AI city placement and misc. suggestions

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 5, 2025

I would like to also add this trading inconsistency.
It is example 147 (medium priority with the other trading examples, even though less important than them it is about as important so i think i can/want to group it with them i mean anyways).
I also added screenshots that show the different parts of this problem i mean anyways.

I am not sure it is a bug though, could be just how it (is intended or how it currently) works, but it is not convenient and would be nice if tweaked or improved in advciv if wished/possible i mean anyways.

The issue/problem i mean anyways is that if the first trade of ressource (sheep in this example i mean anyways) reaches max gold per turn of the other player of the trade (6 gold per turn here i mean anyways), then new gold per turn (here 2 new gold per turn i mean anyways) magically appears and more trades (sugar in this example that is valued 2 gold per turn by Japan AI i mean anyways) for this new gold per turn is now possible.
It is also not convenient because it cannot be guessed: sometimes new gold per turn magically appears, some other times it will stay at 0 after first trade in other circumstances i mean anyways.

This new magical gold appearing problem is not the only problem, but also that when i want to trade in one go sheep+sugar, he only gives me 6 gold per turn
However, if i trade the sheep first for 6 gold per turn, then he gains a new 2 gold per turn "magically" i mean anyways. And now i can trade again this 2 gold per turn for sugar (same price as what he values it before first trade is made).
So in total there is a mismatch of sheep+sugar giving 6 gold in one go, while sheep first for 6 gold then sugar second for 2 gold i mean anyways gives a total of 8 gold per turn which is more (same mismatch problem as in example 113 i mean anyways of all trades in one go vs trade in batches during same turn, except that in example 113 there was no issue of gold magically appearing only a gold mismatch between trades in one go vs trades in batches if i remember correctly i mean anyways).
So, i think this case is worth if i may say i mean anyways to add as a separate example.

Is it possible to make the total and final amount AI is willing to trade (at least during the human player's turn if it's not too complicated i mean anyways), so that i could make trades without guessing in this case i mean anyways (Sometimes new gold per turn doesn't appear so it is an inconvenience too i mean anyways. It would also be perhaps as convenient as the human player being able to trade all his gold per turn i mean anyways beyond the current slider limit i mean anyways)).

What do you think of this?
Thanks,

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 5, 2025

Spoiler edit 2: in 1802 AD (after i make peace with Hannibal AI (and win the game at this turn too i mean anyways)) he is ok to be my vassal again, so i assume what he meant by "we have our hands full right now" is "we don't have enough military power to spare to join you in a war with Hannibal AI" i mean anyways. Thefore if i understand this correctly i mean anyways it is "just" i mean anyways a misleading description text rather than a problematic issue with the game. I thus moved this example 149's issue i mean anyways to very low priority now. Although it would be nice to make this message clearer, if nothing is broken in the game i mean anyways maybe it is not urgent to do so if you'd ever want i mean anyways. (i still think it would be nice but is as it is i mean anyways i can only suggest them xd i mean anyways, thanks,) (also i mean anyways, in the case you would want to, i would suggest something like maybe "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" that may be a lot clearer in this context i mean anyways as a (much i think i mean anyways) clearer text, i don't know how easy or worthwhile you'd find it to implement it though i mean anyways but the suggestion is here if wished/possible for advciv i mean anyways, thanks,). :

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 6, 2025

I encountered the Alt+X bug again (of the mark working some turns but not working some other turns i mean anyways).
It is example 156 (very low priority).
It is similar to example 91, i thought maybe this additional data can help maybe i mean anyways.

In files 156.0 (save file + screenshot), you can see that putting the green mark first, then the gray/white mark on the hill, both marks work in the game i mean anyways.
However, in files 156.1 (just one turn after 156.0, save file + screenshot too i mean anyways), you can see that putting the green mark first works as well, but the gray/white mark i mean anwyays doesn't work, same as in example 91.

It is not highest priority but since it is quick for me to post if i may say i mean anyways i chose to do that, i added this to the list.
I understand my examples would not be treated (as) soon (as i would want to) but it is expected i mean anyways and i would be happy just if you'd eventually go through them even if not too soon (but ideally not too late i mean anyways, at least as long as i play xd if i may say i mean anyways), similarly you don't have to reply to this if it helps you focus or do other things, i'll try to do other things too or do what i want i mean anyways, but if you'd prefer i would like to too so is up to you i mean anyways as you'd prefer, thanks,

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 6, 2025

I would like to submit (yet another i mean anyways) war declaration problem, but it is quite different than the other ones so i think this data can help i mean anyways.
It is example 160.
Example 160 problems 1, 2, and 5 (see edit 2 below i mean anyways) are high priority.
Example 160 problems 3 and 4 are medium priority.
I added save files for the 2 turns where this behaviour happens, and screenshots too i mean anyways.

Here are the problems with this example and why i think it is worthwhile to add i think i mean anwyays:

1) (high priority i mean anyways)
Here, same as in the other war declaration problems, AI (Aztec in this case i mean anyways) declares war on me despite me being strong enough to defend as per relative military power.
Unlike what relative military power says, i am about as strong as him if not slightly stronger from what i can see (especially taking into account my production capacity but is not my main point i mean anyways even though would be nice but a bit too fancy to improve (maybe too hard or long?)).
It would be nice if AI could better estimate relative strength, here it is completely off.
Related to this i mean anyways, i did not want to mention it in case you'd be already aware or had perhaps your own approach to these war declaration examples where AI is too weak to attack but doesn't know it so declares war then withdraws (but here worse doesn't witdraw as explained in the below points i mean anyways) (or it could be spam i mean anwyays but here is a good opportunity for me to develop this now i think i mean anyways), but i read quick out of curiosity i mean anyways that realism invictus 3.72 added ways to better estimate relative military power for AIs, it would be very nice if this or something similar was possible too i mean anyways.
Ideally a better relative power estimation would result in him not declaring war if he is not strong enough to attack i mean anyways, which seems to also be something realism invictus 3.72 seems to have improved (but these points seem to be linked i mean anyways). What i am saying is i mean anyways that a way to handle the war declaration problem would be most important to me, but if this goes through also making AI better at estimating who is actually stronger i mean anyways before attacking or declaring war pointlessly i mean anyways (suiciding is the accurate word indeed as realism invictus said if i may say i in this example i mean anyways), then it would be very nice to do so one way or another. I always favour the fancier (as in deepest, most thought/thorough) way of adressing this i mean anyways, but an efficient fix would be very nice too i mean anyways especially if it is easier to do which is why i would often advocate for it if i may say i mean anyways (maybe good enough to be worth doing i mean anyways).

2) (high priority i mean anyways)
Not only total relative military power, but also locally my stack is (much) stronger and outnumbers him, but despite that when he sees my stack facing his directly i mean anyways, he doesn't retreat but stays in range of my stack (moves one tile nearby i mean anyways but still in direct range the next turn i mean anyways) (unlike in the other war declaration examples where he retreated after declaration without city attack when he saw (i assume i mean anwyays) that his attack won't work.
Here are in what ways i think, possibly among others i mean anwyays, that my stack is stronger than his in this example i mean anyways:
- 6 units (me) vs 4 units (him)
- 4 of my chariots counter 2 of his axemen
- 1 of my axeman can fight his melee units
- 25% terrain bonus for me of forest defense in my tile
It would be nice if locally he could understand than i am stronger than him and urgently retreat instead of keeping the dangerous (for him i mean anyways) push if i may say i mean anyways.

