i don’t think it should be removed.
I would say it ought to be removed; I agree in principle that losing TR is unrelated to the war overall.
i don’t think it should be removed.
I would say it ought to be removed; I agree in principle that losing TR is unrelated to the war overall.
Just to make sure everyone in on the same page, the reason why TR are included for this computation is that this computation reuse functions from the warscore computation (Two exception being that (1) it doesn't normalize, so contrary to warscore where losing a knight is meaningless if you have a big army, here losing a knight is worth the same for everyone and (2) it doesn't decay with time), hence consider the same factors.
So to peoples arguing it should be removed, do you consider it should be removed from warscore too?
TR pillaging b eing a part of warscore is a useful abstraction of economic warfare. I'm reluctant to remove it.
G
This I agree with. Pillaging TRs is putting a hurt on your opponent, so factoring that in to warscore makes sense.
But for military aptitude, the amount of TRs I've lost isn't really an indicator. It won't make one bit of difference how well my units do against his....which is the point of this new calculation.
This I agree with. Pillaging TRs is putting a hurt on your opponent, so factoring that in to warscore makes sense.
But for military aptitude, the amount of TRs I've lost isn't really an indicator. It won't make one bit of difference how well my units do against his....which is the point of this new calculation.
TR pillaging being a part of warscore is a useful abstraction of economic warfare. I'm reluctant to remove it.
TR pillaging has little to no impact on global military aptitude....I didn't mean I intended to remove it..
Military aptitude is a new way for the AI to know how skilled a player is. So the AI will look at your territory, your known army strength and your military aptitude and then it will decide which approach is better.and I'd hate to see it go away.
I don’t know what’s in the “global military aptitude” code but I personally would prefer the ability to pillage trade routes for myself and adversary AI’s. It is a tool for both powerful and weak military.
Military aptitude is a new way for the AI to know how skilled a player is. So the AI will look at your territory, your known army strength and your military aptitude and then it will decide which approach is better.
It is useless to attack with slightly bigger forces when AI attacks a human. AI needs more units to be on equal terms, but how many? That's what military aptitude will try to factor in.
@Recursive, do you plan to give the human players a bigger military aptitude right from the start? We all know that humans are better commanders than the AI.
Bugfixes
- Fixed issue with captured city modifier (was inverting the military strength comparison by accident)
- AI should no longer be attacking players they have a DP with in coop wars :)
Significant improvements to GetBestApproachTowardsMajorCiv
- AI prioritization order for updating approaches is now fixed to be more strategic (see https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/diplomacy-ai-development.655040/page-4#post-15684545)
- Improvements to strategic diplomacy & overall
- Simplified proximity modifier
- AI less aggressive to weak players when not in their own interests
- Weight for competing/not competing with the AI for wonders, city-states, land now scales more strategically, based on the AI's pursued victory condition, leader traits and other factors
- Added approach weight for tech difference (if you have a tech lead over the AI of 2 techs or more, they are more likely to hate you, scaling with how large the lead is and how much they care;
if they have a tech lead they are more likely to be friendly - should help control runaways a bit)
- Added opinion bonus (10) for not having more techs than a scientific civilization
- Global politics now matters a lot more in the AI's approach selection
- More weight for befriending the AI's friends, making DPs with the same players, denouncing their enemies (weight is now applied for each same DoF/denouncement/etc.)
- Denouncing/warring with the AI's friends or befriending/making DPs with their enemies is also more impactful (weight is now applied each time as well)
- Religion/ideology impact this as well (examples: if you, the AI and the other friend all have the same religion, +FRIENDLY weight;
if you denounce a "heretic" (player with a different religion than the AI) and have the same religion as the AI, they will like you more, etc.)
Performance improvements & code cleanup
I wanted to confirm, if another civ asks me for help (aka can you load me 7 GPT kind of thing), is that supposed to generate a positive diplomacy modifier?
I wouldn't think there should ever be a time the AI doesn't want to gain Open borders with me...
Spoiler :
Just finished a game as Egypt. Was close to winning a science vic (after having to give up on winning via tourism) but Pacal managed to rapid fire off his own spaceship parts and come from behind, presumably with superior production in his cities. In any case, Poland should have won this game. He beat all of us to the requisite spaceship techs via a 3 or 4 tech lead and got Hubble/Cern as well so he should have had a headstart on building parts. He was also wide so he would have presumably had lots of cities and production to beat us there. However, he seemed to be stuck on going for a diplo win and was aggressively proposing world ideology/united nations every chance he got (they never passed, though). It seemed like he should have switched gears or at least pursued both victory conditions and in doing so he would have beaten Pacal by maybe 20 turns or so (and me by probably 28 turns). My only thought on why he didn't was perhaps a lack of aluminum to make the parts? He was involved in a lot of war so perhaps the AI was looking out for its military interests at the cost of winning the game and he wasn't willing to disband units to build the parts.
I'm not sure if victory conditions are part of what you look at @Recursive but if it is, there could be some tweaking in this sort of situation that could help the above. Then again, maybe it's more realistic for an empire to sometimes act stupidly![]()