AI city placement and misc. suggestions

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I added also an example about color clarity because sometimes the player colors are (very) hard to read i mean anyways, would be very nice if improved i mean anyways.
It is example 209 (medium priority).

When the colors overlap in borders at particular, or simply when just many players have the same colors, it is really hard to read i mean anyways, if some players were color blind but i only speak of me so not mentioning this point in particular at least for me i mean anyways, then it would be even harder if i may say i mean anyways.

This problem happens in almost all my games i mean anyways.
I have an idea on how to improve it of giving AIs alternative colors, but before i develop/explain this idea i mean anyways and how i think it could be implemented maybe among other possible ways i mean anyways, here are first the examples i added, with a save file and a screenshot that i think are very hard to read :

- examples 209.1 and 209.2: 3 players are blue
- examples 209.3 and 209.4: 3 players are orange-yellow
- examples 209.5 and 209.6: 3 players are blue and 3 players are yellow
- examples 209.7 and 209.8: 3 players are green and 3 players purple-pink
- examples 209.9 and 209.10: 5 players are purple-pink-red and 2 players are orange-yellow

So about my idea, i think giving players alternative color (2) and alternative color (3) may greatly help this, on top of their base original color (1).
These 3 colors would be classified in categories, for example "blueish" i mean anyways, "redish-purplish", "yellow-orangeish", "greenish", "white-grayish", etc i mean anyways.

At players selection in the game i mean anyways, each player gets color (1).
If some players have a color (1) of the same category, for example 2 players get a "blueish" color, then only one of all those players keep their color, and the other 2 get a color of a random category not used before, and if all categories are already used, repeat this logic to give only one player of those that "redraw" their color i mean anyways the color (2) of a category, and if several players of this lottery in the game i mean anyways as per my suggestion i mean anyways get the same color category at (3) then at least it would be more readable.

To make it easier to implement, each player could get any color (2) or (3), but if want to give some identity to players i mean anyways, manually give/define each player a colors (2) and (3) but would be a bit longer or/and harder to implement i mean anyways but maybe the result would be more satisfying? If i may say i mean anyways.
I think that some players already have alternative colors if i am not mistaken i mean anyways, however the end result is that map are almost always at least in the examples i provided i mean anyways really hard to read due to their colors.
edit: also such logic or similar already exists in other games like civ3 i mean anyways so is not like i invented it or something xd i mean anyways.. was just to mention this i mean anyways, thanks,

Would not be too urgent to do but quite important if existing so i put it in medium priority,
Thanks,

edit 2:
note:
i chose save files at 700 AD, possibly among other dates in the game i mean anyways that fit or not i mean anyways, i mean anyways because at the turn of this date in the game i mean anyways, the map is visible/explored enough i mean anyways, and enough players are alive to see if there are color contrast/readability issues i mean anyways, was just to mention this i mean anyways, thanks,

edit 3:
Possibly also add new colors if the ones existing (i don't know i mean anyways) are not enough to have a panel i mean anyways of colors to choose from in the game i mean anyways, thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I would like to add an example about city placement that is quite a major blunder i mean anyways if i am not mistaken i mean anyways.
It is example 214 (high priority).

As shown in screenshot 214.1 and 214.2, here Hannibal AI i mean anyways plants a very questionable city of Hadrumetum instead of the much more valuable site of double clam + ivory.
Was there a barbarian city there or some other thing preventing from planting there?
Else it should be a strong priority to plant there even if Hannibal AI would have to defeat barbarians or/and barbarian city to do so (that may or not be there (i did not check i mean anyways)).

The location chosen instead looks very poor and it is very questionable why he planted there and not on double clam.
I added this with the other prioritize food examples in list post, trying to not clutter/spam if i may say i mean anyways but this one looks significant enough (maybe it's one of the reasons why Hannibal AI has such a low score in the game i mean anyways (his land is quite poor in the game i mean anyways overall but he could use it (much?) better i mean anyways).
I also added a save file one turn before city is planted if i am not mistaken i mean anyways (example 214.0)

I think food should be given a (much i think i mean anyways) higher priority when planting (more than the other yields maybe in particular (much i think i mean anyways) more than commerce i mean anyways)
Would you consider improving this in advciv if wished/possible i mean anyways?
Thanks,

edit:
added screenshot 214.2 of a regional view i mean anyways that shows all Hannibal AI's nearby land i mean anyways (at least that i can see i mean anyways), thanks,

edit 2:
after checking from an earlier date in the game i mean anyways it seems there are no barbarian cities there, but rng may have been different due to me doing different actions in the game i mean anyways, but even if there were, the site is worth planting there and not on very low food and yield location AI chose i mean anyways, which is why i advocate for this example xd if i may say i mean anyways, thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I would like to add one very weird trading example too i mean anyways
It is example 217 (medium priority).

