General A New Dawn discussion

[Afforess]

Some of them were running Interventionism, but others were still using Isolationism or even Imperium. I hate how the AI can do that, and I think it's bordering unfair/broken that Interventionism allows you to do that. It even gave me the option to make Peace the very same turn that Darius declared on me. I don't think you should be able to do that.

I like to hear stories of AI's abusing humans though. It is a nice change from the usual complaints.

 

[Rezca]

I like to hear stories of AI's abusing humans though. It is a nice change from the usual complaints.

Though they've been doing it to each other just as frequently, if not more so, and you can do it to them as well. I had been given the option to make peace with people who declared on me and even Revolution-spawned rebels on the very turn they declare just by running Interventionism, and the AI have had multiple wars where they'd make peace on the next turn. Seems like the player can abuse it just as easily as the AI - which was part of my complaint

Best case of this so far was when an AI declared on his neighbor, moved his stack into their territory and then promptly made peace, only to re-declare once the treaty was up - and then made peace again. A lot of relations soured but no units killed at all.

*Edit* Continuing with this, Arabia asked me to declare war on India, and I accepted then made peace in the same turn. India was already hated by pretty much everyone that had any sort of influence in the world, so I wasn't losing out on much, and I avoided the diplomatic hit with Arabia in the process. Again, I really don't think anyone - AI or Human - should be able to magically make peace on the same turn they declare war (Or get declared on. When Genghis declared on ME, it said I could make peace on the very same turn he did so). It's nice that Interventionism allows for easier time negotiating during war and prevents Ceased Relations, but it allowing you to make peace the second war breaks out and regardless of who started it? Not sure that's a good thing.


On a different topic, Ranged Bombardment on naval units is still useless. The AI waste so much of their time spamming this when I'm blockading their cities, because they fear retaliation from my ships. Smart move.... Or it would be, if Naval Bombardment did anything. I can have a single ship or a stack of several ships, and dozens of Frigates or Destroyers will be huddled in their city, then come out to range bombard before ducking back in to hide. However, the bombardment does ZERO damage even if every ranged attack allegedly hits. The end result is my ships continue to have free reign over the waters, their cities continue to shrivel and starve, and they keep on thinking that spamming the does-no-damage Ranged Bombards is a good idea.

If it can't be fixed it should at least be disabled, because right now it just doesn't seem to do anything no matter how many ships are using it, and the AI waste a lot of their turns doing so to no practical effect. On the other hand, Siege Weapons range bombarding does indeed do damage. It just doesn't seem to have any effect for ships.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

The problem of declaring war and suddenly making peace was introduced recently. Rezca, are you sure it depends on interventionism? I remember dbkblk found the spot in the code where this was allowed and asked me if it was normal; at first I thought it was ok, but now I think it's definitely abused. Problem is that we don't remember where that part of the code was.
Afforess, don't you think we should change this? I mean, making peace through a great diplomat or via AP/UN resolutions should be ok even on the same turn the war started, but this is too much IMO.

 

[Rezca]

The problem of declaring war and suddenly making peace was introduced recently. Rezca, are you sure it depends on interventionism? I remember dbkblk found the spot in the code where this was allowed and asked me if it was normal; at first I thought it was ok, but now I think it's definitely abused. Problem is that we don't remember where that part of the code was.
Afforess, don't you think we should change this? I mean, making peace through a great diplomat or via AP/UN resolutions should be ok even on the same turn the war started, but this is too much IMO.

For the player, it seems to be. I wasn't given the option to One-Turn-Peace wars until I adopted it myself - prior I had to wait a while and depending on the leader I was at war with, might have taken a bit of time. Being able to shrug off a Revolution induced war the moment it sparks up is another thing...


Rarely though I was quite sure I've seen the AI do it before Interventionism was introduced and I could have sworn I've seen the AI do it in BTS - but only very, very rarely and it was usually super-peaceful leaders that pulled it off. The player however, was never given the ability to do this as far as I know. You declare, and you have to wait ten or so turns. They declare, and you have to wait until they're willing to talk to you.

 

[Afforess]

The problem of declaring war and suddenly making peace was introduced recently. Rezca, are you sure it depends on interventionism? I remember dbkblk found the spot in the code where this was allowed and asked me if it was normal; at first I thought it was ok, but now I think it's definitely abused. Problem is that we don't remember where that part of the code was.
Afforess, don't you think we should change this? I mean, making peace through a great diplomat or via AP/UN resolutions should be ok even on the same turn the war started, but this is too much IMO.

I don't really have a problem with one or zero turn wars. It's called strategy.

If it bothers Rezca though, I am sure I can tweak the AI to do it more intentionally and throw some customized insults in for effect.

One advantage the AI has over humans is that the AI doesn't have emotions. This means goading human players is a one-way action. Humans can't goad the AI into emotions the same way. I think any advantage, however small, should be exploited. While I didn't plan for interventionism to be used this way, I certainly approve of the end result.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Oh well, then that's fine with me too, as long as AI is able to use this strategy.

 

[Afforess]

On a different topic, Ranged Bombardment on naval units is still useless. The AI waste so much of their time spamming this when I'm blockading their cities, because they fear retaliation from my ships. Smart move.... Or it would be, if Naval Bombardment did anything. I can have a single ship or a stack of several ships, and dozens of Frigates or Destroyers will be huddled in their city, then come out to range bombard before ducking back in to hide. However, the bombardment does ZERO damage even if every ranged attack allegedly hits. The end result is my ships continue to have free reign over the waters, their cities continue to shrivel and starve, and they keep on thinking that spamming the does-no-damage Ranged Bombards is a good idea.

If it can't be fixed it should at least be disabled, because right now it just doesn't seem to do anything no matter how many ships are using it, and the AI waste a lot of their turns doing so to no practical effect. On the other hand, Siege Weapons range bombarding does indeed do damage. It just doesn't seem to have any effect for ships.

I just want to note that I have added this to the to-improve list of items. It will be addressed eventually.

Oh well, then that's fine with me too, as long as AI is able to use this strategy.

Well, nothing I've read so far indicates the AI has any particular issues with zero-turn wars. It certainly wasn't intentional, but the existing AI code seems to handle the zero-turn wars well-enough. I might tweak how it reacts in terms of super-short wars and "you declared war" attitude penalties, but I doubt I'll change much else.

I've toyed around with the idea of teaching the AI to declare "fake wars" too, where two AI's mutually declare a formal war, but then intentionally never sends units or attacks, to purposely confuse other players. I don't think I will get around to doing it, but the idea was entertaining to me.

Finally, I did notice that Rezca mentioned rebels & interventionism causing rebels to declare peace immediately. I think that rebels are quasi-minor civs and should not be able to do that, so I will tweak rebels to be excluded from interventionism's effects.

 

[Rezca]

As long as EVERY war doesn't turn into a "Make peace on the same/next turn" situation I won't mind it being an official addition. Really kind of defeats the purpose of diplomacy and warfare at all if everyone's going to be running around with magical free passes out of any war they might get into, and can't get any help from "friends" because they bail out of the war themselves on the same turn they come into it.

I've already stopped bothering trading for techs with the AI because of how hard it is to find deals that don't completely screw you over (Though that's likely oddities coming from Flexibile Difficulty), I'd really not want to have this side of diplomacy become meaningless as well - knowing that the AI will reliably duck out of a war no matter how much they like you, why would you bother in the first place then? If everyone's going to use the 'strategy' of making peace the second they join a war, then the "We could use help in this war" request/trades would be synonymous to "Please give us free techs and resources" - that's all it'd accomplish. You give them expensive trades for help in a war only for peace to be declared a turn later, so what would be the point?

Hopefully it won't be that bad, but I've got my concerns. If it's going to be called a strategy, it shouldn't be completely predictable and one-sided like that. But of course, the AI will still do it to each other even if the player doesn't ask for help in wars - so if the AI do offer techs/resources to each other for war declarations, there's more free goodies being handed out for nothing right there as well.

 

[Afforess]

It only occurs when the AI is running interventionism, so can't you just check their civics in the Diplo screen before making a deal? I am not sure why it would cause a breakdown in diplomacy.

 

[Nimek]

We Have a world wonder that starts golden age every time when you take another Vassal

It can be easily exploited. Simply

1 take new vassal. Starts golden age
2 on the end of golden age demand all resources from him. He will declare war on you.
3 conquer a few of his cities and offer capitulation. Viola you have another golden age.

Solution will be mark every civ that was your vassal already and trigger golden age only for new vassals

it also starts golden age when you take very weak civ like one city civ. I don't. Have idea what to do to prevent it.

 

[<Nexus>]

Solution will be mark every civ that was your vassal already and trigger golden age only for new vassals

it also starts golden age when you take very weak civ like one city civ. I don't. Have idea what to do to prevent it.

Or limit the number of golden ages it triggers to 1 or to 5 or to a number scaled to map size.

 

[Rezca]

It only occurs when the AI is running interventionism, so can't you just check their civics in the Diplo screen before making a deal? I am not sure why it would cause a breakdown in diplomacy.

I'm probably overreacting to the concerns I listed above though so don't mind that


As long as the majority of the world isn't running it, yeah that would be a way to check before considering asking for help in a war. Though, it might make getting help in a tough situation difficult if your only friend(s) were running Interventionism heh. As you said, the AI are emotionless - they would be listed as Friendly but would still duck out of a war when possible if running Interventionism, and if everyone's running it then you might as well just go World Conquest on them instead of playing Diplomatically. Which is fine yeah, conquest is awesome - but I do like having a friend to stick it out with me along the way. Any AI that survives to the end and is Friendly with me, I consider as a victor as well

I'd play with Teams setup from the beginning, but the pooled research sometimes isn't ideal. Permanent Alliances are another option though, but it seems to do strange things with Mastery Victory....



I've had problems with the whole world all running a few select civics - usually Nationalism, Atheist/Secular, Corporatist, and Monarchy (Though in my last game EVERYONE but me and one other AI out of 24 leaders were all running Republic - even with 20+ cities), so far I've not seen this be the case with Interventionism though. Most seem to prefer Imperium when possible, switching to Interventionism or sticking with Isolationism otherwise. Don't think I've ever seen an AI use Redevelopment or Protectionism.




On the note I mentioned about Mastery Victory... If I play a game with Permanent Alliances, the game and the Mastery Score works just fine up until someone makes an Alliance. Usually, I'm the first to do so. What happens then is your score is suddenly the highest while the 'Rival' beside you is either completely empty or listed as "unknown" with no score at all. Even when other AI began making alliances of their own, their scores were never listed there. Does everyone have to be on a Team of some sort before it displays right?

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Nice find Rezca about Mastery, I'll have to check as I've never tried mastery while using Permanent Alliance option

 

[Rezca]

Nice find Rezca about Mastery, I'll have to check as I've never tried mastery while using Permanent Alliance option

It's an option I've long used since BTS days, since I like being able to truly buddy up with an AI and mow down all the rest, and Perm.Alliances do just that ^^

Plus once the other AI start making alliances it can get right nasty for you, especially if you've yet to make your own. However, it comes in so late in the game (For AND anyway) that a good many AI might not make it to see that point, or will be crippled beyond relevance by then. Sometimes, but not always. I have seen AI that are very powerful nations team up with very weak ones, simply because they shared wars/pacts and were Friendly - the free techs from merging into an alliance helped the weaker nation somewhat though.


I wonder though, how would such a thing be fixed? If you've yet to make a Team with someone or for whatever reason can't, then counting score by Teams would be impossible. You'd lose no matter what unless you took out one or both of the AI's. Unless it takes the Mastery score of the leaders in a given Team and averages them together, then solo leaders could still compete in the Mastery competition?

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I think that simply we should calculate score for the team the same way it's calculated for single players. If it's harder to compete against a team, then it's harder as it's supposed to be.
I understand your concern if you can't find an ally, but maybe next time you'll be more careful in diplomacy. You have to adapt to a different game each time instead of expecting the game and other civs to develop as you wish.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I just found my new favourite leader and civilization!

The Chinese, with Qin Shu Huang PRO/IND, and dem Chu-Ko-Nus be strong. Pavilion is nice too.

 

[Rezca]

I think that simply we should calculate score for the team the same way it's calculated for single players. If it's harder to compete against a team, then it's harder as it's supposed to be.
I understand your concern if you can't find an ally, but maybe next time you'll be more careful in diplomacy. You have to adapt to a different game each time instead of expecting the game and other civs to develop as you wish.

I'm usually able to find one, I've always got at least one AI in a game that's Friendly with me and is happy to assist when leaders declare on me out of the blue. We share religions, pass techs and resources to each other, they may not be human but they're usually available to help so you're not completely alone in the game and off to do everything on your own in a long and tough struggle for survival. There's only one AI I know of that will declare on people at Friendly relations (Catherine, unless AND added in some as well or changed something) - most everyone else you've got at least a shield there unless something goes wrong. Pleased AI will sometimes take events that benefit them while hurting you (The Airliner Crash givng espionage boosts against you, etc) while Friendly AI frequently avoid them. It depends on the Leader, but I've noticed that when they really like you, they try not to hurt you. Usually


So when someone declares war on you, they start to get ticked at the person who hates you. Sometimes even declaring on them without you asking. With the Appeasement this is a bit harder, since the +3 relations often offsets even multiple declarations on their other 'friends' and Interventionism means they can duck out of a war regardless of how it started.

It doesn't make it impossible to find friends, just means it's a touch trickier to manipulate them - which is a good thing right?
I'm very careful with diplomacy - it's one of my favorite aspects of CivIV. Once an AI starts getting friendly with me, I do everything to keep that friend, and be careful who I make deals with afterwards and keep a close watch on who their Worst Enemy is. However, I also like warfare, so finding a balance is sometimes... Tricky
As long as it doesn't upset my picked friend, anything goes.

I'm just a little concerned it might make it TOO difficult to get the AI to help you for real, rather than just goad them into destroying themselves. It was very profitable to get the AI to war with and hate each other in BTS, very easy to do so and it often crippled what would otherwise be peaceful friends gifting each other techs.
You can't do that in AND anymore without racking up penalties, so if you want to bribe a war to stir up chaos, you gotta be sure it'd be worth the trouble that will follow.

What I'm more concerned with is that it won't be worthwhile to find an ally. If they're not going to help you when an enemy leader comes knocking on your door regardless of their diplomatic relations with you/them, then why not just Conquest every game?
Interventionism seems to be a fairly popular civic to run once it's unlocked too.

As said before, these concerns may very well be just overthinking and making a large problem out of nothing. However, if the whole world is running Interventionism and they're programmed to duck out of wars immediately while running it... Well, I can't imagine things won't get a little strange after that

*EDIT* to add, that it's very likely I'm not going to have to worry much. Unless a revision update changes how these things works. Since right now, I've actually had many leaders running Interventionism, but only the "peaceful" leaders would use it to duck out of wars at the first opportunity. Most leaders would wait a few turns, or even spend decades at war. However, as already pointed out - in my experiences Interventionism has been a very very popular choice amongst the AI, several times all but one or two AI have been running it - like Nationalism, it's something the whole world would be running at various points. Which is where my concern stemmed from - since it opens up the possibility that everyone can just avoid war altogether to enjoy a peaceful game.

 

[<Nexus>]

I think it would make sense if war declaration would work a bit similar to peace treaties. If you declared war, you cannot undo it for a few turns (4 turns on standard speed?). Currently the only factor is the AI's willingness to negotiate, but a declaration should have real consequences. Sure, it's okay to let the AI back out a war quickly, just not immediately.

 

[Noyyau]

I think it would make sense if war declaration would work a bit similar to peace treaties. If you declared war, you cannot undo it for a few turns (4 turns on standard speed?). Currently the only factor is the AI's willingness to negotiate, but a declaration should have real consequences. Sure, it's okay to let the AI back out a war quickly, just not immediately.

I'm also in favor of an enforced minimum duration of a war, similarly to how peace treaties work.
(Alternatively, make peace treaties also breakable immediately! With a hefty penalty )

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Well, changing the code that causes one turn wars is pretty easy, I think.
The "problem" is that if you're running Interventionism the (self-explanatory) function AI_isWillingToTalk returns true before checking if you are at war. Moving that check after the atWar check would probably solve the problem. I'm rather reluctant to change Afforess code when he thinks that things are working good so I'm not sure what to do. I personally think that we should fix this part of the code, but I'd like to hear other people on why we should leave it like it is now. Another option would be to add some randomness to decision, but I'm also reluctant to add randomness where there's none because I fear introducing new OOS sources in MP.