Immortal University XX - Stalin

[TheMeInTeam]

So even if i had all 3 of those AI's at friendly they could still have dow'd me since they were all annoyed with my vassal? So basically can't really capitulate anyone if you want to be immune to dow's? I always thought friendly really meant friendly when it came to if they can declare war on me or not. It would be a lot easier if the game would just average my vassal's relations in there for me (should BUG maybe do this?) Say i'm at +12 with an AI, my vassal is at -6 with them, just tell me they are cautious with me and at +3. I really hate how you have to just throw out all diplo information as soon as you take a vassal.

That's right, all 3 friendlies would declare (or at least be willing to do so) if you have a vassal they are @ annoyed.

The BUG team decided that not being able to see hidden modifiers was intended, and that showing them would alter gameplay slightly and be against the spirit of BUG (the argument is that you don't always know the exact values of the hidden modifiers, or rather it's impossible unless you are able to see a disposition change at a +1 increment between the AIs).

It's still possible to use vassals and avoid war, however. Very frequently with AIs that don't declare @ pleased, you can force your vassal into relevant religions/favorite civics.

Otherwise, only take them if you know you're on a beatdown trail anyways .

 

[Shurdus]

It makes sense that the hidden modifiers are not shown, but it is annoying that they would not just show everything. Then again, had they showed everything the game would be more predicatble and it is very questionable if that would in deed add to the fun. I can see the unpredicatble factors adding to the fun since you will always be wondering who secretly thinks what...

@TMIT
Next?

 

[Dirk1302]

But it doesn't make the game more predictable because the info is known. you just have to look into xml or now the guide for it. This reminds me of an old discussion if Bugmod would be cheating. I'd argued no because all the info that bugmod shows is known. With Bug you can just find it 10 times faster. It wouldn't surprise me btw if in a future version of bug these modifiers were shown, it's fairly easy to show this info much easier for instance than the wheeohrn info, that was quite an achievement of the team.

 

[Shurdus]

But it doesn't make the game more predictable because the info is known. you just have to look into xml or now the guide for it. This reminds me of an old discussion if Bugmod would be cheating. I'd argued no because all the info that bugmod shows is known. With Bug you can just find it 10 times faster. It wouldn't surprise me btw if in a future version of bug these modifiers were shown, it's fairly easy to show this info much easier for instance than the wheeohrn info, that was quite an achievement of the team.

Maybe you are right, but right now it is just plain annoying that you can still know the bonusses, yet they are not 'at hand'. I understand the criteria of BUG that it want to provide info that can already be seen in the game. Arguably the hidden modifiers can also be seen, that is you can see the effects of it and you can argue that the info is there.

Maybe it would be an idea to make it optionable for BUG to show these hidden modifiers. Default option could be that the modifiers are not shown with the option to turn them on. I think it would make sense.

 

[Dirk1302]

Agreed, it should be optional. I would turn that option on if available.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The BUG team's current argument is that hidden modifiers are impossible to determine in-game, because peace weights vary by a factor of (IIRC) 3 for each AI. In the most extreme cases shaka and SB could be like 4 and 7 or something and actually get along, while in other games they'll be like monty/gandhi. We can determine the value of this particular modifier ONLY if a change makes it apparent.

I would argue that BUG team should then make it known any time such hidden modifiers are revealed by in-game criteria (aka disposition change from a +1 or -1 net change = display "we just don't get along -x"). They weren't hearing it a couple months back though.

I'd also like to see conveniences like automatically airlifting waypointed units produced if possible to do so but that's another matter.

BTW, next IU will be up tomorrow!

 

[Shurdus]

The BUG team's current argument is that hidden modifiers are impossible to determine in-game, because peace weights vary by a factor of (IIRC) 3 for each AI. In the most extreme cases shaka and SB could be like 4 and 7 or something and actually get along, while in other games they'll be like monty/gandhi. We can determine the value of this particular modifier ONLY if a change makes it apparent.

I would argue that BUG team should then make it known any time such hidden modifiers are revealed by in-game criteria (aka disposition change from a +1 or -1 net change = display "we just don't get along -x"). They weren't hearing it a couple months back though.

I'd also like to see conveniences like automatically airlifting waypointed units produced if possible to do so but that's another matter.

BTW, next IU will be up tomorrow!

Those varying modifiers are actually very cool since it does bring some uncertainty to the table. It would be maybe a bit silly if you knew upon contact what was going to happen many many turns in the future. It would allow at least for more accurate planning which would make the game easier for the player.

Woohoo @ new IU thread!

 

[Dirk1302]

The BUG team's current argument is that hidden modifiers are impossible to determine in-game, because peace weights vary by a factor of (IIRC) 3 for each AI. In the most extreme cases shaka and SB could be like 4 and 7 or something and actually get along, while in other games they'll be like monty/gandhi. We can determine the value of this particular modifier ONLY if a change makes it apparent.

I would argue that BUG team should then make it known any time such hidden modifiers are revealed by in-game criteria (aka disposition change from a +1 or -1 net change = display "we just don't get along -x"). They weren't hearing it a couple months back though.

I'd also like to see conveniences like automatically airlifting waypointed units produced if possible to do so but that's another matter.

BTW, next IU will be up tomorrow!

Is there a random factor that determines how much influence the peaceweigh has in a particular game? If so i completely agree with the Bugmod team's decision. I thought it was just a fixed value from xml, the same for every game you play.

 

[Ai Shizuka]

I'm a XML noob, but probably it has something to do with:

<iBasePeaceWeight>6</iBasePeaceWeight>
<iPeaceWeightRand>3</iPeaceWeightRand>

Those are Bismarck's values. First value is different for every leader, second value is always 3.
So I think the real peaceweight of Bis is between 3 and 9. But the gap seems too big, I don't know.

 

[Dirk1302]

You're probably right, thx. I think the second value is a dice roll and that'll be between 0 and 3 for Bismarck. So it'll differ per game and the Bug team is imo right not to list these modifiers since they can't be found from documentation.

 

[DanF5771]

I'm a XML noob, but probably it has something to do with:

<iBasePeaceWeight>6</iBasePeaceWeight>
<iPeaceWeightRand>3</iPeaceWeightRand>

Those are Bismarck's values. First value is different for every leader, second value is always 3.
So I think the real peaceweight of Bis is between 3 and 9. But the gap seems too big, I don't know.

No, the variation is much smaller: iPeaceWeightRand = 3 means that the iBasePeaceWeight gets a random number [0..2] added, thus Bismarck will have a final PeaceWeight = 6..8.

 

[Ai Shizuka]

Now this makes more sense. Basically the extremes (example: Monte and Lincoln) will always get a big difference. But, say, Mehmed with the full bonus (2+2) isn't that far from peaceniks like Ram or Pericles (6), if they roll a +0.

Anyway, there should be something in the glance screen. BUG helps with different colors, so you actually know Shaka and Genghis are FRIENDLY at +6, but still.

 

[Learningciv]

Checkpoint 2: 300BC -> Lost

Spoiler :

I didn't really want to post this considering how successful my start was but in the interest of keeping myself honest I feel I had better. I can't remember the exact details as this happened not long after I posted my initial writeup.

After Monty was wipped off the map I continued to build up my empire. It was going very successfully as I had so much room to grow. The AP is built and the vote comes up with Justinian and somebody else. I note that everybody votes for Justininan with the obvious exception of the other candidate. A AP box comes up sometime later and I don't read it and just presume it is vote for candidate. I click Justinian to vote him for the +2 modifier to make him friendly. Next turn he wins a diplo victory.... I had actually voted for him to win the game when I knew all the AI but 1 were voting his way. Looking at the votes if I had voted the other way I wouldn't have lost.

Lessons learnt the hard way tend to stay learnt

 

[Fluxx]

This is an university game, reloading is allowed.

Mistakes like that, no-one will blame you