IF I have a comfortable happiness margin, I have no problem with puppets growing and will encourage it with farms if they are decently developed.
I agree it's definitely rare that it's the FIRST thing I want....
Fall Patch changes discussion thread
- Thread starter Tinker
- Start date
IF I have a comfortable happiness margin, I have no problem with puppets growing and will encourage it with farms if they are decently developed.
I agree it's definitely rare that it's the FIRST thing I want....
pthieu1986
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2012
- Messages
- 241
no new resolutions, late games suck again
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
That I disagree with.
People do like an AI that plays to win... As long as it is not a stupid jerk about it. All AIs mass warring the Space player isn't fun because it is almost like throwing the board over in a game.
Things like Capitals Conquest, cultural domination, and CS allies are made to be fought over. (And the AI could have a message+diplo modifier that it sent to anyone nearing victory "you are upsetting the balance of power with your ......whatever you are doing well at)
All of those have ways that involve stopping a winner that is also directly helping your self. (Preserving your capital, building up your culture, getting a CS ally)
So they are all reasonable.
And it would be very reasonable for a civ that was doing well (ie near victory itself, to have that "balance of power" excuse for worsening relations and cutting off mutually beneficial relationships (since you are really close to winning, a benefit to you is worse to them. But they shouldn't immediately go into mindless kamikaze mode either)
And for a 'nice win' the ATM function is important.. it should just be transferred to CS.
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,829
I get your point. I was myself one of those complaining about the mass-DoW because you were going to win was immersion breaking because it killed any attempt at forging diplomatic bonds. But I do think there is a big difference between a DoW and buying out some City States - because one is going on an offense to prevent you from winning, the other is acting in defense instead of just handing you victory on a platter.
After all, I do think the AI should defend against your win, even if that does not mean a military offense - just like AI should always try to optimize it's cultural output within the frame of its gamestyle in order to defend against your tourism, and AI should always try to optimize it's tech rate in order to progress as fast as possible, I would find it should be a part of the normal AI gameplay to prevent you from buying out its city states if it has the monetary means to prevent it - just like it will try to stop a military invasion if it has units.
Vatican missed the memo.
Seriously, though, I messed around with the new commerce Landsknechts and I don't feel this aspect needs to be improved. It is almost too powerful if used well.
I fully agree, that's why I love Greece in the game. As much as I have had problems with them, they have been a real AI opponent that's harder to beat. But know I fear they have nerfed them a little in upping the DV requirements. Pre-BNW AI used to win - especially Space - well before turn 300; now they don't for reasons others have stated about the tech rates. I was careful in talking about small changes in each of the elements, knowing that all-out aggression (cultural, tourism, techs, alliances, military) can prevent anyone from ever winning. All I have ever wanted was was small smart changes in making the AI win more effectively. But for reasons I still believe (i.e., a majority of Civvers are mid-level, casual players not hardcore gamers), they have made the AI more passive, less aggressive and stupider in beating you.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
I don't think they have made the AI stupider... they have added changes into the game mechanics without going through enough extra work to make the AI smarter in using the new mechanics.
They have made it more passive at different points... but those points are sometime the times it is Smart to be passive.
Is it just me or did they do something to the early warmongers?
Before the fall patch, Attila, Genghis and Monty just never posed any real threat to me. They ALLWAYS got stuck with their ancient military, because they never really conquered anything or did anything and therefore fell terribly behind. They just built their big early army and then.... nothing..... Perhaps taking a single city state, but that was it.
But now it seems like they can balance it better? I have a game where Attila is on par with me atm. He punded on Babylon early on, securing him dominance over the region (Babylon only got to settle 2 cities all in all while Attila has 9 now). I seriously can't remember Attila ever being a threat to anyone after turn 100.
Before the fall patch, Attila, Genghis and Monty just never posed any real threat to me. They ALLWAYS got stuck with their ancient military, because they never really conquered anything or did anything and therefore fell terribly behind. They just built their big early army and then.... nothing..... Perhaps taking a single city state, but that was it.
But now it seems like they can balance it better? I have a game where Attila is on par with me atm. He punded on Babylon early on, securing him dominance over the region (Babylon only got to settle 2 cities all in all while Attila has 9 now). I seriously can't remember Attila ever being a threat to anyone after turn 100.
whyidie
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,187
I'm seeing the same thing. They're coming with more units in the early game. Prior to the patch I felt like the DOWs were weak (unless at immortal/diety) and not threatening. Now I feel like they come with a sizable force in the early game.
My impressions:
1. AI happiness is much improved as a side effect of less junk cities founded. The BNW level of happiness is now a lot more of a handicap than the AI actually needs.
Looks like the AI would now be fine with AI Default happiness of 100% and just using the increasing extra happiness bonuses for human at King+ level.
2. While the increased AI science flavor has improved, AI still struggles in science and appears to still need its 85% normal beaker cost.
3. The Austrian AI still isn't using its UA; it's not making enough effort to become allies to allow marriage.
1. AI happiness is much improved as a side effect of less junk cities founded. The BNW level of happiness is now a lot more of a handicap than the AI actually needs.
Looks like the AI would now be fine with AI Default happiness of 100% and just using the increasing extra happiness bonuses for human at King+ level.
2. While the increased AI science flavor has improved, AI still struggles in science and appears to still need its 85% normal beaker cost.
3. The Austrian AI still isn't using its UA; it's not making enough effort to become allies to allow marriage.
Ah, remember the good ol' days when there were a vocal contingent that screamed when Austria's UA ruined the game?
DutchJob
Prince
Ah, remember the good ol' days when there were a vocal contingent that screamed when Austria's UA ruined the game?
There are people who have deleted the Austrians...
Ah, remember the good ol' days when there were a vocal contingent that screamed when Austria's UA ruined the game?
Yeah, I remember that. It was awfull :S
You couldn't really play at your normal difficulty, because Austria was playing at 1-2 above.
I had games where everyone had like 500-700 points at medieval, while Austria had 1400 -.- No one could do anything
Light Cleric
ElCee/LC/El Cid
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2011
- Messages
- 3,225
Ah, remember the good ol' days when there were a vocal contingent that screamed when Austria's UA ruined the game?
Yeah, I miss when the game was fun when the AI could coup your CS ally and immediately marry it between turns with no way to stop it.
Wait, no I don't.
The AI being too dumb to use the adjusted UA properly has nothing to do with how OP Austria used to be.
Sorry jon, it looks like we are stuck with an insipid, weak Austrian opponent for now.
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,829
Yes, they did make changes. Civs with high affinity for war has been made more likely to spend gold on military units, plus they lowered the level of surplus units the AI needs to have before it goes to war a bit. Both changes are very wellcome, my last two games I've started neighbor to Rome and Assyria respectively, and both times I've been experiencing some pretty terrifying early assaults.
I think they should make the World's Fair and International Games repeatable the session after they are completed, that'd give a few more options for late games with some nice recurring investment returns.
Peng Qi
Emperor
That would be a little thing I like to call "broken."
