Zanteogo
King
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2015
- Messages
- 989
Did you actually read what he posted? He's not against war he's against pointless fake wars that do nothing.
New Beta Version - August 16th (8/16)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
Did you actually read what he posted? He's not against war he's against pointless fake wars that do nothing.
I think you have trouble reading my posts. Where did I say I want a peaceful game ? I want meaningful wars, not random fake wars. Civs that DoW randomly break immersion and balance of the game.
And it's not just between me and the AI, they DoW each other same way erratically. If you enjoy playing with suicidal psychopaths then why don't you find another mod for this ?
What I expect of this game: few AIs friendly if I don't annoy them too much to have trading partners, some neutral that may still DoW, some passive aggressive that are far away but still don't DoW if it doesn't bring them anything, and aggressive neighbors who are the actual military threats and have both reasons and means of going to war.
This is why Inquisitors should be allowed to work in religion-less cities, to prevent this happening to basically every non-founder/weak founder AI in the lategame.
LifeOfBrian
King
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
- Messages
- 757
I can confirm I've been getting offers for defensive pacts even though I'm far from being the top dog either militarily or score-wise.
Zanteogo
King
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2015
- Messages
- 989
I agree. The issue now is balancing a few things...
Bribe to War This is what is causing many of the random pointless wars. How do you balance this? If we want the AI and the humans to "be the same", how do you balance this so that it's possible to bribe to war, but not so easy that it happens all the time.
My solution would be to take the AI personality and victory agenda into a greater factor. Peaceful AIs who are going for a science win should be way harder to bribe for example.
Joint Wars If one civ has no actual borders with the civ they are asking to war with it should be way harder for the AI to agree. (Particularly in earlier eras)
Conquest Wars If it's before renaissance the AI should hardly ever do this unless they have connecting borders. It should almost always take on targets that have actually borders first before trying to take on civ on the other end of the map.
General_Drax
Warlord
I do not think is bribing the main source. In my current game with Zulus Assyria and Byzantium declared both after I declared on Arabia. Now they are on the other side of the world and are the first and second Civ. Either they bribed each other or I really do not know who could. I have Morocco that is friendly to me and atm Ashur does not have the money to bribe Assyria and Byzantium.
We are in late Classical/early Medieval. I did not reveal the other 4 Civs still. I fear that Morocco will declare as well out of the blue so I'm in a hurry to vassalize Arabia securing some trade routes a least.
No one sent a single unit but a stranded Byzantium pathfinder that I murdered on sight.
We are in late Classical/early Medieval. I did not reveal the other 4 Civs still. I fear that Morocco will declare as well out of the blue so I'm in a hurry to vassalize Arabia securing some trade routes a least.
No one sent a single unit but a stranded Byzantium pathfinder that I murdered on sight.
Zanteogo
King
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2015
- Messages
- 989
Go to make peace, if the make peace button is gone it's either they have been bribed to war, or it's a joint war.
I'm rewriting coop war logic in the diplo AI at the moment, and adjustments to war logic in general will follow. The reason for a lot of this is that the AI's decision-making system for declaring war needs improvement - it's split-brained and not strategic.
Unfortunately fixing this requires rewriting the military AI's system for selecting targets, according to ilteroi - because Firaxis designed a dumb system and then made many things rely on it.
The fix is under way, however.
Elaborate?
Standard Immortal Communitas_79 with Poland. SV on Turn 376.
Not too much to say compared to my last one, just a few notes.
1) Now playing with the full hotfix in place, Immortal felt like Immortal again. Ethiopia was on top of me all game, and I inched closer all the way until the end, a very tight game.
2) I was really pleased to see that Ethiopia was both going for an CV (was 1 civ away on Influential....hehe and it wasn't me!), but also kept building spaceship parts to compete with me on SV (it had built 2 when I finished the SS). That was something lacking in the previous version that I was happy to see some correction. I still think it could have been a bit more competitive as it hit 80 techs about 5 turns before I did...but I could attribute that to me being more production heavy focus and optimizing ITRs for really high prod bonuses.
3) I do think the AI is too keen to accept war bribes...but at least I found the AI would sue for peace quickly, so I wasn't committed to them for huge stretches of time.
4) I had a continent all to myself this game, with the Mayans/Vikings just north of me. And after dealing with a LOT of barbs, I started expanding very quickly. It definately pushed my happiness to the limit, doing nothing but building I stayed just above 34% until Caravels....when I was finally able to meet all of the other civs and get enough luxs to push me back up. It took a number of public works to actually stay above 50, but I was able to comfortably hold my happiness in the late game.
5) I had Two Kay Foods this game. So its interesting that certain corps are really focused on franchises, others like a few franchises and then using TRs with those franchises for big bonuses....and TK foods is about no franchises
Honestly with TK I have found the power of the corp is in the ability to ignore franchises. I build my offices immediately for the initial food boost and the happiness reduction...and then if franchises come great, but otherwise whatever. Its probably the best corp for staying on ITRs through the franchise period with little repercussion, and almost no issue if you get sanctioned. I think its still one of the weaker corps but its at least an interesting niche.
6) I'm curious what people think about Stock Exchanges. I find I'm really struggling to justify their cost in most games. Maybe I should just plant one in the capital and be done with, but its very expensive for the benefit it provides. Compare it to wire service which provides a heap of bonuses at that point in the game.
7) I've noticed that in general my Vassals are nicer to me than before. As I long as I don't abuse them, they seem generally willing to trade votes with me, get declarations of friendship, make reasonable offers, etc.
Spoiler :
Not too much to say compared to my last one, just a few notes.
1) Now playing with the full hotfix in place, Immortal felt like Immortal again. Ethiopia was on top of me all game, and I inched closer all the way until the end, a very tight game.
2) I was really pleased to see that Ethiopia was both going for an CV (was 1 civ away on Influential....hehe and it wasn't me!), but also kept building spaceship parts to compete with me on SV (it had built 2 when I finished the SS). That was something lacking in the previous version that I was happy to see some correction. I still think it could have been a bit more competitive as it hit 80 techs about 5 turns before I did...but I could attribute that to me being more production heavy focus and optimizing ITRs for really high prod bonuses.
3) I do think the AI is too keen to accept war bribes...but at least I found the AI would sue for peace quickly, so I wasn't committed to them for huge stretches of time.
4) I had a continent all to myself this game, with the Mayans/Vikings just north of me. And after dealing with a LOT of barbs, I started expanding very quickly. It definately pushed my happiness to the limit, doing nothing but building I stayed just above 34% until Caravels....when I was finally able to meet all of the other civs and get enough luxs to push me back up. It took a number of public works to actually stay above 50, but I was able to comfortably hold my happiness in the late game.
5) I had Two Kay Foods this game. So its interesting that certain corps are really focused on franchises, others like a few franchises and then using TRs with those franchises for big bonuses....and TK foods is about no franchises
Honestly with TK I have found the power of the corp is in the ability to ignore franchises. I build my offices immediately for the initial food boost and the happiness reduction...and then if franchises come great, but otherwise whatever. Its probably the best corp for staying on ITRs through the franchise period with little repercussion, and almost no issue if you get sanctioned. I think its still one of the weaker corps but its at least an interesting niche.6) I'm curious what people think about Stock Exchanges. I find I'm really struggling to justify their cost in most games. Maybe I should just plant one in the capital and be done with, but its very expensive for the benefit it provides. Compare it to wire service which provides a heap of bonuses at that point in the game.
7) I've noticed that in general my Vassals are nicer to me than before. As I long as I don't abuse them, they seem generally willing to trade votes with me, get declarations of friendship, make reasonable offers, etc.
SuperNoobCamper
King
I knew that The greatwall obsoletes at gunpowder but i was kinda surprised that it obsoletes when the player that built it researches gunpowder not the invaders.
Was kinda funny to watch The Maya who are ahead of me in tech actually hurt themselves with researching Gunpowder making their wonder obsolete while i'm still chilling in medieval era.
IMO it's counter intuitive and i think it should take into account the invader tech not the one who built it.
Was kinda funny to watch The Maya who are ahead of me in tech actually hurt themselves with researching Gunpowder making their wonder obsolete while i'm still chilling in medieval era.
IMO it's counter intuitive and i think it should take into account the invader tech not the one who built it.
ElliotS
Warmonger
I mean I've always assumed it's a technical limitation like needing to bring units home to get the embark ability. Otherwise I assume it would have been changed already.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
Except that you don't need to bring units home to get embarkation any more!
Or is that something that was a technical limitation and we just found a way around it?
The embark thing actually got changed.
The Great Wall is a very different issue, I suspect, because you could have an invader with the tech and another invader without the tech.
Even in the latest version, AI seems to consider a single barbarian brute as blockage for settling operations, even with an escort, and will seek another site instead. And then there's the "I'll absolutely not move my settler without an escort, but I won't build a warrior or bring back my nearby scout either" issue that I reported on Github.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
Yes, this is intended. It's one of the major features of this version, to test how much it changes.
I'm actually quite liking how this version plays (with the hotfix in particular). In the three games I've played I had Venice, Byzantium, and the Ottomans in the top spot. I've never seen any of those civs in the lead on the game settings I play before. I'm still a bit iffy about the resource distribution - some areas have seven or eight (mostly bonus) resources around a potential city location while others areas might have at most one or two. It doesn't seem balanced. Generally speaking I'm very happy with this patch though.
I do have a couple of possible bugs to report that I'll put up on Github later. The first is from one of the early events and it's been around forever. I forget the name of the event, but it's one where you discover exotic luxury resources and basically either grants you happiness at the cost of gold or free xp for your scouts. The issue is that it mostly occurs in the early-game when your recon units are generally pathfinders rather than scouts. IMO it really should apply to recon units in general - makes little sense for your veteran recon unit to get xp while your newer ones (which is really the xp really matters) don't get anything. The second is as issue with ghost luxuries - trading for luxury resources that don't register, and you need to trade for several copies to actually get the benefit. Similarly, trading your own resources sometimes makes them dissapear. I've only seen it happen in one game though, so I want to check that it's replicable rather than just a result my computer struggling to keep up.
Something really weird happening in my game. AIs in the endgame exchange cities very often. As the cities in question are not damaged, I think they do it as part of a peace deal, but could be a normal trade deal also, I haven't checked. Pity that it doesn't work for a human player.
I tried a more passive game style with Germany and yeah I see what the complaints are about.
If I'm warmongering it makes sense to get attacked but so many "other-side-of-the-map" dows and AI defensive pacts that doesnt make sense.
If I'm warmongering it makes sense to get attacked but so many "other-side-of-the-map" dows and AI defensive pacts that doesnt make sense.
- Status