Here as shown in screenshot 217.1, and after ending turn from save file 217.0 i mean anyways, India AI (weirdly i think i mean anyways) does not value the horse i have in the game i mean anyways, even though he has 5 sugar and could easily give one for it.
Horse is quite a strategic ressource, so producing horse archers, or simply just for sugar that he has too much of, should be a good deal for him if i am not mistaken right? (unless he purposely wants me to perform bad in the game i mean anyways without trading with me at all, but it does not seem intuitive not too profitable of a policy for him i mean anyways). At worse he could cancel it after 10 turns if he has new use for his sugar, so why not agree to such a trade i mean anyways?

If so, that possibly horse is more valuable that AI wants, i would suggest that AIs value more the ressource of rivals, especially strategic ones (that they don't have i mean anyways), if they have excess ressources, which would mean to devalue their extra ressources relative to ressources other rivals have i mean anyways.

It does not seem realistic/immersive i mean anyways that India AI would prefer to keep 5 sugar and not get horse for it if he could i mean anyways.
Would you consider improving this in advciv?
Thanks,

edit:
weirdly later in the game India AI wants such a trade and even proposes it in the game i mean anyways (see save file 217.2 one turn before and screenshot 217.3 (after skipping turn from save file 217.2 i mean anyways) that i added i mean anyways, so the issue may be more rather of not wanting/valuing such a trade soon enough maybe i mean anyways, he already had the extra ressources to trade and horse was available too earlier i mean anyways, thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

Moved the example below from example 217 as i think it is relevant enough independently from example 217 i mean anyways.
It is example 205 (medium priority).

The problem is that Ramses AI, like India AI did in example 217 i mean anyways, does not value the extra horse for trade i have in the game i mean anyways, even though he has an extra ressource too that he could gladly give.
See save file 205.2 (one turn before so need to end turn first i mean anyways screenshot 205.3 which is the first turn where Ramses AI does not want to trade his extra deer for horse anymore which disadvantages him quite greatly i mean anyways.
note: however Ramses AI did agree as shown in save file 205.0 (one turn before trade opens) and screenshot 205.1, to trade horse for his extra copper, so logic would just need to be enforced a bit i mean anyways i think of devaluing his extra ressources further more i mean anyways, and valuing the other player's stragic ressources more maybe too i mean anyways. A few turns after save file 205.0 is save file 205.2 but i provided these earlier save file and screenshot i mean anyways for convenience and reliability i mean anyways.

Especially, Ramses AI could build his special unit, but even regular horse units should be very valuable if he could get horse for just one of his extra ressources i think i mean anyways.
So i would suggest to make AI value more other rival's ressources and less ressources they have extra of, possibly enforce/skew this more if i may say i mean anyways before currency is discovered in particular i think i mean anyways, so that AIs can make trades without requiring 2-3 ressources in exchange of one which seems not so realistic i mean anyways and not necessarily helping them i mean anyways (they would just end up with less trades and/or growth in the game i mean anyways), but as it is lesser of a priority, i leave it as a note here rather at least for now maybe i mean anyways, thanks,

As in example 217, at worse he could cancel the trade after 10 turns if he has better use for his ressources, so more trade from his extra ressources should only help him if i am not mistaken i mean right i mean anyways?
It would be very nice if AI understood better the relative value of ressources, especially how ressources they have (especially extra ones i mean anyways) relate to ones they don't have (especially strategic ones, and especially before currency i mean anyways), taking into account i mean anyways that they can just cancel the deal later in the game i mean anyways so maybe being less averse to such trades would help AI and its economy and game in the game i mean anyways.
Would you consider improving this in advciv (devalue AI player's extra ressources especially before currency is discovered, and value ressources they don't have more, especially strategic ones they don't have)? Thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I would like to add a quite weird example i had with slave revolts.
Immediately after the first slave revolt i mean anyways, i have another slave revolt in same city.
It is example 227 (medium priority).

Is this behaviour intended and very low chance of it happening (unfortunate but as it is in the game i mean anyways), or is it something that is perhaps broken in the game i mean anyways?
I added 2 screenshots that show each slave revolt popup i mean anyways, and save files one turn before each of these slave revolts i mean anyways.

I would also like to suggest the idea i mean anyways that if "investigate slave's grieviances" option is chosen i mean anyways, city would be immune from any subsequent slave revolt for a number of turns, for example 10 turns maybe i mean anyways.
Since money is paid and to be in accordance with the text description in the game i mean anyways, it would be a lot more immersive and making sense too i mean anyways that this effort in the game i mean anyways would result in not having yet another i mean anyways slave revolt just after paying to investigate and prevent another one (also twice in a row in a short time in the game i mean anyways is annoying i mean anyways).

