[MOD] More Naval AI
- Thread starter Tholal
- Start date
[to_xp]Gekko;12144766 said:
Unrelated to this, but... Gekko, you confirmed the Hyborem-spawns-in-the-southernmost-location-on-a-continent-with-a-player bug. (Actually, it looks like Orthus has the same behavior, so it may be any randomly generated unit spawn.) Any updates on what causes this? Again, it seems only to happen on pre-made scenario maps (particularly Nikis-Knight's map, though it has also happened on some other maps). Maybe has to do with maps/games created outside of MNAI and then used in MNAI?
![[to_xp]Gekko](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/74/74677.jpg?1475248346){kind=avatar}
[to_xp]Gekko
QCT junkie
no idea what causes it, but yes I have noticed hybo always spawning in the southernmost possible tile on Nikis's map ( i.e. SE of the balseraphs/luchuirp )
[to_xp]Gekko
QCT junkie
would be nice to code it so that they spawn as far away from other civs as possible, it sucks to spawn right in somebody's backyard with not even enough land for a single decent city.
While I'm thinking of it, there's one annoying thing that no one has ever fixed. When I assign a specialist in a city, I do not want the game to change that specialist. And yet it is extremely common that the game does. And since I don't check inside every city every turn, I always miss when that happens. Can there be a fix for that? The problem has existed for as long as I've been playing Civ4.
False Dead
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
- Messages
- 21
I have a concern, the AI doesn't use the "inquisition" ability either often or(possibly) at all.
Its always disconcerting to see the Elohim working on reducing the Armageddon Counter even as half of their cities contain Ashen Veil....or to see on of their cities get taken by the infernal Worldspell.... though this really applies to all good civs
And I really shouldn't ever have the option of requesting that the Sheiam switch to Order or any good religion when Ashen Veil is their state....
Maybe have nations use inquisition in a city when it detects a religion of the opposing alignment to their own?
Its always disconcerting to see the Elohim working on reducing the Armageddon Counter even as half of their cities contain Ashen Veil....or to see on of their cities get taken by the infernal Worldspell.... though this really applies to all good civs
And I really shouldn't ever have the option of requesting that the Sheiam switch to Order or any good religion when Ashen Veil is their state....
Maybe have nations use inquisition in a city when it detects a religion of the opposing alignment to their own?
There is an error. Where, essentially, most saves become psuedo-corrupted, at least for multiplayer use. If someone tries to enter the load, it will typically say "need FFH2 to load. please restart game" etc. If you click yes, it will reload FFH2 and may or may not work (usually not), and if you click no, the load will fail.
So I ask. Why? Is it something to do with the changed DLL?
(also, the code that makes Hyborem OOS when he takes a city ... is that in python? I'm planning on removing it if possible)
So I ask. Why? Is it something to do with the changed DLL?
(also, the code that makes Hyborem OOS when he takes a city ... is that in python? I'm planning on removing it if possible)
clearbeard
King
The AI does use inquisitors, but in my experience ONLY if they have decided to try for a religious victory: purging competitors to boost their worldwide percentage. It does not really understand the full relationship between religions, the AC, and all the other more subtle effects of FFH. It's not that easy a fix though as usually having more religions in the city is a good thing, even if they're of opposing alignments. Any additional treatment really should just focus on the AV/Order conflict and AC control, if changes are warranted at all.
As for requesting the Sheiam convert to Order, why not? After I've taught them a sufficiently pointed lesson on the battlefield, they should have the opportunity to repent of their misguided ways and join the fold, shouldn't they? And if they refuse, well, that just means the lesson wasn't pointy enough.
Make sure the name of the mod directory matches the name of the mod directory the game was created in. If, for example, you are loading a save created in "FFH2" but your directory is named "Fall From Heaven 2" you will get this error.
False Dead
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
- Messages
- 21
Yes, exactly, my issue isn't the lack of inquisitions, it is more that civilizations tend to to allow religions that are detrimental to them(AC wise) to slowly envelop their cities.
