K-Mod: Far Beyond the Sword

[satrapper]

sorry damerell, completely misunderstood you the first time.

i don't think there's a list of differences anywhere that i've seen but off the top of my head: there's no pre-chop function in k-mod and the hidden attitude thingy is cut also.

 

[karadoc]

karadoc, have u ever thought of making autoplay on mp games? the auto play in rev dcm is built for mp tests.
just a thought.

It's certainly possible to make autoplay available in mp-games. But in the current system, when a human player uses autoplay their civ is treated as though it is an AI civ for the duration of the autoplay... This is fine for testing stuff, but it's unfair for multiplayer games, because it means the autoplay civ get all the bonuses and advantages an AI civ would get. eg. production cost discounts; 'magic AI vision'; and no demands from other AIs. There are many subtle things like this in which the AI has an advantage over a human player, and if human players were allowed to switch in and out of autoplay anytime they liked, they could leverage those advantages. It would make autoplay an important part of competitive gameplay - and I think that's a bad thing.

With a bit of work, it would be possible to remove some of the AI advantages from autoplay (such as the production discounts), but others would be much harder. I'm not sure if rev dcm has tried to deal with this problem or not.

Im actually glad you brought this up, because I think it might be an issue of the map generator giving much better land to different civs...maybe that should be looked at...civs on their own island (with no one else) always get worse land compared to ppl that share a single continent (I almost hate being on my own continent alone)...those civs that share a continent get the benefits of trade, trade techs, and spreading religion amongst themselves, and definitely better land. So maybe the civ starts should be more balanced, value wise?

I agree. Civs which start on a small island on their own typically miss out on both trade and land resources. They do have the advantage of not having to worry so much about being invaded - but often that tradeoff is not worth it. Particularly if they have no happiness resources on their island.

I've been looking into this recently to see if it can be improved. I've learnt that the number of different resources on each continent is essentially determined by the size of the continent - and that's basically the only reason why civs with neighbours tend to have better land than isolated civs. (Larger continents are more likely to have more civs on them.)
...
I think this will be a tricky problem to solve without creating some other regression, but I might make some tweaks.

Karadoc I might be imagining things but I've noticed lately that I get a lot of starts where the settler is not beside fresh water. I seem to remember starting beside fresh water almost all of the time in the past, has something changed?

That's probably true. (and I don't intend to change it). Here's why:
The game has a system which is meant to give fresh water access to starting positions. The way it works is that if the starting plot itself does not have fresh water, then the game tries to add a river which starts at that plot. If the starting plot still doesn't have fresh water (eg. if the river couldn't be placed, or if the river missed the plot), then the game adds a fresh water lake.

In the original rules, the placement of the river and the lake were extremely predictable. The river invariably started in the south-east corner of the starting plot; and the fresh water lake was always 1 step north of the starting plot (unless there was something in the way). Aside from being boringly predictable, the river placement was particularly problematic because it meant that any starting position on the south coast or on the east coast would always miss out on its river.

I've changed the rules so that the starting corner of the river is random randomly selected from all corners which could actually have a river (ie. it doesn't have the coast problem) - and I've changed the placement of the lake to randomly select any plot within the fat cross. Since the river placement is far more reliable than before, I've also added a chance for the game to simply not try to place the river (for variety). This chance is higher for coastal starts.

.. Anyway, the crux of the matter is that since the lake placement can be anywhere in the fat cross, it is less likely to be adjacent to the city and so that's why you might see fewer fresh-water starts.

I notice in CvPlayerAI::AI_civicValue on line 13310 that you infer whether the method call is for adding or removing the civic:

int iS = isCivic(eCivic)?-1 :1;// K-Mod, sign for whether we should be considering gaining a bonus, or losing a bonus

The variable is then used in a number of places to invert the value of some of the civic's effects.

However, AI_civicValue is typically called to compare the existing civic value with an alternative.

It's true that the system compares the existing civic value with an alternative, but the key idea is that the evaluation of a civic still depends on whether you are actually using that civic or not.