Is this working as intended, and would you consider implementing this suggestion in advciv if wished/possible?
Thanks,

edit:
a 3rd event occured in same city in a short while (but not slave revolt this time)
i don't know if this is broken or some unlikely luck/unluck i mean anyways, but this is quite weird.
Added save file 227.4 one turn before the 3rd event, and screenshot 227.5 to show the 3rd event i mean anyways, thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

I also found another file about the bug (seemingly i mean anyways) of total great person probability percentage being higher than 100, that may be helpful.
It is example 229 (low priority).
Same problem as in example 208 problem 2, but i think this file helps to reproduce it i mean anyways.

From this save file 229.0, after ending turn, there is (already was) a scientist allocated in city in screenshot i mean anyways, removing the scientist then the total probability of great person is 100 + 2 = 102%, however max should be 100% no?
Thanks,

edit:
this is very interesting i mean anyways, one turn before this save file, there is also a scientist, but removing it total probability is accurate.
I added save file 229.2 and screenshot 229.3, hopefully with these the bug could be solved or/and reproduced consistently, thanks,

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

This may be the very last file i send, if not for a very long while, it may be the last one ever.
It is example 230 (high priority).

The reason of why it would be the last is that once again, AI (Rome AI in this case i mean anyways) got baited as i declared war on him, and didn't use units as defenders, but instead moved them in range of my invading stack, having his capital extremely thinly guarded.
It's true that i was stronger, but generally it would have been a (much) closer fight, and in other maps and circumstances in the game i mean anyways, if Rome AI did the safest and most reasonable thing which is to defend cities when invaded and capitalize i mean anyways on the defense rock-paper-scissors that favours defenders if i'm not mistaken i mean anyways, plus city defense bonuses, having the support of archers and similar units as city defenders, etc i mean anyways.

It is simply not possible to enjoy the game like this i mean anyways, at least for me i mean anyways.
The game was quite close, but suddenly after starting an invasion that should not have been so easy, i can very easily capture his capital due to his blunder, and then i would snowball from this position and other rivals would not be able to catch up to me i mean anyways.

I also increased the handicap difficulty in the game i mean anyways as you advised/suggested, but in the end it is unfortunately i mean quite useless to have tried that as, although AI is competitive on economy and tech it seems at least quite, as soon as war happen they often do a major blunder that makes it not fun anymore.
Even if i increased difficulty, i would only grind more until they would (as i would hope but would not want to hope AI plays bad i mean anyways to compensate the way too much (i think i mean anyways bonuses they have) do a major or quite minor but still war blunder that would give me the edge, all the while i'm lagging behind maybe in the early game.
I would also not want to play at the difficulty i like or/and find optimal i mean anyways and hope AI does not blunder if i declare war on him i mean anyways, this is not an enjoyable way to playa t least for me i mean anyways.

For this reason, this may very well be my last suggestion i mean anyways and maybe it's a good opportunity to step down from the game.
I still believe there is potential to improve this, but i don't know how easy it would be, nor if/how you'd be available for that.
To be fair, it is stated in advciv project description that you only intend bugfixes from now on i mean anywyas, so although i got my hopes up and wanted to contribute and see AI stronger/smarter to play against as i enjoy the game quite much i mean anyways, and although i mean i am thankful for the few i mean anyways suggestions that make quite some difference including not or less settling on metals which is enjoyable and seems ot be consistent i mean anyways, still, perhaps i should have heeded that project description i mean anyways and the mistake would be on me, maybe i did not notice it too soon or forgot not sure, in all cases at some point i was aware of it and continued to push my suggestions, which i don't know how fair is but is how it is i mean anyways.

If you would want to review my suggestions, i would be looking forward to it, but i don't see myself replaying the game as long as AI do these suicidal war behaviours.
It's too bad because otherwise they are competitive and the game is fun, but they are just too broken/weak as soon as a war starts and it's very hard (not possible for me in fact i mean anyways) to enjoy this i mean anyways.
So if you'd want to review these suggestions, i would again ask if possible i mean anwyays that you'd start with the war blunders the AIs (the ones with example 37 and such i mean anyways), and more generally the war behaviours i tagged as high priority i mean anyways.
I may want to revisit the game at that time, also it is not sure if and when you'd go through my suggestions. It is also possible that even with suggestions taken into account i may choose to focus on other things, not sure, in all cases for now i can say i'd be looking forward to these, but also doing other things, possibly forever (most likely), or possibly i would want a look again if some suggestions especially the war ones are nicely corrected (as i think it's really a (big) AI flaw i mean anyways hence why i use this word corrected if i may say i mean anyways).

Ideally, and this would be last suggestion, if AI could have some sort of "pre-war" state they enter in, if a non "friendly" has a big stack (say 5+ military units) at 1 or 2 tiles of their border, they would focus only on military production, but do not slave yet in case it is a false alert. Again i don't know how fair it is, considering you also told me you may not be able or would maybe not look at all that at least you wouldn't know if you would i mean anyways, but if you intend to look at it, my suggestion is here, else it would be how it has to be i mean anyways, as sad as it is but is maybe for the best or rather maybe how it has to be at least i mean anyways.

I added the data of this example 230, one screenshot showing the units of Rome AI out of position (not guarding cities, especially not valuable ones) as i invade him, resulting as a way too easy defeat of him, even if he was outnumbered he could have fought more, and in other circumtsances as in the other examples of example 37 group, it may have been enough to defend and stay competitive for the AI i mean anyways), and an archive of some save files each turn of the war (at least until i played i mean anyways) and a few before the war.
As i declared war on him in 50 BC, ideally my "war-like state" suggestion in this post would take effect ideally in 100 BC for Rome AI, or at least in 75 BC, this extra time would make him rellocate to strongest or most valuable cities if can't defend all, else concentrate most troops to closest city of the invading stack, rotating the defending depending on how my troops move (is maybe a bit too ambitious but this would really be quite ideal to have such a smart AI i mean anyways, or maybe other ideas i didn't think of in this post and this moment i mean anyways at least i mean anyways).

But as i said in the begining of the post it may also be a good time for me to focus on other things or another thing maybe i mean anyways anyways would be how it would have to be.
As for the folder i may edit this message and upload an archive with all examples in case it would most likely expire after some days and you would not have downloaded it i mean anyways.
Not promised that i would do it and maybe soon like today or long time like a week+ or maybe never i mean anyways, but if i do i would just edit this message i mean anyways.

What do you think of all this, maybe it is time for me to do other things than civ4 or/and advciv as i doubt AIs in other mods would be any smarter (but i don't know maybe?) at war at least i mean anyways (not just having more units but managing efficiently a number of troops that is about as close +/- 30% of my number of troops, not doing suicides, not getting baited, backstabbing and such while being aware of backstabbers, not overpushing oversettling if war or defense are better, etc)?
Based on all this, it may very well be my last message on this topic i mean anyways.
Thanks,

edit:
For my defense also i mean anyways, maybe not the most useful thing to say but why not i mean anyways, in the end i still care about the game but the game cannot perform in the game i mean anyways in a way that i care about, meaning not blundering war behaviours i mean anyways mostly i mean anyways.
Also, i can see that you tried at first and then some too if i may say i mean anyways to go through my many suggestions but in the end it would also seem that you would not be available to review this extensive data at least not anytime soon, even doing list of priorities i would still get many ideas xd if i may say i mean anyways.. But you would also have other interests that may or not overlap with mine i mean anyways and is also how it has to be even if not the most pleasant thing of me to say but if i want to be fair is how it is i mean anyways and you don't owe it to me i mean anyways. It is a good thing though if i may say i mean anyways that i get many ideas i mean anyways, as for not having the window if i may say i mean anyways for you to look at them in detail, it would be how it has to be i mean anyways.
It was just to say this, and i am thankful at how deeply you looked into things, and general willingness to help and explain me, for the rest it would be how it has to be, and for the future i don't know how it would go but maybe it would be a good opportunity for me i mean anyways to do other things, at least for now, and the data is there if you'd want to look into it, at least for now too i mean anyways whatever that means i mean anyways, maybe in the future i would look again at the game or/and some suggestions being implemented i mean anywyas or/and other things or maybe not, or maybe i would not play even with some suggestions implemented, maybe none would be implemented, but in all cases and all of these cases it would be how it has to be maybe i mean anyways, at least for now if not for always, but may very well be always, maybe would not, but maybe would i mean anyways.
In all cases thanks again for all and is how it is, thanks,

edit 2:
About these or improvements to the AI in general i mean anyways, i do think it is realistic to think of implementing or adding some (my or/and other i mean anyways) ideas in the current AI to have it being smart enough to be a real challenge and more fun, and although i don't know a lot about the civ4 codebase, my meager but opiniated opinion on this though i mean anyways is that it would more be a matter of how possible in terms of time or interest it would be to do so, because i think in theory anything or at least most things could be coded into the AI maybe i mean anyways, however it may be quite a bit endeavour to do so and is maybe more where the limit is i mean anyways.
Again i am pleased with the few changes you made and the general process of going in depth in the few of those and being detailed and helpful, but i guess for the rest it would have to be how it has to be and is maybe the best for me too i mean anyways. Maybe i'll look in the future or maybe not, but for now if not always, but maybe or maybe not always, is how it has to be and should be assumed to be done and finished on my end i mean anyways.
In all cases thanks again i mean as i said.., thanks,

 

[f1rpo]

In 50 BC, the status of the glorious Roman army is: 4 Archers, 2 Legionaries (f.k.a. Preatorians) and 1 Axeman in city defense roles (guarding a total of 7 cities), another 1 Axeman in a city counter(-attack) role, 2 Archers in reserve, 1 Spearman and 1 Archer accompanying a settler back from France (the desired spot got blocked by Avignon), 1 Archer babysitting another likely pre-empted settler, 1 Archer in a generic attack role and a sole city attack stack of 2 Legionaries and 3 Archers. In one turn, there'll be another reserve Axeman in Rome and Construction is almost fully researched.

Upon being invaded, one more Axemen gets hurried in Rome city. All city defenders stay in place because each city requires at least 1 or 2 defenders, and, in that case, there is no consideration whether other cities could need them more urgently. To fill those minimal defensive needs, the city counter Axeman, attack Archer and one of the reserve Archers also stay put. The other reserve Archer, at Neapolis, does what you advocate for: Since Neapolis requires only one defender and Rome is nearby and needs 5 (not directly based on the size of your stack, I think), it moves to Rome and will also arrive there in time. The settler group in France keeps moving toward the nearest safe city (Cumae). The smaller settler group already in Cumae feels safe there and stays (waiting for a settling spot to become available). The city attack group is directed by this bit of K-Mod code:

// Use smaller attack city stacks on defense
if (AI_defendTerritory(65, eMoveFlags, 3))
	return;

The 65 is an attack odds threshold, the 3 a distance (turns) threshold. Looking into that subroutine, you're right that they're being baited. They see one of your lone Swordsmen and move to attack it on the shortest route. Had it not been for that K-Mod addition, the AI would've gone with:

if (AI_guardCity(false, true, 3, eMoveFlags))
	return;

However, it seems that they'd still prefer to guard Cumae (I guess the settler group isn't counted as the 2nd of 2 defenders needed there) and, while the search range of 3 movement turns includes Rome, for a lack of back roads, the only 3-turn paths to Rome would, again, expose the stack to an attack along the way. So this stack can't really do anything to stop you from taking the capital – other than presenting a distraction. (To that end, moving toward your cities might actually be the most effective approach.)

AI military units don't check for danger along their paths at all. It's a major deficiency that also causes the AI to be at the receiving end of collateral damage against human players most of the time. I've posted about an approach for changing that before.

There is already an AI strategy state "Alert" for preparing for an anticipated invasion. Given the power ratio leading up to the war (dangerous but not looking hopeless) and your being, forgive me, a beastly human, this would seem like a good time for alertness, worth checking why this doesn't happen. Maybe it's not taking into account the human factor when evaluating the power ratio. (As an AI - with such tactical abilities as outlined above - someone playing on Emperor having a 100-80 advantage in military power is more than precarious.) Still, the consequence of Alert will mostly be a moderately increased focus on military matters.

In other words, the tactical AI is a long distance away from the behavior you seek, and K-Mod (which includes BBAI) is already the mod that improves it the most. (In this particular case, the unmodified AI would've actually left the city attack stack at Cumae, which is arguably a little more effective though imo ultimately even less engaging to play against – everyone just freezing in place.) I have done very little work on AI military tactics. A game report of mine that I uploaded in the early days of AdvCiv ...

In one of the more outlandish hara-kiri moves that I've seen from the AI, he had his more than 30 Riflemen and Cavalry make amphibious attacks against [my] Infantry stack [...]. Afterwards, he unloaded 8 Cannons next to my stack. I could've looked into the AI code, but, well, the tactical part is always going to produce some brain farts, and it didn't matter in this case.

... demonstrates my utter disinterest initially. My stance is and has been that the AI just needs a 50% larger military than a human player to pose a challenge. I still only deal with the unit AI when something seems easy to fix, gives a crazy appearance or otherwise causes a lot of grief.

I'm not dismayed by Caesar's performance here. Neither of his two neighbors (you and score leader Louis) was a promising war target, so he focused on peaceful expansion. Having not just one useless settler (which is common), but two, is a little worrisome. He did end up tied for having the most cities. Cumae borders both of his dangerous neighbors, so not a bewildering decision to park his little stack there. He was never going to stand a chance against your 15 attackers (mostly Swords; quite impressive btw given your decent economy and you having only recently switched to Emperor difficulty and tech trading being disabled). But the AI can play that card too: Building up and concentrating its force at one point. Genghis Khan has taken 2 of 4 Indian cities by the time you conquer the Roman capital (and, earlier, he took one city from America). Though I think his Indian campaign is going to stall now. They don't do it as well as humans. If the AI did defend much more effectively, its offensively capabilities would actually also need some major boost. (Or I guess one could dial down some defensive modifiers rules-wise.)

Since you're apparently abandoning this game:

Spoiler :

Peter has started preparing war against you in AD 1, I guess in response to the minor losses you suffered. If I continue on AI Auto Play, he does eventually (after 15-20 turns?) declare war. Even against your AI successor, the attack doesn't look very threatening. But at least he doesn't just give up.

It is probably in the bag, even if you just take the western half of the Roman Empire and play an uninspired economy game. Not sure what I can recommend you. I haven't really taken a crack at Immortal myself. I do think it makes a difference when the human doesn't have the time and other resources to build up an overwhleming invading force. Or maybe another Emperor game will present a more challenging position. There are some special challenge modes (game options). Realism Invictus has a fairly tough reputation. I think it is more AI-friendly overall than the original game rules. Its AI is based on K-Mod, so it lacks my war planning changes (and some others, e.g. city placement). I recently saw a player who had played both mods opine that AdvCiv is more challenging than Realism Invictus.

I think you've helped as much as you could by just playing, observing and providing savegames and descriptions. I have no doubt that you can do more purposeful and enjoyable things with your time (if that was part of your question). For my part, I have nearly a hundred open issues listed at the end of the AdvCiv manual and a few hundred more scattered throughout. I could also just play for a while to remind myself what needs work. That's not to say that your feedback is not valuable. You bring your own perspective and thinking and have done quite some legwork with savegames and screenshots. Thanks! (Also for understanding my side of it, as you've repeatedly said.)

I have downloaded your archive with saves up to no. 230. These could still be looked into months from now. For most, using a more recent version of AdvCiv should also be fine; I don't intend to break save-compatibility. (But some hinge on a particular RNG sequence that could easily get shaken up.) Without the saves, the usefulness of this thread is greatly diminished. Well, I have them. Someone else might want to look into them too at some point (fat chance?), I might lose them somehow. I don't know. Letting the download expire would be a bit regrettable, but perhaps it's not worth worrying about.

It's true that I've largely stopped developing the mod, but I'm still interested in low hanging fruits, and I think that at least loading many of your saves for a closer look is a good enough use of my (Civ) time. The first half of your posts I already have condensed to the (to me) essentials in a text file. Maybe just a matter of time. Looks like I'll put out a new release of the mod first (and also of my other mod, Taurus). I tend to kick the biggest can the farthest down the road, and there's no way I'm hanging this one around my neck by saying that I'll probably get around to it. Well, you didn't ask me to either, and the probabilities of the matter aren't even the problem, as I understand – it's rather that you need some immediate changes to enjoy the game. And that's clearly not happening.

In the last example (230), the Alert strategy not being adopted seems worth a look, maybe the settler escorts not being repurposed (or maybe not even counted as defenders). Something simple can and should probably be done about the AI_defendTerritory thing. If the AI can't figure out danger along the away, lunging at any lone enemy unit while a major invasion is going on is a risk with little potential reward. Maybe better to look at some of your other examples in that vein first – to see if it's always AI_defendTerritory (and perhaps always the call that K-Mod added).

 

[civ4-advciv-oracle-bug]

Thanks for your detailed reply and having taken the time to look into it.
Yes, it is as you said i would say i mean anyways, i enjoy the game until the AI does something disastrous which makes me easy win what was a quite close position (example 37 and similar mentionned in the list post in particular i mean anyways: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-misc-suggestions.695343/page-7#post-16782814), and then i can snowball and win quite easily, and much easier than should have been i mean anyways.
So as you said and as i said before i mean anyways, yes i don't enjoy the game after that sadly, which is too bad because AI performs really quite well otherwise but is also how it always has been or worse in bts or other mods maybe i mean anyways (not that i know much of them, but i played realism invictus a few months ago and could destroy a rival that had no city defender in 4000 BC i mean anyways, also i found the warband op and could clean a continent quite easily too, even if difficulty was lower, it felt the AI was much less smart than in advciv for example i mean anyways (i remember it building a path on a ressource as if it was a road, on a non critical walking area i mean anyways, it seemed as if AI thought it was a road to connect ressources, however it would not reduce the cost of building a route later unless i'm mistaken i mean anyways so it was very inefficient if i'm not mistaken i mean anyways), also it was a bit too much (extra and different content i mean anyways) and slow paced when i was enjoying bts fine so advciv made/makes much more sense for me to play i mean anyways).

I think there is value in making the AI more war smart, if it could just avoid the disasters in example 37 and similar, i would be more inclined to play it again maybe i mean anyways, for now i will take this time to do other things i mean anyways, but i would be looking forward to changes. I understand that you may want the game to stay as is related to some or all these war behaviours, however again i think the human player has enough leeway i mean anyways to be able to enjoy the game against the AI even if it was better at handling war. There should be plenty interactions too even if AI stayed in cities more, at least i think i mean anyways, difference is that taking an early capital or cities to get a lead would be much harder possibly, which would make the game more balanced.
Even if i increase the difficulty further the AI would still behave the same, so at least if example 37 and similar could be avoided (their disastrous behaviours i mean anyways), i could enjoy the game much more.

