New Beta Version (3-20b)

[Owlbebach]

@Venice players:
Is it even reasonable to win diplomatic victory with Venice ?

Never tried myself, but seems possible on paper. You just don't need to eat City-States after first 3 of them and use Merchants to get influence. Also capture as many cities as possible to get more Merchants, so should a very aggressive game

 

[ElliotS]

@Venice players:
Is it even reasonable to win diplomatic victory with Venice ?

Seems like a poor choice compared to the other DV.

 

[Moi Magnus]

Also capture as many cities as possible to get more Merchants, so should a very aggressive game

Though it is debated on Venice's thread, this is no longer possible since puppet no longer produce GPP.

 

[Owlbebach]

Seems like a poor choice compared to the other DV.

Actually not that poor, cause Venice has additional Votes from one of its unique buildings and additional influence from Merchants that are about as powerful as Great Diplomats

Though it is debated on Venice's thread, this is no longer possible since puppet no longer produce GPP.

Yes. but puppets increase production of Great Merchants in your capital, and when Venice gets 25 cities, which it should have - your Great Merchant production will be insane even in capital only (probably around +400-500% total). Requires testing though.

EDIT: Btw, this really hurts Tourism Venice play.

 

[ScooterDWiebels]

I had dozens of games where the ai will settle a city on 80% pure desert just for that random 6 iron tile that spawned in there.

But this happens in the real world, The city of Las Vegas exists in the middle of a desert with little resources, and was only built by the railroad because they needed a repair shop. And this happened in the 20th century.

 

[ScooterDWiebels]

That's not exactly what is going on. As I noted, it's the criteria for proximity to other cities that is the problem, not yield valuation.



No.

Please do not change it. I can find instances of settling in inhospitable terrain for even less than 6 iron resource. In real life if that city also had access to coal then you would definitely have seen a city placed there.

 

[tu_79]

Please do not change it. I can find instances of settling in inhospitable terrain for even less than 6 iron resource. In real life if that city also had access to coal then you would definitely have seen a city placed there.

Anyways, I think that there's a minimun technology requirement. I'd agree with colonists settling wherever they like, but earlier settler units should not take just any land.

 

[pza]

But this happens in the real world, The city of Las Vegas exists in the middle of a desert with little resources, and was only built by the railroad because they needed a repair shop. And this happened in the 20th century.

Yeah and in real world America started beeing colonized during the 2nd third of what would be the time scale in the game. (Read: civ's not a realistic game.)

 

[ScooterDWiebels]

Anyways, I think that there's a minimun technology requirement. I'd agree with colonists settling wherever they like, but earlier settler units should not take just any land.

I agree with the Technology feature, imho Railroad should really be necessary to make some locals desirable for cities,

 

[Randomsheep]

Because they cheat don't they?

They settle near resouces like uranium and oil ages before they are revealed.

 

[ElliotS]

Because they cheat don't they?

They settle near resouces like uranium and oil ages before they are revealed.

That's not true. They're just happily settling empty spaces of land last, and eventually SOMETHING is going to be there. Confirmation bias then takes the wheel from there.

 

[Randomsheep]

That's not true. They're just happily settling empty spaces of land last, and eventually SOMETHING is going to be there. Confirmation bias then takes the wheel from there.

Possibly.

I 've seen too much 'flukey' settlement by the AI to not allow me to entirely dismiss my suspicion that there might be a bug.

 

[ElliotS]

Possibly.

I 've seen too much 'flukey' settlement by the AI to not allow me to entirely dismiss my suspicion that there might be a bug.

Given how sure everyone asked is that it's not a thing, I'd rate it as 99.9% that it's not a thing. G's been wrong before, but a LOT of people have said this isn't a thing, including firaxis IIRC.

 

[Randomsheep]

Given how sure everyone asked is that it's not a thing, I'd rate it as 99.9% that it's not a thing. G's been wrong before, but a LOT of people have said this isn't a thing, including firaxis IIRC.

So what you are saying is there is a chance I am right.

 

[civplayer33]

So what you are saying is...

I didn't think Cathy Newman played Civ 5 VP

 

[Moi Magnus]

Given how sure everyone asked is that it's not a thing, I'd rate it as 99.9% that it's not a thing. G's been wrong before, but a LOT of people have said this isn't a thing, including firaxis IIRC.

From my observations, the AI does not settle with knowledge of the late game ressources.
However, the settler adviser do take in account some ressources you should not know about :
+ I'm almost sure about thoses in the fog of war (I had few examples with Natural Wonders)
+ It seems quite probable for me that it takes in acount the early ressources not yet revealled
+ It does not seems, up to my observations, to take in account late game ressources
I do not know if the AI use the same infos as the settler adviser, or if Ilteroi made sure the AI was not cheating.

 

[tu_79]

Attila has paid me to declare war against Brazil. I didn't check (could not in the trade screen) that India was a vassal of Brazil. I declared war for 15 turns expecting a minimal fight. Next turn Attila declares war on me. Now I'm at war with three civs. I'm impressed.

 

[Gazebo]

So what you are saying is there is a chance I am right.

100% incorrect. Is that better?

int CvCitySiteEvaluator::ComputeTradeableResourceValue

ResourceTypes eResource;
    eResource = pPlot->getResourceType(eTeam);

if(!bDebug && !GET_TEAM(eTeam).GetTeamTechs()->HasTech((TechTypes)(GC.getResourceInfo((ResourceTypes)m_eResourceType)->getTechReveal())) &&
                    !GET_TEAM(eTeam).isForceRevealedResource((ResourceTypes)m_eResourceType) &&
                    !IsResourceForceReveal(eTeam))
            {

These snippets, combined, show that the AI team must have the required tech in order to see it on the map for settling logic.

G

 

[Randomsheep]

100% incorrect. Is that better?

Yup

All I needed to know.

 

[tu_79]

100% incorrect. Is that better?

int CvCitySiteEvaluator::ComputeTradeableResourceValue

ResourceTypes eResource;
    eResource = pPlot->getResourceType(eTeam);

if(!bDebug && !GET_TEAM(eTeam).GetTeamTechs()->HasTech((TechTypes)(GC.getResourceInfo((ResourceTypes)m_eResourceType)->getTechReveal())) &&
                    !GET_TEAM(eTeam).isForceRevealedResource((ResourceTypes)m_eResourceType) &&
                    !IsResourceForceReveal(eTeam))
            {

These snippets, combined, show that the AI team must have the required tech in order to see it on the map for settling logic.

G

So, no cheats, as expected. Still, would it be posible to put a stronger emphasis on distance for weaker settler units? Or it is a bad idea?