Wessel V1
Emperor
Now I look back at it it's not that obvious, but England got the right to found Adelaide in congress (which it typically asks for), triggered by China's Nationalism.
Current v1.13 Development Discussion
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
- Status
I think the AI is mostly concerned with denying other civs wonders even if it does not want to build it (there is no direct connection between teching and building decision making anyway).
But if both A and B cannot build the wonder in a tech (for lack of religion, for instance), neither of them should hold back on the tech. Not sure what A should do with a wonder if they cannot build it but B can.
But if both A and B cannot build the wonder in a tech (for lack of religion, for instance), neither of them should hold back on the tech. Not sure what A should do with a wonder if they cannot build it but B can.
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
I don't know if you watch Jeopardy at all, ales, but if you followed Arthur Chu's winning streak, resource denial is extremely powerful and a winning strat.
He would hunt for Daily Doubles even if he wasn't strong in the subject and lose $5 guessing wrong, which he knew he would do, just to make sure it didn't fall in his opponents' hands.
The same applies for the AI. If an India running Hinduism and Organized Religion had Literature and you were running Pantheon,
it sure as hell wouldn't want to hand it over to you so you could get the great bonuses from TGL.
It's resource denial at work.
But I agree, the primary check should be if the civilization can build the Wonder in the first place.
New commit:
- correct year is displayed during autoplay for civs that start without Calendar
- "X turns left message" only appears 20 turns before the end of the game
- adjusted some starting territory in the 1700 AD scenario
- reduced cost of Congress influence actions (gold and espionage)
- there is a minimum cost for Congress influence actions
- AI only asks you to join its war if you share a border with its enemy
- starting gold is adjusted for game speed
- improved calculation of winner of a war for Congress purposes
So yeah I was serious about doing lots of little things.
- correct year is displayed during autoplay for civs that start without Calendar
- "X turns left message" only appears 20 turns before the end of the game
- adjusted some starting territory in the 1700 AD scenario
- reduced cost of Congress influence actions (gold and espionage)
- there is a minimum cost for Congress influence actions
- AI only asks you to join its war if you share a border with its enemy
- starting gold is adjusted for game speed
- improved calculation of winner of a war for Congress purposes
So yeah I was serious about doing lots of little things.
I think I have identified the responsible part of the AI code, will work on this tomorrow.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
May I ask how you got that AI change to work?
And, what about overseas wars?
And, what about overseas wars?
It works via overlapping BFCs, as all close borders criteria do. And the AI won't ask you to join those anymore.
Manuss
Sleeping man
Novicenoble
Prince
It is reasonable for ancient civs to grow super strong if they didn't collapse, and we should keep in mind that population growth in CIV4 is regulated by food production, not natural libido.
ozqar
King
A mechanism to put ancient civs in recession would be appropriate, it could simulate times of social, technological and/or economic stagnation, that weren't bad enough for a collapse. This way, ancient civs could survive and not necessarily be the superpowers they become.
YES!
Seconded.
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
No way. That'd have to be an AI only penalty.
Have you tried winning with the ancient civs?
You can't mess up, period.
The problem with China and India specifically is that the AI does really well with them and they do problematic things like get too advanced or steal critical techs that a player needs to research first.
But there's too many penalties in place for a human to do as well already.
If they need a nerf, let it be an AI only nerf and give them a human controlled buff.
Arizael
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 59
Hello folks. After a while I returned to DoC. There are many new great improvements, while new ones are added frequently ( - AI only asks you to join its war if you share a border with its enemy - YES).
I was however quite saddened, that my favorite feature - bonus yields for cities on resources - is gone from SVN. I searched the forum, but found little to no info on this. Why was this feature axed?
I was however quite saddened, that my favorite feature - bonus yields for cities on resources - is gone from SVN. I searched the forum, but found little to no info on this. Why was this feature axed?
strijder20
Wallowing in irony
It basically lead to people settling on resources (yeah, noone saw that one coming 
), which in some cases led to ahistorical city placement. The feature is still present for islands with five tiles or less.
), which in some cases led to ahistorical city placement. The feature is still present for islands with five tiles or less.It was mainly intended not to penalize cities founded on islands that have next to no spots without a resource (which is why it still applies to small islands).
It was never meant to open up new overpowered city spots, which was exploited by players to an unexpected degree. Furthermore, people were starting to request placing resources on historical city locations (like spawn points) because those tiles were not competitive anymore. They were also very advantageous in the early game because they allowed extra yields from the start without spending time on training workers and building improvements.
The fact that founding on a resource constitutes a loss constrains player choices of viable city spots which makes it easier to balance city locations with lots of locations without creating a super city spot. Keeping the rule would have required me to rearrange resources almost everywhere on the world under these more difficult circumstances.
Since the consequences of the rule were never intended to apply to most cities in the game in the first place, I decided it was the preferable solution to remove it again.
It was never meant to open up new overpowered city spots, which was exploited by players to an unexpected degree. Furthermore, people were starting to request placing resources on historical city locations (like spawn points) because those tiles were not competitive anymore. They were also very advantageous in the early game because they allowed extra yields from the start without spending time on training workers and building improvements.
The fact that founding on a resource constitutes a loss constrains player choices of viable city spots which makes it easier to balance city locations with lots of locations without creating a super city spot. Keeping the rule would have required me to rearrange resources almost everywhere on the world under these more difficult circumstances.
Since the consequences of the rule were never intended to apply to most cities in the game in the first place, I decided it was the preferable solution to remove it again.
Then change that UHV. It is a bad objective that you can't do anything destructive against opponent but depend on luck.
ozqar
King
I thought it to be an AI-only feature, but you know what, now that you mention it, there's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't apply to the human player as well.
I agree that all UHVs are on a too tight schedule, so I would say that for players it should only apply after the deadlines for the 3rd UHV have passed.
...
On the matter of the rice, I agree that the UHVs that require "make this the largest city on the world" are extremely annoying and should be changed. I simply stopped trying the historical victories for Cordoba and the Aztecs because of that. An option would be to have the UHV be "reach this or that size by this date", but I would still vote to change them altogether to some other thing.
- Status
Similar threads