For example, consider a civic which adds +3 , and you have a city which is currently at +1 . If you are considering switching to the civic, then the happiness bonus will not be very valuable to you because your city is already happy. But if you are considering switching away from the civic then the happiness bonus is very valuable - because without it you'd have 2 .

Here's an example of how `iS` is used in the code:

iValue += (iCities * 10 * iS * AI_getHappinessWeight(iS*kCivic.getExtraHappiness(), 0)) / 100;

Notice that `iS` is used twice here. When switching away from the civic, the coefficient at the start will be negative but the happiness coefficient will also be negative – and so the final value will still be positive.

I believe that the AI's current civic selections will always be undervalued as a result of this, and in a worst case this could lead to constant civic toggling.

Interestingly, this to/from difference in the evaluation existed in some parts of the original AI for civics but it was removed by the author of the 'Better AI' mod because he thought it was a bug. The result of removing it was that the AI would sometimes switch back and forth between civics. For example, they'd switch to Representation for +, but then once they had the they'd switch back to Universal Suffrage because they thought they didn't need the from Representation anymore.

Ideally it would probably be more accurate to evaluate civics by evaluating the effect differences between the current civic and the new civic individually rather than evaluating each entire civic independently. That's what I would do if I was writing the AI from scratch. But it would be quite a lot of work to change it now.

Point 1: AI moving huge stack out of conquered city allowing recapture
[...]
Result was: I retook Byzantion, got some more units in there (machine guns) and next turn Russia used its 65+ rifles to take it back - fine, I lost the city immediately, however you can imagine the kill-rate of rifles v infantry and machine guns - 4:1 or 5:1, something like that.

So the Russians lost most of their 65+ rifles when, had they simply fortified in Byzantion, would have taken me ages to beat them down.

This kind of thing is pretty difficult to solve in general. In fact, your example reminds me of something someone else was posting awhile ago.. they were saying that it would be good if the AI sometimes didn't leave all their units in the city when there was an enemy stack outside, because the enemy stack often gets a big attack bonus when attacking the city.

By the sounds of things, the AI definitely made the wrong decision in your example, but it really is quite difficult to make them understand these subtle differences in situation.

Point 3: idle workers
[...]Is it perhaps because of barb borders?

Yes. That's the reason. I guess I should try to teach that AI that if barb borders are giving them trouble, then they should make it a high priority to get rid of the barb city. Usually they AI doesn't care much about the barbs, and will only attack if they have nothing better to do. But in this case, they should care. It's a bit tricky though, because I don't want to have to make the AI check all their borders for barb cities on every turn just to decide if they should be building new military units to fight barbs...

gifting great persons? surely nobody, human or AI, would ever do that? not disputing your modifiers, just wondering when/why that would ever happen ...

I'd expect it to be extremely rare. Maybe no one would ever do this. But it was very easy to change, and I think it's better this way.

Forts: forts are immensely important imo, and yet when an enemy civ takes a fort (in enemy culture) they always destroy it. Since once cannot build forts in enemy culture, the capture of a fort in enemy territory is a huge result - should be fortified, not destroyed.

Units don't get the defensive bonus from forts in enemy territory. (It's always been that way.)

In Sevopedia, is it me or is it when you click on the "Traits" category on the very left side, it returns an empty list on the next column?

That's true. It's empty. The "Traits" category is something that the Sevopedia added. It doesn't exist in the original Civilopedia. I removed the "Traits" articles when I first started the mod because I reckon they were very poor quality. I guess I just forgot to remove the category itself.

Incidentally, I see we're told some bits of BUG have been removed. Apologies if this is a hardy perennial, but... which, please?

I don't remember exactly. In general anything that required "BULL" was not included, because I wasn't using that DLL as a staring point. (Although some BULL features have been re-added.) The option to automatically cancel chopping is one example (the main reason I haven't copied this feature is that the implementation in BULL causes OOS errors, and I don't really like the feature anyway and so I'm not really motivated to take the time to write my own version).

