Diplomacy AI Development

[General_Drax]

All of these already into 9-18, am i right ?

 

[Recursive]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

It does affect AI's opinion of you.
But the "They believe you are expanding your empire too aggressively" is based solely on city number, no?

They're one and the same - military strength is counted.

All of these already into 9-18, am i right ?

2-18, but yes.

 

[CrazyG]

They're one and the same - military strength is counted.



2-18, but yes.

Okay.

I always get that modifier immediately after settling another city. The phrasing really made me think it was about city number. So are you saying that if I build enough military units, it'll go away?

I also notice that territorial relationships tends to swing on and off when I'm adding cities. Is it a similar mechanic that also factors military strength?

 

[Recursive]

Okay.

I always get that modifier immediately after settling another city. The phrasing really made me think it was about city number. So are you saying that if I build enough military units, it'll go away?

I also notice that territorial relationships tends to swing on and off when I'm adding cities. Is it a similar mechanic that also factors military strength?

1) Yes; with the % threshold raised to 80 it should be harder to obtain, so give it a try in this new beta.

2) If they think you're a reckless expander, it'll also increase territorial disputes by one level (NONE to WEAK, WEAK to STRONG, STRONG to FIERCE), since you can't get the reckless expander mod unless they're in close proximity anyway.

 

[tu_79]

A warning.
A very successful civ will scary to inaction all the other civs if your factoring of military strength is absolute.

Also, it is easier to not lose units when you start with 3x units in the field than your enemies.
I fear that your current method will make life very easy for runaways.

Military performance, I'd prefer to call it tactical skill, is how good you are with your units, in relation to the army strength that you possess.
The ratio of the combatants raw strength should be factored in.
It does not make you a bad tactician when you lose units due to being overwhelmed, nor it makes a good tactician to kill units when you can overwhelm the opponent.

I'd propose this small factoring:
Player strength is the army raw strength value for us, civ strength is the same for the enemy AI.

When you are killing enemy units
Tactical gain = unit value * (civ strength / player strength)

When you are losing units
Tactical lose = unit value * (player strength / civ strength)

This is a first approach. You could weight these values with a fixed value if numbers affect too much or too few.

What this means is that if I start a war with an army that is half the strong than the other civ, each unit that I manage to kill will count double, so you know that I am truly skilled (or I possess a very good defensive position).

 

[CrazyG]

2) If they think you're a reckless expander, it'll also increase territorial disputes by one level (NONE to WEAK, WEAK to STRONG, STRONG to FIERCE), since you can't get the reckless expander mod unless they're in close proximity anyway.

Do other things, such as building a wonder they wanted, do this too?

I notice that territorial disputes tends to switch on when you do something an AI disliked, even if that thing had no connection to whose land is where. You get this odd thing where guys across the ocean have territorial disputes.

I'd consider dropping that aspect, or maybe just dropping the NONE to WEAK jump, because the explanation I see as a player (territorial disputes) tends to make no sense. This might also contribute to the dog piling of last patch, whenever I did one thing they disliked, I'd get more than one diplo penalty as a result, until eventually everyone has territorial disputes.

 

[Recursive]

A warning.
A very successful civ will scary to inaction all the other civs if your factoring of military strength is absolute.

Also, it is easier to not lose units when you start with 3x units in the field than your enemies.
I fear that your current method will make life very easy for runaways.

Military performance, I'd prefer to call it tactical skill, is how good you are with your units, in relation to the army strength that you possess.
The ratio of the combatants raw strength should be factored in.
It does not make you a bad tactician when you lose units due to being overwhelmed, nor it makes a good tactician to kill units when you can overwhelm the opponent.

I'd propose this small factoring:
Player strength is the army raw strength value for us, civ strength is the same for the enemy AI.

When you are killing enemy units
Tactical gain = unit value * (civ strength / player strength)

When you are losing units
Tactical lose = unit value * (player strength / civ strength)

This is a first approach. You could weight these values with a fixed value if numbers affect too much or too few.

What this means is that if I start a war with an army that is half the strong than the other civ, each unit that I manage to kill will count double, so you know that I am truly skilled (or I possess a very good defensive position).

Thanks for the suggestion. The change is experimental, I look forward to player feedback. And it's capped at -50% below (with half the effect) and +100% above.

Do other things, such as building a wonder they wanted, do this too?

I notice that territorial disputes tends to switch on when you do something an AI disliked, even if that thing had no connection to whose land is where. You get this odd thing where guys across the ocean have territorial disputes.

I'd consider dropping that aspect, or maybe just dropping the NONE to WEAK jump, because the explanation I see as a player (territorial disputes) tends to make no sense. This might also contribute to the dog piling of last patch, whenever I did one thing they disliked, I'd get more than one diplo penalty as a result, until eventually everyone has territorial disputes.

It's only reckless expansion, not other modifiers. What you're likely seeing is the AI's visible approach switching from FRIENDLY (which conceals it) to something else (like NEUTRAL).

 

[CrazyG]

Thanks for the suggestion.

Thanks for explaining. You're doing great work.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I made reckless expansion a worse modifier and AI is expanding slower, so I think it makes some strategic sense to bump up the % threshold a bit. I'll tweak it again next version if needed.

Sure. Happy to test the changes! Just wanted to point our what it's for.

 

[JamesNinelives]

(or I possess a very good defensive position)

Perhaps once the basics are worked out we can add modifiers for things like Defender of Faith, civs specific unique abilities that make them strong in combet, Himeji Castle etc. !

 

[Recursive]

Perhaps once the basics are worked out we can add modifiers for things like Defender of Faith, civs specific unique abilities that make them strong in combet, Himeji Castle etc. !

This beta's changes were quickly done to test if such a system can work and if there are any glaring issues with it (e.g. causing all AIs to switch approaches to AFRAID).

It is not the final version, and adjustments should be expected.

 

[Heinz_Guderian]

abilities that make them strong in combet

Man you must have a wonderful broad australian accent if you say "combet"

OnT: Liking this a lot, but I see Tu's point too. Very exciting changes nonetheless.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Man you must have a wonderful broad australian accent if you say "combet"

OnT: Liking this a lot, but I see Tu's point too. Very exciting changes nonetheless.

I don't talk like that but I tried it out just now it was hilarious, thanks XD.

 

[JamesNinelives]

This beta's changes were quickly done to test if such a system can work and if there are any glaring issues with it (e.g. causing all AIs to switch approaches to AFRAID).

It is not the final version, and adjustments should be expected.

Glad to hear it!

 

[SolutionIt]

Hey man if I can have reasonable unreasonable trades with other civs, and actually find a reason to ask for a declaration of friendship, I'm all in on w/e other ideas get thrown in.

 

[Recursive]

As of the next version, "they believe we are expanding our empire too aggressively" will no longer have any effect on territorial disputes. I've changed how it's factored into the approach function instead.

I also reduced the base modifier from -35 to -(20 + 5x the number of additional cities you have compared to them). Warmonger civs get an additional -15 reduction.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm really intrigued to see this new system in action, but I don't necessarily know if it's a good idea to have trade routes be factored into the equation. A lot of times there's no way to protect multiple routes from being pillaged in a single turn, the first turn after a DoW, and I fear this could skew numbers; there are many instances in late game where you can lose basically all of your routes due to the AI's victory block kicking in when playing for cultural victory. At the same time, having the ability and prowess to sustain protection and ensure your routes travel safely throughout the course of a game should serve as an indication of strength toward the other AI, so I guess it makes sense.

Only one way to find out!

Yeah you beat me to the punch. Really TR pillages have nothing to do with how successful you are militarily. You just can't realistically protect your TRs all the time, doesn't mean you will fall over and die when the units come in.

 

[Recursive]

Yeah you beat me to the punch. Really TR pillages have nothing to do with how successful you are militarily. You just can't realistically protect your TRs all the time, doesn't mean you will fall over and die when the units come in.

Think I'm gonna remove that one.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

As of the next version, "they believe we are expanding our empire too aggressively" will no longer have any effect on territorial disputes. I've changed how it's factored into the approach function instead.

I also reduced the base modifier from -35 to -(20 + 5x the number of additional cities you have compared to them). Warmonger civs get an additional -15 reduction.

I'm really glad to see this implemented, Thanks for your hard work!

 

[Gazebo]

Think I'm gonna remove that one.

i don’t think it should be removed.