3) (medium priority i mean anyways)
I would also like to suggest again to buff woodsman promotion (or similar effects specific to unit bonuses i mean anyways) because i think it is quite useless, or very ineffective maybe i should say rather i mean anyways. If units are good at jungle/forest defense, it would not be nonsensical (i mean it may nicely help them while also making sense logically i would say i mean anyways) to make them similarly as good at attack in such terrains i mean anyways, so the units of Aztec AI would also get +50% forest attack and +50% jungle attack, which would help them a lot, even though probably not enough in this case i mean anyways, but since cities are never in jungle or forest tiles, it would not affect warfare too much and would only buff the otherwise (i think i mean anyways) very weak woodsman promotion, so i think this buff would be much needed while also being balanced i mean anyways (woodsman may still be weak after that if i may say i mean anyways, but it would be quite close if i may say in this case i mean anyways) (see also example 53)

4) (medium priority i mean anyways)
Another quite big problem is he ignores terrain for his defense (he should attack walking on highest defense bonus tiles as much as possible.
Here he gets baited (i assume) by the sheep plains tile (to pillage the pasture?) (which is a problem here since it's not a priority but is not my main point i mean anyways, nice if improved but i think the point following in this paragraph is more important maybe to address i mean anyways).
The problem is that now his only advantage which was +50% forest defense is lost on the tile he chose to move to now, which makes his disadvantage worse i mean anyways, and also now i mean anyways i can freely attack him if i want i mean anyways, which makes his disadvantage worse i mean anyways.
It would be nice if attacking units took into account terrain when attacking and chose (at least when enemy units threaten him of an attack next turn ideally i mean anyways) to walk as much as possible on highest defense bonus tiles available (these extra defensive bonuses should be especially useful/helpful i mean anyways with big stacks) (see also example 55).

I put this in the high priority (and medium priority for problems 3 and 4 i mean anyways) as i think it would be very nice if it could be improved in advciv i mean anyways if wished/possible.
This AI behaviour is very unimmersive and not enjoyable, Aztec AI could probably i think i mean anyways benefit more from his early aggression policy if i may say i mean anyways if he actually used strong enough stacks, which he often does in the games i played in advciv i mean anyways, but for some reason when attacking me now in this example i mean anyways, he got baited too into a "fake war declaration" despite me being relatively stronger than him in total power or close enough if i am not mistaken i mean anyways, and worse he didn't retreat when seeing my locally stronger stack in direct range to attack him.
(Even if he somehow won the fight, assuming i would fight his stack and lose, he would be too low health to get any benefit from this attack/war, so if AI could not declare war when it has no benefit to do so (which is same as a loss of military power vs other rivals i mean anyways for no actual gain in the game i mean anyways) it would be very nice i mean anyways to have the AI more rationnal about war declarations at least to some extent ideally i mean anyways.

I also think this behaviour is different enough from the other war declaration examples to be added on top of the existing ones (examples i mean anyways).
Would you consider improving this in advciv, not necessarily soon (but ideally why not if you'd want to i mean anyways, else: ) but as you'd go through the review i mean, if you'd want to do it i mean anyways, ?
Thanks,

edit: (moved to example 148's post below in the topic i mean anyways, see https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ai-city-placement-and-misc-suggestions.695343/post-16794259 , thanks)

edit 2: another problem i noticed one turn later i mean anyways
5) (high priority i mean anyways)
I added examples 160.3 files (save file + screenshot) related to this 5th problem i mean anyways.
Units getting baited by my empty city, he does not pillage the sheep, does not retreat, goes on another non forest terrain that does not advantage him, and now the situation is much worse because i have 2 more axemen that can attack him while he still only has 4 units, so it is 8 units (me) vs 4 units (him) due to him not retreating.
Would be very nice if AI did not get baited by empty cities to attack and instead either retreated if not strong enough or no benefit to attack (ideally i think i mean anyways), or pillage if best option or if it is safe to do so i mean anyways (here the sheep pasture tile i mean anyways).
Would you consider improving this in advciv if wished/possible? Thanks,

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 7, 2025

I also encountered a major war blunder by Arabia AI that is almost as bad as example 37 (not as bad but almost i mean anyways).
It is example 161 (high priority).

Here Arabia AI abandons defense of his capital with more than half of the defending stack moving away from his capital city (6 units + 1 unit dying in combat baited (another problem but minor in comparison i mean anyways) = 7 units he wasted now) and worse i can freely attack them now or move to his capital without him being able to go back in time in the game now i mean anyways.

These situations in the game i mean anyways don't happen often at least not as bad, so i think it is good data to add with example 37 that was really critical.
In this example 161, Arabia AI could probably have defended i mean anyways his capital if he had not done this suicide move or i would have lost so much troops it would not be worth the invade i mean anyways (17 of my attacking stack vs 13 of his defending city stack i mean anyways).
It makes the conquest way too easy and more easy than it should have been without this major blunder.
I would have had to retreat and gather a stronger stack, or change target maybe as i could also attack Aztec AI in this game in this position in the game i mean anyways.

To fix this:
- make AI stay on the defense if a strong enemy stack is coming (he had no trouble to do that when Japan AI invaded him with a 9 stack unit, but when i invade with a 17 stack unit he suicides half his troops instead of defending i don't understand if it's broken or just how it (currently?) i mean anyways works but would be very very nice and much more enjoyable if AI didn't do these abandoning city defense suicides splitting its stacks at critical time where he should not i mean anyways.
- minor but also: have units not get baited: the unit that attacked me did so very pointlessly and could have defended instead
- ideally: have catapults suicide bombard the enemy stack when it is in direct range of city attack, and that the stack is strong enough to not be defeated by other means (without having to "waste" these catapults to do so i mean anyways (but even so using the catapults might be safer than risking losing many troops even if defending city AI stack is stronger i mean anyways so maybe as a general rule always park if i may say i mean anyways catapults in city during defense from invasion, and have catapults only attack stacks that are in city attack range, i believe it would be the most effective use of siege units in defense i mean anwyays).
(edit 2: about this point i notice i mean anyways his catapult that abandonned city was not used by Arabia AI to bombard my stack and is now under threat to die in solo combat i mean anyways if i understand correctly which makes it even an as bad of a blunder i mean anyways)
- edit: also note that the stack, just like in example 37, and in an extremely disadvantaging way, ends its turn in an unroaded tile, so i have all my time to either attack him, or ignore him and go for his much less guraded (and valuable) capital city (but i would have to cross river to do so in this case so maybe not ideal, but probably better odds than fighting his stack separately first then invading city (which is already bad enough for Arabia AI as is i mean anyways)) now i mean anyways, so if you could also make war units avoid unroaded tiles in defense it would be even more ideal even though not highest priority for this specific point but would be even nicer like this then i mean anyways.