This is not to say i would play again, just i would enjoy it more if i were to for sure, and may also like to know about it i mean anyways (but i might/may really play the game again or maybe i would not, i don't know i mean anyways but for now it would/should be assumed that i would currently if not always not i mean anyways).

I am very happy that you find my data valuable, for now since i only played advciv mod recently (except quick realism invictus which i didn't like i mean anyways), i would not need to make sure it is spread elsewhere, there is no guarantee it would be taken into account or as deeply, and i don't intend to play other mods, what i want is not an expansive mod but just one where AI is more challenging and ideally plays elegantly or/and effectively i mean anyways.
If you intend to implement some things, it would only be a good thing at least for me i mean anyways, so i just went on what is described on the post, not what can be done i mean anyways. Things like forts issues too among other things for example i mean anyways. But you may also want to keep things as they are at least regarding some things i mean anyways. I can only express what i would want and in the end it's your mod, and based on how much/well these align maybe i could be (very?) satisfied anyways but would be as it has to be i mean anyways.

Thanks also for praising my play i mean anywyas, yes i got (a bit) better at the game, in fact the game before this one it was way too one sided, i was score leader the whole game so i had to bump difficulty i mean anyways.
I found that for example not building a granary in capital city helps greatly if i don't slave, also food is not as important if i reach max size, so i just made sure to not have economy high costs, cities not stagnate but always grow, blocking Peter AI early by taking the cottage city before the ressource cities, then i left parts of the continent that were too far and just optimized a few cities. It is fun and enjoyable, if i were to play it again i would need and want the AI to be smarter especially at war, else i would feel quite betrayed that the AI that played so well or quite well early and then suddenly blunders i mean anyways, and then i just snowball and there is not much point to continue playing i mean anyways, also increasing difficulty would increase the grind but not the fun at least for me i mean anyways (not sure i could win too though i mean anyways, but there was some leeway i had still in this game i mean anyways so maybe could in other games or maybe not i mean anyways, at least there's a possibility. But i assume bonuses may be a bit too much to make it more enjoyable, especially if AI blunders them i mean anyways, i may enjoy it even/much less maybe i mean anyways, that is if i were capable to win or challenge them i mean anyways).

About slaving you were correct i think at least i mean anyways that it is not as necessary as i thought.
Maybe i would have more difficulty in other games, but maybe not, i think i'm getting a sense of what is needed and what is not to win or have an advantage early, could or not be mistaken i mean anyways, but it is fun an enjoyable, just the AI is too frustrating when it blunders especially at war examples, which ruins the fun i mean anyways.

About Peter AI if you're curious i mean anyways, i.e. i mean anyways that i always had a check on him, i assumed he could declare war on me anytime like 20-40 turns ago, so i made sure to produce enough units to dissuade him from doing so (plus purposely taking the cottage city that has no ressource just to block him, and also to have many cottages i mean anyways), but not destroying the warriors like i may have done in other games, i prefered to keep them as city guards even if i had to pay unit cost for a few dozen turns it would outbalance when i produce my real army, i would need 5 less units to start war since cities are already guarded. I also did not build a scout but used a chariot, it is more efficient this way i mean anyways and dissuades them further, or could be used as a guard i mean anyways.
edit: another thing where i disagree quite strongly with you i mean anyways, is that a key thing to have an early advantage, to me at least i mean anyways, is to produce as many workers early as possibly, the earliest the better, they can do key chops or cottages or other things that make a big difference i mean anyways, this is also why i had an easier time in this game i think i mean anyways but is just my opinion i mean anyways, but yes i think more workers is always better (except if overwhelmingly too much like >3 workers per city for example i mean anyways, else it should be mostly if not always good i think, there's a lot that can be done with workers i mean anyways especially early as city grows i mean anyways but is just my opinion i mean anyways)

So the game is quite fun, and i said and you identified i mean anyways i would just need the AI to perform better at war, just avoiding the sacrifices may do a lot, as in example 37 and similar, except from that other fixes or changes as per my suggestions or other thoughts would help or make the game more enjoyable maybe ideally i mean anyways.

For now i'll do other things, but i'll look forward to what you do in advciv in the future i mean anyways.
Not promised, maybe i would maybe i would not i mean anyways, but i may play the game again especially if there are improvements, especially example 37, in example 37 it's hard not to lose my mind xd i mean anyways, if/when you review it you'd see.

