New Beta Patch - 2/4

[bigcat88]

Something weird is happening - I used GA and got 4 glass than couldn't find it in the monopolies list. I see jewelry, porcelain but no glass

It is normal. If some CS from start of game have glass/porcelian then it only appears in monopolies list. That intended

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Resources from Great Admirals don't appear in the monopolies list, as you can't get a monopoly from them.

 

[youngsteve]

Luxuries from an admiral do not contribute to monopolies, since the luxury isn't on an actual tile in the map.

I found that out in a game where I had a lot of admirals. Despite that, it is a good decision, otherwise it could be abused. Imagine playing as Portugal if it did include them.

 

[Recursive]

I have discovered a horrendous and embarrassing bug!

Gandhi's programming was only functioning in the Community Patch only version, not in VP proper.

As a result, neither his friendliness boost nor his nuclear armageddon were working as intended.

I should have fixed that much earlier, it was written when I was much less experienced. But fear not, it has been fixed for next version. Now it only applies when VP proper is enabled.

The warmonger threat opinion messages have also been improved to give greater clarity as to how much the AI hates you for warmongering.

In addition, human players will now use the base WarmongerHate flavor for the civ they've chosen when calculating anti-warmonger fervor. As a result, e.g. Montezuma, Harald and Attila will have a harder time defending against warmongers, but Harun, Pedro and Enrico will have an easier time.

(And as noted earlier, I did another complete revision of the warmongering code.)

New version shouldn't be too far away.

 

[LifeOfBrian]

In addition, human players will now use the base WarmongerHate flavor for the civ they've chosen when calculating anti-warmonger fervor. As a result, e.g. Montezuma, Harald and Attila will have a harder time defending against warmongers, but Harun, Pedro and Enrico will have an easier time.

I'm not sure I understand this, can you explain a bit more?

 

[Recursive]

I'm not sure I understand this, can you explain a bit more?

Anti-warmonger fervor has been reworked as follows.

WarmongerHate flavor 1 = -40% warmonger amount
2 = -30%
3 = -20%
4 = -10%
5 = +0%
6 = +10%
7 = +20%
8 = +30%
9 = +40%
10 = +50%

Warmonger amount is used to calculate the AWF bonus.

Humans will now use the AI flavor for that civ instead of always using 5, but won't do the +/- 2 randomization.

Thus conquerors and expansionists with lower warmonger hate flavors have less of an AWF bonus, but civs like Austria and Brazil have a stronger bonus.

 

[AndreyK]

Luxuries from an admiral do not contribute to monopolies, since the luxury isn't on an actual tile in the map.

Thank you, so I get that there is no CS with glass in my map

 

[Revolutionist_8]

As a result, e.g. Montezuma, Harald and Attila will have a harder time defending against warmongers, but Harun, Pedro and Enrico will have an easier time.

Anti-warmonger fervor has been reworked as follows.
...
Thus conquerors and expansionists with lower warmonger hate flavors have less of an AWF bonus, but civs like Austria and Brazil have a stronger bonus.

Soooooooooo it's the combat bonus, right? I wasn't sure I understood correctly at first, but now I understand what you meant

 

[DeAnno]

It's a little weird that rolling high antiwarmonger gives a material advantage to the AI which isn't balanced against by a disadvantage. AIs that roll high on it seem to just be randomly better than copies of the same AI which rolled low; it kind of makes me think maybe it isn't the kind of thing which should be rolled at all, but just be a completely set characteristic.

 

[InkAxis]

I don't think diplomacy flavors should make a particular AI stronger or weaker, other than influencing their diplomacy/gameplay choices. Reducing the CS of other units (due to anti-warmonger fevor) just because they have a certain diplomacy trait doesn't seem good.

 

[LifeOfBrian]

I'll add my voice of concern, Recursive... A while ago I proposed a more objective and scaling model of anti-warmonger fervor (you'd gain anti-warmonger fervor, different based on particularities of the action, based on actions such as taking city-states, capitals, holy cities, normal cities, pillaging, destroying military units, destroying civilian units; and you'd alleviate that by certain actions such as liberating cities and units, restoring civs etc.), and I'd still favour such a system, rather than the one where AI traits are employed and rather than the current one.

 

[Carloshooter]

I'll add my voice of concern, Recursive... A while ago I proposed a more objective and scaling model of anti-warmonger fervor (you'd gain anti-warmonger fervor, different based on particularities of the action, based on actions such as taking city-states, capitals, holy cities, normal cities, pillaging, destroying military units, destroying civilian units; and you'd alleviate that by certain actions such as liberating cities and units, restoring civs etc.), and I'd still favour such a system, rather than the one where AI traits are employed and rather than the current one.

Would that be easy to achieve? I'm asking because i don't know, still it's an amazing idea and it would give more meaningfull impact to does actions

 

[Recursive]

I don't think diplomacy flavors should make a particular AI stronger or weaker, other than influencing their diplomacy/gameplay choices. Reducing the CS of other units (due to anti-warmonger fevor) just because they have a certain diplomacy trait doesn't seem good.

I'll add my voice of concern, Recursive... A while ago I proposed a more objective and scaling model of anti-warmonger fervor (you'd gain anti-warmonger fervor, different based on particularities of the action, based on actions such as taking city-states, capitals, holy cities, normal cities, pillaging, destroying military units, destroying civilian units; and you'd alleviate that by certain actions such as liberating cities and units, restoring civs etc.), and I'd still favour such a system, rather than the one where AI traits are employed and rather than the current one.

The current system of anti-warmonger fervor having a basis in AI personality was Gazebo's idea, not mine. I just changed the value of the multiplier and made it more or less equal between humans and the AI.

I don't have an issue with keeping the combat bonus separate from the diplomatic aspect, although this might require a separate memory value.

Capturing cities, liberating cities and declaring war already use a system of "objective checks" for the most part. Units/pillaging are not considered.

If the community wants to rework the warmonger system, I'm absolutely open to suggestions, but helpful suggestions would need to be more detailed in terms of numbers. I can post the rewritten code for people to give feedback if people would like that.

 

[AndreyK]

I think that is not fair when you can't attack your enemy at sea, when there is a neutral land unit under navy enemy unit, especially when it usually happens on 1 or 2 tiles that adjacent to the enemy city, so you cannot attack it with naval melee unit.

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Thanks for the explanation, Recursive, I hope we didn't come across as harsh I for one am extremely appreciative of all the hard work you've done in making this mode an even more tremendous one!

 

[Recursive]

Thanks for the explanation, Recursive, I hope we didn't come across as harsh I for one am extremely appreciative of all the hard work you've done in making this mode an even more tremendous one!

You're welcome to provide your thoughts, as always - the mod is a community project.