Sure it is great after I have humiliated their military entirely, but when they are in second place and I am in third they should not even consider it, they should only attack me and take my poor little tush , repeatedly, and violently ....
(Especially when they are three to four times as powerful as I am, which they won't)
They should accept "good" religions really only when backed into a corner not when they are basically one of the main super powers.....
[to_xp]Gekko
QCT junkie
I know what you mean 
@tasunke trying to buff death 1.
The only reason you are asking for this is how you use it win a large percent of the mutiplayer games with it lol. It needs a nerf not a buff im afraid . Getting a bunch of kamikaze skeletons is to great for a level 1 spell. Hell you get even stronger units when you hit death 2. I dont think a level 1 mana should be that strong and it should be nerfed. You shouldnt be able to win the entire early game by building 10 adepts with death 1 and steam rolling everyone.
The only reason you are asking for this is how you use it win a large percent of the mutiplayer games with it lol. It needs a nerf not a buff im afraid . Getting a bunch of kamikaze skeletons is to great for a level 1 spell. Hell you get even stronger units when you hit death 2. I dont think a level 1 mana should be that strong and it should be nerfed. You shouldnt be able to win the entire early game by building 10 adepts with death 1 and steam rolling everyone.
OK. I finally see the issue you're referring to. And I agree with M.C. that hero and world spell just shouldnt be displayed at all for this popup. Fix will be in 2.42
Okay, lets look at the facts.
1) I have never been successful on an offensive war with Skeletons
2) there were 10 adepts + Saverous. Saverous had a 70% odds on Rosier if he had attacked. You had Rosier + 4 mages + some summoned pitbeasts. First round: I attack your pitbeasts, most of them die. 2nd round, you attack my skeletons, several of your units are wounded, by then I have already summoned a new batch of skeletons, and attack, win at low odds, and Rosier (who was probably already weakened) dies unluckily to a few skeletons. Because of this, your mages are still alive. (Basically, you were defending against the skeletons with only one unit, Rosier, because it wasn't until rosier died (due to his promotions) that the mages started defending. So basically you lost a hero and some pitbeasts to about 20 skeletons over the course of 2-3 turns. From 10 adepts. While invading. You invaded with 1 hero + 4 mages, while your enemy had an unknown number of troops.
I had Saverous, I had warriors, I had pyre zombies. I happened to gather about 10 adepts, 2 pyre zombies, and Saverous, and I only happened to kill you with the skeletons, but even without those lucky kills you would have still died.
None of this has anything to do with the fact that you could have still built up an army in your remaining cities ... which, I might add, were untouched. The only city destroyed was some Illian city which I razed the turn you captured it. (with some skeletons that had hoped to capture the city). I had used probably 50 skeletons in total trying to take over ALL the Illian cities, so I suppose I was a bit reluctant to let anyone else have them (other than the AI of course, whom I could more easily declare war on without the bitter game-lasting fall out of declaring on a human). So yes, I could have gifted you those cities, I could have let you keep the city (which, by the way, I only killed summons to raze ... so I didn't really kill anything permanent to you. Just access to a city which would have been isolated by Doviello culture anyways.), but if I had let you keep the city I would have just had to declare 'actual' war on you even sooner. Well, I suppose by killing your summons it was still war, and I did still raze one of your cities, even if it was under circumstances that I didn't think necessitated permanent state of war.
Even so ... after all of that, even if you did want to kill me, which, after all that self-justification, I think could still be justified (because after all, Civ IV is a tricky game like that
... just read some of the spoiler threads on Realms Beyond). What I mean to say is, I didn't mind that you wanted to kill me. What I am surprised about, however, is that you didn't have a more respectable honor guard for your hero, especially considering that you were going to leave the game if your hero died. Personally I don't find Valin or Rosier to be particularly spectacular, since they are often outshined by Mardero and Sphener in the late game. Even so, I can understand why such a hero, as powerful as he is, would STILL be a key playing piece in your plans. A piece so vital you might not wish to continue if they were lost even if it only reduces your chances of winning by 10%. Because of this, I think that your army guarding Rosier should have been larger. Just like your army guarding the Priests of Winter should have been larger. Remember also that in both games I played as the Sheaim. I have never officially 'won' as the Sheaim. I have been the last to quit, I suppose, and in that one SHeaim vs Illians games I suppose I did win because I made it to spectres. Two counters to spectre spam, however, are Stygian Guards and Diseased corpses. These units are death immune, and therefore immune to spectre spam as it reduces them to only 3 str summons. 4.5 str from a fully promoted mage (+50%).
Spectres beat Tigers beat Undead/Demon army beat Spectres. Its a paper rock scissors of FFH spectre spam. Naturally fireball spam beats all of these. But then again, Spectres are a lot stronger against Tigers and other living units than fireballs are (with a lot of mana).
Then you have the paradigm of Spectres beta Orcs beat Fireballs beat Spectres.
Yes, there are certain imbalanced strategies ... but I have never seen an army of pure skeletons take over the world WHEN NO PUPPETS ARE INVOLVED. And the puppet craze will be fixed soon (by having puppets be specialunit_summon, which means they don't gain the benefits of Twincast OR summoner iirc)
In any case, military wise, having Skeletons cause no War Weariness isn't that large of an effect. Sure, in the long term it makes throwing skeletons at people more feasible, I *suppose* but in my experience using an army of PURE skeletons only serves to feed exp to the defenders. At least 9 times out of 10.
The main strength of Skeletons is in defense of a nation ... and this has nothing (imho) to do with the fact that WW doesn't accrue from in-culture fights. The main strength, imho, is TACTICS, in that the defending units are (generally) out in open terrain with little to few defensive bonuses. THAT and fresh skeletons are often less than a turn away. Instead of an army that may or not come every 3-4 turns ... you are hit with an entirely new army every. single. turn. The only way to move the same forces on the offense is to risk your adepts/mages by sending them out in the field. This is very dangerous however, because only one lost battle can lead to your loss of summoners ... which is a very poor hammer ratio, as death1 adepts are basically 90 hammers instead of 25 hammers (warrior), and so them plus the skeleton ... means you get 50 hammers worth of troop for the price of 90 hammers. Wheras on the DEFENSE if you keep your Adepts inside the city .... depending on terrain, culture, and the type of enemy troop (and their leader troops) you can get at least 2-3 turns. Which is 2-3 skeletons AT LEAST. and add another skeleton for when they are attacking into your city. So thats 3-4 skeletons, lets just call it 3 for now.
So, assuming the average scenario, on the attack (assuming you move the adepts with them) you get 1 skeleton per adept, and on the defense you get 3 skeletons per adept. So on the attack you have a 45% loss in efficiency, and on the defense you have AT LEAST an 11% INCREASE in efficiency. Now, naturally, the great part about skeletons is that as long as you don't lose the adepts it doesn't matter what happens to the skeletons. So that efficiency will only go up over time ... but these numbers are to reflect the perfect loss ... ie, the amount of efficiency you get in hammers assuming that your skeleton spamming army dies as quickly as possible. Obviously this efficiency can increase quite rapidly ... but you always run the risk of simply feeding the enemy exp. The nice thing though, is that since you can quickly replace your losses ... as long as they occasionally lose at least ONE unit, it can still be worth it as long as they don't gain enough strength to overcome you. After all, evnetually their promoted units will die, while you can just keep making new skeletons.
Skeleton spamming will ALWAYS be stronger on the defense, just like every strategy OTHER than city raider 3 heroes. I think that having no WW would make em a bit more thematic, especially when fighting against the AI ... but I suppose its not necessary. It is certainly one of the stronger level 1 spheres. Still ... I've never 'taken over' anyone with just skeletons. Its always primarily involved some other troop type. (often spectres perhaps, but certainly not skeletons. I pretty much only use skeletons on the defense except for the AI and certain exceptional circumstnces ... and for funzies while playing the Sheaim)
1) I have never been successful on an offensive war with Skeletons
2) there were 10 adepts + Saverous. Saverous had a 70% odds on Rosier if he had attacked. You had Rosier + 4 mages + some summoned pitbeasts. First round: I attack your pitbeasts, most of them die. 2nd round, you attack my skeletons, several of your units are wounded, by then I have already summoned a new batch of skeletons, and attack, win at low odds, and Rosier (who was probably already weakened) dies unluckily to a few skeletons. Because of this, your mages are still alive. (Basically, you were defending against the skeletons with only one unit, Rosier, because it wasn't until rosier died (due to his promotions) that the mages started defending. So basically you lost a hero and some pitbeasts to about 20 skeletons over the course of 2-3 turns. From 10 adepts. While invading. You invaded with 1 hero + 4 mages, while your enemy had an unknown number of troops.
I had Saverous, I had warriors, I had pyre zombies. I happened to gather about 10 adepts, 2 pyre zombies, and Saverous, and I only happened to kill you with the skeletons, but even without those lucky kills you would have still died.
None of this has anything to do with the fact that you could have still built up an army in your remaining cities ... which, I might add, were untouched. The only city destroyed was some Illian city which I razed the turn you captured it. (with some skeletons that had hoped to capture the city). I had used probably 50 skeletons in total trying to take over ALL the Illian cities, so I suppose I was a bit reluctant to let anyone else have them (other than the AI of course, whom I could more easily declare war on without the bitter game-lasting fall out of declaring on a human). So yes, I could have gifted you those cities, I could have let you keep the city (which, by the way, I only killed summons to raze ... so I didn't really kill anything permanent to you. Just access to a city which would have been isolated by Doviello culture anyways.), but if I had let you keep the city I would have just had to declare 'actual' war on you even sooner. Well, I suppose by killing your summons it was still war, and I did still raze one of your cities, even if it was under circumstances that I didn't think necessitated permanent state of war.
Even so ... after all of that, even if you did want to kill me, which, after all that self-justification, I think could still be justified (because after all, Civ IV is a tricky game like that
... just read some of the spoiler threads on Realms Beyond). What I mean to say is, I didn't mind that you wanted to kill me. What I am surprised about, however, is that you didn't have a more respectable honor guard for your hero, especially considering that you were going to leave the game if your hero died. Personally I don't find Valin or Rosier to be particularly spectacular, since they are often outshined by Mardero and Sphener in the late game. Even so, I can understand why such a hero, as powerful as he is, would STILL be a key playing piece in your plans. A piece so vital you might not wish to continue if they were lost even if it only reduces your chances of winning by 10%. Because of this, I think that your army guarding Rosier should have been larger. Just like your army guarding the Priests of Winter should have been larger. Remember also that in both games I played as the Sheaim. I have never officially 'won' as the Sheaim. I have been the last to quit, I suppose, and in that one SHeaim vs Illians games I suppose I did win because I made it to spectres. Two counters to spectre spam, however, are Stygian Guards and Diseased corpses. These units are death immune, and therefore immune to spectre spam as it reduces them to only 3 str summons. 4.5 str from a fully promoted mage (+50%).Spectres beat Tigers beat Undead/Demon army beat Spectres. Its a paper rock scissors of FFH spectre spam. Naturally fireball spam beats all of these. But then again, Spectres are a lot stronger against Tigers and other living units than fireballs are (with a lot of mana).
Then you have the paradigm of Spectres beta Orcs beat Fireballs beat Spectres.