This is also where i disagree with you politely i mean anyways but strongly if i may say i mean anyways, to me AI doesn't need more units to be competitive, in fact it could be strong enough even with 70%-80% of what the human player has.
According to me, AI could be competitive even with less units, if it did these things that i think it currently does not, among other things possibly i mean anyways:
- produce the right kind of units: if falling behind mostly archers/longbowmen as defenders, switch to pikemen in medieval times/era as most often players would switch to knights/cuirassiers as attackers i mean anyways, beyond that i did not play much so i don't know
- edit 2: obviously i mean anyways do not suicide the defenders and not have them get baited i mean anyways
- edit 6: using siege units most/more effectively when they in defense from an invader i mean anyways, only use them in batch against a stack in threatening range of city attack next turn, should dissuade the attack or make the losses significant enough that it would be better maybe to not attack anymore buying precious time for said invaded rival i mean in the game i mean anyways
- if that fails be more willing to become a vassal of someone else, thus the human player can't snowball and has to focus more on diplomacy/economy i mean anyways
- the right kind of promotions: city garrison for archers or similar
- not doing archer rushes, they never work anyways, in fact archery could most likely be skipped by AIs since they have production advantage (unless they have no stategic ressource i mean anyways) they could use the axeman as their base unit, for about same price and with city garison, rushes would be much harder to counter i mean anyways.
- turtling when invaded, the losses would be enough that the invader would retreat as he would lose more pushing, unless prepared enough for that i mean anyways.
edit 3: this is also where i disagree with you (too i mean anyways..) that to me it would be very fun to have players watch each other and see who has the first weakness to be exploited, much better/more enjoyable to me, and tenser gameplay as in more enjoyable too i mean anyways, than have AI blunder its troops, get baited and suicides half its troops when invaded i mean anyways, or going to war too far away or being defenseless etc, these can be exploited too easily and ruin any advantage or defense the AI had i mean anyways, which makes it a bit too easy for the human player i mean anyways, but if the game played naturally, it would make the middle game and economy and overall civ state much more important i mean anyways than building an army and waiting for the AI to blunder i mean anyways
- edit 5: not invading/declaring war until the full stack in the game i mean anyways is gathered in one tile or same walking distance of targeted city to attack i mean anyways, which would mean i mean anyways to not do these weird half/fake war declarations and/or invade then retreat etc i mean anyways

So maybe i would look at the game later or maybe not, in all cases thanks for going through this example (if you review mine and mind the order, i would suggest/like example 37 to be fixed or reviewed first i mean anyways for example i mean anywyas), it is true that this example 230 is not the most critical, but it's a behaviour that in other examples (see example 37 and related in the list post i mean anyways) was very critical, may most likely not stop me from winning, but may have helped and in other circumstances be enough to make a difference in the game i mean anyways.
So i mean anyways that i look forward in the future maybe i mean anyways to possible changes you'd do, i am very thankful you downloaded the archive, i actually have other examples i did not send as i thought were not as urgent or relevant or maybe rather not as likely to be chosen/preferred maybe i mean anwyays as the first batch of improvements i mean anyways, so for now most likely not needed of me to add them i mean anywyas (i would rather focus on other things for now i mean anyways, about the future maybe i would or maybe i would not look i mean anyways, in all cases i have the examples if want to revisit them i mean anyways so would look forward maybe even just as curiosity to what changes you may want to add too, if you'd want i mean anyways, i mean anyways and i thank you for that i mean anyways)
This is very good that you have these at least for/to me xd i mean anyways, i hope the list post can help navigate these about the game i mean anyways.

In all cases thanks, i don't know if i'd look into the game again, at least i'd be curious about changes you'd do.
Again i don't think AI needs more units, just to be smarter (maybe in key things), but since i can't do anything about it at least not easily xd i mean anyways i would just take any change you may want to make and be happy with it, which would maybe make a difference if i may say i mean anyways in the game if i were to play it again i mean anyways and perhaps i'd enjoy it (more) at that time.
edit 4: about the order at which you do (may want to do) changes (in general i mean anyways or/and related to mine i mean anyways), if you'd want to review my examples deeper at a later date i mean anyways, at least the data is there, and i hope the fact that the save files are as close as possible to the events i ask/explain about to be reviewed i mean anyways helps i mean anyways, in all case the data there i mean anyways and i am thankful that you value it, else it would be as it has to be, but if you value it and want to look at it some time later possibly/maybe i mean anyways all the better i mean anyways, else again would be how it has to be i mean anyways.

In all cases thanks and for going in depth in these examples, it's really what i enjoyed most i mean anyways, and how kind and receptive you were if i may say i mean anyways.
So i don't know about the future, maybe i would play the game again or maybe not, but thanks for this reply which appeases me a bit xd (about the frustrating experience of this AI blunder and blunders in general in what was otherwise a quite close game i mean anyways) if i may say i mean anyways, and as for for now i mean anyways i would like to say thanks i mean anyways.

Thanks,