Diplomacy AI Development

[azum4roll]

1) What about failing to get into trade distance? That always triggers a warning but never counts down. And bullying the CS doesn't break it?

1, 2) Does declaring war on the CS's ally count? What about being declared on by the CS's ally?

Additional question: does CS influence still drop during war? And does it speed up if the CS is damaged and you have pledged to protect it?

 

[Recursive]

1) What about failing to get into trade distance? That always triggers a warning but never counts down. And bullying the CS doesn't break it?

1, 2) Does declaring war on the CS's ally count? What about being declared on by the CS's ally?

Additional question: does CS influence still drop during war? And does it speed up if the CS is damaged and you have pledged to protect it?

Going to war with the CS's ally does not count as an aggressive attack anymore.

Good questions. I don't know about the others so I'll look at the code.

 

[Recursive]

Okay so as for the rest of it, the code was really disorganized and messy. I have cleaned it up and it should now make sense.

New intended behavior:
1) If your Influence drops below 0, your Pledge of Protection is annulled instantly.
2) Failing to be in trade distance or being allies should count down now.
3) CS Influence still drops during war, as far as I can tell. It does not speed up if the CS is damaged, because your PtP was annulled when war was declared.

Fixed a bug with the countdown logic that was preventing it from triggering properly more than once.

Also, I changed the way military strength rankings were calculated.

Instead of needing to have more military strength than 60% of the world, you just need to have 60%+ of the world's highest military strength. Much easier to understand and more controllable by the player.

 

[AndreyK]

Almost always in my games I meet a snowballing warmonger, one or two, who has twice or more military strength than the rest of the world. So now only 1 or 2 civs will be able to make PtP. I don't like this, and I think that not needed change.

 

[Stalker0]

Instead of needing to have more military strength than 60% of the world, you just need to have 60%+ of the world's highest military strength. Much easier to understand and more controllable by the player.

So what defines "military strength" in this context?

I'm not a great fan of the "pledge is dropped when your influence goes to 0". Late game GD wars can just obliterate influence, and its easy to lose track.

 

[azum4roll]

You can just re-pledge after raising influence back above 0.

 

[Stalker0]

You can just re-pledge after raising influence back above 0.

If so...then why remove the pledge in the first place? Why add button clicks to the user?

 

[Recursive]

If so...then why remove the pledge in the first place? Why add button clicks to the user?

Almost always in my games I meet a snowballing warmonger, one or two, who has twice or more military strength than the rest of the world. So now only 1 or 2 civs will be able to make PtP. I don't like this, and I think that not needed change.

I thought it would be easier to control than being above 60% of civs. The code is certainly easier to handle.

Definitely open to alternative suggestions on this, though.

So what defines "military strength" in this context?

I'm not a great fan of the "pledge is dropped when your influence goes to 0". Late game GD wars can just obliterate influence, and its easy to lose track.

Well I proposed limiting the Great Diplomat penalty to 0 rather than -60, but I don't think @Gazebo got the notification.

 

[Stalker0]

So 1 turn previously Polynesia actually agreed to my request not to settle cities near me (which most of the time the AI just says "get bent"....hehe which of course is exactly what I do

But this time they did agree, and then immediately settled this city. so either they intentionally went against the agreement (which seems silly as they could have just said no when I asked before), or they don't consider this city close to me (which....um, yeah that's pretty close).

Spoiler :

 

[Stalker0]

In general the super easy vassals seem to have been reduced, though in my current game Babylon just vassaled to Russia, which is a little questionable.

Spoiler :

 

[Stalker0]

So Siam gave me the message of "I am so weak please accept my offer of Fealty". But then I go to the diplomacy screen right afterwards and he says becoming a vassal is impossible.

 

[Recursive]

So 1 turn previously Polynesia actually agreed to my request not to settle cities near me (which most of the time the AI just says "get bent"....hehe which of course is exactly what I do

But this time they did agree, and then immediately settled this city. so either they intentionally went against the agreement (which seems silly as they could have just said no when I asked before), or they don't consider this city close to me (which....um, yeah that's pretty close).

Spoiler :

View attachment 594366

The range is 6 tiles, that city is 7 tiles away.

Changing the range is trivial, but what should it be?

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

In my current game (April hotfix) Portugal hasdefensive pact with 4 civilizations; i believe this was changed sometime ago putting a hard cap at two DPs on standard size map, right?

 

[Recursive]

In my current game (April hotfix) Portugal hasdefensive pact with 4 civilizations; i believe this was changed sometime ago putting a hard cap at two DPs on standard size map, right?

Unless they have Order, yes.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

No, it's renaissance era.
I have a save file but it's not before the DPs are signed ,would it be useful for bug report or you would need a one before they sign it?

 

[Recursive]

No, it's renaissance era.
I have a save file but it's not before the DPs are signed ,would it be useful for bug report or you would need a one before they sign it?

Before.

 

[Stalker0]

I know its intended at the moment, but I really really really do hate that I can't demand another AI stop attacking my beloved CS without an embassy....that my only recourse is war.

Spoiler :

 

[azum4roll]

If either of you denounced each other it's unlikely they'll listen to your demands anyway.

 

[Stalker0]

If either of you denounced each other it's unlikely they'll listen to your demands anyway.

Its fair but I want to demand it damn it!

 

[usadefcon1]

Just finished up a game as Rome and lost to Brazil via CV. Brazil would take turns bribing Japan, The Iroquois, and America to attack me. Very smart on Brazil's part, however kinda dumb on Oda, Hiawatha, and Washington. Brazil was the clear leader the entire 2nd half of the game. I was no threat to win, he was. At some point the AI has to prioritize taking down the leader, and right now that is happening too late.

Also I tried to get Attila to join me in attacking Brazil, but he just sat there the entire game with 4 cities. Never declared war. It's not like he was winning or anything, Brazil was. He should have been much more aggressive.