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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Watching through a whole Observer game, I think the AI only builds settlers when there's a favourable place to settle. However, since several AIs can go for the same place, the ones that arrive late must look for a new place, and could be beaten to it again. Eventually the settler travels around the globe and settles on a 1-tile snow island near the North Pole.
 
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.

I'm not sure about that, but the AI is historically splitbrained. You'd have to ask Gazebo, he handles city production logic.
 
I hope I don't spam too much with my questions.

1. How long does AI negative diplomacy modifier last? I've noticed on a few occasions that it doesn't go away at all. It's understandable for things like "you conquered their capital", or "you conquered their holy city", but "you're competing for the same city states" (when you accidentaly did quest and took their ally, or only became friends). I get -30 or -40 for that and it doesn't go away, like ever. Same thing with spying, for first spy caught i get something between -15 to -40, and if i keep doing it goes up to -400 (that's the highest i've seen). Whatever I do after that, even if I don't spy them for 150 turns, the negative modifier stays the same.
2. I kinda have to adress the thing I talked about earlier. During my Domination game after conquering cities and building courthouses, 90% of my unhappiness was due to distress, and I couldn't reduce it. I like to play it all the way, to conquer all cities and build all buildings, so we're talking about cities size 12, with 460 production that have 20 unhappiness from distress, and 4 unhappiness from urbanization (all other sources are 0). Is it meant to be this way?
 
I hope I don't spam too much with my questions.

1. How long does AI negative diplomacy modifier last? I've noticed on a few occasions that it doesn't go away at all. It's understandable for things like "you conquered their capital", or "you conquered their holy city", but "you're competing for the same city states" (when you accidentaly did quest and took their ally, or only became friends). I get -30 or -40 for that and it doesn't go away, like ever. Same thing with spying, for first spy caught i get something between -15 to -40, and if i keep doing it goes up to -400 (that's the highest i've seen). Whatever I do after that, even if I don't spy them for 150 turns, the negative modifier stays the same.
2. I kinda have to adress the thing I talked about earlier. During my Domination game after conquering cities and building courthouses, 90% of my unhappiness was due to distress, and I couldn't reduce it. I like to play it all the way, to conquer all cities and build all buildings, so we're talking about cities size 12, with 460 production that have 20 unhappiness from distress, and 4 unhappiness from urbanization (all other sources are 0). Is it meant to be this way?

It's 100% fine to ask questions. :)

I explained some things about negative diplomacy modifiers here. TL;DR - some of them last a really long time or don't decay at all - I'm working on this.

I think you can get some unusual happiness effects when you're at the end of a Domination game like that. I'd suggest building Public Works and researching future tech at that point.
 
I completely killed the two civs on my continent before meeting the civs on other continents. But somehow, when I met the new civs they all had a "you killed or captured civilians" negative modifier. I probably did do that, but I don't think they're supposed to know if I hadn't met them yet..

Bug. Related to memory management. I'll fix soon, thanks for pointing it out.
 
Bug. Related to memory management. I'll fix soon, thanks for pointing it out.

Is there an exception to this if either of the other civs met someone from the other continent prior to going under? And is there any way to know if this is the case?
 
Is there an exception to this if either of the other civs met someone from the other continent prior to going under? And is there any way to know if this is the case?

The current logic is:

1) if player has a penalty of at least -50 with us for killing civilians then set their team as a civilian killer, otherwise set them as not a civilian killer

2) if their team is a civilian killer then add -10 penalty

This logic could use improvement. :)
 
Last edited:
I like to play it all the way, to conquer all cities and build all buildings, so we're talking about cities size 12, with 460 production that have 20 unhappiness from distress, and 4 unhappiness from urbanization (all other sources are 0). Is it meant to be this way?

Are there still other civs in the game? I think if you own literally all the cities, you can expect to find unusual cases of happiness/unhappiness :).
 
I will say that I do use forward settling as a tactic against AI. Controlling the borders to cut off access to parts of the map can be a very useful strategy. In such cases, my primary consideration for the spot is defensibility. The area needs to be able to hold off a large assault, as I assume the AI will attack it, and it will be far enough away that I won't have a majority of my army present.

So if the AI is forward settling in a strong defensive position, than honestly that's just good play. If its just settling in open space with no benefits, than yes that's bad behavior and should be adjusted.

I don't think that forward settling at the start of the game when there is still space in the continents is the problem here, as long as it's more of a flavour thing for aggressive AIs or in certain situations (I think this would be similar to human players, some do forward settle, some do it situationally). Would also be good if it's tied to military strength and other factors, for example; oh is this player spamming wonders and has no army and I dont like them? I can settle close by and deny them land and settle on that other nice spot closer to me next. This can be "unfun" to some human players I guess, since the human always tend to have/need less units early on.

The problem for me would be cities that the AI can't or doesn't intend to defend in locations that don't possibly justify war or making the player in that area angry, also the policy and science penalty. I agree that these can be hard to define.. which is why I marked my first post on this as a rant, I will look for specific instances in my games so that we can know what we're talking about here. Was planning to start a new one with the may/june patch but might do one more on this one
 
Last edited:
Future Tech only gives happiness to the capital (useless at that point) and I believe it increases the tech modifier as well, so it's actually bad for happiness.
 
