Current v1.13 Development Discussion
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
- Status
Chep
Emperor
sorry, talking to you is too frustrating for me right now, you ignore 80% of the questions (I know you have limited time, sure) and the ones you answer, you answer in a way that makes things even more unclear than they were before.
have a nice evening and maybe we'll manage some other time.
have a nice evening and maybe we'll manage some other time.
Chep
Emperor
okay, lets give it another try, I'd be really grateful if you could try to answer them all, for your convenience I gave my best to make them "yes/no"-questions:
1. currently unstable/collapsing AI civs stay around for centuries, causing major trouble for the human player: AI China/Arabia researching beyond reasonable levels, instability for neighbours, vasalls "collapsing" while staying around forever
1.1 does cancelling open borders agreements remove the "neighbours"-malus?
1.2 is it intended that the relation "open borders with the whole world"-bonus vs "1 unstable neighbour/vasall"-malus is in the neighbourhood of 1:1?
1.3 are neighbours all civs only civs with which you have a common cultural border (do borders on sea tiles count? is there a minimum amount of bordering tiles for a civ to count as a neighbour?) or is it defined via contact & open borders?
edit: 1.4 is there any way to prevent negative stability values from vasalls (other than not vasallizing them in the first place)?
2. I tried following your recommendation and stopped whipping for 1-2 dozen turns and instead let my cities starve by running max specialists (the starving was moderate and I think in average 1 citizen/city starved during that time). Yet my "unhappiness" malus in the domestic advisor increased from -4 to -5 in that timeframe.
2.1 Is Drafting/Enslaving treated like whipping for the calculation of that unhappiness (not that I used either of those options during that timeframe)?
2.2 Will simply waiting until the current unhappines from whipping is gone suffice for me to get a happiness stability bonus? (do I need to wait until it is completely gone or are "low amounts" of whipping tolerated? if so, what is a "low amount"?)
OR
Will switching to another civic (Capitalism instead of Slavery for example) give me a bonus happiness-stability independent of unhappiness from whipping (/drafting)?
3. have you had time to look at my Indonesia-game to maybe find out why it crashes?
two more observations:
4. the military-stability seems to be way off in terms of judging how well you're doing, but fortunately it resets to 0 pretty quickly anyway, allowing the player to basically ignore that mechanic.
5. I think the "ownership"-calculation for tiles is a bit annoying/weird as well. Example: I own Pataliputra from 800AD to 1700AD, thus producing huge amounts of culture there (>1k), I conquer Delhi and yet the Mughal culture from their next city (the one 2-3 tiles west, next to the mountains, forgot the name) is so overwhelming that Delhi won't get any workable tiles in its inner ring just because of the culture of that 1 city (it is the only Mughal city), even though those tiles are far outside the Mughal city radius. This again means that you either have to vasallize a civ you take a city from or completely destroy it. Since the civ would be unstable for the next couple dozen turns you won't want to vasallize it, but conquering cities you don't want just so you can use the 1 city you want doesn't seem sensible either.
1. currently unstable/collapsing AI civs stay around for centuries, causing major trouble for the human player: AI China/Arabia researching beyond reasonable levels, instability for neighbours, vasalls "collapsing" while staying around forever
1.1 does cancelling open borders agreements remove the "neighbours"-malus?
1.2 is it intended that the relation "open borders with the whole world"-bonus vs "1 unstable neighbour/vasall"-malus is in the neighbourhood of 1:1?
1.3 are neighbours all civs only civs with which you have a common cultural border (do borders on sea tiles count? is there a minimum amount of bordering tiles for a civ to count as a neighbour?) or is it defined via contact & open borders?
edit: 1.4 is there any way to prevent negative stability values from vasalls (other than not vasallizing them in the first place)?
2. I tried following your recommendation and stopped whipping for 1-2 dozen turns and instead let my cities starve by running max specialists (the starving was moderate and I think in average 1 citizen/city starved during that time). Yet my "unhappiness" malus in the domestic advisor increased from -4 to -5 in that timeframe.
2.1 Is Drafting/Enslaving treated like whipping for the calculation of that unhappiness (not that I used either of those options during that timeframe)?
2.2 Will simply waiting until the current unhappines from whipping is gone suffice for me to get a happiness stability bonus? (do I need to wait until it is completely gone or are "low amounts" of whipping tolerated? if so, what is a "low amount"?)
OR
Will switching to another civic (Capitalism instead of Slavery for example) give me a bonus happiness-stability independent of unhappiness from whipping (/drafting)?
3. have you had time to look at my Indonesia-game to maybe find out why it crashes?
two more observations:
4. the military-stability seems to be way off in terms of judging how well you're doing, but fortunately it resets to 0 pretty quickly anyway, allowing the player to basically ignore that mechanic.
