General A New Dawn discussion

[platyping]

There is a score value, and a power value actually.
"Powerful" sounds more like it is only power related.

 

[Rezca]

I'm definitely much higher than him on the scoreboard, but we're about equal in terms of power (According to the BUG scoreboard. It's gone from 1.0 to 1.1 and back and forth). I didn't check to see if Isabella or the other AIs close to me in *score* were suffering from the extra -3, but all the AI that were close to me in *power* were upset.

 

[Rezca]

This was fairly amusing.

So a few turns ago, Isabella captured and razed one of Toku's cities that was right on her borders, and just a turn after I razed one of her border cities I get an event that asks if I want to make peace. I went ahead and clicked yes, and while I was moving my units back into friendly territory I got the message that Toku had captured and razed one of Isabella's cities. The very turn we make peace he managed to get some payback for his earlier lost city

 

[oldnooob]

Ever wish you had the patience to play a huge game long enough to reach the Modern Era?
Ever wish you could start a fully developed game without having to micro manage for days?
Ever wish you could create a game that makes you so powerful that you could crush all those other Civs ? "And Crush Them Like The Cockroaches They Are" - Quote from Mr. Wonderful.
Well, here is the savegame for you!

A fully developed savegame at 2700 turns, just beginning the modern Era.

Some highlights,
You have never had a war! yet you have the mightiest army on the planet!
You have the choice to determine the course and direction to fit your gameplay style.
You have two fully equipped armadas and one support fleet ready to launch!
Almost every civ is neutral towards you.

Now you have the chance to satisfy the "Attila The Hun" urge that we all have without all the prep work.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=385088&stc=1&d=1414774436
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=385089&stc=1&d=1414774436
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=385090&stc=1&d=1414774436

 

[Rezca]

"We won't make this sort of trade with non-believers"

First I've gotten that as a reason for not accepting Open Borders =/

Have Pleased relations with Asoka, and I can't get his religion naturally or by missionary until he opens borders, and he won't open borders because I'm not already practicing his religion? Huh?

 

[Afforess]

"We won't make this sort of trade with non-believers"

First I've gotten that as a reason for not accepting Open Borders =/

Have Pleased relations with Asoka, and I can't get his religion naturally or by missionary until he opens borders, and he won't open borders because I'm not already practicing his religion? Huh?

It's one of a few new trade denial types, introduced 1.5 months ago. Very religious AI's will not trade some things with players that do not share their faith.

There were 5 new types of diplomacy trade denials added:

1. DENIAL_SHARE_RELIGION,
2. DENIAL_YOU_LACK_OUR_RELIGION,
3. DENIAL_FINANCIAL_TROUBLES,
4. DENIAL_PEACEFUL_NATURE,
5. DENIAL_MANIPULATOR

1.) Occurs when you try and bribe a religious AI into declaring war with someone who shares the same faith. You will not be able to convince some AI's to declare war on their spiritual brothers/sisters.

2.) The reverse of #1, some religious AI's will not trade with "infidels".

3.) Occurs for war trades usually, prevents AI from joining trades that would harm their already poor financial status.

4.) Peaceful nature prevents peace-loving AI's being bribed into wars.

5.) AI's that deem a player a manipulator (making proxy trades) will start to refuse to do any trades with them.

As far as your situation goes, Asoka has no idea you want Open Borders to have his religion spread. Your motives might well be the opposite.

 

[Rezca]

It's one of a few new trade denial types, introduced 1.5 months ago. Very religious AI's will not trade some things with players that do not share their faith.

There were 5 new types of diplomacy trade denials added:

1. DENIAL_SHARE_RELIGION,
2. DENIAL_YOU_LACK_OUR_RELIGION,
3. DENIAL_FINANCIAL_TROUBLES,
4. DENIAL_PEACEFUL_NATURE,
5. DENIAL_MANIPULATOR

1.) Occurs when you try and bribe a religious AI into declaring war with someone who shares the same faith. You will not be able to convince some AI's to declare war on their spiritual brothers/sisters.

2.) The reverse of #1, some religious AI's will not trade with "infidels".

3.) Occurs for war trades usually, prevents AI from joining trades that would harm their already poor financial status.

4.) Peaceful nature prevents peace-loving AI's being bribed into wars.

5.) AI's that deem a player a manipulator (making proxy trades) will start to refuse to do any trades with them.

As far as your situation goes, Asoka has no idea you want Open Borders to have his religion spread. Your motives might well be the opposite.

Great, loving the sound of #2 already
More than half of the AIs I met liked me and Asoka really liked me, but they refused to Open Borders or even Right of Passage. Then a neighbor opened up and his Zoroastrianism spread to my cities (Kept unconverted so I could try and get Asoka to open up, but he never did. Offered tribute, caved in to his requests, declared war on Ceasar - which was borderline suicide!!! - and he still refused to.) I eventually just gave up and founded Confucianism and went with that. Spread it to my neighbor and managed to get him to convert out of his self-founded religion. Took a fraction of the time I spent trying to get five other AIs to open borders with me.

I just don't get it. How do they expect you to get their religion if they won't open borders with you? Only way I can see is either YOU founding it and spreading it to them, or having one of their less stubborn neighbors spreading it to you. Which I guess is a liable option, but so far I'm not liking this new diplomacy feature.



#4, is that *always* going to come up, or just be more common?


#5 Well yup gonna see this one a lot I'm sure, given my playstyle

 

[Afforess]

The #4 (and #2 and #1 as well) are dependent on the leader's personality (as defined in the XML), so only a few leaders will be like that.

 

[Rezca]

The #4 (and #2 and #1 as well) are dependent on the leader's personality (as defined in the XML), so only a few leaders will be like that.

I was playing on an Earth map as Japan, and quite a few of my contacts were like that unfortunately. Usually Asoka's a nice guy to have next to you, but... Not even opening Borders at Pleased was a shock - even at one point when none of my cities had any religion whatsoever inside. My civ was there for the converting! His loss then

I'm just glad I wasn't on a higher difficulty and starving for the happiness bonus that Religion brings at the time


Right now, given my currently limited experiences with #2, it just seems like every AI I've met that rejects an Open Borders request for that reason seems a lot like how Isabella treats you when you've got a conflicting religion, but without the war declarations!

I'll need to play around a bit more before I can honestly say if it's something I hate or something I just need to learn how to deal with, but when a full continent refused to do much with me just because I had no religion (And had no way of getting one!!) that was a big disappointment for me. Was almost as shocking when the Siam actually asked for open borders - the only civilization in the world that opened borders with me

 

[Samson]

The #4 (and #2 and #1 as well) are dependent on the leader's personality (as defined in the XML), so only a few leaders will be like that.

I am currently playing an earth like map, and I have about 1/2 the civs saying DENIAL_YOU_LACK_OUR_RELIGION.

 

[MechatronicJazz]

2.) The reverse of #1, some religious AI's will not trade with "infidels".

I think this should exclude no state religion from being "infidels", similar to diplomacy points, just so that AI don't inadvertently hinder their own religion spread to those who don't have religion. I haven't actually played with this feature yet, but it seems to me that it could cause the affected leaders to become completely isolated whenever they found their own religion. It would make more sense to me for them to deny trade to civs under other religions while aggressively spreading to those without state religions.

 

[Rezca]

I am currently playing an earth like map, and I have about 1/2 the civs saying DENIAL_YOU_LACK_OUR_RELIGION.

