New Beta Patch - April 7th (4-7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did the 'Trade' window become all wonky? If there is a deal they now report the value as -X and they tend not to accept them. They might accept them if it's a GPT deal but it's no-deal if it's flat gold. Fine. But there is a limit at which they type out that the deal is acceptable, one value (one gold away from acceptable) at which it's impossible and then the next value after that is just a negative number. So you don't really know if the negative number is beyond impossible or just a negative number.

Example; I offer to sell Askia 2 iron.

459 gold + 2 gpt = -2 value
458 gold + 2 gpt = impossible (i gather this then is -1 value)
457 gold + 2 gpt = acceptable (they will accept this)
456 gold + 2 gpt = 1 value (they will accept this)

Why is the 459g and beyond deal not listed as "impossible" to. It's somewhat annoying. I find it takes longer now to get the "best" deal, certainly so when doing all gpt deals as they then will accept a certain amount of negative values. I get the feeling that previously the "acceptable" window was larger. I wouldn't say it's a bug or anything, more of a nuisance.

So I was just playing a game and I came across it as well this time, just as you descibed it! Seems like a bug to me.

By the way, the bug I mentioned earlier relating to embarked units had already been fixed. Thanks @XplosiveLun for creating the issue and @ilteroi for fixing it!
https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/issues/6448
 
Last edited:
It works for me

What is broken about it?

Thanks for replies... seems getting the 43-civ mod to load so that it allows more than 22 civs is hit-or-miss on my end. I've noticed this before, sometimes I'll do everything right with installing VP, but it just won't allow a game to be setup with more than 22 civs. This was happening last night with both 3-15-2 and 4-7... *shrug*

This morning I have been able to get 3-15-2 to load 43 civs so I guess that's fine.. no luck with 4-7 though
 
New DLL from ilteroi, incorporating several additional bugfixes including a fix for embarked unit movement (I believe it also incorporates my fix making World Congress projects and Corporation buildings not count towards the wonder spammer penalty, and a few other fixes from me).

To install it, replace the CvGameCore_Expansion2.dll file in your MODS > (1) Community Patch folder with the attached version.

This build may be referred to as the 4-10 Build or 4-10 DLL.

Savegame compatible with 4-7, not savegame compatible with previous versions.
 

Attachments

  • CvGameCore_Expansion2.zip
    2.6 MB · Views: 390
Last edited:
Is anyone finding the AI to be too passive in this version? In a test game I saw a bit too much friendliness up to the Renaissance Era, but it could just be bad luck / observation bias.

If it is, I do have an idea as to what the culprit might be.
 
I saw Monty do an early declaration on someone in a recent 4-7 game (~Turn 100 Immortal Standard.) Carthage and Germany were also both near me and rattling swords with Hostile Stance, Denounciations, etc, probably based on my sort of low military. The only reason Monty ignored me I think was the border was ridiculously mountainous and the AI probably even realized it was a deathtrap.
 
Is anyone finding the AI to be too passive in this version? In a test game I saw a bit too much friendliness up to the Renaissance Era, but it could just be bad luck / observation bias.

If it is, I do have an idea as to what the culprit might be.

Diplo factors kind of build up over time. Early on there is border tension but I can usually promise to play nice to prevent actual war. I get threats someimtes but they often don't lead to war. I tend to see one early war on my continent of 6 by a warmonger. Early on most people just want to grow and develop though so it's relatively easy to make friendships. Most people will want to trade even if it's only for luxuries, and when they are otherwise neutral that's a pretty good start. And the more friends you have the more people want to be your friend.

Over time though, certain civs inevitably take the lead. Interactions between declarations of friendship and denouncements sort of create factions. Whoever has built the most tends to become unpopular, but if you denounce them and you are in second place you can position yourself to lead the alliance. If you have build the most wonders though it's difficult to maintain good relations. Which I guess is reasonable if you are winning? Either way, the differences tend to be smaller at first - there's less reason to go all in on wonders when you have to balanceit with other things like expanding your territory and building up military. Although maluses for settling can be significant if you expand early/rapidly.

Border tensions also build up over time, and denouncements take a while to wear off so by denouncing some you can upset others. Denouncements also tend to have a sort of the-more-the-merrier nature where the more people who have denounced you the more likely it is for others to join in. Finally, competition for city-states is sparse early-on whereas once you hit renaissance+ everybody wants one. And going into the industrial era and when world congress starts being a thing the territorialism is fierce. You have to stake your claim CS-wise or you will loose them to someone else (especially if civs like Germany, Siam, Austria or Venice are in the game - don't even get me started on Statecraft).