Are there still other civs in the game? I think if you own literally all the cities, you can expect to find unusual cases of happiness/unhappiness :).
Yep, I tend to leave AIs with 1 city to satisfy my rl complexes. But I remember when I played original vox populi (the first VP), it was the same tactic domination game, and I didn't have happiness issues in the end.

Once again I have to repeat, I didn't start forward settling thing because of neighbours taking my land. That's normal, humans do that too. I started it because civilization 40 tiles away rushes my land.
 
After several losses, I've achieved what I think is my first win as the Iroquois on this patch + difficulty :).

The early-game was challenging (particularly founding), but the mid-game was very strong! In the late-game, the AI caught up a great deal and I won with a science victory but I think it was fairly close. I had very little iron in this game, which made my UU - the Mohawk Warrior, which doesn't require iron - shine. My UB was also a lot of fun, the Longhouse making a jungle start actually very strong. I was lucky in that I had room to expand and also a number of city-states nearby. On the other hand, several of the AI also did pretty well - Sweden, Brazil, Babylon, Indonesia, and the Inca.

This was a very interesting game in that the civs in top position moved around a lot. Arabia did well to being with intially, but fell prey to Swedish expansionism and lost their capital and holy city. Brazil was leading in tech and wonders, although I managed to overtake them partly thanks to the Sistene Chapel and the Porcelain tower. I took a couple of German cities, and my neighbours Babylon attacked them while they were weak and took several cities including their capital. They also conquered two Venitian cities, jumping into a position of power. Indonesia tag-teamed with Sweden, first vassalising and then later conquering Arabia. I was lucky in that most of the leaders at this point had gone Statecraft or Fealty so I was able to build the Louvre uncontested and my lead in archeology payed off greatly. I also invested very heavily in keeping Carthage and Byzantium alive - up to 1000 gpt in the late-game to Byzantium because in an attempt to prevent any one military power from becoming overwhelming. Babylon at this point has shot in tech and started building a lot of wonders. Lastly, the Inca expanded into German, Japanese, and Byzantian territory creating a respectable military empire of their own. End-game, I switched from GPTIs to instant yields and chained several great Scientists and Writers, as well as a Great Artist and Merchant to beat Babylon to a science victory!

I think Venice, Germany, Byzantium, and Carthage would have done better if not for the difficulty in defending your religious territory. For Byzantium in particular, religion is a big part of their kit but they weren't able to benefit from it in the mid-late game because there was so much pressure from other founders neaby - particularly Arabia/Sweden and The Inca. That said, Indonesia and Brazil both did pretty well without founding - I think my experiences in recent games suggests that winning as a non-founder is very much viable. Whereas in the past I remember the top spots almost always went to those with religions.

Spoiler Ancient Era :
20200528161534_1.jpg

Spoiler Medieval/Renaissance Era :
20200528162526_1.jpg

Spoiler Industrial Era :
20200526054933_1.jpg

Spoiler Modern Era :
20200528163248_1.jpg

Spoiler Information Era :
20200528054218_1.jpg

I also experienced a couple of bugs. I don't have the energy to make reports on Githb at the moment sorry, but I thought I'd mention them briefly here. Firstly, unit movement: I moved an ironclad into an area of fog of war that turned out to contain the Incan navy. My unit was on top of one of their units but unable to move into any of the adjacent spaces. And I couldn't end my turn until I resolved the stacked unit. So I ended up gifting the unit to the city-state so that I could continue the game.

Spoiler :
20200527221249_1.jpg

Secondly, in diplomacy I was offered a preace treaty deal value of 'Impossible' by the Germans. They were ready to accept the impossible it seems, after loosing two cities to me lol. I changed the deal they offered before agreeing, but I think it still had 'Impossible' as the deal value for them.

Spoiler :
20200526004549_1.jpg
 
Speaking of happiness, is there a way to make it a little less opaque? The only time I can see what's bothering my citizens is when they're already unhappy, so I have no way to get ahead of the issue.

I'm sure you used to be able to see the happiness thresholds within the city screen, but they aren't there any more. Was this causing an issue, or have I messed up my install?
 
Speaking of happiness, is there a way to make it a little less opaque? The only time I can see what's bothering my citizens is when they're already unhappy, so I have no way to get ahead of the issue.

I'm sure you used to be able to see the happiness thresholds within the city screen, but they aren't there any more. Was this causing an issue, or have I messed up my install?
You still can. In the city screen, mouse over unhappiness in the left panel and you will get a detailed breakdown with needs.
 
You still can. In the city screen, mouse over unhappiness in the left panel and you will get a detailed breakdown with needs.

Hm, this is definitely a me issue then. I'll go through the installation instructions again

Edit: figured it out. I somehow still have an old Improved City View mod installed, and that was messing it up. I didn't even have an Unhappiness thing in the sidebar!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom