I can confirm this observation and also feel that the AI seems to be overvaluing strategics to the point, where I feel like I'm exploiting them if trading strategics.
New Beta Version - August 16th (8/16)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
I can confirm this observation and also feel that the AI seems to be overvaluing strategics to the point, where I feel like I'm exploiting them if trading strategics.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
The strategic thing has been like this for a while, the main difference now is that the AI will go out of their way to trade for them whereas before you had to approach them. This way it's much easier to notice when the valuation is in the extremes. I mostly find it to be OK - sometimes it's very high but other times it's very low. For every offer I get at 5gpt I will get four or five at 1gpt or 2gpt. I think reducing the variation would be good, but the mean and median values are in the right general area.
It's true that particularly in the early game it can be very exploitable. 3gpt for one strategic can be a 30% increase in your income, and lump sum gold to rush that shrine can be worth even more. But once the world economy starts expanding, a high end valuation of 6gpt for a strategic is much more balanced relative to +100 gpt. And when you get to the late game and can be generating +1000 gpt, even 12gpt can be very reasonable. I think having the AI resource valuation start lower would be good, but even then a single horseman against a civ using warriors and archers, and chariot archers can define a battle. So perhaps it's mainly about how much the AI decides it needs something (e.g. Iron right before launching an attack vs. Coal before they have anything they can build with it). I think that can be difficult to get right.
I do like that the AI offers more trade deals when they want something. I'd actually like them to want to trade luxury resources more actually. Once you have your starting luxury monopoly, settling a city near a luxury resource can seem much less worthwhile than settling near a strategic resource. Particularly if the strategic contains 4+ copies, that's a very significant asset. I sometimes try to establish a second luxury monopoly with one of rarer resources , as the monopoly bonuses can be quite strong. It's often not possible to do that though, at least on the Huge maps I play, so acquiring new luxuries often doesn't feel particularly meaningful.
It's true that particularly in the early game it can be very exploitable. 3gpt for one strategic can be a 30% increase in your income, and lump sum gold to rush that shrine can be worth even more. But once the world economy starts expanding, a high end valuation of 6gpt for a strategic is much more balanced relative to +100 gpt. And when you get to the late game and can be generating +1000 gpt, even 12gpt can be very reasonable. I think having the AI resource valuation start lower would be good, but even then a single horseman against a civ using warriors and archers, and chariot archers can define a battle. So perhaps it's mainly about how much the AI decides it needs something (e.g. Iron right before launching an attack vs. Coal before they have anything they can build with it). I think that can be difficult to get right.
I do like that the AI offers more trade deals when they want something. I'd actually like them to want to trade luxury resources more actually. Once you have your starting luxury monopoly, settling a city near a luxury resource can seem much less worthwhile than settling near a strategic resource. Particularly if the strategic contains 4+ copies, that's a very significant asset. I sometimes try to establish a second luxury monopoly with one of rarer resources , as the monopoly bonuses can be quite strong. It's often not possible to do that though, at least on the Huge maps I play, so acquiring new luxuries often doesn't feel particularly meaningful.
Last edited:
LifeOfBrian
King
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
- Messages
- 757
All the AIs take either Authority or Tradition, haven't seen a single one take Progress thus far.
AIs are much slower to settle their cities, to adopt a pantheon and to found a religion, and in general are behind to where they would be in previous versions. So I'd propose giving them back their bonuses or at least enabling the option "give full AI bonuses" in the setup settings, that would be a compromise to allow those who want a bigger challenge.
AIs are much slower to settle their cities, to adopt a pantheon and to found a religion, and in general are behind to where they would be in previous versions. So I'd propose giving them back their bonuses or at least enabling the option "give full AI bonuses" in the setup settings, that would be a compromise to allow those who want a bigger challenge.
SuperNoobCamper
King
I think they are objectively slower but not that much, in my experience the AI does not fall back so hard in techs/policies compared to the previous patch ...... The early game expansion is what's really slow in my experience; progress Spain had only one city till around turn 100, needless to say they did not actually found a religion at all.
I kind of like the "new" gold paradigm, it's been like this for a few patches now -- more gold and more flowing of the gold. None of this silly a luxury for 2gpt etc. That just never really amounted to anything. I still hear people complain about how a luxury is like 6-8 gpt as it is somehow "to much". Is 800 gold for a coal to much? OK it does sound a bit excessive, for a resource without any use, but it's hard to say since we dont have the full economical picture. Perhaps 800 gold just represents a couple of turns of gold generation for them. In that case 800 gold is irrelevant as a cost, even tho they probably shouldn't buy a strat. resource they can't use at the moment.
Resources are dynamically evaluated already.
LifeOfBrian
King
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
- Messages
- 757
Update: I did a test with every civ in the game as the AI in various games and not a single one picked Progress, all were either Tradition or Authority.
Zanteogo
King
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2015
- Messages
- 989
How can he not afford it when I haven't offered him anything already? What if I was going to sell him back his capital for free?
