Is it just me or was 1.22 a step backwards for Conquests?

[danz]

Scientific Great Leaders are supposed to (a) increase science output, or (b) build great wonders, except (a) doesn't work.

The AI is not good at using armies, but that's not exactly a bug, it's just an inadequate amount of I in the AI with respect to military tactics. This is not a big surprise. It's not the sort of thing that AI's do well in any game. The only times I've seen an *apparently* competent AI was when the situation was highly controlled (a well-defined battle or scenario) and the AI could be scripted or designed specifically for the purpose of fighting that one battle.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The Army bug is that the AI won't use MGLs to create armies. Which, of course, means it doesn't get to build the Mil Acad either.

I agree with Warpstorm; Army bug, barbarian bug, and sub bug are what needs fixing. Doesn't seem it's gonna happen, tho.

I guess there is some hope that CivIV will be less buggy ... not changing programmer team half-way thru could help.

 

[player1 fanatic]

And it's not only that AI leaders won't make armies.

Even if you manualy give armies to AI (through wonder or scenario start-up), there is a good chance that they will never be filled. All thanks to some legacy code from PtW and extra movement that army gets in C3C.

 

[tim hicks]

now I'm really concerned. Previous posts seem to imply that RCP has been 'fixed'. Does this mean that there is no longer any benefit to RCP, and do I need to find a new way to place my cities ?

 

[danz]

Yes, you should place your cities in a manner conducive to good tile usage and control over the terrain. Good riddance to RCP!

And as far as all the reports about the FP getting "broken", it isn't. I'm playing a game right now where I built the FP and corruption went down in all the cities close to the FP, not just the king's "summer vacation home". The FP works great.

And as far as subs go, they CAN NOT be fixed without making maps N-dimensional, meaning you would need a "surface" and several "under water" levels that would allow ships and subs to safely cruise past each other. That's how it works in the real world. In a game where a 2D "tile" is exclusively controlled by one side or another, subs really have no place! The only way to "fix" subs would be to remove them from the game or only allow them to operate as part of a naval task-force (army) consisting of one or more surface ships and any number of subs. But the quick-and-dirty solution is to reove subs from the game. Not a big loss for a 2D game.

 

[JimMac99]

And as far as subs go, they CAN NOT be fixed without making maps N-dimensional, meaning you would need a "surface" and several "under water" levels that would allow ships and subs to safely cruise past each other. That's how it works in the real world. In a game where a 2D "tile" is exclusively controlled by one side or another, subs really have no place! The only way to "fix" subs would be to remove them from the game or only allow them to operate as part of a naval task-force (army) consisting of one or more surface ships and any number of subs. But the quick-and-dirty solution is to reove subs from the game. Not a big loss for a 2D game.

Except that subs worked satisfactorily in PTW; as did Barbarian actions, AI use of armies, (and AI worker actions, which hasnt been mentioned in this thread but are not as 'good' in C3C as they were in PTW). I still think Soren could repair the damage caused by C3C with a days work if Firaxis could spare him that time.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Unfortunately, Soren is lead designer for Civ4, so I don't think there is any chance for him to come back and repair the damage.

 

[SirPleb]

Soren caused the damage in terms of making the FP less interesting.

 

[DeceasedHorse]

The sub bug was 'fixed' by giving the AI the ability to see invisible units, which players complained about, leading to the current build where the AI cannot see invisible units but if it tries to move into a square that holds one it auto-declares war.

 

[anarres]

Soren caused the damage in terms of making the FP less interesting.

In your opinion of course.

I personally think Soren caused the benifical change in making the FP more interesting.

 

[Stapel]

The FP is just perfect now! It makes a lot of sense! I have been complaining a lot about irt, the way it was, but now it simply suits its purpose.

But, as dell19 said, the biggest improvement is the PBEM cheat. It took some time to get it fixed right, but it is ok now!

 

[SirPleb]

In your opinion of course.

I personally think Soren caused the benifical change in making the FP more interesting.

What do you find more interesting about the new FP model? (Please, not the lack of RCP, the lack of Palace rank bug, or the larger AI benefit from FP - those are all separate issues from the changed FP corruption model. Just what's more interesting about the new FP model.)

Do you disagree with the general rule of thumb for the new FP which recommends building it fairly early in a somewhat corrupt city in the main direction of empire expansion, and suggests that building it earlier in the game is more important than trying to work out a perfect location for it?

 

[anarres]

Without wanting to get in to another big FP-better-or-worse debate, the new FP means you *have* to think about it, rather than just waiting for a leader and rushing it wherever the hell you want.

The "General rule of thumb" you mention is a good one, but sometimes you can do better when you are warmongering and think you can get a leader to spare. First you build your FP close to the capital in the optimal spot for your initial core, then later on you can rush the palace to an appropriate place. This has the benifit of optimal placement of both FP and palace (and of course flip chances are greatly reduced on your warfront near the new palace).

The old way was very boring to me. All you would do is either hand build your FP early or wait for a leader and rush it far far away. I can't see that this has *any* appeal to it, apart from making a strong player much stronger.

An added "side" benifit is that the AI is much more comparable to humans in FP placement now. The AI has no ability to use leaders to rush palace's/FP's, and this mean ANY game was a win if you could get a leader and rush your FP far enough away.

See, I blabbered on for 4 paragraphs and didn't mention the bug fixes at all.

I guess the moral is that we all like different things, and a game like civ allows us to all enjoy different aspects of it. I am sad that even now, after all this time, you still consider this change detremental to the game.

 

[gunkulator]

SGA = Scientific Golden Age, the other thing you can do with a SGL. It doesn't work.

Army bug is quite simple. The AI never builds them. Ever. Considering how beefed up armies are in CFC, this is a serious nerf for the AI.

Sub bug can be partially fixed if you set the Hidden Nationality flag for subs. An AI running into your sub will no longer cause a war.

 

[Greebley]

For me the very fact that FP placement is "less interesting" is the reason I like it so much. Previously, the AI would never place the FP in any sensible manner, it was just too complex. As such the human with intelligent placement had a huge advantage. Not only that, the maximimum size of the AI could grow was limited due to poor placement. This helped to contribute to the problem that the AI would almost never go and dominate a game.

With the new FP, the AI can compete and is a much more interesting opponent. The loss in FP placement strategy is a shame, but the resulting effect to the AI makes the change well worth it.

I also like that it effectively removes the whole Palace Jump issue by not giving a huge advantage to using this strategy/exploit.

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

The sub bug isn't just a sub bug. It involves any conquest/mod/scenario that uses invisible units. The AIs will constantly declare war on each other if invisible units are in the game. The Middle Ages Conquest is broken because of this.

 

[Hygro]

I disagree! the middle ages is too peaceful otherwise!

 

[DeceasedHorse]

I'm not sure that the AI NEVER builds armies; they do appear occasionally but it is very rare.

 

[SirPleb]

Without wanting to get in to another big FP-better-or-worse debate, the new FP means you *have* to think about it

I guess we're stuck with disagreeing about this. I find the exact opposite. With Conquests I've reached the point where I hardly think at all about where to put my FP. I experimented for a while with various placements and found them to make so little difference as to be immaterial to me - I now just put it anywhere convenient which is in roughly the right direction. Before Conquests I thought a lot in most games about where I'd put the FP, how I'd gain that territory, how I'd get the FP there, and contingency planning for a long leaderless run. I miss those aspects of the game vs. "just build it" which is all the effort I spend on it in Conquests.

Regarding the AI being more comparable to humans in FP placement now: I do not think that is a good thing of itself. It has been accomplished by "dumbing down" our FP placement options instead of by improving the AIs options. Even worse that was totally unnecessary. A suggestion I made in the post-beta forum would have made the AI better in this regard without dumbing us down and it was ignored by Firaxis. That was just a one-line change and instead they made this more complex (in terms of code) change and reduced our strategic decisions (in my opinion.) Sad.

 

[anarres]

Just so I know, can you tell me how 1 line of code could make the AI use sensible FP placement?