New Beta Version - 1-11 (1/11)

[Kim Dong Un]

Won a CV (turn 368) with similar behaviour: Brazil / Emperor / Standard / Continents

Diplo was pretty good until late game when it became abundantly clear I was on the path to winning. Every civ took turns rotating in and out through war with me over the final 100 turns (I was also sanctioned the last 30-ish turns). This is reasonable to an extent; I was going to win and that was the best option to try and collectively stop me, but it seems if you're in the driver's seat mid/late game, diplomacy basically becomes a complete write-off and that ultimately takes away fun.

It'd be ideal to find a bit better balance. Often times, just as in the real world throughout all of human history unfortunately, the weaker are essentially forced to kiss the buttocks of those ahead of them in power, wealth, health, etc., and I'd personally like to see a bit more variance in this during late game before it resorts into the chaos of 7 vs the leader.

 

[civplayer33]

I would like to report that I have cmpleted 3 city conquest quests in my current game: 37XP per unit, 22XP per unit, and 72XP per unit. So I have gotten 131xp from city state quests this game. My army is straight baller.

Was that on standard speed? 72 XP is pretty crazy...why do I never get so lucky?

 

[civplayer33]

It'd be ideal to find a bit better balance. Often times, just as in the real world throughout all of human history unfortunately, the weaker are essentially forced to kiss the buttocks of those ahead of them in power, wealth, health, etc., and I'd personally like to see a bit more variance in this during late game before it resorts into the chaos of 7 vs the leader.

The real world doesn't have a victory condition that ends space and time forever. Sorry, but the AI is absolutely supposed to behave that way, IMO, and I'm glad that it is...and for those who disagree, why don't you just play with victory competition disabled? Or drop down a difficulty level where you can handle that kind of pressure?

 

[Recursive]

The real world doesn't have a victory condition that ends space and time forever. Sorry, but the AI is absolutely supposed to behave that way, IMO, and I'm glad that it is...and for those who disagree, why don't you just play with victory competition disabled? Or drop down a difficulty level where you can handle that kind of pressure?

They aren't intended to behave ultra aggressively unless the other player is close to winning the game, not just ahead in score. Competitively, yes, but diplomacy is supposed to be reasonably achievable if you put in the effort - and the feedback seems to indicate that the AI gets too aggressive too early on.

If the AI is too aggressive in punishing success, it loses the opportunity to make powerful friends and coalitions, and better trade deals. The AI is intended to behave in a way that benefits its own victory interests, while taking into account how well or poorly they're being treated as well.

Also, at least some of it has to do with the AI being too reluctant to end wars, which is a bug that I'll fix.

 

[Recursive]

One question, though: @Stalker0, were you getting the new "They believe we are building World Wonders too aggressively!" modifier? That's intended to punish players who spam World Wonders, particularly if they're also weak and/or the AI is pursuing conquest/culture. Do you have any feedback on that? Is it too sensitive, for example?

 

[civplayer33]

They aren't intended to behave ultra aggressively unless the other player is close to winning the game, not just ahead in score. Competitively, yes, but diplomacy is supposed to be reasonably achievable if you put in the effort - and the feedback seems to indicate that the AI gets too aggressive too early on.

If the AI is too aggressive in punishing success, it loses the opportunity to make powerful friends and coalitions, and better trade deals. The AI is intended to behave in a way that benefits its own victory interests, while taking into account how well or poorly they're being treated as well.

Also, at least some of it has to do with the AI being too reluctant to end wars, which is a bug that I'll fix.

Except the post I was quoting explicitly stated that diplomacy was good until "it became abundantly clear [the human] was on the path to winning"...if the human, or an AI, is a runaway the others should gang up on him/it...otherwise the win for the runaway is guaranteed and everyone is just wasting everyone's time...and the AIs who are cooperating with the runaway surely aren't "benefiting their own victory interests" that way.

 

[Recursive]

Except the post I was quoting explicitly stated that diplomacy was good until "it became abundantly clear [the human] was on the path to winning"...if the human, or an AI, is a runaway the others should gang up on him/it...otherwise the win for the runaway is guaranteed and everyone is just wasting everyone's time...and the AIs who are cooperating with the runaway surely aren't "benefiting their own victory interests" that way.

Oh, my mistake, I didn't see the entire post you quoted, only the part in the quote. You're quite right that it's intended to behave that way under those circumstances, unless victory competition is disabled

The impression I got was based on the previous posts as well, though, which were indicative of abnormal AI aggression prior to that point.

 

[Gazebo]

Ah I see the issue, XP wasn't ever intended to scale, but a recent change to that added xp scaling by era by mistake.

G

 

[CrazyG]

One question, though: @Stalker0, were you getting the new "They believe we are building World Wonders too aggressively!" modifier? That's intended to punish players who spam World Wonders, particularly if they're also weak and/or the AI is pursuing conquest/culture. Do you have any feedback on that? Is it too sensitive, for example?

I think its a bit too sensitive. You also get it by conquering cities with wonders.

I'm also finding the "You are expanding your empire too aggressively" a little bit sensitive. I don't think 5 cities by turn 70 is unreasonable, but it was enough to make Shoshone break friendship to immediately denounce me. He had 4 cities, and built a 5th one just a few turns later.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

They aren't intended to behave ultra aggressively unless the other player is close to winning the game, not just ahead in score.

Except the post I was quoting explicitly stated that diplomacy was good until "it became abundantly clear [the human] was on the path to winning"...

I should've been more precise - it was clear in the sense that I had 5/7 civs influential and no other civ's VC was going to threaten me, but I wouldn't actually describe myself as a "runaway" when this started to occur, and I only won the game with a gap of a couple hundred in score ahead of India. Through the final 100+ turns, I had a solid policy lead, but was only marginally ahead of the pack in science for the most part. As I pointed out in my initial post, the behaviour felt reasonable, sanctions and travel ban almost stalled the game near the end as well, but may have just kicked in a bit too early. It's also only one game, and I'm starting another tonight to observe more behaviour.

If the AI is too aggressive in punishing success, it loses the opportunity to make powerful friends and coalitions, and better trade deals.

Yes exactly, and from a gameplay perspective losing those features for almost a third of a standard game takes away from the diversity and fun. Even before getting sanctioned, I had no external trade routes or deals whatsoever for the last 100+ turns playing a peaceful CV, simply because of the rotating door of war. It just hurt the fun of that style - the intimidation stemming from my position atop the leaderboard should not just translate to hostility through force from those behind, but also through leeching or "sucking up" to those ahead in order to milk as much as they can to improve their standing. Also, late game deals are still very trivial in terms of gold/lux value, but that's an entirely separate issue that needs to be addressed.

Or drop down a difficulty level where you can handle that kind of pressure?

Did you miss the part where I stated who won the game? How dare you insinuate that Supreme Leader has trouble on Emperor difficulty! I'll have you know it's on record that "The Great Dong" once completed a deity domination victory in 10 turns!

 

[ProCatGamer]

This was a weird game. I honestly didn't feel like I was playing against 7 different AI....it felt like 1 hive mind.

The first time I have to agree with this
Don't get me wrong I really love all the new ai changes, they are smarter and I can actually make friends and they are more reasonable

But I agree with Stalker and their new weird ways...
I wasn't really top of the scoreboard except with wonders and almost top with culture and science
Never provoke anyone except Germany (I was Brazil)
Just playing q a peaceful game, when Carthage sneak attack me (she was the leader)
After her, it was Morrocco (He was also the top few) and Germany who DOW with me

These still made sense, my military was always below average and I was sorta a threat to them
But what I was really irritated was when suddenly all my "friends" DOW with me a turn after although we had minimal negative modifier and actually more positive ones

So I hope that these could be changed? (idk how) and maybe get more supply? (I was at max units yet wasn't near half of the top military leader)
I will try to go to king to see if I still have these difficulties

 

[Stalker0]

One question, though: @Stalker0, were you getting the new "They believe we are building World Wonders too aggressively!" modifier? That's intended to punish players who spam World Wonders, particularly if they're also weak and/or the AI is pursuing conquest/culture. Do you have any feedback on that? Is it too sensitive, for example?

Yes that was one of the modifiers. I would probably say based on this game that they were too sensitive

 

[JamesNinelives]

The first time I have to agree with this
Don't get me wrong I really love all the new ai changes, they are smarter and I can actually make friends and they are more reasonable

Love your icon btw <3. Pew pew!

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I want to say, that there is a huge difference in "I want to win" and "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!".
The willingness to win the game should be the major target of the AI. But it often looks more like they play only the destructive way, the leader dont have to win....
Its ok, if the major enemies of the leader are staying together to stop the leader, but whats with the mid and bottom civs?
Even if the civs in the mid were able to harm the leader the way they can with their mediocre power. Would that really lead to a win for those mediocre civilizations? Wouldnt other civs, which conquered the majority of the former leader be now the major threat? Simply a substitution and nothing would have changed for the mid and low civs?
I would really like to see an AI, which consider also the option to play more aggressiv versus minor civilizations and maybe overcome the leader by adding more power to it self than trying to destroy the power of the leader.

 

[civplayer33]

I want to say, that there is a huge difference in "I want to win" and "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!".
The willingness to win the game should be the major target of the AI. But it often looks more like they play only the destructive way, the leader dont have to win....
Its ok, if the major enemies of the leader are staying together to stop the leader, but whats with the mid and bottom civs?
Even if the civs in the mid were able to harm the leader the way they can with their mediocre power. Would that really lead to a win for those mediocre civilizations? Wouldnt other civs, which conquered the majority of the former leader be now the major threat? Simply a substitution and nothing would have changed for the mid and low civs?
I would really like to see an AI, which consider also the option to play more aggressiv versus minor civilizations and maybe overcome the leader by adding more power to it self than trying to destroy the power of the leader.

Yeah I agree with this; Civs who are too far behind to really have a chance at winning or are too weak to be able to hurt the (potential) runaway would serve their interests more by not being overly hostile to him...if it was me and I knew I couldn't win the game but wanted to continue to play I'd certainly try to get the help of a powerful Civ further away to at least take revenge on the powerful Civ close-by that has probably taken some of my Cities or humiliated me in some way.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Certainly in this patch the leader gets most of the aggression, but ganging up on the weakest player was pretty popular in previous versions. I think Recursive's planned adjustments should go some way to moderating the current imbalance.

 

[CrazyG]

Two games in a row, around turn 250, all 7 AI choose to declare to me that they were going to win a science victory, all in the same turn. Anyone else see that? Not an issue, just humorous, especially as a couple of them were still in medieval era.

 

[tothePAIN]

Ah I see the issue, XP wasn't ever intended to scale, but a recent change to that added xp scaling by era by mistake.

G

Excellent, glad we found that. Scaling xp is too strong for a warmonger.

 

[General_Drax]

Recently I tried every kind of victory on Emperor level (1/11 and 12/20 betas). I must admit that domination is by far the easiest. When I played with Sweden and Huns (current one) I did not bother with diplomacy at all. I got all the malus just do not care. City states are just another target because I know the Ais will try sanction me or just hammering with resource bans, open doors resolution on my allies, etc. Yes, i'm always at war but that is what Autorithy and Imperialism is made for.

Tradition going for CV/SV is the hardest due to low military. All AIs see you as weak (heck even on Progress path) so they gang up and declare war the very moment you get the lead. Statecraft help but all them votes combined ultimately cripple you.

Every game i had to plan for those last 250 turns to end (epic pace) when I know It's me vs the world if i'm first on leaderboard.

Vox populi/civ 5 is ultimately a strategy WAR game.

 

[Gazebo]

Recently I tried every kind of victory on Emperor level (1/11 and 12/20 betas). I must admit that domination is by far the easiest. When I played with Sweden and Huns (current one) I did not bother with diplomacy at all. I got all the malus just do not care. City states are just another target because I know the Ais will try sanction me or just hammering with resource bans, open doors resolution on my allies, etc. Yes, i'm always at war but that is what Autorithy and Imperialism is made for.

Tradition going for CV/SV is the hardest due to low military. All AIs see you as weak (heck even on Progress path) so they gang up and declare war the very moment you get the lead. Statecraft help but all them votes combined ultimately cripple you.

Every game i had to plan for those last 250 turns to end (epic pace) when I know It's me vs the world if i'm first on leaderboard.

Vox populi/civ 5 is ultimately a strategy WAR game.

What, a game with an entire layer of the map dedicated to military units is a war game? No way!

G