Murderologist
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2014
- Messages
- 166
Ok but this is an issue that has been bought to recursive. If your an AI CiV and your being offered your capital back how’s that any different than being liberated? You couldn’t fight to get it back but an ally liberated it and immediately can return it to you. Also when your at war with the most powerful civ you have to take cities to get them to surrender or vassal and then you want to return the cities so the over aggressive spies don’t drain your resources because of the conquered cities. It was possible 4 patches ago, Under what circumstance would you not accept your own capital?
he can’t afford it? The civ won’t even take a mass of gold lux resources and 5 techs? That’s an impossible deal? Makes no sense. I can trade all this to the lowest civ in the game and they accept no problem
They're slower by 15-20 turns. It's huge for the religiou
I've seen a Progress Egypt in a game. - at least, before the hotfix
The policy selection is more dynamic right now - some civs are often taking authority that usually take Progress (Indonesia, Russia, for exmaple)
James Ryle
Warlord
Standard, standard, Communitas 2.0, Immortal
Babylon
Tradition
I'm on a large island with Rome and Denmark.
Turn 140
Religion
I got the 1st pantheon (without a faith luxury - Silver) one turn before the next Civ.
I founded 1st about 20/30 turns before the next Unknown Civ. I constructed shrines 1st in new cities but It took me longer than normal to found my cities due to substandard surrounding resources.
City founding
Rome and Denmark founded their 2nd city not much later than I founded mine and had three cities for my three. At the moment we all have 5 cities so I'm not finding their city founding that much slowed.
Ai
I enjoyed the Ai not getting a bonus on their first city. The beginning feels fairer now and the choices as to what I build first really have an impact on the start of the game. I'm not just playing catch up from the start.
Ai War
After the Danes DOW they moved a big army to my borders. I found they were very timid in actually attacking my cities and did not use any ships versus my coastal city. Their troops move a lot and attack my units on my border but only venture in with one or two troops. There was a lot of troop movement back and forth to gain nothing tactically when they could have steamrolled my cities as many of my troops were defending against the Romans.
-
Before Rome's DOW a lone legionary was excellent at following my scout along Rome's border. Standing on important strategic tiles like Iron and luxuries. I'd never seen the Ai protecting its borders so intelligently before.
Babylon
Tradition
I'm on a large island with Rome and Denmark.
Turn 140
Religion
I got the 1st pantheon (without a faith luxury - Silver) one turn before the next Civ.
I founded 1st about 20/30 turns before the next Unknown Civ. I constructed shrines 1st in new cities but It took me longer than normal to found my cities due to substandard surrounding resources.
City founding
Rome and Denmark founded their 2nd city not much later than I founded mine and had three cities for my three. At the moment we all have 5 cities so I'm not finding their city founding that much slowed.
Ai
I enjoyed the Ai not getting a bonus on their first city. The beginning feels fairer now and the choices as to what I build first really have an impact on the start of the game. I'm not just playing catch up from the start.
Ai War
After the Danes DOW they moved a big army to my borders. I found they were very timid in actually attacking my cities and did not use any ships versus my coastal city. Their troops move a lot and attack my units on my border but only venture in with one or two troops. There was a lot of troop movement back and forth to gain nothing tactically when they could have steamrolled my cities as many of my troops were defending against the Romans.
-
Before Rome's DOW a lone legionary was excellent at following my scout along Rome's border. Standing on important strategic tiles like Iron and luxuries. I'd never seen the Ai protecting its borders so intelligently before.
James Ryle
Warlord
I thought it odd when playing a couple of games in earlier betas (a few months back) where Spain never founded a religion and were very slow to found cities.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
What setting are you playing on? I'm on the hotfix and have civs pick Progress in my games, it's about as popular as Tradition for me.
LifeOfBrian
King
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
- Messages
- 757
James, it's standard/Deity/Pangea. Which civs have picked Progess and what settings are you playing on? Thanks 
I'm noticing this too, seems like every other turn the AI is bribing another civ to go to war with me, often way across the map.
Kim Jong-un
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2020
- Messages
- 2
I played by about 300 turns. The deal AI is quite better, but I think more improvement is needed. For example, other leaders want a defensive pact with me, but they ask me to pay a lot of money even if I'm much stronger than them. It is not fair. If they want me to protect themselves, the one who needs to pay money is probably themselves, not me.
By the way, it looks they still don't get their originally owned city at trade deal. I hope this problem would be solved.
Thank you for making this amazing mod guys.
By the way, it looks they still don't get their originally owned city at trade deal. I hope this problem would be solved.
Thank you for making this amazing mod guys.
stormfallen
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
- Messages
- 128
Might be anecdotal, but I've noticed militaristic city states really like having Minutemen, Janissaries, and Naresuan's Elephants as their secret unique unit. Has anyone else noticed this?
JamesNinelives
Emperor
James, it's standard/Deity/Pangea. Which civs have picked Progess and what settings are you playing on? Thanks
I'm on huge map, Emperor, Continents Plus. In my most recent game it was suprisingly The Songhai and Rome who went Progress! I can't really explain it tbh. The only civ that took Tradition in that game was Greece. I guess on larger maps there's more space between civs on average, which favours progress over tradition.
Last edited:
- Status