Would you consider improving this in advciv if wished/possible? It would majorly help, this example 161 and example 37 even more.
Thanks,

edit 3: one thing that could help related to the first edit's point i mean anyways, for quality of life too in the game, would be to have pathfinder choose, if movement cost is equal i mean anyways, the path with the most roads over the one with less roads, it would be useful if changing mind. In this example, AI could go back if it ended turn on a roaded tile instead of an unroaded one, i made this suggestion before but will add it in the list post to remember it. I would very much like, at least as long as i play the game i mean anyways, if pathfinder would, for an equal movement cost from a point A to a point B i mean anyways, choose the path with most roads rather than not caring if i don't take roads as long as i reach destination in same movement cost i mean anwyays. Such a change would help me a lot and make it more enjoyable, for changing unit directions in the game i mean anyways after initial move, without having to spend one more turn to go back to a roaded tile again, but is quite low priority so/but i'll still i mean anwyays add in the list post i mean anyways, thanks,

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 8, 2025

I would like to submit another city placement example.
It is example 164 (medium priority).
It is related to planting on metals, which happens much much less from what i observed if i may say i mean anyways, but here i think AI could plant much better than on the copper grassland tile i mean anyways.

As i develop below in the following points i mean anyways, i think this example is also interesting because of an idea of fancy delay planting before key techs soon discovered i would want to introduce if you'd want to implement it i mean anyways may be very nice if wished/possible for advciv i mean anyways, and i mean anyways i also got an idea while writing this to suggest very basic sort of AI swapping (more like AI re randomizing?) if one city gets all benefits while another one nearby has none i mean anyways.
Something efficient not a messy or complicated thing i mean anyways but i don't know what you'd think of it i mean anyways (say it could be done every 10 turns or something?).

First, about this example 164 i mean anyways, i added a screenshot and save file one turn before.
Aztec AI switched to slavery i mean anyways 1 turn before planting this city, so i assume he already had bronze working, yet planted on copper grassland which is very suboptimal (could have helped him rush someone for example if i may say i mean anyways).

Here are the points that i think are interesting about this example and why i added it:

1) do not plant on copper grassland, unless locally largely favourable, there should be a better tile to plant on, especially if said metal i mean anyways is on a grassland tile which should be ideal if i'm not mistaken i mean anyways.
(Again, i would want to stress that this happens very rarely now (i think after your fix i mean anyways), which i am very happy about if i may say i mean anyways, but if it could be tweaked further i have provided this data too i mean anyways. Here i think Aztec AI could use the land much better as i explain in the below points too i mean anyways.)
I added a spot 1 which i think works much better getting the pig too (at the cost of sacrificing ivory, but short term and mid term of the game i mean anyways should be better to have this productive city with pig than the +1 happiness).
But if AI insists to get the ivory, spot 2 should still work better (but without pig). I didn't settle there due to no food ressource nearby, but since Aztec AI controls the pig, he would have no such issue of sharing the pig, which brings me to the point 2.

2) Now the problem is maybe that AIs don't swap tiles if i remember one of your messages i mean anyways.
Maybe it is too fancy or complicated to add/implement i mean anyways some advanced tile swapping if i may say i mean anyways, but what about tile re-randomizing every 10 turns or something in all cities?
edit: to reduce performance cost further, maybe this rerandomizing of tiles could be done:
- not for all AIs the same turn
- not every 10 turns but say i mean anyways maybe only when it is relevant, for example when borders expand (and it is more than 10 turns since last time it was done i mean anyways) or when a new tile is gained in a city (that overlaps with another city i mean anyways) and it is more than 10 turns too since last time it was done i mean anyways
- not for all tiles in a city but only high yield ones (especially food tiles i mean anyways)

It would help even the advantages so that all cities, especially overlapping ones i mean anyways, get a more average amount of each (in this example clam+corn is enough food for capital city of Aztec AI i mean anyways, so his city 2 can have the pig that i assume his capital is already using. To do that, write a logic, focusing on efficiency and straightforwardness nothing fancy i mean anyways, that says "we more than half (enough) of the total yields so we don't allocate overlapping high yield tiles", then in city 2 "we rerandomize all our tiles affections" (which will make the free pig go too to city 2 and city 2 would be very strong with pig grassland + copper grassland + nice land..
As i said above too in the intro if i may say i mean anyways, this would not need to be done every turn, but only every few turns, and if performance is a concern maybe only in cities that overlap with others (which should still be most i think i mean anyways). I think this would improve AI performance quite a bit, and if not already existing is a nice way to handle tiles too i mean anyways but is just if i may say i mean anyways my opinion/suggestion i mean anyways.

3) Have a small delay of delaying planting if key techs are discovered soon.
Say, if we are 2-3 turns (edit 2: or an alternative version may be if around 70% of tech cost is already spent, for other speeds (that i don't play at least now i mean anyways) but also perhaps to account for slower tech pace if i may say i mean anyways) i mean anyways before discovering these techs, delay planting in case we find a better location (not just for not planting on it for yiels, but also if very inadvertedly or rather maybe carelessly i mean anyways planting with this ressource one tile away from city radius)
- Animal husbandry (for horse)
- Bronze working (for copper)
- Iron working (for iron)
- maybe other techs but would seem less relevant or/and i don't know much about them or too late in the game to matter maybe or not in the game i mean anyways
Also the number of turns would be small to not lose a key spot due to delaying too long, so 2-3 turns before tech discovery seems fine maybe, probably what a human player would do too with a settler read i mean anyways but is jsut my opinion/suggestion i mean anyways.
edit 3: about this point i have a few other unsent planting on metal issues (but again that are really rare), some of these should be before required tech is discovered (much less likely a ressource spawned due to an event or something but should not be the case in most if not all these unsent examples, i'll try to add an example or a few in case you'd want to test this idea of small delay in planting i mean anyways)
edit 4: i added the rare few examples (75-B, 132, 141) of cities settled on metals in advciv 1.12 and advciv 1.12.2 (version date i mean anyways in the list post), it almost never happens which i am very happy about (the fact that it never happens almost i mean anyways) i mean anyways, even if your fix seemed rough it helps a lot it seems, as often AI nicely settle near the metal and rarely on it, at least is what it seems often i mean anyways if i am not mistaken i mean anyways. Maybe this data can help, partly in reviewing this too i mean anyways if/when you'd do it i mean anyways
However i have not commented them as i usually do, these are mostly intended as additional data for this example 164's ideas (specifically if i may say i mean anyways the point 3) of this post i mean anyways of planting on metals i mean anyways). I hope you can find enough information on the title-description i mean anyways of the files.
Also, in some cases the tech revealing said metal may have not been yet discovered, or/and metal could have rarely spawned after city plant due to some rare event or something i mean anyways.
The purpose would be, if required tech is not yet searched, to delay AI planting when they are close enough to a required tech (say around 70% of tech research completed i mean anyways for example of a threshold or condition in the game i mean anyways), in the hope that they would change their desired planting location if a nearby metal or other ressource could be incorporated in city radius of the new potential city i mean anywyas or used in some other way maybe i mean anyways.
And if already discovered, to not plant on metals despite having the required tech to know where the metal is: plant near it not on it.
I hope this data can help if/when you'd review it i mean anyways, thanks,
Also you don't have to reply to this unless you want to which i would then be more than fine with, else i would be happier if just eventually you'd go with most of the review rather i mean anyways, as you'd prefer, thanks,

4) Why so many forest is still not chopped so late in the game?
I noticed sometimes a lot of forest tiles are not chopped in some city radiuses, is it to have forest regrow or something i mean anyways or just due to AI careless i mean anyways or not prioritizing it enough?
I think AI would benefit from these chops especially in the early game for buildings in particular or workers/settlers perhaps i mean anyways.
(note: i also didn't chop mine as much, could have but after chopping nearby rather than chopping for units i may wait in the game i mean anyways for buildings to do these chops or other uses maybe, also my number of workers is quite low (not enough actually i mean anyways) so this advice would apply to me too xd... if i may say i mean anyways)

What do you think of these points i mean anyways, would you consider adding them or improving them in advciv if wished/possible i mean anyways?
Thanks,

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 8, 2025

I would like to add a very low priority thing to improve which would be nice if possible/wished for advciv i mean anyways.
It is example 165 (very low priority i mean anyways)

From save file 165.0 (screenshot 165.1), after trading stone, the moai timer is not refreshed and it is the same as if i had no stone (screenshot 165.2).
Only after entering the city and then exiting the city view window i mean anyways is now the moai timer refreshed in the map view i mean anyways (screenshot 165.3)

Would be nice if timers were refreshed as soon as a trade was made without having to enter/leave city in the game i mean anyways to see the actualized timer i mean anyways.
May be related (as in dealing with a similar topic i mean anyways) to other timer, or rather the no tech and production new prompt issue the turn after a win i mean anyways (example 69.3).
Thanks,

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 8, 2025

Spoiler edit: nevermind is not a bug just (very) misleading that "allow"ing i mean anyways grocers is not the same as being able to build them i mean anyways, just that currency is one of the required techs, however this is so misleading (especially putting them next to markets i mean anyways) that i would suggest to split it in 2 categories ("allows" and "is one of the requirements for") but that may be too complicated especially for a window that appears only once per tech, plus reordering all the windows based on this may be quite a hassle so i'll move it to very low priority then :

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 8, 2025

I added examples 75-B, 132, 141, all of medium priority, of unsent rare samples of planting on metals or not including them in city radius when they are near (see example 164's post -> point 3 i mean anyways -> edit 4 for details). I had these examples in advciv 1.12 and 1.12.2.

And as i said in it you don't need/have to reply to this or my recent/current/all messages unless you want to which i would be more than happy to discuss, but if it comes at the cost of you delaying review (but that you don't owe me xd i mean anyways) or doing other things you'd rather want, then i'd prefer you not reply to me rather and do whatever you want instead.
Ideally eventually you'd go through most or some of the examples i sent, but in the end is your mod xd and even then is up to you whether you'd want or not, as for me i'll continue to send examples as long as i want to i mean anyways (else i would not i mean anyways).

Please refer to the list post (https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-misc-suggestions.695343/page-7#post-16782814) if i may say i mean anyways, for details/summary i mean anyways of all the examples i sent and the priority i would want them to be reviewed on, that you may or not follow linearly i mean anyways as you'd prefer i mean anyways, if you'd want to i mean anyways, and if/when you'd do. Similarly i would also do other things or what i want i mean anyways, is as it is i mean anyways, thanks,

edit: renamed example 171 into example 123-B because it is using advciv 1.12 not advciv 1.12.2 (see list post for details), thanks,
edit 2: renamed example 123-B to example 75-B to best reflect i mean anyways the date/time when i did the save in the game i mean anyways, thanks,

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 9, 2025

I would like to add example 148, that i did not add before but i think is relevant.

Here are the problems i would want to raise:

1) (medium priority)
Make naval units leave before a city is conquered if there is a strong enough chance of the city not being able to be defended i mean anyways:
shown in screenshot 148.1, and from save file 148.0.2 (one turn before direct city attack of Aksum city by German AI i mean anyways), (in example 100 it was only a few units but here it's much worse with 11 naval units not leaving the city before it (has a strong change of being or) is conquered i mean anyways by German AI).
Surely ideally Zara Yaqob AI could evacuate these to safer tiles or his remaining cities. It is especially bad, because soon after, he makes peace with German AI.
If he doesn't need some units destroy them maybe? But don't let them die needlessly like i mean anyways, generally it should help the AI being more competitive in this or other types of maps i mean anyways (especially island-type of maps with lot of water between civs i mean anyways)

2) (high priority)
Do not make city defenders suicide especially if enemy stack is strong/stronger i mean anyways:
as shown in screenshot 148.1 too i mean anyways, and from save file 148.0.2 too (i also provided a save file 148.0.1 a few turns before 148.0.2, which is in 1790 AD, when German AI stack reaches Aksum city, but does not direct attack yet (is bombarding first for a few turns i mean anyways it seems i mean anyways)) (note that if need i mean anyways there are more files about this war in archive 149.0 (from 1786 AD to 1796 AD if i am not mistaken i mean anyways), it is not a typo i mean anyways, the next example number i mean anyways has an archive 149.0 that includes these save files 148.0.1 and 148.0.2 although they are named differently i mean anyways)
You could investigate the strange situation in the game i mean anyways that Aksum city is alive but has no defender in it not even one scout i mean anyways (i suspect German AI barely failed to conquer the city and then during his turn Zara Yaqob AI got baited (very unoptimal if it did happen in the game i mean anyways) and attacked the stack with last (surviving) defenders who died in combat in the game i mean anyways so now city is empty (minus the many naval units who should have left long before that i mean anyways and that have no benefit of staying here, they would only get destroyed when city is conquered))
If it happened like this, ideally i mean anyways it would be very nice if AI did not get baited and sucide defenders, but instead keeping them "turtle" as you said i mean anyways. (even if it would not change anything in this case as the city would fall anyways i mean anyways due to German AI's strong stack, i think it's a generally good attitude to have in the game i mean anyways especialyl considering defense has better odds than offense in the game at least i mean anyways so it may not be a bad idea (i think in fact it would be a very good idea for the AI to do i mean anyways) to capitalize on that and turtly as much as possible when invaded, especially by a strong/stronger stack i mean anyways, odds may be still good this way or chances to survive better i mean anyways (Unrelated note but if AI was smarter about war like this (possibly with other tweaks and fixes, for example like not planting on metals (just an example among others to illustrate the idea about the game i mean anyways)) i mean anyways maybe i could reduce difficulty or have a harder challenge for same difficulty i mean anyways).
If it did not happen this way, i don't have an explanation, but maybe you'd want to investigate this strange case (to me at least i mean anyways) of a no defender city not conquered next to a big enemy stack in direct city attack range i mean anyways

3) (medium priority)
Making naval units not count or much less in relative military power (if not already existing/implemented this way):
shown in screenshot 148.1 too i mean anyways.
Indeed i mean anyways, naval units can't directly attack land units or capture cities unless i'm mistaken, so their relative military power impact may be much weaker than their total strength count maybe i mean anyways. I don't know if they are counted (strongly?) in total relative military power, but if they are, perhaps their influence should be (severely? in the game i mean anyways) reduced to the actual impact they can have on conquering cities or killing land units, which should be much less (indirectly they bombard city defenses, but not for all cities only naval ones, also they can't suicide bombard land units like siege would unless i'm mistaken i mean anyways, so their strength count in military relative power may be at best say 10% of that of a siege with same strength? (If not already implemented in this way or a similar way in the game i mean anyways). I thought it would be a good opportunity to mention this i mean anyways

4) (medium priority)
Adjust the land vs naval military units production/ratio i mean anyways based on percentage of players reachable by land vs needing water units to do so i mean anyways:
to begin with i noticed xd if i may say while writing this i mean anyways, that there was no reason to produce so many naval units since it's a pangea (or similar type of lands).
So maybe it would be very nice to have AIs alter their land vs naval units ratio depending on map type.
Not something deterministic (so still some variety) but here in this example i mean anyways Zara Yaqob AI doesn't need 11 naval units when his cities are much less defended from land invasion, if half or more of that was land units it would be a closer fight i mean anyways and would make AI stronger.
Similarly, perhaps increase (slightly? Or maybe not (much?) needed (or at all?) i mean anyways?) this ratio in island-water type of maps, or when the AI sees the percentage of players that are reachable by land vs requiring water tiles i mean anyways and that the AI sees that most players would need naval units to reach them i mean anyways so maybe more naval warfare involved for invasion, city bombard with water units, and protection of cargo naval transport of units i mean anyways.
edit 3: if you want more data points to test changes to this in this same map i mean anyways, example 124 should be oldest save file i sent of this map i mean anyways, and examples files from 124 to 148 should most if not all span over the timespan of this map i mean anyways (to 153 actually but unsent, i did not send some examples as i said in some messages=posts in this topic i mean anyways to focus on most urgent or likely to be reviwed i mean anyways, i may or not send them but there are so much already i mean anyways so i am trying to focus on some saev files at least first i mean anyways).

5) (low priority)
Would be very nice if UI in Foreign Advisor/Glance i mean anyways could show the peace treaty icons for AIs too:
shown in example 148.2 files.
The information is available that there is a peace treaty (9 turns remaining in this case i mean anyways), but it would help to know this information without having to remember it or being mindful of it in the game i mean anyways.
I also don't think it would clutter too much but only help instead, there are only a few peace treaties simultaneously i mean anyways, and even if there were many somehow, the information would still be valuable at least for me i mean anyways without having to remember it all.
Perhaps could be done with the other UI examples of Foreign Advisor/Glance i mentionned in the list post (example 145 in particular i mean anyways, but if there were other examples there they would count too (i would most often update the list than each specific post mentionning an example despite what i may have said earlier in the first posts of this topic i mean anyways, reason is it is more convenient this way to have one post that references all be updated i mean anyways with reference to other similar examples i mean anyways, i may update the posts too but not guaranteed, sometimes (quite often) i may not just do it for ease of use in the posts i mean anyways), thanks,

edit: if you want to investigate why German AI declared war on Zara Yaqob AI despite being friendly, i added save file 148.3 on turn before German AI declares war on Zara Yaqob AI i mean anyways. I think it's very nice and i don't think it's a problem (partly because German AI is very strong militarily at least relatively to some or most other players i mean anyways so it's a good idea to attack someone to expand i mean anyways (also his economy in the game i mean anyways is (very) good i think i mean anyways), but if you'd want to investigate it, the data is there i mean anyways.

edit 2: added a new point 4 and moved point 4 to point 5 now, thanks,

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 9, 2025

I would like to add a minor bug about timers not refreshing/not synchronized i mean anyways.
It is example 175 (very low priority).

There are 2 behaviours i managed to reproduce, i don't know if they are the same (bug) or not i mean anyways, so for now i'll think of them as 2 different bugs rather maybe i mean anyways.

Problem 1:
Inaccurate timer:
From save file 175.1.0, end turn, then choose "machinery", i mean anyways from the window prompt on the right side i mean anyways, as next tech without opening the tech advisor.
Then end turn, still without opening the technology advisor.
Now in 1140 AD, open technology advisor, you can see as in screenshot 175.1.1 that there is a mismatch of the number of turns remaining for machinery i mean anyways, it being 4 turns remaining at the top bar view i mean anyways, while it is i mean anyways 5 turns remaining in the technology advisor.
Ideally technology advisor timer too should be refreshed and in sync with the one on the top that seems accurate i mean anyways.
Choosing another tech in tech advisor then rechoosing "machinery" seems to actualize it i mean anyways, but would be nice if was done automatically.
See also example 165 for a timer not refreshed issue, related although not the same i mean anyways.

Problem 2:
Missing timer:
Probably related, but behaves a bit differently.
Now from save file 175.1.1 (one turn after 175.1.0 i mean anyways), press end turn without opening any advisor or window i mean anyways.
Now in 1140 AD, open technology advisor, you can see as in screenshot 175.2.1 i mean anyways that the timer is missing completely from currently researched tech (i assume the reference or something was lost i mean anyways but it is just a general idea i had which i may know or may not necessarily know a lot about i mean anyways (and that could be mistaken too or not i mean anyways)).
Would be nice if ideally i mean anyways the tech advisor timer was in sync with the one on top bar that seems accurate too, same as problem 1, just there is no timer at all here in problem 2 i mean anyways in tech advisor, instead of an inaccurate/dysonchronised timer in problem 1 i mean anyways.

I had this behaviour happen a few times but it's good i could pinpoint it now i mean anyways, so i think it is a good opportunity to send i mean anyways.
I put it in very low priority, but hopefully if/when you'd want to investigate it the data is there i mean anyways, thanks,

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 9, 2025

I have found a few pathfinder issues that may be bugs or how it is intended, i ask to be sure i mean anyways
It is example 178 (low priority).

From save file 178.0:
Problem 1:
Pathfinder suggesting a very long route in some reachable by land tiles in enemy territory but not for other tiles
To be more precise i mean anyways can walk one tile into Japan AI territory (who i do not have open borders with but am at peace with i mean anyways) as shown in screenshot 178.1 i mean anyways.
However, if i move one more tile south east i mean anyways into his territory as in screenshot 178.2 i mean anyways, that is visible and reachable by land, for some reason the pathfinder gives a very very very long route i mean anyways, needlessly long when it is just one more tile away.
Is it intended or is it a bug too maybe of the pathfinder i mean anyways?
If you hover i mean anyways over the other tiles of Japan AI, from this save file i mean anyways, you can see that it happens also for other tiles (but not all), which seems not consistent with how some of his other tiles show a much faster and direct route i mean anyways.

note:
Before the following next problems i mean anyways, i added a screenshot (178.3) of what seems to me like a red circle working as intended, red circle when there are (only?) enemy units in a tile i mean anyways, and a combat would occur if i walked there

Problem 2:
Pathfinder shows a phantom red circle in some tiles that i don't have vision on, of Japan AI's territory i mean anyways, as if there was enemy units there, but walking nearby to reveal, there are in fact no units.
As shown in screenshot 178.4, there is a red circle, but when walking nearby to reveal this red tile's units (if there are i mean anyways), i see (screenshot 178.5) that there are none.
However, it is not just that all his tiles have a red circle, but only some are, while some are not
Shouldn't empty tiles be shown with a white pathfinder circle and not a red one? Especially those without vision that should be, i think i mean anyways, assumed walkable regardless of their state

Problem 3:
Pathfinder also shows a phantom red circle even on tiles i have vision on and that i see are empty
As shown in screenshot 178.6 i mean anyways, shouldn't it also be a white circle since i can walk freely on it?

Problem 4:
Pathfinder doesn't show a red circle when walking on tiles with enemy units that are only civilians (workers in this example i mean anyways)
As shown in screenshot 178.7 i mean anyways, shouldn't this be a red circle considering a combat would occur if i walk there?
In particular, if i walked with a mounted or 2+ movement unit, doesn't the combat with the worker prevent me from attacking another unit after that?
If so or/and that some movement cost is consumed due to attacking the enemy workers, then it would count as combat and be a red circle no? (meaning no free/direct walking like in a white circle tile right?)
I may misunderstand this specific problem 4 or maybe my understanding is correct, so this is a question too i mean anyways, that is as i said i would or would not expect you to reply to, as you'd prefer i mean anyways would be how it has to be i mean anyways,

Is quite low priority but if want to review it soon or later the data is there i mean anyways,
Thanks,

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 9, 2025

I would like to add a war example that happened again and would be very nice if improved i mean anyways.
It is example 180 (high priority).
I have provided a save file one turn before and a few screenshots.

It is similar to example 37 and 161, of units abandoning defense of cities and rushing to attack another city (this seems to happen especially if one of my cities nearby to his border cities is weakly guarded i mean anyways, or that i have a very strong stack invading which somehow prompts if i may say i mean anyways or maybe seems like it compells AI to do a city attack and ignore my stack i mean anyways).
At this point there would not be much more benefit to send more examples of this type, i hope this last one is useful enough i mean anyways, and if i would send more it would be/have to be maybe i mean anyways something particularly meaningful/relevant about this issue and not redundant ideally i mean anyways, at least i mean anyways ideally i would not spam about this issue though after this example but is really a critical problem in AI war handling i mean anyways.

Problem is it makes conquest way easier/too easy i mean anyways because now his cities are much less guarded, the enemy stack can be attacked unit per unit without city bonuses, and the few remaining city defenders will have to tank much more damage so they will/would die in the game i mean anyways much (too if i may say i mean anyways) easier. He did not even attack my stack barely so i can choose to easily destroy his stack for minimal losses, or ignore him, had he as in the other examples ended his turn on an unroaded tile which is not the case here i mean anyways but still very problematic if i may say i mean anyways (this last point may be linked with the issue of pathfinder often choosing a path without roads when an equivalent path (in movement cost) with roads was available, so i think this is why in these examples when AI gets baited they often end in unroaded tiles, would be very nice if improved too i mean anyways about the pathfinder i mean anyways as it would help with quality of life of the mod in the game i mean anyways (see example 161 edit 3 i mean anyways)).
Would not have changed ultimate outcome due to me having a much stronger stack i mean anyways but is a very nice behaviour to have i think i mean anyways that may change the outcome or/and help greatly the AI in other circumstances i mean anyways.

This could "easily" (but i don't know how easy to code/implement i mean anyways, i would very much want such changes though but i don't know if they are practical, if possible though i would much want them i mean anyways, else is as it is i mean anyways but would be a major AI flaw, anyways is as it is i mean anyways) be avoided by what seems like a sanity behaviour to me i mean anyways.
"When we are invaded (especially by a strong stack/foe i mean anyways), concentrate on defense (or counter attacks maybe with catapults or similar parked in cities i mean anyways) and do not waste any unit going for the offensive, we would be too thin then and even weaker. Concentrate especially in stronger cities, but generally mostly where the enemy stack is, so we can retreat if city cannot be defended to next nearby city" i mean anyways.

It is now 3rd example of this type i add now (and i think example 59 actually may just be a similar behaviour of AI feeling compelled to attack a nearby city when it is clearly detrimental to do so, and regardless of my city in example 59 being much more guarded than his number of invaders).
I chose to add this example because the stack has a majority of catapults that are now just exposed to being killed in solo combat for no benefit, it is particularly bad that siege units get baited (i think they work best as city defenders parked in cities, that would attack only stacks in direct range, and if the enemy stack has 2+ move speed then siege may fight this stack outside of city maybe i mean anyways).

So to me this and example 37 and example 161 (possibly example 59 is same behaviour maybe i mean anyways?) are critical, but i put them in high priority i mean anyways at least for now, should work fine i mean anyways.
Even if i increase the handicap, AI would still do this very unoptimal behaviour right? So it would be as pointless and only i would have to grind more until i can punish it, so i would not much enjoy this kind of gameplay i mean anyways if i am not mistaken i mean anyways.

I would very much like if you'd fix or tweak or change their behaviour, i think these examples i mentionned in this post are critical and may serve as a good base if you'd want to test a new behaviour.
And if it's something experimental (that you'd want to do it and would do i mean anyways) i'd want to test it too i mean anyways.
I think it would make AI quite stronger just by capitlazing on its defenders i mean anyways instead of giving units for free to me like this i mean anyways.

Would you consider improving it in advciv?
Thanks,

edit:
note:
i have (many) catapults in my stack yet AI does not avoid it and has his stack in direct range of being bombarded (on top of not bombarding me), he has the initiative and the move speed advantage to retreat or attack, yet does this major blunder that greatly disadvantages him due to my catapults being able to bombard him way too easily now during my turn i mean anyways.
Would be very nice to improve, but it would all come down i think if i may say i mean anyways, to if it can be (easily) improved implemented i mean anyways, if you'd want to test changes i'd like to test too, if not practical for you i mean anyways to do then it would be as it has to be maybe i mean anyways, thanks,

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 10, 2025

I added 3 other pathfinder questions/issues (low priority) in example 178 (problem 2 (phantom enemy unit red circle on tiles i don't have vision on), problem 3 (phantom enemy unit red circle on tiles i have vision on), problem 4 (no red circle on civilian (worker in this example i mean anyways) enemy unit despite a combat occuring if i'm not mistaken i mean anyways), and i renamed the original issue as problem 1 i mean anyways)
see post of example 178 for details, thanks,

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 11, 2025

I had added 2 problems, one that is my misunderstanding i mean anyways so not valid, and the 2nd that only now remains i mean anyways in the post, about workers not building ressource specific improvement or none when it might be preferred i mean anyways.
It is example 191.

Problem 1 (~~low priority~~ not valid):

Spoiler nevermind is my mistake, the tile doesn't yield -1, just if mine was replaced with a quarry then yield would be reduced by 1 i mean anyways, so only problem 2 would remain now i mean anyways :

