Current (SVN) development discussion thread

China has a small core as well (south of the Yangtze is only Historical,
not Core) so your problem may be related to that?

 

^ I played half a test game with China yesterday with the new Stability mechanics. I had no problem staying Solid with my usual setup of 3 Core, 4 Historical, and 1 Foreign cities. Razed Pataliputra and Hanseong.

I get occasional messages saying "China is experiencing a minor Territorial Crisis" but nothing happens beyond that.

Later I acquired 2 more cities along the Silk Road - Dunhuang and Bukhara for my own Tang Empire goal but still Solid.

Emperor/Normal 3000BC start, btw.

In some of my autoruns to test EDCNs though, AI Persia would collapse completely before 300 BCE. Not from Greek conquerors - just from Barbs. I have ideas about buffing Persia, especially against Barbs, but I don't know if Leoreth has time for it or not right now.

 

I mean size as in number of citizens in the city (number of tiles it can work) with population meaning millions of people. So a city with size 10 has population 1 million, whilst size 20 has population 8 million.

Just wondering which of those is counted in the stability calculations.

 

AI Persia always seems to have problems with barbs at Emperor level. I've played India games with multiple SVN versions, and always see them collapse in the face of endless hordes of Horse Archers.

 

Don't know if it's been said yet, but Far East civs collapse too much easily, imo. On the other hand, I often saw Byzantines live through Konstantinoupolis fall.

 

There shouldn't be more Barbs on Emperor. In fact I think the number of Barbs should be same across all difficulties.

Also Middle Eastern barbs during the Classical Era should be reduced in general. The huge stacks of Parthian Horse Archers should only spawn if Persia (AI or Human) is dead - after all Parthia is a Persian dynasty and represented as one of Persia's DCNs. It makes little sense for the Parthian Empire (represented by the civ of Persia in this game) to be fighting hordes of Parthian Horse Archers.

More generally, barbs in certain areas should on spawn if the dominant civ in that area is dead, or at least Unstable/Collapsing. If Rome is Solid (or at least, alive) for example, fewer number of Germanic Axemen should spawn since they would be intimidated by Rome's might.

Leoreth, with your permission I could rewrite Barbs.py with these suggested modifications.

 

What is Tibet's UP? Maybe it can be changed to something that makes better use of hills/ peaks.

 

iirc it's unlimited number of missionary?

 

That's rather weak.

 

Agree with this. The challenge of higher difficulty levels is stronger AI rivals. Stronger barbs seem to hurt the AI more than the human player, which counters the higher difficulty in some cases.

I agree with this in principle, but not with your example. The Germanic barbarians were less intimidated by Rome's might, as they were attracted by her wealth. That's an example that, imo, would work the other way round - more Germanic barbs would spawn as Rome gets larger and richer, to reflect external forces trying to conquer rich Roman territory. Tho' this should probably only apply to the player, as AI Rome would be overwhelmed by all the barbs.

 

Exactly what I would want too!

 

Unlimited missionaries that can enter foreign territory! Still rather weak, but very helpful for the UHV.

 

I totally disagree.

What should be adjusted is the AI civs' ability to handle the increased barbarian activity depending on the human player's choice of difficulty setting.

 

Right. Instead of giving the patient a drug to make his constipation go away, let's try to build him a new colon.

You are as illuminating as always.

Moderator Action: Don't flame other users. Not only is it rude and a violation of the forum rules, it also directly counteracts your goal to convince others.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

Allow me to illuminate you as to how arrogant, annoying and incorrect you are, as usual then.

If you even played on Emperor, which you don't because you aren't a good enough player to actually do so, you would be able to appreciate just how much harder the increased barbarian activity is - not because it can collapse AI civs but because it can collapse your civ.

The AI already has factors which it uses to "cheat" all sorts of issues that the human player has to deal with manually. My suggestion of applying a similar factor when it comes to barbarians therefore has a reasonable basis. Unlike your post above.

 

How delightful it is to have someone who can both teach me, and who knows more about me than myself. Thank you.

I'll let you in on a secret, since you already know so much about me. I play on a customized Prince$s difficulty that is actually easier than the Settler difficulty from vanilla BTS. Instead of units all AIs have flowers, that turn into Goody Huts when my units step on them. True story.

 

I didn't teach you anything, clearly. Not that I was even trying to, but that's your impression.

You managed to clearly prove my point to be correct just fine with your response though.

As well as failing to talk about the content of the discussion thread with your nonsense posts. Which is against the forum rules. Have you read them lately?

Barbarians, remember, well you probably don't actually. Not flowers or illumination or what anyone knows or cares about yourself.

It would be a crime against the DoC mod if Leoreth adopted your suggestion on barbarians.

 

A rude response to a helpful suggestion. Without using analogies, why is Blizzard wrong?