:

making an AI make peace with another player would give positive relationship modifier (kind of how but opposite bringing a war ennemy in deteriorates [...])

I get that idea, probably no need for further info. What a civ at war really wants is help winning. If need be through a vassal agreement that brings a much stronger civ into the war. Brokered peace could mean being hung out to dry and merely spared utter defeat. It's at least not odd to me that there is no gratitude. In practical terms, could such a relations boost mean that human players will always be on the lookout for wars about to end anyway? Could it lead to lots of surviving but marginalized civs? (But, then, a relations boost from an insignificant civ isn't worth much ...)

example 61: AI keeping his 10+ unit stack in a 1 population conquered city, while all his core 10+ population cities are almost defenseless [...]

City attackers aren't really used for defending by the AI. At least they don't get distributed across cities. So the stack will get parked in some place. When invaded, the best use the AI is going to get out of that stack is a counterattack. More flexibility in AI unit roles of course would be desirable – although splitting and later reassembling a city attack stack is probably rather far outside the AI's present capabilities.

why can i not irrigate/create farm on this tile: examples 62, 96 (even though i have civil service and a nearby farm to a city is irrigated, city from which worker tile is adjacent to i mean anyways), 108

Could be due to the city that is supposed to forward irrigation being on a hill.

example 88: refused to stop trading with worst enemy is -5 relationship modifier???

Seems like a lot. "Traded with our worst enemy" can go to -4 iirc. "Refused to stop" should be -1 per refusal, -2 for some few leaders (e.g. Catherine), and it can stack up if the AI asks repeatedly. Lasts for an expected 50 turns, but could easily (randomly) last a good deal longer.

example 90.2: why after conquering mongol city, large city radius of utretch is not fully unlocked i mean anyways?

There's a 2-turn period of surrounding tiles remaining unowned after city conquest ("FORCE_UNOWNED_CITY_TIMER"). Not totally clear to me why this has to be thus. Perhaps otherwise pulling the rug too hard at the tactical level in some situations.

example 110: why China AI converts to judaism while he has (i think) no benefits to do so [...] (as all/most big rivals have all the former religion China AI had before this conversion)

These conversion decisions are largely roleplaying, I guess to make AI civs easier/ more predictable to flip through missionaries and to give the later religions more representation. And maybe to shake up diplomacy. Not sure if roleplaying is even the right term ... maybe if the role is that of a true believer. Painful to watch sometimes. Should perhaps be reined in.

example 65: open borders "not right now" but rest of the trade table is "never trade with you our worst enemy", a few turns later all the table including open borders is "never trade with you our worst ennemy", seems like a bug or may be intended

Should come down to the order of these two checks:

	if (AI_getMemoryCount(eWithTeam, MEMORY_CANCELLED_OPEN_BORDERS) > 0 &&
		!AI_shareWar(eWithTeam)) // advc.124
	{
		return DENIAL_RECENT_CANCEL;
	}
	if (AI_getWorstEnemy() == eWithTeam)
		return DENIAL_WORST_ENEMY;

Agree that it sounds contradictory as it is. Recent cancellation is the one that the player can do less about though. Nice to know when that's still lingering. More accurately, they might say: "Maybe we'll change our mind, but definitely not now." And; "We will not trade with you at all while you're our worst enemy." Well, the texts can be interpreted that way as they are ...

example 73: share water improvements between cities i mean anyways, for example moai giving bonus in overlapping city, or lighthouse giving +1 food in overlapping city that doesnt have lighthouse [...]

Probably could be justified either way. A lighthouse can belong to a port or rather to a coastline:

Lighthouses mark dangerous coastlines, hazardous shoals, reefs, rocks, and safe entries to harbors [...]. In antiquity, the lighthouse functioned more as an entrance marker to ports than as a warning signal for reefs and promontories, unlike many modern lighthouses.

Not seeing a strong reason to change this rule.

- example 101: weird that China AI can accept a war trade to declare war on Zara Yaqob AI despite +3 relationship modifier with him i mean anyways, way too convenient for me, [...]

Only the attitude levels matter for diplomacy, so Cautious is Cautious. My impression is that (human) opportunities for war trades are already rather too scarce overall. Of course individual cases can still be beyond the pale.

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

Thanks for your reply, this is all cleaned and nice, i replied directly in the list, now some examples are a bit longer are a result. (edit.a: example 101 was a bit too long in the list i mean anyways so i made full explanation about it in the post following the list post (if that makes senses i mean anyways), and only a brief part of it in the list for clarity and for conciseness (that i am not too good at xd but i enjoy this way maybe or not i mean anyways (i do but anyways xd)) i mean anyways.

For the examples i felt strong/strong enough about to ask for you to consider them or review them (not necessarily with high or medium priority but rarely may be though i mean anyways), i added the save files if you'd want to investigate or/and review them. These examples are: 65, 101, 110.

The only example i didn't look into is the irrigation farm, i'm aware there are some mechanics i may not be exactly aware how they work (hills on farms so happy to learn), but there are some cases like chain farm irrigate without city being irrigation bridges that don't work, i'd need to look more into it but it is not urgent (i just irrigate around or somewhere else, which i may or may not always do but is not highest priority).

The examples i replied to are now a bit long in the list, maybe i'll repost them below and only a summary in the list (edit.b if i may say i mean anyways: did for example 101 i mean anyways), or maybe will keep as is, i tried the spoiler bar and it's ugly.

Thanks a lot for your consideration on my time i mean anyays, quick and sharp replies seem to help xd (edit.c: in the sense that they help sort out things faster especially common or maybe rather to better explain i mean anyways not highest priorities type of issues could maybe addressed a bit faster, if you'd like to go into depth too i'd like too i mean anyways, but there is so much to sweep i mean anyways xd, regardless of how you'll approach (or not i mean anyways) i'll go with it xd and is how it is i mean anyways and i am thankful for that i mean anyways). I like that more issues are adressed, i'll try to avoid posting more of these unless they are really what i consider to be necessary.

Maybe you can move up i mean anyways or navigate the list in any direction you wish i mean anyways, i'd be thankful as you'd review more examples, ideally the higher ones but any order may work as long as (for/to me at least anyways, meaning in my perspective) you'd review as much as possible (that you'd wish/like/want) i mean anyways (edit.d: maybe you wouldn't want to review some or go too deep into them and it's/would be how it is i mean anyways).

My game is also advancing well, partly due to the critical war trade blunder of China AI of the war trade i mean anyways, would be nice if he didn't fall for it and make the game so much easier as a result, but it's how the game is, i only wish for (possible) improvements (if they can be) not the blame game maybe xd if i may say i mean anyways, thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I won this game so when/if i play a next map/game i would try your newer changes from since last time i updated i mean anyways. If there are more i'll add them too, else i'll just (as i would in all cases i mean anyways) download whatever is the latest version when i start my (next) game i mean anyways (if there are more changes in the future and i still want to play games then i would update it xd i mean anyways).

My impression is that advciv 1.12 is significantly stronger than advciv 1.11, at my current/usual difficulty i mean anyways i could win (quite) comfortably, but now same difficulty is really tight, i like these changes. Could be coincidences but i would say maybe not and the AI is bit by bit better and if it were the case would be very nice, else seeing it handling things better is still nice (i prefer the most stronger/smarter/more efficient AI but if it is "just" if i may say i mean anyways "looking better" without "playing stronger" it would still be good even though i would want most strength but any improvement/is good and welcome at least for me i mean anyways).

If i were to give an estimation/number i would say it's about 10-15% stronger (maybe i overestimated it a bit but it does seem a bit harder if i am not mistaken i mean anyways), which is very good and what i like and enjoy i mean anyways. Possible areas of improvement or/and explanations maybe as i said the settling not on metals (often at least i mean anyways) improvements, settling closer to my borders and such, that happened many times in my games in advciv 1.12, among possibly other things, that may give an edge to the AI even while keeping its usual/current behaviours that may be (ideally i mean anyways) improved further still maybe i mean anyways.
If there were more changes/improvements/fixes i mean anyways in the future, i would be looking forward to it, at least as long as i play xd if not more (not sure if i would be still looking forward to it if i don't play someday anymore but maybe i would or maybe i would not i don't know i mean anyways at least as long as i play i would most likely enjoy it and these maybe i mean anyways) but regardless of which it would be how it would have to be and i am/would be thankful of what was made and tried if i may say i mean anyways.

I also wanted to send 2 more examples: 121 (low priority), and 123 (very low priority). See the post below (and added a summary in the list post) for details i mean anyways.
I would like to name advciv 1.12 the version that i used for examples 17 to 123, and (not official name i mean but anyways), and advciv 1.12.2 the version i am using/will be using i mean anyways for examples 124+ (if there are such examples i mean anyways).

Thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

This is the 2 examples i wanted to add, before i (a bit later) start my new game, with the latest advciv version (whether there are new changes between now and my new game or not i mean if i may say anyways would be still i mean the latest version anyways) as explained in the previous post:

- example 121 (low priority): why when switching i mean anyways from "hereditary rule" civic to "representation" civic, i lose Ragnar AI's (lost his favourite civic by doing so i mean anyways) "You chose wisely your civics" relationship modifier bonus i mean anyways (expected), but i did not gain the "You chose wisely your civics" relationship modifier bonus i mean anyways with Julius AI (gained his favourite civic by doing so i mean anyways) (unexpected)? Ending turn doesn't seem to fix (give me the Julius AI favourite civic bonus, while the Ragnar AI favourite civic bonus is still lost i mean anyway. Is this intended or a bug or/and just how it happens currently in the game if i may say i mean anyways? Thanks,

- example 123 (very low priority): Ragnar AI is "pleased" but he doesn't want to trade world map due to "we don't like you enough" trade status i mean anyways. Isn't "pleased" enough to like me enough to trade world map? Is it a bug or (i suspect rather) somehow intended design or just current implementation of how it is without specific desire/wish for it to be this way in this situation i mean anyways? What is the benefit to strive i mean anyways for "Pleased" (or luckily have it if i may say i mean anyways) if it's just to not be liked enough to trade his world map i mean anyways (beyond the other benefits of "pleased" i mean anyways). Thanks,

edit: also i'd want to add this example:
- example 118 (low priority): Why when trading banana+sheep with Zara Yaqob AI, who is the worst enemy of Julius AI, it doesn't give me a -1 relationship modifier i mean anyways with Julius AI "You traded with our worst enemy"? Is it intended or a bug? It happened so many times in my games but i never took the time to ask about the game i mean anyways, thanks,

Thanks,

 

[f1rpo]

The same-civic relations boost requires both you and the AI to be using the civic. And then it takes a few dozen turns to build up, but I think it should start already at +1. So I'm guessing that Augustus didn't have Constitution yet and therefore wasn't able to adopt his favorite civic.

Attitude thresholds for map trades vary from leader to leader. I guess Ragnar is supposed to somehow gatekeep the seas as his domain. Though I see that e.g. Genghis Khan and Montezuma also have that strict map trade threshold. Probably just for general unpleasantness. That's a fault, in my book, especially with the base game's leaders – many of them are quite uniformly either cooperative or uncooperative. But Ragnar is an expansion leader and e.g. also has an unusually lenient threshold for resource trades.

The worst-enemy penalties depend on the trade value of the items given to the worst enemy. They're added up over all trades conducted, with a memory decay mechanism. Resource trades might be counted as 10 times the per-turn trade value right away and then, once 10 turns have passed, add more trade value turn by turn. I don't recall for sure, at any rate, the trade value of resources is usually almost negligible compared to tech trades. All the more true for Open Borders (they might actually technically count as 0 trade value), so I've given Open Borders a flat enemy-trade penalty of 1.

Even if I were to implement a couple more AI tweaks, I don't think it's realistic to expect a noticeable increase in the challenge. That might happen randomly through the map generator, but if you want to make sure, you may want to look for some way to handicap yourself more.

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

Thanks i see, that makes sense now, so this is why i mean anyways that when doing tech trades i got hit with -1 (but maybe more and i didn't see it maybe i mean anyways) trading with worst enemy penalty, but while doing ressources trades it seemed to not matter making me question if it worked (it just needed more time to build the value over the turns i mean anyways, not the most sensical as i technically did a trade but it works as intended from what i understand of your explanation i mean anyways).
Thanks also for your other replies i mean anyways, this answers clearly (and quickly thanks) so i moved them to solved.

It is not so nonsensical to me also that Ragnar AI for example wants to keep a monopoly on the sea if it's what he did, in this game he proved the world was round i mean anyways despite him not being the strongest. He was also very easy to trade with as you explained. What i question more is that it was a pangea (so maybe not necessary to care so much about the sea i mean anyways, but at least it worked maybe i mean anyways).
As i understand more of these mechanics, i can enjoy the game more, especially if what seemed to (frustratingly) be not working or not making sense now seems to work or be intended or to make sense. Ideally i would find this info somewhere else, but you're giving me a precise and detailed, specific reply which i am very thankful for (also i thought they might be bugs at least in some cases i mean anyways) so thanks i mean anyways.

Where i disagree (again xd i mean anyways), is that it doesn't seem too far-feteched i mean anyways, nor unrealistic, to see AI becoming a challenge if you'd do more AI tweaks. Of course you're in a much better position than me to know, and my data, although detailed may be limited, but some behaviours seem to tend for me at least i mean anyways towards a stronger understanding or at least response of the AI. Things like settling closer to me, stealing my nearby ressources, and such. I can (ideally?) imagine that similar tweaks, even if not helping dramatically maybe i mean anyways, make the game more enjoyable. Just seeing AI settle well (or at least better, not on metals, not on sheep grassland or such, possibly maybe not building forts on top of existing pastures i mean anyways these are just i mean anyways examples anyways), may (i think) make the AI quite (not necessarily a lot but still not zero i would say but is just my opinion i mean anyways) stronger, but if not it's still pleasant to look at and makes the game more enjoyable, for example capturing his cities or just getting more hyped about the game i mean anyways but is just my opinion/thought/feel i mean anyways.

I'm trying to not send too much additional examples, however i seem to not do too well with that promise if i may say this word i mean anyways. Maybe you'd be more able to focus (or do other things maybe i mean anyways) on the other examples (perhaps the most important ones, but not necessarily them first as you'd prefer i mean anyways and if you'd want i mean anyways). For now i started a new game. There may be some variation as you said (i don't know i mean anyways) but i also play to enjoy the game, and if AI is even a bit just more efficient/smarter or making sense, i may be able to enjoy it more, but i'll take the game as it is and see if i enjoy it xd i mean anyways, so thanks for any tweaks you'd want to make on top of that i would like xd.

That being said i'll continue this new game or do other things xd i mean anyways, thanks,

edit: about the handicap you suggested, i'm trying to get a (better i mean anyways) grip/grasp of the system first/currently/at the moment i mean anyways. While i win often, i don't often do by a big margin i mean anyways. Also, i would be more inclined i mean anwyays and would prefer to play more even games if possible, if ideally the AI could match up this it would be nice i mean anyways, but for now this seems to work well if i may say i mean anyways, thanks,

edit 2: about the open borders i am fine with that change too (not that i knew how the previous mechanic worked xd anyways), would be interesting if say maybe for example i mean anyways, war happened sooner or more due to slightly less relationship scores between bots (or vs humans i mean anyways) as a result of this, would make the game more interesting or less stale maybe if i may say i mean anyways, but is just my opinion/feel/thought i mean anyways, thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I would like to add this example related to city placement, i think valuing the food+gold and coast here is better than a non coastal low food tundra/ice/hills low food environment. Maybe it could help in other similar situations AI plant better too?

I added a save file 127.1, 1 turn before Adrianople city is planted, and a screenshot 127.2 (where, although the location is not great, if AI really wants to plant, i marked a spot 1 that i think is significantly better as i explain below i mean anyways).

By planting in spot 1, the value of the fur ressource is still gained, and in exchange 6 coastal tiles can be used (which would also provide 2*6 = 12 gold for 0 food cost (assuming a lighthouse, that could be built early too i mean anyways), even more if leader is financial i mean anyways). However, the gold yield of the fur is 2*4 = 8 gold but 2 food cost so should be much worse (especially as city would not be able to grow past a (very) low population count due to low food environment) if i am not mistaken i mean anyways. Also, these water tiles could in some circumstances (this or in other maps) become a moai city, or/and possibly other advantages related to this coastal plant vs non-coastal plant. Also, i think there is little benefit for the AI to plant away from the coast in this case, as the land is largely tundra/ice/hills with very low food to accomodate all those tiles or profit from them i mean anyways.

Also, the iron hills is preserved even if choosing spot 1 i mean anyways, so it would be a significantly stronger (although maybe not the most important as AI has iron already and a tundra hills mined should be close in yield i mean anyways), this extra iron can also be traded too in this spot maybe. Even better, the marble is a quite strong tile if i may say i mean anyways or/and could be traded too.

What do you think of this?
I also want to say again that my impression from the rest of the plants is generally very good in this game (as well i mean anyways), just i think more emphasis could be put on total food or/and highest food yield for where to choose/value city plants i mean anyways, especially in low food environments where choosing the coast may make more sense maybe i mean anyways.

I also added a mention of this example in the list with the other related examples of "prioritize food" in the "high priority" category i mean anyways (but not necessarily reviewed first nor soon too, could or not as and if you'd want/prefer if i may say i mean anyways).
Thanks,

edit: maybe a similar logic could be applied (unless already existing maybe i mean anyways then maybe enforce it by prioritizing food more?) that would result in i mean anyways planting on hills plains/ice/desert rather than hills grassland (unless location is otherwise very good, based on the total food yield count or other yields counts or the value of ressources and such and/or possibly other things i mean anyways), thanks,

edit 2: quite unrelated note and maybe not the most important note for me to say i mean anyways but i found how to look at city founding dates i mean anyways without spoiling myself, i can just hide the part of the screen with the map reveal (unless there is a better way) in retire screen and look just where the timeline finally shows where the city i want i mean anyways was planted, not necessary maybe to explain but it was to clarify regarding what i said before i mean anyways in this case i mean anyways about not spoiling myself before sending a save file of a city plant i mean anyways, thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

Also, i don't know if it is related to the oscillation issues you mentionned (i think it is but asking to be sure i mean anyways), but i found 2 workers of Mansa Musa AI building cottages on already improved plains farms (which should be a good enough improvement for plains tile i think i mean anyways in this quite low food environment too maybe i mean anyways).
Most interestingly, the same behaviour happens the same turns on 2 identical type of tiles (farm plains), that are next to each other btw i mean anyways, both being built into a cottage.

It is example 128.
I added a save file 128.1 (after ending turn), extra save files (example 128.0 archive) from 150 AD to this save file 128.1 (350 AD) being the last in the archive i mean anyways if want to investigate further i mean anyways, and 2 screenshots (for each tile of this example i mean anyways).

I don't know if this example would help tweaking or investigating maybe i mean anyways but i think the data point is interesting so i added it in the list in medium (edit 2: high priority due to other similar examples being at this position (i positionned this example 128 near them in the list i mean anyways) and this seeming important enough even though not my highest priority but high enough to be there maybe i mean anyways, thanks) (edit 3: moved it to low priority, although maybe useful to review, i would like to thin the higher and medium priority parts of the lists with the things i really really want to review first, so/but if you'd want to review them first the data is there i mean anyways, thanks,) priority.

Thanks,

edit: maybe an idea to improve this (or/and at least delaying this maybe i mean anyways) would be to, before overwriting any improvement (except if it's in order to build a ressource-specific improvement (e.g: pasture for sheep, farm for wheat, etc i mean anyways) maybe i mean anyways), first improve all other tiles in city radius maybe (here forests could be chopped for example maybe if i am not mistaken i mean anyways), but is just a suggestion/possibility, there may be better ways or this may additonnally help possibly maybe i mean anyways, thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

Also, although i am trying not to spam, i want to ask this question about Mehmet AI in this screenshot, it is example 129.1 and 129.2 (low priority).

Is all going well and so many units of low strength really necessary xd i mean anyways? Is his economy able to handle this unit cost too i mean anyways and is it efficient (in comparison to higher strength units maybe i mean anyways if he has them but i don't know like axemen maybe since he seems to have copper i mean anyways)?
I added a screenshot 129.1 and a save file 129.2 one turn before.
He is at war with Stalin AI but still xd, unless maybe i am mistaken and this is fine.

As in the other questions, may reply later as you'd see fit.
Thanks,

edit: Mehmet AI has a few axemen in other cities but not a lot, could be related to copper city being reconquered (after falling to Slatin AI) recently, or he just produced too many archers despite having copper? Still, i would like to ask to be sure, but this is not urgent i mean anyways, thanks,

edit 2: a bigger problem is that they are split unevenly between cities (example 129.3, low priority), a few turns later Stalin AI is attacking the eastern city of Mehmet AI that is very weakly guarded (see screenshots 129.3.1 and 129.3.2 + the save file 129.3.3 one turn before i mean anyways), so maybe spread the units more between cities to avoid that if he has enough to afford that i mean anyways, since he has enough total military force to defend against that, but not spread optimally (too much in one place, too little in others), thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I thinned out the "high priority" and "medium priority" quite a lot (as much as i could), to keep only the most relevant ones (moved the rest to lower priority for most i mean anyways), at least that i'd want to be reviewed first. I don't know if i could thin it out more, however i thought that my approach of keeping examples together because they are related (for example all kind of war movements examples together in some cases, escorting of all types of units problems together, etc i mean anyways) as i said earlier today, was a bad idea i mean anyways. It also gives least chance/visibility of highest ones i actually want to be reviewed to actually be reviewed as you said i mean anyways. Maybe i could thin it out more, not sure, i would need to look more into it i mean anyways.

I also removed anecdotal behaviours that i thought (despite me thinking them) to be quite critical or important. Reason is that even if they are something i may consider massive or quite a blunder of the AI or something similar xd i mean anyways, if it doesn't happen enough times then maybe it's not high enough priority about these examples i mean anyways.

Also, i want to state again it may take time to review them possibly days if not weeks, maybe it would take more, maybe you'd not review them i mean anyways. It is fine to not reply to me in that time, but you may do so if you want/prefer, it is not for me to meddle as i said many times i mean anyways, if not, is fine to leave it as is, as you'd prefer. I think i'm spamming too much, so more often than not if i continue to do so i may add most in the lower priority category, unless i really really ideally think i want them to be reviewed first.

Thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I found workers building a fort on an already improved spices plantation.
It is example 130. I added it in high priority mentionned with the other forts examples.
It is similar to workers building a fort on already improved sheep pasture (example 81) for example, so would be nice if could be reviewed if you'd review them i mean anyways among first examples.

I added save file 130.1 and screenshot 130.2.
Ideally the workers would not build this pointless improvement, that takes a lot of time for really no purpose, the ressource is already improved and connected.
If they have nothing to do, maybe stay idle or delete them or something in the game i mean anyways?
Thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I would like to submit a suggestion i submitted before and that you replied to, because it happened again in my game, and i thought of a way that maybe could trick the AI into behaving differently without heavy code rewriting possibly maybe.

It is example 136.
I added an archive of save files for all turns of the war i had with Stalin AI i mean anyways (from 1400 AD to 1520 AD).

During this war, as you explained in your reply (https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ai-city-placement-and-misc-suggestions.695343/post-16783557) to example 61 i asked about i mean anyways, and as you can see in the few screenshots of this example 136 too i mean anyways, Stalin AI's stack stays "parked" in a weak conquered city, instead of defending his much stronger cities as i attack them.

This could also be related to example 97 (mentionned in summary in the list post i mean anyways), where offensive AI units don't fall back to defend when AI is attacked, which i think is very problematic. It benefits me way too much.