There are also some features which were removed because I thought they gave away too much information, or because they just weren't up to standard. Such as the Traits articles in the Sevopedia, the WHEOOHRN indicator on the scoreboard, and the BUG Espionage screen. (Actually, the standard Espionage screen isn't very good either. I was intending to write my own one, but I haven't gotten around to it.)

How do you make it so the amount of hammers show up when you hover over the whip button? I have to always check the log for overflow amount. And half the time it doesn't even display it in there either.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean; but hover text is generally done by the DLL, and so what you're talking about was probably a BULL feature.

 

[keldath]

karadoc,

i hi friend,

i forgot i wrote that
well i think its mostly will help test the game more on mp -as a bug oos hunter, but its not that important i guess.(revdcm has an aiautoply thats does that).


anyway karadoc,

fr the past two weeks, ive been struggling with merging kmod 138, and now 39, with my moon mod, and i hit a bump, for starter, i just want to merge my xmls, no added sdk content,
for some unknown reason, i get a crash after the map generation bar ends, i dont get game start.
ive tried anything i can think of - debugg using the dll and vb, reading the logs, but nothing.

something in my xml wont play with your code, ive merged tons of mods in my days in civ community, so i know how do work it.

i have nothing more that i can do but beg for some help, i can trace the crash reason.
i suspect something that its something in the terrain since the crash happens on the end of map generation.
ive checked if theres missing art tags, and what not,
the most troubling thing - is that the mod works fine - same xml with other dll core -like revdcm and better bts ai (which are older mods).
ive went through all of the files, i just can find the reason.

i really hope u or anyone else here lay a hand. thanks anyway kara for all your effort.

 

[damerell]

There are also some features which were removed because I thought they gave away too much information, or because they just weren't up to standard. Such as the Traits articles in the Sevopedia, the WHEOOHRN indicator on the scoreboard, and the BUG Espionage screen. (Actually, the standard Espionage screen isn't very good either. I was intending to write my own one, but I haven't gotten around to it.)

These seem odd examples, if you'll forgive me saying so. I can read those exact same strategy comments on the Traits online. Unless you've also removed the AI telegraphing its intentions in the diplomacy screen, removing the WHEOOHRN indicator seems actively counterproductive - the information is available in the standard interface, it's just difficult to gather.

 

[karadoc]

These seem odd examples, if you'll forgive me saying so. I can read those exact same strategy comments on the Traits online. Unless you've also removed the AI telegraphing its intentions in the diplomacy screen, removing the WHEOOHRN indicator seems actively counterproductive - the information is available in the standard interface, it's just difficult to gather.

That's an odd thing to say, if you'll forgive me saying so. The fact that the traits text may be available online is irrelevant. Obviously the game is not meant to include every bit of text anyone has ever written; and so I think it makes sense to excise discretion about which text is included.

And the diplomacy screen does not 'telegraph' the AI's intentions. ... counterproductive indeed...

 

[noto2]

Hey Karadoc the previous discussion about rifles and machine guns nudged my memory a little. I've always thought the machine gun unit is sort of like the ironclad - very seldom used. It's alright at repelling rifles and grens, but even in that role it isn't as good as you would think since it can't get guerilla or CG promotions...but the real reason it's almost useless is because it gets no bonus against mounted units. Cavalry rip machine guns into shreds. The fact that it is historically inaccurate is not even the problem, the problem is the unit becomes useless. It's not really strong enough to repel infantry and it can't repel cavalry...heck, even cuirs could overwhelm machine guns.
Right now in Civ 4 the middle ages are good for defenders/turtlers, and then once cannons show up, that's it, it's the game of Risk. All out offensive warfare. If machine guns actually worked in the game and could stop cavalry attacks and even do a decent job at stopping infantry, there would be an ability for civs to actually repel cannon based invasions. Right now most high level games end with cannons...I think there is a consensus with that. Ask most immortal/deity players and they will tell you their games are decided before the industrial era, most of the time, and I'd have to agree. If we think this is a good thing we can leave machine guns as they are - worthless. But perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if more games went into the industrial era. Or another way of looking at it would be that perhaps the machine gun deserves to be a viable unit, which is probably what the programmers intended. I don't even think of it as a balance issue, it's more of a bug really. I'm sure they meant for machine guns to get 50% vs mounted units but the guy programming that day probably spilled his coffee on his lap or something, I mean, it's a no-brainer. It makes no sense for cavalry to beat MG's.

