New Beta Version - April 17th (4-17)

[Recursive]

In a perfect world, the AI would make the same decisions with or without the bonuses.

This is already the case.

 

[2506]

From the player's perspective it just isn't fun.

Agree that the issue is unfun. It's probably a bug, and had already been mentioned several times before.

I suggest making a bug report on Github.

https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/issues

"Dumb" doesn't have much to do with it. And if the AI were sacrificing a settler in exchange for bonus points plus damaging your diplomatic status on purpose, then it would actually be pretty clever, in a cheesy way. In this case, it's not. It's probably just buggy. But it wouldn't necessarily be a bad decision in some situations. I could even see a human player trying this at select points in the game.

 

[Recursive]

"Dumb" doesn't have much to do with it. And if the AI were sacrificing a settler in exchange for bonus points plus damaging your diplomatic status on purpose, then it would actually be pretty clever, in a cheesy way. In this case, it's not. It's probably just buggy. But it wouldn't necessarily be a bad decision in some situations. I could even see a human player trying this at select points in the game.

AI doesn't make decisions based on either of these, though. So if they're skipping a large amount of defensible land closer to them to settle a badly placed, poorly-defended city near your borders, that's dumb behavior - I'd suggest a Github report to see if anything can be done about it.

 

[2506]

AI doesn't make decisions based on either of these, though.

That's what I said. I spoke in the hypothetical.

As a tactic, the more I think about it, the more I want to try it. Provoking an enemy power into declaring a disadvantageous war, maybe when I have DPs with civs on its borders, could be a game-altering move... and analogous to the sort of thing that happens in RL.

 

[vyyt]

@2506 , if I understand correctly, what @Susanooo described is happening in the beginning of the game and AI does not benefit from it - it will gain a crappy city, which will be probably soon conquered by the human player anyway. Sounds like wasted resources to me (and 1 annoyed human on top of it).

 

[2506]

@2506 , if I understand correctly, what @Susanooo described is happening in the beginning of the game and AI does not benefit from it - it will gain a crappy city, which will be probably soon conquered by the human player anyway. Sounds like wasted resources to me (and 1 annoyed human on top of it).

I agree. But I know the AI is doing it due to a bug which will be fixed sooner or later. I started thinking about it from a human POV instead. What are the repercussions of extreme forward settling on diplomatic status? In the early game, it would probably be a bad idea to forward settle like that ... although it might wind up a net neutral if you bork your enemy's diplomatic status badly enough. In the example I gave, late enough that I have DPs, it's an intriguing idea.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Touching on the other point that was raised:

Non related question, when do you guys gets second merchant of Venice? First one is fine, but second one comes waaay too late (or i'm doing something wrong). IMO first 2 or 3 MoV should come a lot earlier than Great Merchant, and we can balance it out by making later ones require more GMP.

To be honest, I don't know. But the Venice AI in my games seems to have little trouble expanding to their 3rd city. I have to admit I'm curious how they get the unit.

 

[FoxOfWar]

Unrelated to nothing at all, I have to applaud the AI improvements once more. I find myself having to drop back down to King to be able to compete. Lost last several-many Emperor games by so much it wasn't even a challenge so much as a stomp.

Granted, part of that is my stubborness of sticking to one game plan based on the random civ I get and my initial scouting, but I leave the Deity beating to a different flavor of 'fun' than I have, anyway.

Point is, used to be able to beat Emperor with my playstyle. Can't anymore more often than not. (And that's fine.)

 

[Recursive]

What are the repercussions of extreme forward settling on diplomatic status?

AIs you settle near are likely to hate you, denounce you and declare war on you. Territorial disputes can give as much as -60 opinion. If you add additional penalties on top of that (say, from refusing to stop settling near them) you can easily enter Enemy territory - which has worse repercussions, like an additional +WAR modifier.

 

[InkAxis]

Territorial disputes can give as much as -60 opinion.

Does it count as a territorial dispute if the AI started it, like an AI that settled near you getting mad because the cities are nearby?

 

[2506]

AIs you settle near are likely to hate you, denounce you and declare war on you. Territorial disputes can give as much as -60 opinion. If you add additional penalties on top of that (say, from refusing to stop settling near them) you can easily enter Enemy territory - which has worse repercussions, like an additional +WAR modifier.

Right. So what I had in mind was, you pay that price with someone who's your enemy already... and lure him into razing my city (no big deal by the time of DP's) plus declaring war on my allies who are on his borders. That would seem to leave most civs in trouble militarily and possibly permanent trouble diplomatically. We often talk about sometimes wanting to provoke wars, but the AI won't bite on our timetable. This seems like a good way to go about it.

 

[Susanooo]

Does it count as a territorial dispute if the AI started it, like an AI that settled near you getting mad because the cities are nearby?

I can say certainly that AI who settles between your 4 cities gets mad at you for "stealing their teritory" "expanding too agressively" and "taking too much land" after your cities expand their borders naturally. They get even more mad if you buy tiles, somehow they know if you bought them.

 

[mrpilhas]

Did 2 games and both stopped working at around turn 200. I can check all my cities, navigate through map and game didn't crash to desktop, I click next turn and game doesn't go on.
I redownloaded the files and noticed there is a "CvGameCore_Expansion2.pdb" file. what am I supposed to do with it?
Thank you in advance

 

[Recursive]

Does it count as a territorial dispute if the AI started it, like an AI that settled near you getting mad because the cities are nearby?

Yes. This is intended, since it creates early challenge, diplomatic tensions, and factions. Tribal societies in the ancient eras are more aggressive about others taking "their" land. Territorial dispute penalties calm down a bit in later eras, but always play a significant role, since the AI is more likely to win a war with its neighbors than distant rivals.

Right. So what I had in mind was, you pay that price with someone who's your enemy already... and lure him into razing my city (no big deal by the time of DP's) plus declaring war on my allies who are on his borders. That would seem to leave most civs in trouble militarily and possibly permanent trouble diplomatically. We often talk about sometimes wanting to provoke wars, but the AI won't bite on our timetable. This seems like a good way to go about it.

AIs recognize DPs, including the military strength and proximity of DP civs, and are deterred from declaring war proportionally.

Their military strength evaluation also adds or removes between -50 to +100% of military strength depending on how well or poorly a player fights in combat; civs that sustain heavy losses when they fight will be seen as easier targets compared to those that kill a lot of enemy units and lose fewer.

(Yes, this means that if you treat warfare casually and make a lot of unit placement mistakes, the AI will stare you down like a shark that just smelled blood in the water. Conversely, if you have a small squad of highly promoted units that wipe out hordes of enemies, your strength will be recognized. The percent modifier is also applied to your own assessment of military strength under the "current war information" and military advisor windows, by the way. Although there's apparently a bug causing a CTD when that's opened sometimes...)

Furthermore, AIs have a prioritization system that deters them from declaring war against targets that don't have the highest WAR approach value.

It's not perfect, and there are surely situations where an AI can be provoked into a war that isn't to their advantage (which IMO is fine; it's fun and strategic), but I've added measures against this.

I can say certainly that AI who settles between your 4 cities gets mad at you for "stealing their teritory" "expanding too agressively" and "taking too much land" after your cities expand their borders naturally. They get even more mad if you buy tiles, somehow they know if you bought them.

Firaxis programmed the AI to know if you bought tiles but doesn't give you the same information. I intend on fixing this inequality in the future.

 

[andersw]

I can say certainly that AI who settles between your 4 cities gets mad at you for "stealing their teritory" "expanding too agressively" and "taking too much land" after your cities expand their borders naturally. They get even more mad if you buy tiles, somehow they know if you bought them.

Yeah , I remember vanilla Siam, settling really in your face and then complaining about close borders/land

 

[ridjack]

So I haven't read this discussion in any detail, but I saw some talk around forward settling and, I believe, some requests for examples. I just saw this questionable decision by Ethiopia and thought I'd provide the example in case it helps anyone's case.

I'm America under Washington. Ethiopia started on his own mini continent/large island and has had only two cities for most of the game. He's a decent distance away from, separated by Mongolia. I'm friends with several people, including Ethiopia; Mongolia, being Mongolia, is friends with nobody. In the upper right-ish of this screenshot is Ethiopia's brand-new city of Adwa which, as I said, is a... questionable settling decision.

Spoiler :

Here's his situation on the other side of Mongolia:

Spoiler :

I'm assuming the 2-iron tile is the cause of this decision; my tundra start means I've been hogging a lot of it, and everyone has been trying to buy it. Mongolia also appears to have been aiming for the spot, based on the settler you can see being escorted by a Black Tug in the first screenshot; Mongolia could make an argument for it, though I still think not a great one.

Ethiopia stands to lose a lot from this settling decision; I don't think there's anything there to balance out a fairly straightforward (for me) risk vs. reward decision. He went Tradition, as well, and as you can see he's doing well for himself; for me as the human player, this would have been a very easy decision to hard focus on my two cities, with a decent probability of capturing Mongolia's forward-settled city of Tabriz, as that city is particularly defensible.

 

[Necamijat]

Just as a quick note to random UI/Aesthetics/Civilopedia nitpick, Atlatlists (Maya UU) are no longer 'available earlier' than Composite Bowmen since Bowmen were pushed to Maths.

 

[InkAxis]

the AI is more likely to win a war with its neighbors than distant rivals

That's my point exactly. I'm not talking about the early game. As @ridjack showed, it happens later in the game. In the early game I don't care, it makes the game more fun, "how much can I delay settlers before I lose good expansion spaces". But what the AI is doing is that around industrial era and later they start settling meaningless cities in tundra, snow, on different continents. And it can't defend these cities because as you said, it's easier to defend nearby cities. So it's just bad for the AI as it all it gains is a pretty bad city, while costing it massive diplomatic penalties. And the player is often friends with the AI and the AI has a lot of DPs so it just means that sometimes a world war happens over literally a tundra/snow city. It's not good from the AIs veiw, it's not fun for the player.

 

[Recursive]

That's my point exactly. I'm not talking about the early game. As @ridjack showed, it happens later in the game. In the early game I don't care, it makes the game more fun, "how much can I delay settlers before I lose good expansion spaces". But what the AI is doing is that around industrial era and later they start settling meaningless cities in tundra, snow, on different continents. And it can't defend these cities because as you said, it's easier to defend nearby cities. So it's just bad for the AI as it all it gains is a pretty bad city, while costing it massive diplomatic penalties. And the player is often friends with the AI and the AI has a lot of DPs so it just means that sometimes a world war happens over literally a tundra/snow city. It's not good from the AIs veiw, it's not fun for the player.

Yeah, I could see that. Well, anything involving tactical/movement/positioning AI is ilteroi's domain, so my recommendation is to report it to him on Github. You can add to this existing issue: https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/issues/6621

Screenshots and/or save files (particularly without modmods) are helpful.

 

[Susanooo]

I've been meaning to ask how is military strength calculated for AIs? Sometimes I have 10x more units and it shows that we have same military strenght on the score in the top right.
P.S. That military strength review that randomly shows at turn start shows it perfectly.