Last edited:
New Beta Patch - April 7th (4-7)
- Thread starter Recursive
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 4-7 patch vox populi
- Status
amateurgamer88
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2018
- Messages
- 1,612
An alternative method is surrounding the city with your units. If you're not at war with Egypt, then there's no way for Egyptian units to take that city or pillage tiles your units are on.
Unfortunately with Hex and Conquer mod Egypt claims tiles of Geneva, and because I'm not at war with them, they just push me out into my lands... This mod is crazy
But at least I slowed them down.Spoiler Time to counterattack! :
Last edited:
Embassy is required.
Strange... Here should be at least one city!
Spoiler Empty area :
One change I forgot to note:
Code:
Bold/Mean AIs or those with City-State bullying bonuses apply a double Opinion penalty
and are more likely to go to war for 10 turns, if you choose to side with your protected City-State
when they bully/attack it
- Now the option actually does what the tooltip says it does (risks an escalation to war)
- Makes the option a meaningful choice rather than an automatic "take the -10 hit to relations"
- Still a human-only thing, but the interaction logic can wait for another day
NikMuazHakim
Apparently a furry (?)
As a main Egypt player, yes. Declare war on Egypt. They must be stop! Oh and capture those citadels with hex and conquer. that's worth it i suppose. You get all the lands around it when holding the position in one turn and crippling the Unit counts for the enemy AIs too.
I also feel that AIs are ruining our relationship with CS as well as Subjects/Vassals more easier than us and they have to a this a tendency to hate the players more than AI warmongers as of late. Like, in what game have you seen all AI declaring war on you turn after turn?? ..and bribing them/ using disscussion to go to war with other civ is next to impossible most of the time. But I do like using my might to click on diplomacy choice that could potentially lead AIs to war with you but instead they return to neutral even with (200) warmongering score on me. These are just my opinions haha.
NikMuazHakim
Apparently a furry (?)
I had this issue too. I can't play more than the standard limit amount of civ in one session with 4-7 beta update including ilteroi's .DLL update. No other issue while playing though. I'm using the 43VP with EUI if that's the issue.
usadefcon1
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2016
- Messages
- 585
You can also gift your city state good units. Arsenal of Democracy or whatever you want to call it.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
I'm confused. I thought that the AI couldn't declare war on a city-state that you are allied with without also declaring war on you?
But yes, gift units or declare war on Egypt
.
Yeah, I forgot about alliance... Strange, it should bring me automatically into war. In this game, I had to declare war to Egypt, and I was bad man, not him, the real aggresor.
@HeathcliffWarriors I noticed that no one attacked me during first 3 eras (Egypt and Poland). Egypt was tied with me and Poland was little bit weaker. I had no Horses and small Iron. Poland had plenty of Horses. We all compete for CS especially Buenos Aires which was Polands sphere of influence and I took it from him. But they waited instead of attacking me until I got my Chu-ko-nu, then second from MUCfVP (Xiafan Guanjun) and I declared war on Poland, who had defensive pact with Egypt. They lost to me, but if they attack me earlier, I would be lost. Any thoughts or plans for that? Or maybe I missed similar things in your current changelogs?
@HeathcliffWarriors I noticed that no one attacked me during first 3 eras (Egypt and Poland). Egypt was tied with me and Poland was little bit weaker. I had no Horses and small Iron. Poland had plenty of Horses. We all compete for CS especially Buenos Aires which was Polands sphere of influence and I took it from him. But they waited instead of attacking me until I got my Chu-ko-nu, then second from MUCfVP (Xiafan Guanjun) and I declared war on Poland, who had defensive pact with Egypt. They lost to me, but if they attack me earlier, I would be lost. Any thoughts or plans for that? Or maybe I missed similar things in your current changelogs?
Last edited:
Looks like you are able to stack units. The CS protection strategy only works if with 1UPTUnfortunately with Hex and Conquer mod Egypt claims tiles of Geneva, and because I'm not at war with them, they just push me out into my lands... This mod is crazy
Spoiler Time to counterattack! :
I'm confused. I thought that the AI couldn't declare war on a city-state that you are allied with without also declaring war on you?
But yes, gift units or declare war on Egypt
DoWs on CSs do not automatically bring the CS's ally into the war.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
It doesn't? OK, I must have got mixed up somehow.
tommytoxen
Warlord
Yeah, I think it's for balance reasons.
When someone declares war on one of your CS allies it's then up to you to either
-Declare war on the aggressor or
-Revoke pledge of protection
Or do nothing and have the CS upset at you for not fulfilling your promise to protect them
I've modified early game aggression logic for next version, as described here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-beta-patch-april-7th-4-7.656818/page-3#post-15729168
I believe we're getting closer to a good passive/aggressive balance with the diplo AI. The recent changes have provided some good feedback. I still intend to do more work over time, but the approach calculation (which is a huge chunk of the diplo AI's code; ~4000 lines or so) is getting closer to completion.
Looking forward to people's thoughts next version.
SuperNoobCamper
King
Not at all.
The game i'm currently in is a nightmare ..... there is Mongolia, Rome & Japan constantly waging wars & stepping on each other toes ... killing CS, bullying, stealing land.
Mongolia vassalized Ethiopia at medieval era, Rome captured Japan's capital at pretty much the same time .... went to war endlessly .... i let Canada have one city .. polynesia was just chilling the entire game until i got close to winning CV.
MontyJava
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2020
- Messages
- 97
Hi. Some questions/feedback on ideas.
War desire reduction from other players' Defensive Pacts is now more nuanced
- Factors in proximity
Is this also factoring in proximity of DP partner to attacked nation? For instance, if Civ1 wants to DoW Civ2 with a DP with Civ3. Civ1 and Civ2 are "close", however Civ1 and Civ3 are "far", BUT Civ2 and Civ3 are "neighbors", such that Civ3 will easily be able to channel units into Civ2's territory, is that taken into account? Is that relevant in how the AI will act also (I'm not sure about how the AI calculates to involve itself in DP wars where it's not directly invaded or near the Civ1 in this instance).
Also a side note on the world wonder penalty (which I agree is a PITA as it was in the March version): I feel making it a comparison to the next highest wonder builder is going to lead to some "unpleasant" scenarios where that 2nd place guy loses a city and suddenly forces the player to get the penalty despite not building any new wonders. I would suggest an equation rather than strict cutoffs for penalties:
y=1.038462-1.538462/(1+(x/1.259317)^{3.169925}) //throw that in here to see curve https://www.desmos.com/calculator
Where X =( [civ#wonders] / [#totalwondersbuilt] ) / ( 1 / [#alivecivs] )
gives a nice curve that gives a bonus to relations of 50% if you have 0 wonders, a 0 bonus when your #wonders is the same as your equal share per civ, and rises fast after that up to 100% negative relation modifier at 4x your "fair share" (so if there's 16 wonders built and 8 civs, if you've built 8 wonders you get ~100% neg relations mod).
Explanation:
1. I like whenever there's a negative relations modifier, there should be a positive one (albeit lesser perhaps). Essentially, AIs are using wonder distribution to choose DoW targets, and being a "wonder lite" civ should be helpful to relations likewise.
2. Polynomial curves instead of clear switches are preferable always imo. Perhaps not from a performance standpoint, but certainly from a general humans (and AI) relations standpoint we generally respond proportionally rather than on/off.
3. This curve basically maxes out around 4x your fair share, and rises quickly then sort of plateaus, which makes sense as a "a lot of wonders" and "a super lot of wonders" should be less of a difference in relations than "fair share" and "a lot".
Quick question: is all of this diplo/AI changes in the .dll or does it require the full VP?
War desire reduction from other players' Defensive Pacts is now more nuanced
- Factors in proximity
Is this also factoring in proximity of DP partner to attacked nation? For instance, if Civ1 wants to DoW Civ2 with a DP with Civ3. Civ1 and Civ2 are "close", however Civ1 and Civ3 are "far", BUT Civ2 and Civ3 are "neighbors", such that Civ3 will easily be able to channel units into Civ2's territory, is that taken into account? Is that relevant in how the AI will act also (I'm not sure about how the AI calculates to involve itself in DP wars where it's not directly invaded or near the Civ1 in this instance).
Also a side note on the world wonder penalty (which I agree is a PITA as it was in the March version): I feel making it a comparison to the next highest wonder builder is going to lead to some "unpleasant" scenarios where that 2nd place guy loses a city and suddenly forces the player to get the penalty despite not building any new wonders. I would suggest an equation rather than strict cutoffs for penalties:
y=1.038462-1.538462/(1+(x/1.259317)^{3.169925}) //throw that in here to see curve https://www.desmos.com/calculator
Where X =( [civ#wonders] / [#totalwondersbuilt] ) / ( 1 / [#alivecivs] )
gives a nice curve that gives a bonus to relations of 50% if you have 0 wonders, a 0 bonus when your #wonders is the same as your equal share per civ, and rises fast after that up to 100% negative relation modifier at 4x your "fair share" (so if there's 16 wonders built and 8 civs, if you've built 8 wonders you get ~100% neg relations mod).
Explanation:
1. I like whenever there's a negative relations modifier, there should be a positive one (albeit lesser perhaps). Essentially, AIs are using wonder distribution to choose DoW targets, and being a "wonder lite" civ should be helpful to relations likewise.
2. Polynomial curves instead of clear switches are preferable always imo. Perhaps not from a performance standpoint, but certainly from a general humans (and AI) relations standpoint we generally respond proportionally rather than on/off.
3. This curve basically maxes out around 4x your fair share, and rises quickly then sort of plateaus, which makes sense as a "a lot of wonders" and "a super lot of wonders" should be less of a difference in relations than "fair share" and "a lot".
Quick question: is all of this diplo/AI changes in the .dll or does it require the full VP?
danymatrix
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2012
- Messages
- 154
and when can we use those improvements? or when would that next version be released approximately?
- Status