 

[damerell]

And the diplomacy screen does not 'telegraph' the AI's intentions. ... counterproductive indeed...

If I understand you correctly, the K-mod diplomacy screen doesn't tell you when the AI's in WHEOOHRN either?

 

[TheOnlyDJCat]

Regarding machine guns.
An immortal or deity player who ends the game pre industrial, does not play on huge maps or with continents, which I usually play. If an AI gets them fast (which happens often) usually my 'conquer the continent'-plan stops immediately, because rifleman become useless. Because of the additional collateral bonus of the machine guns, cannons (and even airships) also doesn't help that much.
And I don't understand the cavalry problem. The AI doesn't defend only with machine guns. If you have to defeat a stack mixed with riflemen and machine guns, you can't attack with cavalry.

So to sum it up: To win in immortal games on huge maps or maps with several continents, the machine gun is a big threat if the AI has them, because I can't secure my home continent until I have tanks.

On the other side, for the human player they don't play a big role. If I have them fast (which happens if railroad is needed on huge land maps), I always have at least one gun in my stack for their bouns against rifles or infantries.

 

[keldath]

hello again karadoc,

i made a debugg dll using your 1.39 code and

i found the crash maker!!!

this part you added in cvmap.cpp causes my mod to crash upon map generation:

Spoiler :

// K-Mod. This function is called when the unit selection is changed, or when a selected unit is promoted. (Or when UnitInfo_DIRTY_BIT is set.)
// The purpose is to update which unit is displayed in the center of each plot.

// The original implementation simply updated every plot on the map. This is a bad idea because it scales badly for big maps, and the update function on each plot can be expensive.
// The new functionality attempts to only update plots that are in movement range of the selected group; with a very generous approximation for what might be in range.
void CvMap::updateCenterUnit()
{
original bts code
int iI;

for (iI = 0; iI < numPlotsINLINE(); iI++)
{
plotByIndexINLINE(iI)->updateCenterUnit();
}
/* PROFILE_FUNC();
int iRange = -1;

CLLNode<IDInfo>* pSelectionNode = gDLL->getInterfaceIFace()->headSelectionListNode();
while (pSelectionNode)
{
const CvUnit* pLoopUnit = ::getUnit(pSelectionNode->m_data);
pSelectionNode = gDLL->getInterfaceIFace()->nextSelectionListNode(pSelectionNode);

int iLoopRange;
if (pLoopUnit->getDomainType() == DOMAIN_AIR)
{
iLoopRange = pLoopUnit->airRange();
}
else
{
int iStepCost = pLoopUnit->getDomainType() == DOMAIN_LAND ? KmodPathFinder::MinimumStepCost(pLoopUnit->baseMoves()) : GC.getMOVE_DENOMINATOR();
iLoopRange = pLoopUnit->maxMoves() / iStepCost + (pLoopUnit->canParadrop(pLoopUnit->plot()) ? pLoopUnit->getDropRange() : 0);
}
iRange = std::max(iRange, iLoopRange);
// Note: technically we only really need the minimum range; but I'm using the maximum range because I think it will produce more intuitive and useful information for the player.
}

if (iRange < 0 || iRange*iRange > numPlotsINLINE() / 2)
{
// update the whole map
for (int i = 0; i < numPlotsINLINE(); i++)
{
plotByIndexINLINE(i)->updateCenterUnit();
}
}
else
{
// only update within the range
CvPlot* pCenterPlot = gDLL->getInterfaceIFace()->getHeadSelectedUnit()->plot();
for (int x = -iRange; x <= iRange; x++)
{
for (int y = -iRange; y <= iRange; y++)
{
CvPlot* pLoopPlot = plotXY(pCenterPlot, x, y);
if (pLoopPlot)
pLoopPlot->updateCenterUnit();
}
}
}
}*/
// K-Mod end