Yes, there are certain imbalanced strategies ... but I have never seen an army of pure skeletons take over the world WHEN NO PUPPETS ARE INVOLVED. And the puppet craze will be fixed soon (by having puppets be specialunit_summon, which means they don't gain the benefits of Twincast OR summoner iirc)
In any case, military wise, having Skeletons cause no War Weariness isn't that large of an effect. Sure, in the long term it makes throwing skeletons at people more feasible, I *suppose* but in my experience using an army of PURE skeletons only serves to feed exp to the defenders. At least 9 times out of 10.
The main strength of Skeletons is in defense of a nation ... and this has nothing (imho) to do with the fact that WW doesn't accrue from in-culture fights. The main strength, imho, is TACTICS, in that the defending units are (generally) out in open terrain with little to few defensive bonuses. THAT and fresh skeletons are often less than a turn away. Instead of an army that may or not come every 3-4 turns ... you are hit with an entirely new army every. single. turn. The only way to move the same forces on the offense is to risk your adepts/mages by sending them out in the field. This is very dangerous however, because only one lost battle can lead to your loss of summoners ... which is a very poor hammer ratio, as death1 adepts are basically 90 hammers instead of 25 hammers (warrior), and so them plus the skeleton ... means you get 50 hammers worth of troop for the price of 90 hammers. Wheras on the DEFENSE if you keep your Adepts inside the city .... depending on terrain, culture, and the type of enemy troop (and their leader troops) you can get at least 2-3 turns. Which is 2-3 skeletons AT LEAST. and add another skeleton for when they are attacking into your city. So thats 3-4 skeletons, lets just call it 3 for now.
So, assuming the average scenario, on the attack (assuming you move the adepts with them) you get 1 skeleton per adept, and on the defense you get 3 skeletons per adept. So on the attack you have a 45% loss in efficiency, and on the defense you have AT LEAST an 11% INCREASE in efficiency. Now, naturally, the great part about skeletons is that as long as you don't lose the adepts it doesn't matter what happens to the skeletons. So that efficiency will only go up over time ... but these numbers are to reflect the perfect loss ... ie, the amount of efficiency you get in hammers assuming that your skeleton spamming army dies as quickly as possible. Obviously this efficiency can increase quite rapidly ... but you always run the risk of simply feeding the enemy exp. The nice thing though, is that since you can quickly replace your losses ... as long as they occasionally lose at least ONE unit, it can still be worth it as long as they don't gain enough strength to overcome you. After all, evnetually their promoted units will die, while you can just keep making new skeletons.
Skeleton spamming will ALWAYS be stronger on the defense, just like every strategy OTHER than city raider 3 heroes. I think that having no WW would make em a bit more thematic, especially when fighting against the AI ... but I suppose its not necessary. It is certainly one of the stronger level 1 spheres. Still ... I've never 'taken over' anyone with just skeletons. Its always primarily involved some other troop type. (often spectres perhaps, but certainly not skeletons. I pretty much only use skeletons on the defense except for the AI and certain exceptional circumstnces ... and for funzies while playing the Sheaim
)Since I predicated this (ryan and I played a multiplayer game versus the ai where he conquered two civs as an arcane civ using just death 1 adepts) I feel I afould comment on this.
Firstly you have suggested two buffs to death1 recently, and it was the stronger one (no maintenance) that he was commenting on (I think).
Secondly I don't think he was focussing on one specific occurrence (which you have adequately dissected) but more a general demonstration of their power that you had given.
(Side note : I don't actually think you mean to buff them for your own benefit, but rather that this annoys you when you play it)
Finally, while no WW may be appropriate for skeles, it is definitely not a necessary change - its a removal of the one nerf to a spell that already is much MUCH better then its compatriots. Seriously death 1 is very, very powerful, much more so then any adept spell, and needs no improvement.
Firstly you have suggested two buffs to death1 recently, and it was the stronger one (no maintenance) that he was commenting on (I think).
Secondly I don't think he was focussing on one specific occurrence (which you have adequately dissected) but more a general demonstration of their power that you had given.
(Side note : I don't actually think you mean to buff them for your own benefit, but rather that this annoys you when you play it)
Finally, while no WW may be appropriate for skeles, it is definitely not a necessary change - its a removal of the one nerf to a spell that already is much MUCH better then its compatriots. Seriously death 1 is very, very powerful, much more so then any adept spell, and needs no improvement.
Arcane adepts get combat promos fast, as they do if they take cleanup battles (95%+odds) meaning you are very quickly boosting those skeles.
ToN is also relatively plausible.
Skeletons shouldn't be operating without support (past T100 at least)so your points.are invalid.
The point is the strength of a death1 adept as part of an offensive stack.
ToN is also relatively plausible.
Skeletons shouldn't be operating without support (past T100 at least)so your points.are invalid.
The point is the strength of a death1 adept as part of an offensive stack.
Also I disagree that stygian/undead counter spectres.
Assume fully boosted they also get strong for 6strength, and any of those you mentioned will die to a storm of strength 4-6 spectres, at high cost ti the defender and very little to the attacker.
Assume fully boosted they also get strong for 6strength, and any of those you mentioned will die to a storm of strength 4-6 spectres, at high cost ti the defender and very little to the attacker.
Hmm. You are correct that fully boosted skeletons will be 6 str with combat 5 adepts and Tower of Necromancy.
So yall took over some civs just using death1 adepts? Interesting. Yes, I can agree that there is no reason to buff the spell, as its a strong spell. I guess it just annoyed me on diety games >_>
---------
but, Skeletons are 2 str +1 death str.
Spectres are 3 str + affinity
So, after Tower of Necromancy, Skeletons are 3 str vs Demon/Undead, and Spectres are 4 str vs Undead. Meaning 4.5 str skellies and 6 str spectres. Assuming these undead units are defending in a city, lets look at Stygian Guards at least. Stygian Guards have a 5 +2 unholy I think, and undead have +50% unholy resistance I think, therefore its 6 str, possibly +1 or +2 with metal weapons. So theoretically 9 str Stygians facting 4.5 str skellies or 6 str spectres.
Yes, the death comes earlier, but I'm not sure, at least on a blazing game, that Tower of Necromancy tends to be built all that early. I could be wrong, but I think its possible to be near one of the counter units by the time Tower of Necromancy is built.
Hmmm ... I suppose the new RB meta could be to just always go Death 1 ... but I personally haven't gotten any human vs human victories by taking skeltons on the attack. (only Spectres). Either way, since its the same sphere, I suppose its only a subtle difference in strategy.
So, all this to say, the spell doesn't have to be buffed, I suppose.
So yall took over some civs just using death1 adepts? Interesting. Yes, I can agree that there is no reason to buff the spell, as its a strong spell. I guess it just annoyed me on diety games >_>
---------
but, Skeletons are 2 str +1 death str.
Spectres are 3 str + affinity
So, after Tower of Necromancy, Skeletons are 3 str vs Demon/Undead, and Spectres are 4 str vs Undead. Meaning 4.5 str skellies and 6 str spectres. Assuming these undead units are defending in a city, lets look at Stygian Guards at least. Stygian Guards have a 5 +2 unholy I think, and undead have +50% unholy resistance I think, therefore its 6 str, possibly +1 or +2 with metal weapons. So theoretically 9 str Stygians facting 4.5 str skellies or 6 str spectres.
Yes, the death comes earlier, but I'm not sure, at least on a blazing game, that Tower of Necromancy tends to be built all that early. I could be wrong, but I think its possible to be near one of the counter units by the time Tower of Necromancy is built.
Hmmm ... I suppose the new RB meta could be to just always go Death 1 ... but I personally haven't gotten any human vs human victories by taking skeltons on the attack. (only Spectres). Either way, since its the same sphere, I suppose its only a subtle difference in strategy.
So, all this to say, the spell doesn't have to be buffed, I suppose.
Similar threads