5. I think the "ownership"-calculation for tiles is a bit annoying/weird as well. Example: I own Pataliputra from 800AD to 1700AD, thus producing huge amounts of culture there (>1k), I conquer Delhi and yet the Mughal culture from their next city (the one 2-3 tiles west, next to the mountains, forgot the name) is so overwhelming that Delhi won't get any workable tiles in its inner ring just because of the culture of that 1 city (it is the only Mughal city), even though those tiles are far outside the Mughal city radius. This again means that you either have to vasallize a civ you take a city from or completely destroy it. Since the civ would be unstable for the next couple dozen turns you won't want to vasallize it, but conquering cities you don't want just so you can use the 1 city you want doesn't seem sensible either.
1.1 yes.
1.2 it is intended that you can cancel OBs with collapsing civs without losing more stability in the OB category.
1.3 it needs to be a neighbor. Neighbors are defined in two ways: a) every civ has a predefined list of neighbors that are always counted, b) overlapping BFCs, which is the same way in which the AI determines "our close borders spark tensions". One tile is enough.
2.1 it is all sources of unhappiness besides population
2.2 the score takes some time to turn around but it should increase with time. Do not expect it to instantly become positive again because the source of penalties has been removed. Yes some leeway is allowed depending on city size. No to the last question.
3. no.
4.
That was just two yes/no questions by the way.
1.2 it is intended that you can cancel OBs with collapsing civs without losing more stability in the OB category.
1.3 it needs to be a neighbor. Neighbors are defined in two ways: a) every civ has a predefined list of neighbors that are always counted, b) overlapping BFCs, which is the same way in which the AI determines "our close borders spark tensions". One tile is enough.
2.1 it is all sources of unhappiness besides population
2.2 the score takes some time to turn around but it should increase with time. Do not expect it to instantly become positive again because the source of penalties has been removed. Yes some leeway is allowed depending on city size. No to the last question.
3. no.
4.
That was just two yes/no questions by the way.
Chep
Emperor
well, 1.2, 2.1 and 2.2 could have been answered with yes/no, but thank you for the more informative answers 
sorry for being so rude/aggressive, I was just frustrated that I had to abandon basically every second game because of factors beyond my influence.
but I still don't really understand 2.2
so if I whip a lot for a while I get negative domestic stability,even if my cities stay happy, I got that part, not really the relations but well, I will eventually figure them out.
If I then wait for the unhappiness to go away, the negative stability will not be entirely gone with the next check?
And since you said leeway is allowed depending on city-size: this unhappiness is calculated on a city level instead of a "global level"?
so basically, whipping once in every city is better than whipping 3-4 times in 10% of cities?
Concerning the military stability: Yeah, I need to test that a bit more to get a better understanding of how it is calculated and what is wrong with it, but conquering 2 cities while killing >10 units and losing 1-2 siege units should not give a negative stability here. Also it seems that losing units to barbarians gives negative stability (almost?) independent of how many of them you kill in return. but I will test that a bit for a more qualified discussion in the future.
sorry for being so rude/aggressive, I was just frustrated that I had to abandon basically every second game because of factors beyond my influence.
but I still don't really understand 2.2
so if I whip a lot for a while I get negative domestic stability,even if my cities stay happy, I got that part, not really the relations but well, I will eventually figure them out.
If I then wait for the unhappiness to go away, the negative stability will not be entirely gone with the next check?
And since you said leeway is allowed depending on city-size: this unhappiness is calculated on a city level instead of a "global level"?
so basically, whipping once in every city is better than whipping 3-4 times in 10% of cities?
Concerning the military stability: Yeah, I need to test that a bit more to get a better understanding of how it is calculated and what is wrong with it, but conquering 2 cities while killing >10 units and losing 1-2 siege units should not give a negative stability here. Also it seems that losing units to barbarians gives negative stability (almost?) independent of how many of them you kill in return. but I will test that a bit for a more qualified discussion in the future.
Fresol
Angry Halfling in Green
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2011
- Messages
- 2,282
Have you not read the stability guide thread? Most of your questions are already answered in detail there(though not up to date after the most recent commits). Stability.py contains the information you need and is pretty easy to read too.
mrrandomplayer
Hopeless Situation Warrior
About the stability: I've killed a ton of collapsing civs by just gifting them a tech and they collapse from the stability check. In a long, drawn out game as Persia, I actually managed to kill enough civs to get down to 4 other civs (2 were respawns, unfortunately), and it was a really weird game. On the flip side of the stability checks, I was in the -50s in stability, but I managed to stave off collapsing for around 150 years (could've done longer, but I eventually just thought "what the hell, I'll just set up everything to recapture my cities) by just setting my research to 0 and avoiding all stability checks and trying to go for a culture win.
Just my 2 cents and advice.
Just my 2 cents and advice.
billyleeback16
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2011
- Messages
- 77
I love doing that especially when I can get a nice tech in return. The ones I've done that to the most have been China and Mongolia. It's like a Trojan Horse. Liberalism is the perfect cure for a collapsing empire!
Chep
Emperor
I have read it, the problem is that it is a) outdated in some aspects and b) seems contradictory in others for example here:
Leoreths Stability Guide said:
which caused me to think that this part refers to 2 different versions.
Yeah, it happens, but after gifting an unstable/collapsing civ 2-3 techs over 15-20 turns it just becomes rather expensive. Techtrading is also rather hard to accomplish on Paragon since the AI wants something in the neihbourhood of 2.5 techs for each one it gives you.
Plus it shouldn't come down to little "exploits" like this one to get rid of "collapsing" civs.
edit: okay, lets do it a bit more "hands-on", I attached a savegame which displays some of the mechanics I am having trouble with:
1. it has been a couple of dozen turns (and several stability checks) since I last whipped. As you can easily verify, my cities should all count as either happy or neutral, and yet I get -5 for happiness (during my worst "whipping-frenzies" it was at minus 4, then dropped to 5 and it just doesnt seem to recover at all).
getting -1 stability per worker killed by barbarians is hard, especially with those packs of several mounted braves appearing out of nowhere.
2. after this turn, Thailand respawns in the Dutch/Kongolese cities in Indonesia and gets all of my techs.
So I get punished for trying to become techleader? Why not have them start with a couple of techs more? -.-
No, because instability accumulates while you have mostly unhappy cities. Stability goes up with mostly happy cities but you first have to compensate the instability that has already accumulated.
City level, so yes.
One thing to consider is that the stronger you are, the harder it is to get stability from victories, while it is easier to get stability when facing a stronger enemy.
It is up to date for 1.12, the only thing not covered are the recent changes.
City with more happiness than unhappiness != happy city for the purposes of domestic stability.
Anyway, this discussion made me think about some stuff, so expect a couple of changes to the following:
- the way accumulated stability scores are calculated (so that it is harder to "entrench yourself" in either positives or negatives without making it too volatile)
- moving war and barbarian stability to a similar model
- collapse on "collapsing" is more likely
- collapse of civs past their fall date will happen faster
Fresol
Angry Halfling in Green
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2011
- Messages
- 2,282
You are their only neighbor(or maybe 1 of 2, I'm not sure) alive so they share all your techs. But they shouldn't respawn without a single core city, and it should be fixed somehow.
Mav12
Chieftain
I see Canada's been added
I thought of some Dynamic names (though Im not Canadian)
England:
Vassal of - Dominion of Canada
France:
Vassal of - French Quebec
Vikings:
Vassal of - Vinland
Japan:
Vassal of - Japanada
Canadian vassal - Canapan?
America:
vassal of - 51st State or North Montana
Canadian vassal - The Yankee Provinces
Sarcasm(are here because I thought of them though obviously not to be taken seriously):
Fascist: Justin Bieber/Rob Ford Empire
Soviet Vassal: Soviet Canuckistan
USA is vassal: Canada's Pants
Vikings are vassal: Hans Island or Greenland
I thought of some Dynamic names (though Im not Canadian)
England:
Vassal of - Dominion of Canada
France:
Vassal of - French Quebec
Vikings:
Vassal of - Vinland
Japan:
Vassal of - Japanada
Canadian vassal - Canapan?
America:
vassal of - 51st State or North Montana
Canadian vassal - The Yankee Provinces
Sarcasm(are here because I thought of them though obviously not to be taken seriously):
Fascist: Justin Bieber/Rob Ford Empire
Soviet Vassal: Soviet Canuckistan
USA is vassal: Canada's Pants
Vikings are vassal: Hans Island or Greenland
merijn_v1
Black Belt
I see the forum index thread is locked. But because of that, I can't edit my post with all modcomps.
New commit:
- changed the way stability scores accumulate (economy and happiness) so that changes in your civilization are more easily reflected in the score
- civilizations on collapsing will collapse if their score does not improve
- civilizations past their fall date can lose multiple stability levels at once
- instead of preventing the spawn of independent cities, units are pushed to the closest city
- cities of recently respawned civs cannot be demanded in Congress
- changed the way stability scores accumulate (economy and happiness) so that changes in your civilization are more easily reflected in the score
- civilizations on collapsing will collapse if their score does not improve
- civilizations past their fall date can lose multiple stability levels at once
- instead of preventing the spawn of independent cities, units are pushed to the closest city
- cities of recently respawned civs cannot be demanded in Congress
It's on my list.
That's unfortunate and not what I expected. Not sure what to do.
- Status