Problem 2 (high priority) :
Worker building the wrong type of improvement on ressource
Why a worker builds a mine on the marble? Isn't it better to wait for masonry that gives the ressource-specific improvement i mean anyways?
Even then they would still overwrite the mine on marble to build a quarry, so why do this very inefficient improvement?
I would suggest as i did in other examples, to maybe disallow (or at least strongly deprioritize, but disallowing should be a lot more efficient for AI workers i think i mean anyways) i mean anyways any improvement on a tile with a ressource, that is not a ressource-specific improvement (pasture for sheep, farm for wheat, quarry for marble, etc i mean anyways).
This would also indirectly adress the problem of fort built on ressources, that are very inefficient, and during invasion i mean anyways forts are mostly useless: if AI is strong enough he will not get invaded, if AI gets invaded it means most likely he is too weak so will lose and the fort won't help that, or he is strong enough but somehow got invaded (not optimal if AI vs AI should be fixed i mean anyways but if it happened then: ) he would be able to defend against the invader and the fort won't help that (much) i mean anyways, so considering the cost of it and the fact that it doesn't give ressource specific improvement's yields, i would strongly discourage or simply disallow forts on ressources, exception being if AI wants a canal or similar type of uses not related to ressource-specific improvement being the reason of building a fort i mean anyways.
I must admit i looked at the fort code quick because i was curious and bit annoyed (edit 2: again meaning no offense (edit 3: what i mostly mean is that it would be very nice if improved according to me but is also my point of view suggestion that you may or not agree with (and that you don't owe me too i mean anyways) (but that i try to convince (of what i think is correct at least in this case i mean anyways) if it's all i can do i mean anyways else is how it would have to be maybe i mean anyways)) but have to say the truth xd at least in this case i mean anyways..) about this issue i mean anyways, and doing a global search with vs code i found the part that i think is guilty/the culprit (edit 5: not that i think it's a bad (but also as i want to do it if i may say for me i mean anyways) thing to be curious at least in this case i mean anyways...) i mean anyways at least based on the code comments because i don't understand much of the code i mean anyways, anyways this should be one of the if not the part that may need a change but i don't know so only talking about the logic which i think is very flawed if i may say i mean anyways without meaning offense but i think it is very suboptimal: https://github.com/f1rpo/AdvCiv/blob/1.12/CvGameCoreDLL/CvUnitAI.cpp#L21526-L21543
I think this example 191 problem 2 also shows that there is little value to allow other improvements than ressource-specific ones for AI workers, it should be not efficient, and if there are benefits AI workers could do other tasks in the meantime which statistically if i may say maybe i mean anyways should provide more advantages for AI workers and efficiency/strength of their tasks i mean anyways, derailing this again even if not ideal of me i mean anyways but to the fort issue again as it is very expansive to build it for ressource specific improvements and AI would be (i think) much better-off not doing so i mean anyways, thanks,
edit 4: in the case of forts at borders i mean anyways it would make much more sense rather i mean according to me at least i mean anwyays if i may say, to prioritize rather if i may say i mean anyways chopping on forests, especially those that are near the borders, as they are likely to culture flip to the rival neighbour if i may say i mean anyways so it would be nice to get the chop forest hammer yield before that i mean anyways, and in many forts examples i sent, more valuable tasks were not done/could have been have done instead i mean anyways by AI workers i mean anyways like chopping forests or jungle in city radius tiles i mean anyways which would have helped a lot more than building forts on ressources already improved/connected in some cases (very bad i think i mean anyways unless specific use like canal on tile or other/similar i mean anyways) or even if not improved a fort is still so long to build and there must be better AI workers tasks in all cultural borders (consider chopping outside of city radius for example i mean anyways) i mean anyways, thanks,
edit 6: also about forts there is not so much value (i think i mean anyways) in guarding it, the war is generally short, it costs a lot of turns to pillage everything, and unit cost of invasion too, and is very cheap and fast to rebuild the improvement after the war ends i mean anyways, so most likely a rival would not waste time pillaging everything i mean anyways, and even if he did, he would lose more than the defender, that could bump his defense in the meantime, and longbowmen/archers don't require any specific ressource for example, or choosing another target or developping economy rather maybe i mean anyways, as attacking one weak target costs could be used to be more competitive or/and not fall behind in the game i mean anyways the other (as strong or stronger) rivals maybe i mean anyways, especially if weaker rival is turtling making it less worth to pursue the push even if city could fall but at (too) great costs i mean anyways, so all in all i mean anyways it would mostly be a loss of time/opportunity in the game at least i mean anyways for the invader, so again about this code logic i mentionned i mean anyways i think it is really flawed or maybe not optimal regarding how players in general develop during the game i mean anyways, at least i mean i see it that way about the game i mean anyways, that either AI is strong enough and survives, or is too weak and dies, i don't see much value and point in wasting time/energy defending these ressources specifically rather than cities or building economy i mean anyways, i think it would nicely improve the AI but again is my (just) suggestion that i still advocate strongly for because i think it would help a lot and also be pleasant to watch AI be smarter about the game in the game i mean anyways, thanks,
edit 8: another minor consideration maybe too i mean anyways is that an invader would want to control the city later in some cases (and even if not then still the following logic would apply i think i mean anyways : ) so
he would want to keep city and its improvements i mean anyways as "pristine" i mean anyways as possible, so he would not destroy improvements that would later be his, on top of it being a waste of time and opportunity to conquer other rivals or boost economy in the game i mean anyways, so i would think that this is more of a reason to not focus on forts but rather how to not get invaded sooner (more units or/and better economy or/and better/stronger units with more suited promotions i mean anyways) and if invaded how to turtle better (not suicide defender troops i mean anyways, produce more defensive units during the time invader reaches cities, possibly retreating units (including naval among others i mean anyways) sooner from lost cities to have a better chance to survive and so i mean anyways) i mean anyways, thanks,
Thanks,

edit: change example save files and structured the post i mean anyways in 2 separate problems, and added more info and comments of me i mean anyways, thanks,
edit 7: problem 1 is not valid (my mistake) i mean anyways, so only problem 2 remains now, see top of the message in the post i mean anyways, thanks,

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 11, 2025

Spoiler my mistake example 196 is invalid, gold tile is connected by water to Boudica AI's city (capital in this example i mean anyways) :

i moved the edit to example 196 here for clarity i mean anyways, however it is also invalid i mean anyways, thanks:

Spoiler nevermind this edit and extra comment about example 196 it is also invalid and also my mistake i mean anyways, thanks, :

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 11, 2025

Spoiler nevermind this example 197 maybe it is my mistake i mean anyways, as i mean maybe Boudica AI doesn't have animal husbandry so this would be why there is no sheep pasture (yet) i mean anyways (also after writing this i mean anyways, some turns later there is a pasture there too i mean anyways), although quite late in the game, so for now until i make sure of it i mean anyways, else should be considered my mistake and invalid i mean anyways and my mistake again i mean anyways, thanks, :

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 12, 2025

my mistake actually the tile was connected by the river so it didn't need a road.
After some point i wondered if it was water connected and after checking yes i mean anyways, so the part about connecting the ressources soon enough at least in this example i mean anyways seems to be working correctly, so this part of example 196 is invalid i mean anyways.
As for the rest of the suggestions on worker efficiency they may be less relevant now i mean anyways if connecting the ressource is done soon enough or so it seems i mean anyways, i may or not submit a similar example if a similar type of issues happens again or maybe i would not, but it seems not urgent or maybe not even relevant (at least not urgent) i mean anyways so i would consider it not valid (the gain would be quite minimal anyway for something that seems to work not so bad so i would much rather want the focus if i may say i mean anyways to be on the examples i sent with higher priority, which may or not be done soon or not or maybe not done, is as is i mean anyways, i would like these reviewed and hopefully maybe implemented or having changes related to them but is as is i mean anyways and would be how it would have to be maybe i mean anyways,
Thanks,

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 13, 2025

I would like to add an example of AI (axeman in this case i mean anyways) defender getting baited and attacking nearby enemy unit (my chariot in this case i mean anwyays), despite city defense being a much better option in this case at least i think anyways.
It is example 207 (high priority).
I already sent similar examples so it would mostly just be an extra data point i mean anyways, but i have a few specific questions about it, also there are some differences that may eb worth to add it separately too i mean anyways.
As shown in screenshot 207.1, and after ending turn in save file 207.0 i mean anyways:

Problem 1 (high priority):
Axeman of China AI i mean anyways gets baited instead of being a nice city defender.
Similar to many examples so doesn't need a(n additional) long explanation maybe i mean anyways.
But considering his city is weakly guarded, any defender would greatly help.
I have a big army of swordsmen so axeman would be a nice counter to that, and would also alleviate the attack damage on all archers.
Also, axeman had already +25% fortify bonus if i'm not mistaken, so unless there's a strong reason, it is better to keep it.
Also, defense always gives better odds and rock-paper-scissors counters than attack so all the more reason to favour it when invaded, especially if (much i mean anyways) weaker than the invader i mean anyways.
Another point is that unit ends its turn on an unroaded tile, plus i have many units nearby that will be able to attack (kill) the axeman for much more minimal losses if any i mean anyways than if he stayed in city i mean anyways.
Favouring defense instead of getting baited and attack may not change the final outcome due to me having (too) many units (for him to defend) i mean anyways, but may be a nice AI attitude i mean anyways to have that may help in other circumstances in the game i mean anyways, especially if many units get baited at once as in other mroe critical examples (like example 37 and similar i mean anyways), so it would be nice i think i mean anyways if AI exploited all features of the game like a human player maybe would i mean anyways at least using the rock paper scissor logic of defenders to its favour i mean anyways instead of getting baited i mean anyways.
edit: note: i ended up i mean anyways doing quite the spam about it if i may say i mean anyways xd.. but maybe it helps summarising the issue hopefully maybe too i mean anyways,
edit 2: to sum up and maybe add a bit on the point i mean anyways, i am not saying that AI units should be static and not attack, just that ideally they should not attack if odds are bad for them and defense is better i mean anyways, thanks,

Problem 2 (low priority):
Axeman AI (weirdly) wins against chariot and stays (very weirdly) almost full health
This is more weird, AI wins against the chariot i had i mean anyways, it would be nice if AI didn't attack its counter units.
More surprising is that axeman survived, and even more surprising is that it is full health.
Did AI "cheat" knowing it would win before attacking?
This problem is lower priority as it is more a question that a feature request or suggestion of change i mean anyways, but if there are changes that would be done regarding this i would also suggest them if i may say i mean anyways.

Problem 3 (medium priority):
Ideally AI units would not attack or be more reluctant at least i mean anyways their counters.
About the decision in the game i mean anyways to attack the chariot, instead of a possible "cheat" like i asked about in problem 2 i mean anyways, could it be maybe i mean anyways that it is possibly just a (very i think i mean anyways) careless decision to attack their counters (that happened to win i mean anyways)?
If so, and in all cases of AI attacking a unit i mean anyways, i would like to suggest ideally i mean anyways that AI would not attack their counters. Here is Axeman not attacking chariot i mean anyways (unless strong reason to do so maybe i mean anyways but even then i am not sure it would be worth considering the bad odds in the game i mean anyways), so maybe it would be nice to enforce this policy of AI attackers not attacking their counter units or with lower priority i.e. more reluctance to do so i mean anyways (swordsman more reluctant to attack axeman, chariot more reluctant to attack spearman, etc i mean anyways)

Would you consider improving points you deem relevant if i may say i mean anyways in these in advciv?
Thanks,

civ4-advciv-oracle-bug · Mar 13, 2025

I would like to add an example about city development, which i don't think i send one of i mean anyways.
It is also interesting i mean anyways because there several main points i would like to ask about i mean to raise several points in this example to look into possibly i mean anyways.
It is example 208.

Problem 1 (high priority)
City is barely improved at all for a long time (also a note/brief if i amy say explanation about how AIs seem/feel less competitive recently i mean anyways)
Here Shanghai city is barely improved at all (see screenshot 208.1 i mean anyways).
It was founded in 2320 BC and i conquered it i mean anyways in 325 BC.
It is very strange that the city has no improvement at all, only a few roads, for quite a long time since it was planted i mean anyways.
If i am not mistaken there were maybe many barbarians (but i did not enable a specific option i mean anyways) or maybe not in this game i barely had any barbarians i mean anyways so i assume China AI possibly among others i mean anyways tanked some/most of them maybe i mean anyways.
But even accounting some pillage, it doesn't, i think i mean anyways, why city is not improved at all almost in all this time.
The ivory too is not roaded, not removed jungle, no improvement at all on it, as i explain and ask about more in next main point of this post i mean anyways.
Could this be related to the recent anti-oscillation commit (https://github.com/f1rpo/AdvCiv/commit/6c32e20f24623259477fa5620b5b5a9536b49979) or/and other commits (https://github.com/f1rpo/AdvCiv/commit/6fe41cc646c86fc69483d2edcd169000df9fadbc) or/and possibly other changes?
I have noticed that after trying advciv 1.12.2+ the game somehow seemed much easier, it could be due to small samples maybe, or maybe because i did not play tighter maps anymore (to me it seems AIs perform better as they have few cities that are more optimized each and also prepare to war sooner due to being cramped and less barbarians maybe indirectly i mean anyways, plus faster tech due to lower number of cities that are also more developped? I mean anyways)
In this game i am ahead in score the whole game, even before going to war which is unusual. I had a good start and maybe i understand the game better i mean anyways, but it is weird that there is not even one AI rival challenging me at usual difficulty i play at i mean anyways.
If you want to look into why Shanghai city was never developped, i have provided an archive with password same as in first post of this topic if am not mistaken i mean anyways, from 2320 BC (one turn before Shanghai city is planted i mean anyways) to 325 AD (the turn at which i conquer Shanghai city i mean anyways).

Another question/point in particular related to this is why the ivory tile is not improved at all even though it has (after being improved) really good yields, that are not inferior to the other hills grassland, plus ivory could be traded if not needed so should be valuable to the AI unless i am mistaken i mean anyways (about how it is connected, i can see now / i understand i mean anyways that the ressource is connected by water, unlike in example 196 (gold mine connected by water to AI's cities) where i did not notice it and that was not valid due to that i mean anyways, however why is the ivory not improved at all even just for the local yields if i may say i mean anyways? Why is the ivory not improved soon enough?

I think this example is egregious enough xd, if i may say i mean anyways, that maybe you'd want to look into it, i hope the save files i have provided in this range are helpful for that if i may say i mean anwyays and if you'd want to look into it i mean anyways. I have put it in high priority because i think it's important, but as you see fit or/and prefer or/and other things i don't meddle on as i said in other/previous posts if i may say i mean anyways, thanks,

edit:
I noticed this problem too i mean anyways so i am adding it to the review/list i mean anyways, thanks,
Problem 2 (~~very~~ low priority)
The great person counter percentage (100%+2% chance) in top left seems to be bugged if i may say xd i mean anyways.
I also just noticed looking at screenshot 208.1, but isn't the counter bugged?
Should it not be 98% chance + 2% chance of great person? (or just 100%?)
How can the total percentages of each type of great person be higher than 100% (100% + 2% = 102%??)
Not high priority but save file in the archive 208.0 should display same data i mean anyways, thanks,
edit 3:
in city view (screenshot 208.2 i added i mean anyways) the total percentage is also higher than 100, so it may be a more important issue than just the great person bar in top left i mean anyways, so i increased the priority from "very low" to "low" priority i mean anyways, thanks,

edit 2:
I added an exception in example 83, where, as shown in screenshot 208.1 i mean anyways, Boudica AI, who is boxed in if i may say i mean anyways, makes a profit attacking a far away rival with quite low risk of being backstabbed i mean anyways, due to Boudica AI's only rival me, being busy fighting a war and not much stronger than her i mean anyways, see example 83's post for details, thanks,

AI city placement and misc. suggestions

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Similar threads