Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Well, for consistency's sake it makes sense to always be tossed when the borders expire. The problem is the leader involved doesn't automatically offer to renew the agreement.
Diplomacy
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
doktorstick
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 142
Howdy. Is it possible to fix(?) the AI where it doesn't penalize you for your lands being close if you are not adding settlements/buying tiles, or if their land grab is (much) greater than yours?
Here's where I'm coming from. I'm expanding and then it invokes the ire of some neighbor. They tell me not to settle near their lands, and I agree. If I don't settle new lands (nor buy tiles), they keep getting madder and madder that "I'm expansionist" and taking their lands. In reality what I think is happening is that as they continue to expand cities and buy tiles they get more and more in contact with my old, mostly static lands and it flags me as "expansionist".
I'm land-locked and civ-locked in my current game (8 civs, I'm 7th on the "land" list), and rival civs call me expansionist. It's frustrating trying to play diplomatic, but not being able to.
Here's where I'm coming from. I'm expanding and then it invokes the ire of some neighbor. They tell me not to settle near their lands, and I agree. If I don't settle new lands (nor buy tiles), they keep getting madder and madder that "I'm expansionist" and taking their lands. In reality what I think is happening is that as they continue to expand cities and buy tiles they get more and more in contact with my old, mostly static lands and it flags me as "expansionist".
I'm land-locked and civ-locked in my current game (8 civs, I'm 7th on the "land" list), and rival civs call me expansionist. It's frustrating trying to play diplomatic, but not being able to.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I agree it's crazy! 
Sneaks has been experimenting with that subject in his What Would Gandhi Do? mod, so I'm leaving it up to him, using his mod myself.
Sneaks has been experimenting with that subject in his What Would Gandhi Do? mod, so I'm leaving it up to him, using his mod myself.
I'm currently using your developmental diplomacy mod. When I buy influence over city-states the number decreases instead of increases. Why would they become angry about receiving money? I see you made an update today. Has this issue been fixed or am I the only one to encounter it?
I see you made an update today. Has this issue been fixed or am I the only one to encounter it?
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Purchasing influence does not cause the next purchase to reduce in value, though the amount of influence purchasable does decrease over time. This is hardcoded, we're unable to change it.
If you mean influence gain from gold is going into the negative, that would definitely be a bug. I've been experimenting with the influence buy formula and it's rather difficult to figure out how it works.
If you mean influence gain from gold is going into the negative, that would definitely be a bug. I've been experimenting with the influence buy formula and it's rather difficult to figure out how it works.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
It should be fixed in the latest dev/beta version. I explained a bit about why influence is hard to mod here, copied below.
Txurce
Deity
Russia on Immortal with v25, WWGD and FR:
There were three continents - I was on the one with 5. Partly because of the fun but weird shapes that the Tectonic map creates, there wasn't much room for the AI to move against each other. (After three games, I'll skip it next time.)
And partly due to WWGD, the AI was predictably tame. I got by with a spearman and a horseman until I built five longswordsmen. In that time everyone except Napoleon were friendly to me. That happy state of affairs lasted until the last half dozen moves of the game, when two far-off civs declared war.
What really surprised me is that France was the only civ to lose a city all game long: one to America, two to me (which left him broke when I threw one in to take all his gold in the peace treaty), and then the rest but one to America again.
That has to be some sort of record, and is too peaceful for my taste. I"ll play my next game similarly but without WWGD to see what changes.
(This could have been posted just as easily on the Combat thread.)
There were three continents - I was on the one with 5. Partly because of the fun but weird shapes that the Tectonic map creates, there wasn't much room for the AI to move against each other. (After three games, I'll skip it next time.)
And partly due to WWGD, the AI was predictably tame. I got by with a spearman and a horseman until I built five longswordsmen. In that time everyone except Napoleon were friendly to me. That happy state of affairs lasted until the last half dozen moves of the game, when two far-off civs declared war.
What really surprised me is that France was the only civ to lose a city all game long: one to America, two to me (which left him broke when I threw one in to take all his gold in the peace treaty), and then the rest but one to America again.
That has to be some sort of record, and is too peaceful for my taste. I"ll play my next game similarly but without WWGD to see what changes.
(This could have been posted just as easily on the Combat thread.)
Ahriman
Tyrant
Yeah, I'm finding this to be a problem, not enough war.
Though; is it not enough war, or is it AI's unable to take over the more powerful cities?
Txurce
Deity
The patch's city buff is undoubtedly a factor. WWGD is definitely a factor - in my previous game the only wars on my 5-civ continent were against early aggressor Rome. And the Tectonics map's snake shape on the other continent - and a tight bottleneck in mine - probably had an adverse affect.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Since this sort of ties together several conversations we've been having, I brought up the subject of friendship/war in Sneak's WWGD thread here.
Seek
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,773
Excellent!
Ahriman
Tyrant
I had another thought: is there any way that the AI could be made to value things at different rates over the course of the game?
For example, they might only be willing to pay 10 gold for open borders in the early game, but they might demand 500 gold for it in the late-game?
It would be really nice to have open-borders AI re-written, so that the AI would only ask for it if they actually conceivably needed it.
And to have the values vary so that you can't just constantly milk the AIs for OB gold.
Alternatively, force the open-borders gold rating to zero, and make open borders a mutual agreement that can only be done in both directions at once.
For example, they might only be willing to pay 10 gold for open borders in the early game, but they might demand 500 gold for it in the late-game?
It would be really nice to have open-borders AI re-written, so that the AI would only ask for it if they actually conceivably needed it.
And to have the values vary so that you can't just constantly milk the AIs for OB gold.
Alternatively, force the open-borders gold rating to zero, and make open borders a mutual agreement that can only be done in both directions at once.
Txurce
Deity
This cuts to the heart of the matter.
doktorstick
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 142
I regularly abuse OBs. I sell my OB for near 50g and then over the course of the game it diminishes to around 30g. I only take an OB when I want to squat on tiles my would-be opponent needs to develop. I rarely find the need of OB because I'm attacking through someone. Even then, it becomes a crap-shoot because you can't extend OB without it ending first, possible causing your units to be misplaced.
Continuing that thought, it would be a boon to have a 1-turn buffer for ending/renegotiating trade relations. For instance, my empire may be happy, but for a turn it is thrown into unhappiness because a luxury trade agreement ends. I extend it, and it is regularly accepted, so why the disruption in trade?
Continuing that thought, it would be a boon to have a 1-turn buffer for ending/renegotiating trade relations. For instance, my empire may be happy, but for a turn it is thrown into unhappiness because a luxury trade agreement ends. I extend it, and it is regularly accepted, so why the disruption in trade?
doktorstick
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 142
Apropos to nothing, I lost my last game because Greece declared war on me as the third UN vote approached, thereby sending 8 CSes into war against me. I was helpless as I watched the turn counter march toward the UN vote; there was nothing I could do to sway the CSes, and even if I managed to end war (which is impossible that soon after a declaration of war), I would have had to recover -60 attitude. Greece won a Diplomatic victory.
Txurce
Deity
That's a great story. I would have been even more impressed if it happened earlier.
SlightlyMad
Prince
Are victory conditions moddable? The CS rewards seem much more balanced now, but they're still basically an economic win button that the player is free to exploit in just about any game. I don't think I've played a single game yet where the diplomatic victory wasn't the easiest one to obtain.
I think the biggest problem with it at the moment is that the vote threshold is simply too low. It would be more interesting to me, if the number was high enough that in the course of a normal game there wouldn't be enough votes of it from CSes alone, unless some already conquered (or some conquered civs) had been liberated. On a large map, it's only 10, and there are 20 CSes by default. Since you get a vote for yourself and a vote for building the UN, you only need a little over a third of the CSes to win it. That would be, for example, only every single maritime, which any player in their right mind would try to do anyways. I think it would make more sense for the number of votes in that case to be more like 15 or even 20.
I think the biggest problem with it at the moment is that the vote threshold is simply too low. It would be more interesting to me, if the number was high enough that in the course of a normal game there wouldn't be enough votes of it from CSes alone, unless some already conquered (or some conquered civs) had been liberated. On a large map, it's only 10, and there are 20 CSes by default. Since you get a vote for yourself and a vote for building the UN, you only need a little over a third of the CSes to win it. That would be, for example, only every single maritime, which any player in their right mind would try to do anyways. I think it would make more sense for the number of votes in that case to be more like 15 or even 20.
doktorstick
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 142
You can disable the victory condition in the Advanced Setup of the game.
Or, you can do the City-State Diplomacy mod. It requires you to produce diplo units and deliver them to the CS to gain favor. It adds a time component to swaying CSes to you, since you can't simply BRIBE BRIBE BRIBE. It's one of my default mods now.
Or, you can do the City-State Diplomacy mod. It requires you to produce diplo units and deliver them to the CS to gain favor. It adds a time component to swaying CSes to you, since you can't simply BRIBE BRIBE BRIBE. It's one of my default mods now.
Similar threads