I got an idea that maybe could address this without heavy code changes, but i don't know if it would be feasable as i don't understand much how the AI works technically, but maybe it could be a good idea or help i mean anyways, i would like your feedback on it, if and when you'd want though so maybe later or never or soon i mean anwyays up to you i mean anyways i am fine either way probably i mean anyways (as long as i play at least maybe i mean anyways).

My idea would be that instead of maybe doing extensive changes, what if you could "trick" the AI i mean anyways into thinking all his cities are conquered cities? So it would not be only the cities he actually conquered, but in fact all his cities.
What this would achieve, in theory maybe but i don't know (but would like to test if you'd do such a change/experiment or something similar i mean anyways), is that AI would split his troops to defend all "fake conquered" cities.

In this save file, his other big/strong cities i mean anyways are very thinly defended, while he parks all his stack as you said i mean anyways on a very weak conquered city due to some logic of how attacking units work if i understand your explanation in the post i linked above correctly i mean anyways.

Maybe this would be a workaround of the issue of AI parking (he in fact doesn't counterattack at all in example 136, nor in example 61, in example 61 i thought maybe he was rationnal due to thinking he can't go back defend his other cities so better remain there (but i said maybe he's crazy too or something i mean anyways..), to get him to be more active in the war instead of waiting for nothing with units that can fight or defend)?

Also, maybe a side effect of this "trick" i mean anyways would be that as in example 97, AI would also be more reactive during war, assuming his other cities are also conquered cities, thus counterattacking (much?) sooner rather than keeping his offensive while i declare war on him, invade his territory, and capture his cities.

It could have negative unintended effects or maybe other positive effects. I would very much like to test such a change or a similar idea or related way to address this, because when this happens the AI becomes very underwhelming. Maybe with a few fixes or tweaks or "tricks" maybe AI could directly or indirectly, "consciously" or "uncounsciously" behave more dynamically? He had the units it's really too bad he didn't use them. If more changes would be incorporated i could then perhaps reduce the difficulty, else i could keep at same difficulty for more challenge, both of which would be good. It wouldn't be too much of a drag, just here he doesn't defend at all which i think would be very nice if could be improved whether by a "trick" i mean anyways or a tweak or a fix or an extensive change or anything xd i'm open to test these.

But it may be a bit too long to do, which is why i suggested the way to workaround the AI rather than maybe doing extensive changes or recoding it from scratch (which would be very nice but maybe unlikely due to time it would take, hence my idea i mean anyways).

What do you think of this? Thanks,

edit: maybe it could be made fancier by defending highest value "fake conquered" cities (per pop count or number of buildings or something i don't know exactly or really how it works i mean anyways but is a suggestion/idea i would like to submit i mean anyways) first rather than weak ones or closest ones, but for now if this stack could not stay parked and actually do something or/and fight or defend in the direction of the other cities or/and of the AI's enemy's troops it would be very nice even without this extra fancy idea i mean anyways, but i would be open to test fixes or changes related to this if/when you'd want to look into it i mean anyways or/and try ideas related to it i mean anyways, thanks,

edit 2: or maybe an opposite change could be made i mean anyways, to make his other stronger cities as "conquered" and newly conquered cities as "unconquered"? If such a mechanism exists to begin with i mean anyways. It seems that the stack always parks in a newly conquered city, if so, doesn't it mean there is a condition telling the AI to park it's city there i mean anyways? If that is the case indeed maybe i mean anyways, why not, if possible technically i mean anyways, instead of changing all the parking mechanic, just making it so that this parking condition affects instead the strongest AI city (per pop count or culture or buildings or hammer/food etc i don't know how you would but a formula or approximate calculation or something to tell the AI which city is more valuable i mean anyways) so that the AI parks in the strongest city instead of the newly conquered one? Also, i noticed the slave revolt almost never happens in advciv 1.12 in AI cities, however it was quite often in advciv 1.11. Could just be variation as you said about other things i mean anyways i talked/asked about i mean anyways, but if not, was there maybe a change between advciv 1.11 and advciv 1.12 that would result or resulted i mean anyways in AI parking more in newly conquered cities, thus reducing how often revolts happen? If so, reverting it or making it affect stronger AI cities may make AI more competitive (then see what could be done about revolt chance being perhaps a bit too high? I would suggest making it more sensible i mean anyways to culture, meaning it fades faster with culture, because currently only building more units seems to halt revolt chance soon enough, unlike producing culture per turn (which i think with current numbers if i may say i mean anyways defeats the purpose of stopping warmongering if it was one of the purposes i mean anyways, instead it incentivizes it, which is counter intuitive and perhaps not ideal but just my opinion i mean anyways), the minimum threshold is maybe ok though but just my opinion i mean anyways), thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

Spoiler edit 2: nevermind he doesn't have calendar actually my bad, so this example 142 is not valid, i would just like to keep the suggestion i made in it below though as they may be relavant as i would like your feedback on them i mean anyways :

I would like to provide an additional example of AI workers not improving ressources but building unrelated improvements on them instead, despite required tech most likely available i mean anyways.
It is example 142 (high priority).

Here Mehmet AI has a town on a sugar tile, and never builds a plantation (or maybe built it and removed it later i did not look at all turns, but a cottage was first built on this tile in 150 BC (save file 142.0). A screenshot shows this cottage (or a cottage possibly another or the same i don't know but still anyways i mean that: ) that grew into a town, but Mehmet AI never builds the specific improvement, even much later into the game, he keeps the town. Maybe he has some evaluation due to the town giving enough gold, so i thought this extra example could be interesting to look into. I provided a save files at different check points to see how he evaluates the plantation in different phases of the game, i may add a few more checkpoints if you'd want to review it more i mean anyways but i may still do so just for exhaustiveness maybe or not i mean anyways (done, see the edit below).

Spoiler here is the suggestion below on how to handle ressources improvements i suggested too during this example 142 and that may sitll be relevant separately. As i asked similar things in the past and to not burden myself and perhaps not you, it is available in this specific spoiler 2nd box, i think it would be cool if considered but i don't know if you'd do it nor how often, still if you'd want to it is here, else it would be how it has to be i mean anyways, thanks, :

So while the example is no longer relevant as explained in spoiler description, i would still like to have your thoughts on the idea below if and when you'd review it, ideally sooner but in the end as you're the one to review it or not i mean anyways, it would be soon or not or never as you'd prefer i mean anyways, my idea is explained below i mean anyways.

To develop the point and my idea about ressource issues, first i would like to explain and sum up that about ressource improvements, any of the following case below, among possibly others still seems to be a problem that occurs quite often and that, ideally i mean anyways and if wished/possible for advciv i mean anyways, could or would be nice if could be fixed or patched or improved, despite required tech most likely available:
- forts on ressources, sometimes that already have their ressource specific improvement (see example 81 of fort being built on already improved pasture sheep, or fort built on already improved spices plantation (example 130), and other fort examples mentionned in the list post)
- cottages or higher version of it (see this example 142: town on sugar tile but no plantation)
- ignoring to improve the ressource to do another unrelated improvement (example 89 mostly (windmill on hill instead of plantation on banana), and also other examples mentionned in the list post with example 89)

To improve this, i have a suggestion that is maybe a bit radical and maybe doesn't solve all, dosn't address deeper issues, but perhaps quick fixes if i may say (what i mean is that patches the AI flaw there i mean anyways) maybe i mean anyways: this suggestion is to disallow any improvement other that ressource specific improvements on a ressource tile (a bit less strict version of this would be "as soon as we have required tech or/and can see the ressource, do not bother/allow to build any other improvement than the ressource specific one ever on this tile, as long as ressource is here").

It would not address why this happens but may help AI a lot.

Second suggestion related to this would be to give upgrading ressources highest worker priority as soon as ressource tile is eligible for ressource specific improvement.

Doing so may also fix the forts issues, because in most cases (in fact all i saw, the fort was only an issue when it was favoured instead of ressource specific improvement, else i rarely saw AI put a fort there, and even if AI did, it would not be a problem on non ressource tile).

The idea of this is to do an efficient change that while not addressing all may help the AI directly or indirectly, also being more enjoyable for human players.

What do you think of this, would you consider improving it in advciv? Thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

While doing the investigation to add the extra example 142's save file checkpoints i mean anyways, i met what seems like a bug but i would like to ask to be sure.
It is example 143 (low priority).

This save file 143.1 automatically ends turn as soon as it is loaded, however i did not change the options inbetween save files i mean anyways, and the save file just before (143.0) for example does not automatically skip turn.
Also, other save files don't seem to have this problem though i mean anyways.

Is it a bug or intended somehow maybe?
Thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I would like to submit an UI request.
It is example 145 (medium low priority).

In the game i am currently playing i mean anyways, i did not notice India AI was willing to become my vassal i mean anyways.
The red fist icon to tell an AI would accept a war trade is very useful.
Similarly, a "willing to become vassal" icon would help a lot. I was thinking i mean anyways that it would apply only, in Foreign Advisor/Glance, to the line of the player viewing this window i mean anyways.

I missed the vassal possibility with India AI i mean anyways, especially later in the game with the many messages that flow quick and thing to notice that i may miss in the game i mean anyways, so i think this icon may be quite a lot helpful and would be nice if added i mean anyways.