It's still much better than the threshold version where people stop liking you all of a sudden. And I haven't played enough games to really say for sure. Overall I found that people were happy to denounce or take other diplomatic action but wary to declare war. Which might be in their interest unless they have intentions of expansion? Hope these obeservations make sense.
 
Last edited:
My fist post patch game had constant war from medieval era, only friendiness that I have witness was in ancient/classical, but it was probably coused by big island map seed. What was fudged up was my war with dido - she spamed me with constant wave of ships with >9 rank. Could it be a bug? I mean I played on prince so she shouldnt be able to rebuild her fleet in sucha fast pace + have new ships with that much expirience from the start. I was forced to resign even with my score, econ and tech better than hers (military was the same). Thats like my >20th epic game of vox, I understand that ai can snowball, I've seen it happen, but I didnt see anything of this proportion on king before (my prefered difficulty, I picked prince this time because a 8 month break). AI is so much better at naval combat, so kudos for that, it use corvet as a meat and after it follows with ranged ships. AI Exp and production times are wrong though, I understand bonuses but seeing an >9-13 rank carpet like this after I won and crippled dido in previous war (like max 25 turns before) was just silly. Other than that sweet changes from my last play, like always war wariness could use a little bit of tweaking, but its better from what I remeber.
 
My fist post patch game had constant war from medieval era, only friendiness that I have witness was in ancient/classical, but it was probably coused by big island map seed. What was ****ed up was my war with dido - she spamed me with constant wave of ships with >9 rank. Could it be a bug? I mean I played on prince so she shouldnt be able to rebuild her fleet in sucha fast pace + have new ships with that much expirience from the start. I was forced to resign even with my score, econ and tech better than hers (military was the same). Thats like my >20th epic game of vox, I understand that ai can snowball, I've seen it happen, but I didnt see anything of this proportion on king before (my prefered difficulty, I picked prince this time because a 8 month break). AI is so much better at naval combat, so kudos for that, it use corvet as a meat and after it follows with ranged ships. AI Exp and production times are wrong though, I understand bonuses but seeing an >9-13 rank carpet like this after I won and crippled dido in previous war (like max 25 turns before) was just silly. Other than that sweet changes from my last play, like always war wariness could use a little bit of tweaking, but its better from what I remeber.

High levels of aggression from civs with war bonuses and UUs active are intentional. Constant war with all civs is not, but without knowing more about the situation I can't really comment - there are oddities from time to time, and unit XP counts in the military strength calculation.

On Prince, AI units are intended to start with 15 EXP and earn 33% more EXP from combat. You mention there was constant war so perhaps the units are high level from all that war?

If you're certain they're getting enormous amounts of EXP out of nowhere, that's a bug. Please report it on Github.
https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/issues
 
Is anyone finding the AI to be too passive in this version? In a test game I saw a bit too much friendliness up to the Renaissance Era, but it could just be bad luck / observation bias.

If it is, I do have an idea as to what the culprit might be.
Until Medieval I had 4 Declarations of Friendship on 6 players (Siam, Aztecs, Iroquois, Persia) and one War (Poland). I was Songhai. Additionally 3 Research Agreements.
 
I can't comment on early game aggro, since I was isolated on my own continent for the first 150 turns, but once Medieval / Renaissance hit I definitely saw some warring, specifically an authority England (who I had a DoF with and was feeding resources in hopes of pestering 2nd place Ethiopia) fighting and eventually teaming up with Mongolia against Haile. Mongolia had just taken two cities before I borked my game by updating a mod (it wasn't the new dll's fault), but I'll report on timidness if I come across it in my next game(s). Diplo actually felt solid throughout the 230 turns I got to play.
 
Is anyone finding the AI to be too passive in this version? In a test game I saw a bit too much friendliness up to the Renaissance Era, but it could just be bad luck / observation bias.

If it is, I do have an idea as to what the culprit might be.

I actually think it's about right, I've been offered several DoFs and war offers within the first 100 turns so far
 
Hmmm, thanks for the feedback.

Diplomacy changes for upcoming version:
Code:
Bugfixes & performance improvements
- Fixed typo causing capitulated vassals to double the weight for capturing their capital (now the intended -80; -160 if not a capitulated vassal) [in current build]

Approach Calculation
  Reduced pre-Renaissance friendliness
  - Trimmed some excess weight from minor civ, wonder, tech dispute checks
  - Removed +FRIENDLY/NEUTRAL bonus for not being a major competitor pre-Renaissance
  - Should result in more challenging / strategic diplomacy early game, and necessitates a strong military on higher difficulties
  - If too impactful, a partial reversion of changes should put the AI in about the right aggression balance diplomatically (we're getting there!)

  Economic strength still acts as a war deterrent, but is less effective unless the player also has a strong military
  - AI should be more willing to attack economically powerful targets
  - Should be harder to make the AI AFRAID

  War desire reduction from other players' Defensive Pacts is now more nuanced
  - Factors in proximity
  - More consideration of military strength

  Misc
  - Added +1x WAR bias for denouncing an AI

Improvements to AI targeting, war and peace logic
  - AI better at judging whether a player is an easy target to attack
  - AI a little better at ignoring "phony wars" where appropriate and making peace more quickly
  - AI better at deciding when to make peace and when not to make peace
  - AI recognizes major cities (capitals, holy cities) that are in danger as more important when evaluating whether to make peace
  - AI a little better at understanding the state of a war and whether a coop war is a good idea
  - If an AI has 0 cities, they will never agree to coop wars unless they're your teammate :)

Other
- Reduced victory dispute/block opinion weights by 5
- Threshold for tech competition is more forgiving (being within 1 tech of an AI is treated as being equal)
- Scientific/diplomatic AIs are less aggressive to players that resurrected them
- Tech opinion penalty removed if victory competition is disabled or player was resurrected
- Diplomatic AIs are a little smarter when picking fights


Non-Diplomacy Changes
Difficulty
  Players on difficulties below Prince now get the first pick of starting locations over the AI (normally placement order is random), if the start positioner works as intended
  - This makes it more likely that low difficulty players will get better start conditions
  - Settler gets priority over Chieftain, Chieftain over Warlord, multiple players at the same level have the order randomized
  - Configurable via the StartingLocPercent value in DifficultyMod.xml

A few of the minor changes are already in the 4-7 or 4-10 versions, but most of these will be applied in the upcoming version.

You can discuss diplomacy in the dedicated thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/diplomacy-ai-development.655040/
 
Last edited:
Tell me because I'm a bit angry: Why Egypt declared war to Geneva (who has protection pledged by me) and I cannot do anything? There was prompt about that war. I have mod Hex and Concquer which dynamically allows claiming tiles during war and I can see Geneva lost significant part of its territory to Egypt. Egypt is coming closer and I cannot help them. There was at some point diplomacy screen allowing me to choose to pledge them still and stop escalation of the conflict or leave them. I clicked to Help them and the only thing changed was Egyptian fleet going back. Infantry still comes closer.

Spoiler War??? :
upload_2020-4-11_22-18-11.jpeg
upload_2020-4-11_22-21-48.png


Also, how it is possible to have 150% dyes?
 
Last edited:
Tell me because I'm a bit angry: Why Egypt declared war to Geneva (who has protection pledged by me) and I cannot do anything? There was prompt about that war. I have mod Hex and Concquer which dynamically allows claiming tiles during war and I can see Geneva lost significant part of its territory to Egypt. Egypt is coming closer and I cannot help them. There was at some point diplomacy screen allowing me to choose to pledge them still and stop escalation of the conflict or leave them. I clicked to Help them and the only thing changed was Egyptian fleet going back. Infantry still comes closer.



Also, how it is possible to have 150% dyes?

Firaxis diplo logic doesn't allow you to ask the AI to back off from attacking your protected City-States. Even though they can ask you to back off. Stupid, yes. Rewriting the interaction logic is on my list for this year.

Certain traits/policies/etc allow for > 100% monopolies.
 
Further diplomacy changes for upcoming version:
Code:
Reworked opinion penalty for killing/capturing civilians
- Now matters more the *lower* the era number is (was higher, which doesn't make a lot of sense)
- Killing/capturing a Settler will earn 3x the normal diplo penalty (6x if the turn # is 100 or less)
- Still does not apply for capturing/killing civilian units that are in cities

Reworked early game aggression (pre-Renaissance)
- Restored early game friendliness but also made it more strategic
- In a nutshell, earlygame AI is easy to anger with border disputes or if you do things like denounce them / convert them / demand resources from them
- However, they're easier to befriend in the early game as well, provided you don't anger them
- This system functions better than simply reducing friendliness weight, while still allowing for more earlygame war
- AI more likely to adopt the WAR and GUARDED approaches towards players who have conquered capitals in the Ancient or Classical eras, especially if they're easy targets (helps counter early steamrolling)

- Religion matters more in Medieval/Renaissance Era diplomacy

- Ideology matters more in Atomic Era diplomacy
 
Last edited:
Firaxis diplo logic doesn't allow you to ask the AI to back off from attacking your protected City-States. Even though they can ask you to back off. Stupid, yes. Rewriting the interaction logic is on my list for this year.

Certain traits/policies/etc allow for > 100% monopolies.
So, the best and only way is to declare war on Egypt?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom