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

[Recursive]

Do the logic that determines whether to build a settler or not and the logic that determines whether settling locations are suitable communicate at all? I don't recall that being discussed and to me it often feel like the AI just decides it's time to build a settler no matter if the available locations are really poor (strategically or yields wise) and once the settler is out it has to plop it no matter what.

Followup to this question: they do decide whether to build a settler or not based on whether a spot is available, but may keep one in reserve (according to ilteroi).

 

[InkAxis]

Followup to this question: they do decide whether to build a settler or not based on whether a spot is available, but may keep one in reserve (according to ilteroi).

To clarify, if an AI builds a settler with an intent to settle a certain area, but then that area is taken (and no other areas are available) it will be held in reserve, correct?

 

[2506]

To clarify, if an AI builds a settler with an intent to settle a certain area, but then that area is taken (and no other areas are available) it will be held in reserve, correct?

That's where it gets tricky. How do we define "available"?

 

[InkAxis]

That's where it gets tricky. How do we define "available"?

By available I meant spots the AI wants to settle. Sorry if I wasn't clear. To rephrase, if an AI doesn't have places it wants to settle, but has a settler, will it still try to settle?

 

[2506]

By available I meant spots the AI wants to settle. Sorry if I wasn't clear. To rephrase, if an AI doesn't have places it wants to settle, but has a settler, will it still try to settle?

Yeah, I'm just speculating in th dark here as well, obviously. Recursive says they build one "in reserve" sometimes, which implies not yet having a place it wants to settle. Then there's the settler who had a spot, but was beaten to it. Say that gives the AI two settlers. Will one find the best available spot... even if it's objectively crappy?

 

[Recursive]

To clarify, if an AI builds a settler with an intent to settle a certain area, but then that area is taken (and no other areas are available) it will be held in reserve, correct?

Yes, but under most circumstances they will not hold more than 2 Settlers in reserve.

By available I meant spots the AI wants to settle. Sorry if I wasn't clear. To rephrase, if an AI doesn't have places it wants to settle, but has a settler, will it still try to settle?

Yeah, I'm just speculating in th dark here as well, obviously. Recursive says they build one "in reserve" sometimes, which implies not yet having a place it wants to settle. Then there's the settler who had a spot, but was beaten to it. Say that gives the AI two settlers. Will one find the best available spot... even if it's objectively crappy?

No, they need a settling spot to settle.

Additional fix for next version:

AI can no longer see invisible submarines/other units when considering how aggressive a player's military deployment is

 

[Aenigmata]

It's interesting that the AI holds settlers in reserve. I don't find this benefits them very much especially because they don't raze very often. Occasionally I give them settlers through IGE (and through this I already knew they held settlers in reserve) to help them along. Mostly for civs like Rome and other warmonger civs who sometimes don't settle enough on bigger maps.

It's one thing if you are going for culture/scientific victory, but if you are going for domination/diplomatic if you have a settler to settle with you probably should, especially for the AI.

 

[InkAxis]

if you have a settler to settle with you probably should, especially for the AI

I think in many cases they shouldn't, as "settling cities just because" isn't a good idea. The AI is already settling enough bad cities. And that's not to mention tradition civs.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I don't find the AI settling a lot of bad cities in my games. I used to see it, but these days most of the sites they settle are locations that I would want sooner or later. Perhaps that's because I play on a larger map size, so there are more good spots available?

 

[vyyt]

I don't find the AI settling a lot of bad cities in my games. I used to see it, but these days most of the sites they settle are locations that I would want sooner or later. Perhaps that's because I play on a larger map size, so there are more good spots available?

Same here. Except the last remaining locations in mid-game, but even these have arguably at least some strategic value.

 

[RyesDaile]

Is human military strength calculated the same way? I remember a change being discussed that would factor in how many wars a civilization had won. I really liked the idea of a wars won component especially due to the unit bonuses that the AI receive at higher levels.

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.

//   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
int CvPlayer::calculateMilitaryMight(DomainTypes eDomain) const
{
   int iSum = 0;
   int iLoop;
   for(const CvUnit* pLoopUnit = firstUnit(&iLoop); pLoopUnit != NULL; pLoopUnit = nextUnit(&iLoop))
   {
       if(!pLoopUnit->IsCombatUnit())
           continue;

       if (eDomain != NO_DOMAIN && pLoopUnit->getDomainType() != eDomain)
           continue;

       //we are interested in the offensive capabilities of the player
       int iPower = pLoopUnit->GetBestAttackStrength() / 100;

       //some promotions already influence the combat strength so to prevent double counting only consider the advanced promotions
       int iPromotionFactor = 100;
       if (pLoopUnit->getLevel()>3)
           iPromotionFactor += pLoopUnit->getLevel() * 10 - 30;

       //assume garrisons won't take part in offensive action
       if (pLoopUnit->IsGarrisoned())
           iPower /= 2;

       iSum += (iPower*iPromotionFactor)/100;
   }
 
   return iSum;
}

Note that the value used by the diplomacy AI is different, but this is how military power is calculated, if I'm not mistaken.

Edit: Military power score in the scoreboard is different, as it's your "game score" contributing to victory points

 

[Recursive]

Is human military strength calculated the same way? I remember a change being discussed that would factor in how many wars a civilization had won. I really liked the idea of a wars won component especially due to the unit bonuses that the AI receive at higher levels.

Diplomacy AI uses a different calculation which evaluates a player's gains and losses in war (Units & Cities) compared to the global average and modifies military strength by -50 to +100% accordingly.

 

[RyesDaile]

Is that the same number that humans see in rankings/game score or is it a modified internal calculation for AI only?

Diplomacy AI uses a different calculation which evaluates a player's gains and losses in war (Units & Cities) compared to the global average and modifies military strength by -50 to +100% accordingly.

 

[Recursive]

Is that the same number that humans see in rankings/game score or is it a modified internal calculation for AI only?

Internal calculation, although it's the same value humans see when using the military advisor or comparing military strengths during a war.

 

[azum4roll]

Internal calculation, although it's the same value humans see when using the military advisor or comparing military strengths during a war.

Which begs for the advisor fix.

 

[Recursive]

Which begs for the advisor fix.

Yeah, that crash needs to be addressed.

 

[Recon_NZ_]

Great work Recursive, this has reignited my CIV passion!

One thing, I like to start on Industrial era, but under this version the huge jump in settler cost with banking being researched as Settlers are replaced by Pioneers is so impactful that starting in Industrial era is not feasible. Settlers jump from 20 odd turns in my cities to 80+ when they become Pioneers.

If I start in Renaissance and avoid Banking i can pump out settlers but this seems a bit of a hack? Is this big jump intentional and do i just need to begin in earlier eras to get more than 5 or 6 cities? (or do i just suck!)

 

[Carloshooter]

When redownloading the 4-17 patch I noticed the CvGameCore_Expansion2.pdb file, does it have any use do I need to copy it somewhere?

 

[Susanooo]

If you don't have a religion, and all your cities are following for example foreign religion budism, taking holy city of christianity automatically makes christianity your primary religion. Also all your faith points turn into golden age points. This segment of the game might need some improvement.

P.S. One quick question, if you take foreign holy city do you get it's founders belief bonus?

 

[Necamijat]

If you don't have a religion, and all your cities are following for example foreign religion budism, taking holy city of christianity automatically makes christianity your primary religion. Also all your faith points turn into golden age points. This segment of the game might need some improvement.

P.S. One quick question, if you take foreign holy city do you get it's founders belief bonus?

Yes. If you take a holy city, you're counted as if you're the one that founded it. This happens only if you do not already control a holy city.

On another note, does the AI seem to heavily delay enhancing a religion? I've seen religions enhanced on turns 250+. Sure, they can use missionaries to spread it first, but they seem more hellbent on spreading religion towards a civ that founded one than focusing on enhancing their own.

Second edit: Theodora's prophets are cheaper to buy than they are to naturally gain due to her UA. Not sure if this needs to be looked at.