and specifically as marked by the debugger this line:

	iLoopRange = pLoopUnit->maxMoves() / iStepCost + (pLoopUnit->canParadrop(pLoopUnit->plot()) ? pLoopUnit->getDropRange() : 0);

i have no idea what this part does that my xml wont work with - it seems the line has something to do with para drop?
can u help me solve this ?

in the mod - ive removed all of the vanilla units , and made new ones.
it seems the error part, speaks on something to do with units, so i guess it something in my xml and the units, but i have no idea what that could be. i removed the part from the code and the mod loaded and was able to start a game.

 

[foolcow]

Delete

 

[karadoc]

If I understand you correctly, the K-mod diplomacy screen doesn't tell you when the AI's in WHEOOHRN either?

They only say WHEOOHRN if they are already at war, or if their war preparation is the only reason why they won't be bribed into war (which it usually isn't).

[...]
and specifically as marked by the debugger this line:

	iLoopRange = pLoopUnit->maxMoves() / iStepCost + (pLoopUnit->canParadrop(pLoopUnit->plot()) ? pLoopUnit->getDropRange() : 0);

If that line is crashing, the most likely cause is a divide-by-zero. Is that what the crash dialog box says? By the looks of things, my code might divide-by-zero at that point if there are any units which have 0 base moves. ie. Units which are completely immobile could cause that line to crash. Do you have any units like that?

In any case, the problem would probably be fixed if you change it to this:

iLoopRange = pLoopUnit->maxMoves() / std::max(1, iStepCost) + (pLoopUnit->canParadrop(pLoopUnit->plot()) ? pLoopUnit->getDropRange() : 0);

I'll make that change in my version now.
[edit]
Actually, I'm going to use a slightly different change instead. I'm going to make KmodPathFinder::MinimumStepCost return at least 1. But either way, that divide-by-zero problem will be fixed - and hopefully that's the problem you are seeing.

 

[noto2]

Regarding machine guns.
An immortal or deity player who ends the game pre industrial, does not play on huge maps or with continents, which I usually play. If an AI gets them fast (which happens often) usually my 'conquer the continent'-plan stops immediately, because rifleman become useless. Because of the additional collateral bonus of the machine guns, cannons (and even airships) also doesn't help that much.
And I don't understand the cavalry problem. The AI doesn't defend only with machine guns. If you have to defeat a stack mixed with riflemen and machine guns, you can't attack with cavalry.

So to sum it up: To win in immortal games on huge maps or maps with several continents, the machine gun is a big threat if the AI has them, because I can't secure my home continent until I have tanks.

On the other side, for the human player they don't play a big role. If I have them fast (which happens if railroad is needed on huge land maps), I always have at least one gun in my stack for their bouns against rifles or infantries.

Shouldn't mgs be as effective against cavalry as they are against riflemen/grens? Right now in the game cavalry are ridiculously powerful. They're often at 18 str, with promotions, and getting 30-50% withdraw, cavalry will absolutely stomp over mgs, and rifles do not counter cavs...not at all. Cavs are even a bit of a threat to tanks, but that's another matter. Rifles will lose more battles to cavs than win, and infantry doesn't do all that much better...it's perhaps 50/50. Tanks lose a suprising number of battles, like a 1:3 ratio, or 1:4 at best (I'm talking when cavs are attacking and getting their flanking ability). I would like it if there was SOMETHING that could hard counter cavs. As it is right now, if I have a stack of 3-4 promo cavs, and you have a stack of 3-4 promo mgs, I will inflict losses on you to a ratio of something like 4:1. An absolute stomp. Promotions do nothing for the mg in this scenario because flanking 2 will ignore your first strikes, and drill is pretty much all you can get. Or if you want to get fancy you can take formation but I could just take charge and negate it. So flanking 2, charge, combat 1, vs drill 3 formation. Those mgs will be wiped out easily.

Basically mgs defend against cavalry about as well as longbows defend against knights. It's a pathetic joke

 

[stolenrays]

Kara, I appologize if this has already been covered in your thread, but I found when merging your mod with BUG/BULL that your mod already has BUG in it, but has deleted several functions of it in CvGameTextMgr.cpp.

Is this by design because your mod is more efficient or did you just not want all of BUG in your mod? Thanks and happy new year.

 

[damerell]

They only say WHEOOHRN if they are already at war, or if their war preparation is the only reason why they won't be bribed into war (which it usually isn't).

So, and I apologise if this has been touched on repeatedly in the last 88 pages, surely the scoreboard could usefully reflect that, since the player can find it out anyway?

 

[keldath]

hi karadoc,

well, u did it buddy.

problem solved, used the new line and the mod loaded.


although, the reason still eludes me - i have no units with 0 movement - but -
i do not have immobile units - i dont have icbm like unit.

i guess with some work, i can pinpoint the exact unit that dont work with the problematic code.

anyways, im really really happy i help in detecting possible bug for other mod makers who do to
ttal conversion with kmod

thank you so much dude, your a rare moderer.



****
stolenrays - hi how are you -
i recommend dont add things from bug on your own - i know bug itself complete isnt much of an mp game friendly - kara did some fine work with the merge, dont be tempted to add stuff from there
just a tip.
buy the way - i also have added some sdk components to kmod if your looking for some new basis for your wonderful mods.


***********

karadoc, hi me again..

this line gives me a crash at late game (600 turn):

iUnitMoves -= plot_list[i]->movementCost(pLoopUnit, plot_list[i-1]);
					FAssert(iUnitMoves > 0 || i == 1);

in cvgamecoreutils.cpp

any thoughts? is it the same origin as the crash b4?

 

[Tigranes]

Just wanted to make 2 quick points with two screenies. The first one shows careless Ethiopian Empire which is at war with me (Greece) and China. I have already took two of his cities and you can see yourself what is he doing in the remaining 3 .

The second one is standard issue with all the AI civs building M. Statues the moment it become available in all the silly places, even if they will benefit only 3 tiles and deny the capital much more important National Wonders.

 

[Gavagay]

A governor has made a wrong decision here. He should be working tundra hill instead of forest (engineer specialist is OK as I have a free specialist for the Stature of Liberty). Actually, I've spotted several similar mistakes before, so there must be a systematic problem somewhere in the code.

 

[stolenrays]

@ Keldath, I'd love to take a look at your code. Is it in Dune or Dawn of the Overlords? What have you added?

I've successfully merged v1.38 with my IIW DLL. My merge includes tons of stuff including BetterBUGAI & C2C AI additions. I'm testing it out, but I have no turn lag like I did in a previous merging attempt. I might include it in a future release as I really like how the AI is so much smarter and so much code has been removed. RIght off the bat, the AI starts attacking in every way possible, and protects itself smartly. I really am impressed how the AI even took advantage of my mod's new ability of helicopters to attack coastal shipping.

It did take quite some work to make some of the modcomponents compatible with Kara's mod and I prob need some help in the future on a few functions.

Good work Kara.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Hi karadoc,

Congrats on how far you've gotten with your mod! I downloaded 1.39 and played a game to completion recently and have a few comments, questions and a bug.

First the bug..
During my game I noticed at several points when I had stacks besieging cities, I would come across the odd situation that a siege unit could attack a defender despite the defender being damaged to its combat limit for that siege unit. Carrying out the attack causes the siege unit to withdraw immediately, neither side taking damage, and earning 1xp. I'm not sure how consistent it is, as sometimes it seemed to work correctly (disallowing the combat). To add to the weirdness, the combat odds did not show up when mousing over the defender for the attack.

A question..
How can I enable the BUG feature that shows the XP a unit will receive if built by a city? If it's not implemented, can you please add it in future?

I was also really missing the fancy domestic advisor from BUG during this game (EDIT... I just figured out this is an option that requires a restart ). In particular the ability to view at a glance which cities have which buildings. Is that feature left out on purpose?

I was about to ask you how trade route culture works, but just did a search of the text copy of the thread for "trade route" and found that MadmanatW early last year made a summary of the rule changes for your mod. (post 542)
At that, I could make a few comments about some changes:

* In the diplomacy screen, pressing "Lets stop this fighting..." will now bring up the trade screen with the AI's suggested peace terms. (Originally, it just made peace instantly without any trades - it was a horrible button.)

Great idea, and I use this diplo option now.

* Alt+click on a leader's name will now open a declare-war popup window rather than just instantly declaring war.

Little things like this might not be sexy but IMO any UI improvement like that is important.

* Amphibious landings can now be executed even if the group isn't ready to move. (eg. if you have a transport on the coast, with no moves left, ordering it to move onto the land will now cause it to unload its cargo.)

That's a good idea too. The old behaviour used to bug me.

* Preventing a cultural revolt with a military garrison is now more difficult (asymptotically more difficult).

I'd be curious how this works, as it caused quite a problem for me in my game.

I had taken a few valuable cities from Egypt and they had since capitulated. Now despite stacking a couple of these culture pressed cities with 10+ riflemen the revolt chance didn't seem to go any under about 9.5%. With each revolt taking 5 turns or more, the cities were barely functional.
Adding more units to the cities decreased the revolt chance by a miniscule amount. I appreciate there are reasons that a culture-poor city recently captured should have a tendency to revolt, but when the previous civ is now a vassal and with little chance to build culture buildings with all the revolting going on, I didn't feel it was very fair, and as a player of a game there didn't appear to be any reasonable remedy available to me to reduce the revolt chance of those cities and so make them useful. Then again, if this is the sort of thing you were going for it's still something I could get used to.

Maybe once a revolt has occurred, future revolts should become less likely?
Really though, I think the best fix would be to let the revolt chance get a bit closer to 0 as a signifcant garrison moves into the city.

I notice you've added a revolt-chance-reduction ability to the Leadership promotion, but I doubt in my circumstances it would be a very good way to occupy the time of a valuable unit.
For interest's sake, I loaded up an old save and put something like half of all my civ's military in the city, and it only brought down the chance by 1 percent or so. (screenshot attached)

Spoiler :

On a related topic:

Now, the popup appears when the city comes out of revolt, when it is ready to start building. I think it's much better this way.

Another great idea.


Anyway, I'm going to keep reading through the thread. I'm not even 10% through yet.
If you'd like a savegame from my game just let me know.

 

[Charles555nc]

First game of 1.39 and Im doing well! Hurray me!

Im kinda wondering what Hannibal is doing? Probably space race...Alexander his vassal is the cultural leader.

But Hannibal is at war with William von Orange- who is massively behind in tech, it took him forever (even with Alexander as his vassal helping), to wipe him off the continent and Hannibal still cant take William's last island city...so for 60+ turns the island city lives, and Im hoping the ai isnt bugged out...like refusing to move on to another target (in a possible domination victory), because William's one island city is eluding Hannibal somehow.

I made peace once about 40 turns back with William and as soon as it was up, Hannibal asked me to declare war again...I say yes just because it improves our relations, but send no troops, but it seems uber important to him...

Request/Idea 2: Can we get a turn timer, somewhere, that tells us when the next time is where we can ask a friendly country for a gift?

Request/Idea 3: Can the "why dont you attack" menu be alphabetatized?

Request/Idea 4: I got into a war about 100 turns later... I got out produced, and out teched, when I wanted to use the "UN peacekeeping option" and force a peace, but none of my 3 vassals voted my way, I had to continue a losing war and ultimately lost the game. Is this a bug or intended?

Request/Idea 5: When a city gets taken, perhaps have the global announcement tell the player whether the city was captured or burned down specifically, even if there isnt vision?