Same deal here. I got half a dozen AIs and only two of them have Open Borders

It's a good concept in theory, but all it's doing for me is discouraging forming peaceful relations with other leaders. Seriously, Asoka refusing open borders at pleased relations? After spending countless resources and several centuries in vain trying to get him to open up, I'm at the point where I feel like burning his empire to the ground just to spite him for that
Not very productive or a nice thing to do, but it'll make me feel better after all the nonsense this allegedly nice leader put me through >:/

I think this should exclude no state religion from being "infidels", similar to diplomacy points, just so that AI don't inadvertently hinder their own religion spread to those who don't have religion. I haven't actually played with this feature yet, but it seems to me that it could cause the affected leaders to become completely isolated whenever they found their own religion. It would make more sense to me for them to deny trade to civs under other religions while aggressively spreading to those without state religions.

Yep, pretty much what happened with the founder of Kemetism here. He founded it, cut off all relations with everyone else for them being non-believers, and then fell behind in technology and got overwhelmed by his neighbors.

As it is, it really looks like the AIs making use of this new diplomacy feature have been turned into Mini-Isabella's, except without the rampant war declarations on anyone not practicing their religion and the added bit about being wary of people with NO religion

 

[Rezca]

*Double post*

 

[kaltruhe]

Hi, I have returned to RAND2 last weak since my last play day 2012. One biggest change I noticed is trading (international trade system). Anyone could explain to me the reason why RAND2 changed commerce from international trading by city connection?

 

[nionios]

At first sight the above headline looks strange but I have noticed that when playing with medium difficulty (noble level in my case), my civilization is always powerful in every aspect and especially in tech research.So i am always the first to discover most of the techs which means that i found most of the religions.So they all tend to spread in my cities which creates instability problems because of the non-state religion factor when i use a religion civic that is affected by non-state religions.
I want to conclude by saying that in some cases the big research progress (which in fact means many different religions in your empire), produces instability problems.

 

[Vokarya]

Hi, I have returned to RAND2 last weak since my last play day 2012. One biggest change I noticed is trading (international trade system). Anyone could explain to me the reason why RAND2 changed commerce from international trading by city connection?

We had a thread about trade routes here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=529999. The capsule is that the time it was taking the game to calculate the optimal trade routes for each city was too high for the return (because all that comes out of trade routes is a certain bonus amount of commerce; if I remember correctly, the computation time was increasing with the fourth power of the number of cities on the map) and the connectedness system rewards you for connecting your cities in a way that's both easier for the game to calculate and easier for the player to see at a glance.

 

[kaltruhe]

We had a thread about trade routes here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=529999. The capsule is that the time it was taking the game to calculate the optimal trade routes for each city was too high for the return (because all that comes out of trade routes is a certain bonus amount of commerce; if I remember correctly, the computation time was increasing with the fourth power of the number of cities on the map) and the connectedness system rewards you for connecting your cities in a way that's both easier for the game to calculate and easier for the player to see at a glance.

Many thanks for your reply, now I see clearly. But, I'm sorry that we lost the effects of international war on economical yield of the civs.

 

[os79]

Many thanks for your reply, now I see clearly. But, I'm sorry that we lost the effects of international war on economical yield of the civs.

You're sorry for no reasons, to be blunt. Please play a game long enough to find specific weaknesses that need to be addressed. Then you will maybe be sorry with a solid reason.

This will help a lot more than knee-jerk rejection to something already having a strong consensus .

 

[kaltruhe]

You're sorry for no reasons, to be blunt. Please play a game long enough to find specific weaknesses that need to be addressed. Then you will maybe be sorry with a solid reason.

This will help a lot more than knee-jerk rejection to something already having a strong consensus .

If you feel any offensive sense from my comment, I apologize. Maybe my poor English seemed very blunt I should have written 'sad' instead of 'sorry'. I always appreciate you developers works every time I playing the game .

 

[os79]

If you feel any offensive sense from my comment, I apologize. Maybe my poor English seemed very blunt I should have written 'sad' instead of 'sorry'. I always appreciate you developers works every time I playing the game .

I'm not offended. Im just asking for more detailed criticisms. Because if there is more details in criticism we can tweak the connectedness concept to be more playable.