I provided a save file 145.0 if you'd want to experiment with how the icon would like (in this save file India AI and Zara Yaqob AI are both willing to become vassals i mean anyways), and a few sample files in the other example 145 files.
Screenshot 145.1 is the default view, no icon
Files 145.2 are related to the crown version which is the one i chose for this request i mean anyways but may be updated as you see fit i mean anyways if you'd want to go with this request i mean anyways. (crown icon link: https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/king_2545603. I also hesitated with this one that i did not choose in the end i mean anyways: https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/party_14998270)
Files 145.3 are related to the white flag icon version, which i chose to drop i mean anyways due to the possibility of confusing it with willing to talk for peace, regardless of the willingness to become a vassal (that may not require war if vassal is voluntary i mean anyways as i explain in detail or more in the spoiler below i mean anyways). I kept this version in this example 145 for exhaustiveness and/or maybe it could help maybe i mean anyways, else i could just delete it i mean anyways.

Would you consider adding it in advciv? Thanks,

Spoiler detail of how i searched and settled i mean anyways for a crown icon in the end i mean anyways to represent the "willing to become vassal", both through war capitulation, or peaceful voluntary vassal i mean anyways, as if the AI is giving up its crown/sovereignty symbolically i mean anyways which may be intutive to grasp possibly i mean anyways :

I googled quick i mean anyways and an idea of a white flag (as if capitulation/resign/surrender i mean anyways), and found one icon that seems free of right here (and has no background color it seems i mean anyways) : https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/white-flag_5077196 (of which i downloaded a copy as example 145.0)
I also tried it quick i mean anyways, from the screenshot 145.1 (default view without "willing to become vassal" icon i mean anyways) of Foreign Advisor/Glance. It is a bit rough i mean anyways but it looks quite cool i think (of course it is an example possibe way of doing it i mean anyways) (viewable in example 145.2, with "willing to become vassal" icons i mean anyways).

edit: this icon idea of white flag may be confused with the willing to talk for peace maybe i mean anyways.
My idea was also that the black swords were in clear contrast with the white flag of surrender, however it could easily be confused with simply willing to talk for peace.
So based on this, i tried to search for a new icon that would more specifically hint i mean anyways at a vassal concept.
After a quick googling "surrender icon", i found some nice suggestions, i will update this post a bit later with a few sample icons that i think may fit well for the "willing to become vassal" concept and that would be free too i mean anyways, thanks,
Also, being a vassal does not imply a capitulation, if it is voluntary, so i would like an icon that could reflect that too i mean anyways, i don't know if you'd add it but if i would want to be exhaustive with my request i feel/think i mean anyways that i would have to do that i mean anyways, thanks,

edit 2: the "subordinate icon" seems to give good results for this case i mean anyways: https://www.flaticon.com/search?word=subordinate
i am browsing through to see which would fit well in this case i mean anyways, thanks,

edit 3: after some more quick research i mean anyways, i found a result that may indicate the idea of "hierarchy" may fit here better i mean anyways (result was: https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/hierarchy_5348012)
I then found digging more i mean anyways this idea, another related picture as i was searching: https://iconscout.com/icon/monarchy-hierarchy-4195975_3483482 (but this one i am not sure is free i mean anyways).
I extended on this idea i mean anyways, and it seems that the "crown" idea may best fit, or at least quite nicely fit the concept of becoming vassal, both through capitulation in war, or peacefully with a rival.
The common idea is that the rival willing to become a vassal symbolically gives up his crown, so i think this maybe can be understood quite intuitively from the icon of a crown i mean anyways (just like how a red fist may indicate a willigness to fight someone or some anger directed at someone or something possibly i mean anyways).
I thought it would be easier if it was in color rather than black or white (but i don't know much which color would suit most i mean anyways so this is a suggestion that may be tweaked possibly with the colors and such or other things i mean anyways, but i think the idea of a crown may fit quite well for this vassal concept idea i mean anyways).
Will update the example by adding the crown icon i mean anyways, thanks,
I'm thinking if i may say i mean anyways that i would pick it from here: https://www.flaticon.com/search?word=crown
After a quick search i mean anyways, in the end i hesitated between these 2:
- https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/king_2545603
- https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/party_14998270
I chose the first one in the end i mean anyways because it felt more like gaining a crown (symbolizing the sovereignty of the AI rival), rather than, in the 2nd one, it more seeming like facing a (strong) crown, not necessarily taking/gaining/earning it if i may say i mean anyways).

edit 4: after some more thought i mean anyways, it seems that maybe the crown icon could be confused with the idea of a "leader", "best/strongest player" etc i mean anyways, i think it has a nice contrast and it's good that it is a simple icon so that it renders well (enough) i mean anyways in an icon form i mean anyways, but i am not sure it would be a good enough (as in not confusing) icon for this "become vassal". I think it would be very nice to have a "willing to become vassal" icon in foreign advisor/glance, but maybe this is not the best icon for this. I am leaving this suggestion here as i think it is still relevant as is and would let you choose an icon you find appropriate if you'd want to implement this i mean anyways, which may be soon or later or never, it would be how it has to be (ideally after the higher priority ones (moved this from medium to low priority in the list i mean anyways, not because it is not important, but mostly because there are other higher priority ones i would like to be reviewed first i mean anyways)), thanks,