darkstrat
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2020
- Messages
- 47
Is there a way I can enable this like some config file editing or some modmod? Honestly, I would be fine if this only existed for the human too.
Diplomacy AI Development
- Thread starter Recursive
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ai civ v diplomacy vox populi
Is there a way I can enable this like some config file editing or some modmod? Honestly, I would be fine if this only existed for the human too.
LifeOfBrian
King
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
- Messages
- 757
Recursive, I'm still seeing a lot of early DoWs (turn 60-90) where my neighbour China bribed faraway Carthage, Poland and Babylon to DoW me. And even later on, around t110, when China was losing a war against Russia (having just lost a city and its capital being attacked), China still decided to spend money on bribing Poland to DoW me, even though I was at peace with China, instead of using it to bolster its defense. So perhaps that's something to be looked at, maybe code it more emphatically that if one of the AIs cities is being attacked or has been conquered, it won't bribe for DoWs except against civs that it is at war with and/or lost a city to?
I consider all feedback regardless of the source, I like making people happy and whether someone plays casually or is an expert they may have a good point.
Obviously, I am still a mere human, and I'm more likely to respond well if criticism is presented constructively (as opposed to some of the angry incoherent ranting I've seen).
Legen
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,500
Instead of receiving units, it could be a large combat modifier for City-States instead.
DizzKneeLand33
Fall from Heaven 2 still rocks
Here is a thought regarding non-lasting friendships. I don't have this issue in my games (Emperor, Large, Fractal, 13/22) -- many friendships last throughout the game other than of course those with civs close in proximity (sooner or later there will be border disputes, which is a good thing). However, I play Vox with Tech Trading turned off and with Research Agreements turned on. So, there is actually some incentive for friendships (RA's) or at least to not go to war with someone with whom you have a RA. I find the current Diplomacy to be excellent imho (especially after the bribed wars was recently fixed) as a result.
tommytoxen
Warlord
I like how now there's a sense of "historic" friendships and "historic" enemies. In my current game I've practically been friends with the same people and enemies with the same people all game from ancient to modern times.
The only exception is where I've become aggressive myself. I warned you to stop spending spies, Napoleon. We'll settle this on the battlefield, old friend. Au revoir.
The only exception is where I've become aggressive myself. I warned you to stop spending spies, Napoleon. We'll settle this on the battlefield, old friend. Au revoir.
I've been doing this over the last few months as well with similar results. There's been a couple times in prior versions that saw questionable behaviour in terms of civs backstabbing me with low turns remaining on a RA, but everything has been great for the most part.
AI performs this calculation and then sets "max value" to -1x the deal value of the calculation for them.
Code:
/// Add appropriate items to pDeal based on what type of PeaceTreaty eTreaty is
void CvDealAI::DoAddItemsToDealForPeaceTreaty(PlayerTypes eOtherPlayer, CvDeal* pDeal, PeaceTreatyTypes eTreaty, bool bMeSurrendering)
{
if(eTreaty < PEACE_TREATY_ARMISTICE)
{
return;
}
int iDuration = GC.getGame().GetDealDuration();
PlayerTypes eLosingPlayer = bMeSurrendering ? GetPlayer()->GetID() : eOtherPlayer;
CvPlayer* pLosingPlayer = &GET_PLAYER(eLosingPlayer);
PlayerTypes eWinningPlayer = bMeSurrendering ? eOtherPlayer : GetPlayer()->GetID();
pDeal->SetSurrenderingPlayer(eLosingPlayer);
int iWarScore = pLosingPlayer->GetDiplomacyAI()->GetWarScore(eWinningPlayer);
#if defined(MOD_DIPLOMACY_CIV4_FEATURES)
bool bBecomeMyVassal = pLosingPlayer->GetDiplomacyAI()->IsVassalageAcceptable(eWinningPlayer, true);
bool bRevokeMyVassals = false;
// Reduce war score if losing player wants to become winning player's vassal
if(MOD_DIPLOMACY_CIV4_FEATURES && bBecomeMyVassal)
{
iWarScore /= 2;
}
// Is losing player willing to revoke his vassals?
if(MOD_DIPLOMACY_CIV4_FEATURES && iWarScore <= -85 && GET_TEAM(pLosingPlayer->getTeam()).GetNumVassals() > 0)
{
//If we're willing to do this, give less below.
bRevokeMyVassals = true;
iWarScore /= max(2, GET_TEAM(pLosingPlayer->getTeam()).GetNumVassals());
}
if(iWarScore < 0)
{
iWarScore *= -1;
}
#endif
//strategic warscore adjustment
if (!pLosingPlayer->HasCityInDanger(false,0))
iWarScore = max(0, iWarScore - 10);
int iPercentGoldToGive = iWarScore;
int iPercentGPTToGive = (iWarScore / 2);
bool bGiveUpCities = (iWarScore > 60);
int iPercentCitiesGiveUp = (iWarScore / 5);
bool bGiveUpStratResources = (iWarScore > 35);
bool bGiveUpLuxuryResources = (iWarScore > 15);
int iGiveUpLuxResources = iWarScore;
int iGiveUpStratResources = (iWarScore / 4);
pDeal->AddPeaceTreaty(eWinningPlayer, GC.getGame().getGameSpeedInfo().getPeaceDealDuration());
pDeal->AddPeaceTreaty(eLosingPlayer, GC.getGame().getGameSpeedInfo().getPeaceDealDuration());
DoAddPlayersAlliesToTreaty(eOtherPlayer, pDeal);
CvCity* pLoopCity;
int iCityLoop;
// If the player only has one city then we can't get any more from him
if (bGiveUpCities && iPercentCitiesGiveUp > 0 && pLosingPlayer->getNumCities() > 1)
{
int iTotalCityValue = 0;
// Create vector of the losing players' Cities so we can see which are the closest to the winner
CvWeightedVector<int> viCityValue;
// Loop through all of the loser's Cities, looking only at valid ones.
for(pLoopCity = pLosingPlayer->firstCity(&iCityLoop); pLoopCity != NULL; pLoopCity = pLosingPlayer->nextCity(&iCityLoop))
{
//do this from the winner's perspective!
int iCurrentCityValue = GetCityValueForBuyer(pLoopCity, eLosingPlayer, eWinningPlayer, true);
if (iCurrentCityValue == INT_MAX)
continue;
//add up total city value of the loser (before danger and damage adjustment)
iTotalCityValue += iCurrentCityValue;
//Remember for later
viCityValue.push_back(pLoopCity->GetID(), iCurrentCityValue);
}
// Sort the vector based on distance from winner's capital
viCityValue.SortItems();
int iSortedCityID;
// Determine the value of Cities to be given up
int iCityValueToSurrender = iTotalCityValue * iPercentCitiesGiveUp / 100;
// Loop through sorted Cities and add them to the deal if they're under the amount to give up
// Start from the back of the list, because that's where the cheapest cities are
for(int iSortedCityIndex = viCityValue.size() - 1; iSortedCityIndex > -1 ; iSortedCityIndex--)
{
iSortedCityID = viCityValue.GetElement(iSortedCityIndex);
pLoopCity = pLosingPlayer->getCity(iSortedCityID);
int iCurrentCityValue = GetCityValueForBuyer(pLoopCity, eLosingPlayer, eWinningPlayer, true);
if (iCurrentCityValue == INT_MAX)
continue;
// City is worth less than what is left to be added to the deal, so add it
if (iCurrentCityValue < iCityValueToSurrender && iCurrentCityValue > 0)
{
pDeal->AddCityTrade(eLosingPlayer, iSortedCityID);
iCityValueToSurrender -= iCurrentCityValue;
//Frontline cities count more than they're worth. Ideally they should satisfy the winner?
iCityValueToSurrender -= (pLoopCity->getDamage() * 10);
if (pLosingPlayer->GetPlotDanger(pLoopCity) > GC.getCITY_HIT_POINTS_HEALED_PER_TURN())
iCityValueToSurrender -= iCurrentCityValue / 10;
}
}
}
// Gold
int iGold = 0;
if (iPercentGoldToGive > 0)
{
iGold = pDeal->GetGoldAvailable(eLosingPlayer, TRADE_ITEM_GOLD);
iGold = iGold * iPercentGoldToGive / 100;
if(iGold > 0)
{
pDeal->AddGoldTrade(eLosingPlayer, iGold);
}
}
// Gold per turn
int iGPT = 0;
if (iPercentGPTToGive > 0)
{
iGPT = pLosingPlayer->calculateGoldRate();
int iGPTToGive = ((iGPT * iPercentGPTToGive) / 100);
if (iGPTToGive >= iGPT-2)
{
iGPTToGive -= 2;
}
if (iGPTToGive > 0)
{
pDeal->AddGoldPerTurnTrade(eLosingPlayer, iGPTToGive, iDuration);
}
}
// precalculate, it's expensive
int iCurrentNetGoldOfReceivingPlayer = GET_PLAYER(eOtherPlayer).GetTreasury()->CalculateBaseNetGold();
// Luxury Resources
if(bGiveUpLuxuryResources && iGiveUpLuxResources > 0)
{
ResourceUsageTypes eUsage;
ResourceTypes eResource;
int iResourceQuantity = 1;
int iTotalResourceValue = 0;
CvWeightedVector<int> viResourceValue;
for(int iResourceLoop = 0; iResourceLoop < GC.getNumResourceInfos(); iResourceLoop++)
{
eResource = (ResourceTypes) iResourceLoop;
const CvResourceInfo* pkResourceInfo = GC.getResourceInfo(eResource);
if (pkResourceInfo == NULL)
continue;
eUsage = pkResourceInfo->getResourceUsage();
// Can't trade bonus Resources
if (eUsage != RESOURCEUSAGE_LUXURY)
{
continue;
}
iResourceQuantity = pLosingPlayer->getNumResourceAvailable(eResource, false);
// Don't bother looking at this Resource if the other player doesn't even have any of it
if (iResourceQuantity == 0)
{
continue;
}
// Can only get 1 copy of a Luxury
if (eUsage == RESOURCEUSAGE_LUXURY)
{
iResourceQuantity = 1;
}
int iCurrentResourceValue = GetResourceValue(eResource, iResourceQuantity, GC.getGame().GetDealDuration(), true, eOtherPlayer, iCurrentNetGoldOfReceivingPlayer);
if(iCurrentResourceValue == INT_MAX)
continue;
if(iCurrentResourceValue > 0)
{
// Get total city value of the loser
iTotalResourceValue += iCurrentResourceValue;
viResourceValue.push_back(eResource, iCurrentResourceValue);
}
}
// Determine the value of Cities to be given up
int iResourceValueToSurrender = (iTotalResourceValue * iGiveUpLuxResources) / 100;
// Sort the vector based on value
viResourceValue.SortItems();
if(viResourceValue.size() > 0)
{
// Loop through sorted Cities and add them to the deal if they're under the amount to give up - start from the back of the list, because that's where the CLOSEST cities are
for(int iSortedResourceIndex = 0; iSortedResourceIndex < viResourceValue.size(); iSortedResourceIndex++)
{
ResourceTypes eResourceList = (ResourceTypes)viResourceValue.GetElement(iSortedResourceIndex);
int iCurrentResourceValue = GetResourceValue(eResourceList, 1, GC.getGame().GetDealDuration(), true, eOtherPlayer, iCurrentNetGoldOfReceivingPlayer);
if(iCurrentResourceValue == INT_MAX)
continue;
// City is worth less than what is left to be added to the deal, so add it
if(iCurrentResourceValue <= iResourceValueToSurrender && iCurrentResourceValue > 0)
{
pDeal->AddResourceTrade(eLosingPlayer, eResourceList, 1, GC.getGame().GetDealDuration());
iResourceValueToSurrender -= iCurrentResourceValue;
}
}
}
}
// Strategic Resources
if(bGiveUpStratResources && iGiveUpStratResources > 0)
{
ResourceUsageTypes eUsage;
ResourceTypes eResource;
int iResourceQuantity = 1;
int iTotalResourceValue = 0;
CvWeightedVector<int> viResourceValue;
for(int iResourceLoop = 0; iResourceLoop < GC.getNumResourceInfos(); iResourceLoop++)
{
eResource = (ResourceTypes) iResourceLoop;
const CvResourceInfo* pkResourceInfo = GC.getResourceInfo(eResource);
if (pkResourceInfo == NULL)
continue;
eUsage = pkResourceInfo->getResourceUsage();
// Can't trade bonus Resources
if (eUsage != RESOURCEUSAGE_STRATEGIC)
{
continue;
}
iResourceQuantity = pLosingPlayer->getNumResourceAvailable(eResource, false);
// Don't bother looking at this Resource if the other player doesn't even have any of it
if (iResourceQuantity == 0)
{
continue;
}
if (iResourceQuantity > 3)
{
iResourceQuantity = 3;
}
int iCurrentResourceValue = GetResourceValue(eResource, iResourceQuantity, GC.getGame().GetDealDuration(), true, eOtherPlayer, iCurrentNetGoldOfReceivingPlayer);
if(iCurrentResourceValue == INT_MAX)
continue;
if(iCurrentResourceValue > 0)
{
// Get total city value of the loser
iTotalResourceValue += iCurrentResourceValue;
viResourceValue.push_back(eResource, iCurrentResourceValue);
}
}
// Determine the value of Cities to be given up
int iResourceValueToSurrender = (iTotalResourceValue * iGiveUpStratResources) / 100;
// Sort the vector based on distance from winner's capital
viResourceValue.SortItems();
if(viResourceValue.size() > 0)
{
// Loop through sorted Cities and add them to the deal if they're under the amount to give up - start from the back of the list, because that's where the CLOSEST cities are
for(int iSortedResourceIndex = 0; iSortedResourceIndex < viResourceValue.size(); iSortedResourceIndex++)
{
ResourceTypes eResourceList = (ResourceTypes)viResourceValue.GetElement(iSortedResourceIndex);
iResourceQuantity = pLosingPlayer->getNumResourceAvailable(eResourceList, false);
if (iResourceQuantity > 3)
{
iResourceQuantity = 3;
}
int iCurrentResourceValue = GetResourceValue(eResourceList, iResourceQuantity, GC.getGame().GetDealDuration(), true, eOtherPlayer, iCurrentNetGoldOfReceivingPlayer);
if(iCurrentResourceValue == INT_MAX)
continue;
// City is worth less than what is left to be added to the deal, so add it
if(iCurrentResourceValue < iResourceValueToSurrender && iCurrentResourceValue > 0)
{
pDeal->AddResourceTrade(eLosingPlayer, eResourceList, iResourceQuantity, GC.getGame().GetDealDuration());
iResourceValueToSurrender -= iCurrentResourceValue;
}
}
}
}
#if defined(MOD_DIPLOMACY_CIV4_FEATURES)
if(MOD_DIPLOMACY_CIV4_FEATURES && bBecomeMyVassal)
{
pDeal->AddVassalageTrade(eLosingPlayer);
}
if(MOD_DIPLOMACY_CIV4_FEATURES && bRevokeMyVassals)
{
pDeal->AddRevokeVassalageTrade(eLosingPlayer);
}
#endif
}
Been playing on the 1/9 patch, really liking the new AI. Haven't a chance to try the 1/15 patch with the new aggressiveness, but so far the AI is the best it's been. The "friendlier" AI is more unpredictable in a lot of ways now, since it's now not guaranteed that all civs will start to attack you once you start winning. Also really liking how long-lasting alliances form and aren't necessarily going to result in being backstabbed eventually. I'll have to play the newer patch and see how AI aggressiveness is (could stand to be ramped up a bit). Warmongering is in a good place now, you can capture cities and every civ won't immediately hate you; wars don't feel like a binary "defensive only" or "if I capture one city I may as well capture all of them" now. City trading is nice, it opens up a lot more strategic opportunities. I was pleasantly surprised by having some interesting city trades proposed. You can also liberate city states without going to war, which is nice. I think it's been stated before, but the AI values strategic resources way higher than they should during trades.
I did notice some strange things though: doing certain actions can make other civs hostile to you permanently, but especially having religious differences. After resurrecting two different civs (albeit, keeping their capital cities), they immediately became hostile because of "religious differences." One civ (America) hadn't even founded a religion either. It could have been because I held their capital (though I captured it from a different civ), but that didn't appear in their list of grievances. Unless this is a bug, having certain actions make other civs permanently hostile doesn't feel like a good mechanic. Having the penalty decay over a long while would be fine.
Other than that, the AI is in a really good spot now.
I did notice some strange things though: doing certain actions can make other civs hostile to you permanently, but especially having religious differences. After resurrecting two different civs (albeit, keeping their capital cities), they immediately became hostile because of "religious differences." One civ (America) hadn't even founded a religion either. It could have been because I held their capital (though I captured it from a different civ), but that didn't appear in their list of grievances. Unless this is a bug, having certain actions make other civs permanently hostile doesn't feel like a good mechanic. Having the penalty decay over a long while would be fine.
Other than that, the AI is in a really good spot now.
-160 to opinion if you own a civ's original capital, plus you're marked as untrustworthy which makes them hostile. It isn't religious differences...
If you return it you should get a diplo bonus now. This functions as intended, only capitulated vassals will disregard you owning their capital/Holy City.
Odd that it didn't appear in the list though, could you post a bug report with a savegame/screenshots?
Thanks for the feedback!
Here are the screenshots, not sure if these are bugs though. If they are, I'll make a bug report:
Here's Theodora, voluntary vassal, didn't capture capital (but converted her civ to my religion). Been hostile ever since (the negative modifiers for the WC and territorial disputes are recent).
Next we have Montezuma, whom I resurrected from another civ. Held onto their capital city, but the positive modifiers outweigh the negative. Also, the message the AI gave me was "religious differences."
Finally, here's Greece. Captured their original capital, but haven't had any problems with them since.
They only difference is that Greece was a forced vassal whereas the Byzantines and Aztecs were voluntary vassals. Not sure if that's what's driving the different opinions here and is the intended behavior.
Here's Theodora, voluntary vassal, didn't capture capital (but converted her civ to my religion). Been hostile ever since (the negative modifiers for the WC and territorial disputes are recent).
Next we have Montezuma, whom I resurrected from another civ. Held onto their capital city, but the positive modifiers outweigh the negative. Also, the message the AI gave me was "religious differences."
Finally, here's Greece. Captured their original capital, but haven't had any problems with them since.
They only difference is that Greece was a forced vassal whereas the Byzantines and Aztecs were voluntary vassals. Not sure if that's what's driving the different opinions here and is the intended behavior.
Yeah, there is some unintended behavior here. Bug report with savegame/mod list would be appreciated.
@Recursive, how come the Celts don't have a penalty to our diplomacy because of differing ideologies? Everyone else does, are there things that nullify it?
Spoiler :
I had all features turned off as I am just doing the "end turn" of a SV, and it speeds things up just a tad.
