Not sure if this is the right thread, but in my current game Pacal has a warmonger score of 2.5k and 75% warmonger fervor against me after I declared war on Pacal twice and took two of the Incan cities (one being their capital). They're friends so I can understand they'd be upset, but maxing out warmonger fervor seems way too extreme when I've taken two cities off someone bigger than me and haven't even taken any of his.
Diplomacy AI Development
- Thread starter Recursive
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ai civ v diplomacy vox populi
It would be nice if the negative modifier for converting other founders would change to the positive modifier for having same religion over time if you have converted all their cities and they have no religious units of their religion left anymore. Some time could pass between this transition to reflect temporary outrage, but if the religion has been extinguished, it does not make sense to still be upset about gaining bonuses from a different religion.
AndreyK
King
In my current game I am leading in score and military power, have several CS allies. Of course, most of AI hate me, and I have no embassies with them. Some of them start a war with my CS allies, and even if they afraid of me, I can't demand or trade with them to make a peace with my allied CS. I don't know about war weariness with CS, because Russia is at war with Wittenberg (my ally) since like forever, I gave to Wittenberg 7 units, I keep 2 units close to CS, so Russia would not have place to attack. I had 2 wars with Denmark, Brasil and Byzantium (had WW up to 75, despite liberating 3 other CS (my former allies)).
So there is no diplomatic way to protect CS, because Russia keep attacking and I can't even talk to her. So only way is to DoW.
So there is no diplomatic way to protect CS, because Russia keep attacking and I can't even talk to her. So only way is to DoW.
I do agree the AI is too stingy with embassies. I feel like a complete breakdown of diplomatic relations should be reserved for a hostile stance. I have no issue if a guarded stance wants to make things difficult for me but we should at least be able to consider deals.
Recursive, I love the work done on the AI personalities. From time to time, we forget that they are not humans 
.
However, I play a game with several neighbors that are not very militaristic (Morocco, Austria, Arabia, Brittany) and since a global peace accord has been voted, their number of units is ridiculous. They go to war with each other but with very few troops. I don't know if there is a link.
Sorry I couldn't analyze more but I had never seen this.
.However, I play a game with several neighbors that are not very militaristic (Morocco, Austria, Arabia, Brittany) and since a global peace accord has been voted, their number of units is ridiculous. They go to war with each other but with very few troops. I don't know if there is a link.
Sorry I couldn't analyze more but I had never seen this.
If the AI doesn't want to expand, they don't have contested borders.
It should only be if there was a denouncement or you're untrustworthy...
Recursive, I love the work done on the AI personalities. From time to time, we forget that they are not humans
However, I play a game with several neighbors that are not very militaristic (Morocco, Austria, Arabia, Brittany) and since a global peace accord has been voted, their number of units is ridiculous. They go to war with each other but with very few troops. I don't know if there is a link.
Sorry I couldn't analyze more but I had never seen this.
Global Peace Accords reduces but does not eliminate war willingness. Unit production AI is separate.
I think a denouncement should not completely break down dealmaking. Sure you are on thin ice, but we still at least try to conduct some diplomacy. Denouncements are pretty common, as often one block or the other will denounce you together.
I think the issue is that despite all the improvements, the trade AI would still be too easy to exploit if embassies were given out to people the AI has denounced.
This is one of those annoyances for me. So Theodora attacked me back in the day, and I took a city from her.
Two Eras later, she takes it back. Now she attacks me again, and gets a +56% Anti-Warmonger bonus against me!
I always feel that if you are the one to declare, you shouldn't get AWB right off the bat, that seems silly.
Two Eras later, she takes it back. Now she attacks me again, and gets a +56% Anti-Warmonger bonus against me!
Spoiler :
I always feel that if you are the one to declare, you shouldn't get AWB right off the bat, that seems silly.
I assume this is the message received when an opposing AI is open to voluntary vassalage?
I've only noticed these recently, but never knew I was supposed to initiate the deal.
Spoiler :
I think that message is supposed to accompany the deal offer, so it's likely a bug.
It's a penalty for being ahead in tech. They view your actions as competition.
Ah, maybe a different message then, something like "They are jealous of your superior technology!"
Sure, I'll add that.
I think for like the first 70 turns or so, the AI should not do settle near me requests. Everyone is going to expand during that time, and so inevitably you settle your first city, they tell you to stop, you tell them no, and then you get a penalty. Considering there is already a proximity penalty it feels like double dipping a bit.
I've refactored how the AI perceives human military strength, should be less in favor of the human and more logically sound. It'll use the skill rating boost or the human strength mod, whichever is higher, rather than applying both.
If the skill rating actually gives a penalty because the human's been taking losses, the human strength perception advantage gradually fades. If the human's skill rating is at 80% or lower of the global average, their strength advantage is nullified entirely and only the penalty applies (between 100% and 80% there's a gradual but still significant reduction in how much of a bonus they have).
Strength perception mod for humans based on difficulty is now as follows:
Settler +10%
Chieftain +15%
Warlord +20%
Prince +25%
King +30%
Emperor +35%
Immortal +42%
Deity +50%
Note that the human strength perception bonus does not apply if the human is bankrupt, doing badly in war, or is someone's vassal.
Skill rating is also now more punishing if you're taking losses, with the losses reducing your perceived strength by the full 1% rather than 0.5%. Still capped at 50% and 200% though. I originally halved it to avoid being too punishing to humans, but now that they have an advantage in strength perception there's no need for it, I think.
Finally AI will no longer consider the skill rating of civs they haven't met.
Credit to @Milae for the initial suggestion here.
I'll look into it.
If the skill rating actually gives a penalty because the human's been taking losses, the human strength perception advantage gradually fades. If the human's skill rating is at 80% or lower of the global average, their strength advantage is nullified entirely and only the penalty applies (between 100% and 80% there's a gradual but still significant reduction in how much of a bonus they have).
Strength perception mod for humans based on difficulty is now as follows:
Settler +10%
Chieftain +15%
Warlord +20%
Prince +25%
King +30%
Emperor +35%
Immortal +42%
Deity +50%
Note that the human strength perception bonus does not apply if the human is bankrupt, doing badly in war, or is someone's vassal.
Skill rating is also now more punishing if you're taking losses, with the losses reducing your perceived strength by the full 1% rather than 0.5%. Still capped at 50% and 200% though. I originally halved it to avoid being too punishing to humans, but now that they have an advantage in strength perception there's no need for it, I think.
Finally AI will no longer consider the skill rating of civs they haven't met.
Credit to @Milae for the initial suggestion here.
I'll look into it.
Last edited:
