JamesNinelives
Emperor
I've always thought it game decent yields early-game, but that may be because I play on a huge map. I can imagine it being a lot less useful on smaller ones.
New Beta Version - December 1st (12-1)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
I've always thought it game decent yields early-game, but that may be because I play on a huge map. I can imagine it being a lot less useful on smaller ones.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
Let me know what you think about this! (It can be disabled by selecting Random Personalities) - Ashurbanipal will be more likely to go to war with players that have a tech lead, and more likely to be friendly when ahead in tech. If equal, he's more likely to be neutral. - Montezuma will always be more likely to go to war than any other civ, all other things equal. However, he now has a special diplomacy trait: he always applies 0 warmonger penalty for declaring war on/capturing cities from any player other than him, his teammates, or his DPs. NOTE: Only applies if he is an AI; human Montezumas will still get normal anti-warmonger fervor. - Gandhi will always be more likely to be friendly than any other civ, all other things equal. Just be sure he never gets access to Uranium, or you may be in for a surprise.
I'm a fan of leader-specific approaches! Ashurbanipal makes a lot of sense based on his UA for example.
I'm a bit tired of the Ghandi meme to be honest though. It's something I can laugh at as having happened in the past, but it's not something I want to actually happen to me :\.
Particularly because you can't really 'prevent' someone from getting access to Uranium except by taking their cities/land. Uranium tends to be relatively evenly distrubuted compared to other resources. Perhaps it's different on smaller maps, but in my games most civs will have one source or U in their territory.
Trade and diplomacy are my one of my favourite aspects of the game though, I love how you can immerse yourself and choose your actions carefully to develop relationships. Thanks for all your work
.
Last edited:
I'm a fan of leader-specific approaches! Ashurbanipal makes a lot of sense based on his UA for example.
I'm a bit tired of the Ghandi meme to be honest though. It's something I can laugh at as having happened in the past, but it's not something I want to actually happen to me :\.
Particularly because you can't really 'prevent' someone from getting access to Uranium except by taking their cities/land. Uranium tends to be relatively evenly distrubuted compared to other resources. Perhaps it's different on smaller maps, but in my games most civs will have one source or U in their territory.
Trade and diplomacy are my one of my favourite aspects of the game though, I love how you can immerse yourself and choose your actions carefully to develop relationships. Thanks for all your work
I figure the leaders should have approach weights that reflect their traits, to be strategic. Basing it on their traits is also a better idea than the incoherent Civ VI agenda system, which I find fun on paper but poorly implemented ingame.
I'll include an option to disable nuclear Gandhi.
Additional changes for upcoming version:
Code:
Moved all of my advanced diplo AI options to a new file, DiploAIOptions.sql in the Community Patch > Core Changes folder.
Added option to disable Nuclear Gandhi. ;)
Added DiploApproachWeights.sql, which modders or players can use to customize the AI approach calculation by adding or removing weight
from each of the seven approaches for human and AI players, without needing to rebuild the DLL.
Also added the ability to do this for the AI's opinion (in DiploOpinionWeights.sql). So, e.g., you can have the AI give humans a -20 opinion bonus if you want to make the game easier,
or a +5 opinion penalty if you want to make the game slightly harder. You can also change their opinions towards other AIs this way.
The base opinion bonus or penalty (if non-zero) is hidden by default unless Transparent Diplomacy is enabled; you can display it in the option table by activating an advanced option in DiploAIOptions.sql
Performance improvement: the shadow AI behind human players will now set all major civ approaches and opinions to neutral, and minor civ approaches to ignore without
going through the entire calculation, since it has no use for that information anyway.
Fixed broken logic for accepting vassalage
- Bug with human vassalage: AI was checking to see if the shadow AI behind the human player was willing to accept vassalage, and returning IMPOSSIBLE if the shadow AI said no
- Bug with all vassalage: AI was refusing to accept a new vassal state unless the vassal state was stronger than the AI militarily (is now the other way around)
Anti-frustration feature: Masters and vassals now have permanent embassies with each other. In addition, resurrecting a player now opens permanent two-way embassies as long as you're not at war.
Refusing to give a vassal independence when they ask will now apply a "backstabbing mark" (making them not care if other civs backstab you), and a recent assist penalty for the vassal's friends
Liberating a vassal or giving them independence when they ask will now apply a recent assist bonus for the vassal's friends
If you successfully broker third party peace, you will gain a recent assist bonus with the now-at-peace-civ's friends and DPs.
If your spies catch an AI brokering third party war against you, the information will automatically be sent to your DPs and AI friends.
You'll receive a diplo bonus for sharing intrigue with your DPs, and your AI friends will apply a diplo penalty against the players involved.
AIs whose spies catch a player brokering third party war (both accepting a bribe and giving a bribe count for this) will inform their teammates, DPs and AI friends about this
- For humans, they will get a notification if their teammates or DPs' spies found this out
- AIs will apply a diplo penalty
Improved AI approach estimate logic
Last edited:
danymatrix
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2012
- Messages
- 154
great. When do they release this new version? thanks
Can this fault be resolved in the next version? thanks in advance
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...uirements-in-atomic-era.599403/#post-15601812
Can this fault be resolved in the next version? thanks in advance
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...uirements-in-atomic-era.599403/#post-15601812
Last edited:
One thing I have been finding after doing various starts, is with Progress I can generally get 6 cities up pretty safely, but 7 is actually the break point.
With 7 cities you have to have really good luxury support (or maybe a +6 happy monopoly) to pull off, or maybe a nice UA/UI that can get you key extra yields, otherwise you risk falling into the drink. In my recent game, I had a beautiful 7 city start as Germany. But my happiness tanked, and I couldn't build fast enough to keep it above 34%. Meanwhile all 3 of my neighbors declared on me. I couldn't build any units because of the massive production penalty....so I slowly succumbed. Further, with 7 cities your culture really slows down so its hard to get any wonders anyway because you don't have the policies.
Now to me this is things working as intended. I did a massive early settler spam this game, and I've paid the price. I think the game has shifted to a lower expansion pace overall, and I think that's a good thing.
With 7 cities you have to have really good luxury support (or maybe a +6 happy monopoly) to pull off, or maybe a nice UA/UI that can get you key extra yields, otherwise you risk falling into the drink. In my recent game, I had a beautiful 7 city start as Germany. But my happiness tanked, and I couldn't build fast enough to keep it above 34%. Meanwhile all 3 of my neighbors declared on me. I couldn't build any units because of the massive production penalty....so I slowly succumbed. Further, with 7 cities your culture really slows down so its hard to get any wonders anyway because you don't have the policies.
Now to me this is things working as intended. I did a massive early settler spam this game, and I've paid the price. I think the game has shifted to a lower expansion pace overall, and I think that's a good thing.
It happens under one of two circumstances:
1 - You asked an AI player to start a coop war against another civ. The AI player not only refused to go to war, but warned the target of your intentions (you are warned that this can happen in the tooltip, and you can do this yourself when the AI asks by selecting "Impossible. You go too far."). If an AI is warned, they will apply this penalty against the person who made the request - and their teammates and DPs will also apply the penalty.
(Later on I will make it clear when the AI warns the target; will need to create new dialogue)
2 - You accepted a bribe to go to war against the AI, or you gave a bribe to another civ to go to war against the AI. If the AI is spying on either of you, they will find out about the deal and apply this penalty to both of you.
In summary, if you're caught trying to make another civ go to war against the AI, you will receive the penalty. The AI will also assume you mean war towards them for the next 30 turns.
Had a weird start just now, again as Germany. I settled 4 total cities (aka 3 settlers, 1 with pyramid)….my happiness tanked so quickly I actually had a revolt by Turn 67. I think the culprit was the Fertility Pantheon, which accelerated my growth beyond what I could handle.
Might just be a fluke but I'm putting the pantheon on my watchlist, as if its going to just crash my happiness there isn't much point. What's weird is I was getting an extra +4 food from the shrine and wells I had...yet distress was my highest need. You would think my pantheon would give me a major edge in that department.
Might just be a fluke but I'm putting the pantheon on my watchlist, as if its going to just crash my happiness there isn't much point. What's weird is I was getting an extra +4 food from the shrine and wells I had...yet distress was my highest need. You would think my pantheon would give me a major edge in that department.
It seems that I got the penalty with a couple of AIs without doing any of the mentioned. What's more, I clearly remember warning THEM when others offered me coop wars, and at the time I got the corresponding diplo boosts for the warnings, as expected. It's as if those turned into penalties at some point. But I'm not quite sure that's exactly what happened yet, and it may be hard to reproduce right now, because I didn't pay attention. I'll file a bug report if I see it happen again.
Hmm. Might be a merge error. If you notice it happen again in the next version, can you open an issue on Github with a savegame before the bug occurs? Not sure what could be causing it...possibly an issue with the espionage code.
BiteInTheMark
Deity
Well, 26 of each yield means 130 population, thats something I reach already with 4 cities in the late midgame.
God-King is definitly a wide pantheon and best played with a growth oriented and expanding civilization. Good options are Spain, China or India. The best results can be achievied by going relativly tall but puppet something like 2 times the amount of core cities. Instead puppets which a huge penalty, all the yields goes to the capital with in most times huge modifiers. But I agree, its hard to found with, cause of that you need either a religious strong civ or big effort to faith generation.
Are you using a self made mod pack to play VP? I had once the same strange behavior cause Ive loaded the mod while I had still the VP multiplayer mod pack active.
Coffee Monopoly
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2019
- Messages
- 112
That's not weird, it's WAT. Distress represent an imbalance between food and production. I'd guess in this case you have too many apples and not enough hammers.
An apple a day may keep the doctor away, but a week without hard work makes one weak.
I am pretty sure distress is the average of both food and hammers together. It shouldn't matter which one I increase, my yield average per population still goes up.
Byzantium has horrible early game. She can fix one of God-Kings problems (hard to get a religion) but she compounds another problem (terrible early game). In theory Theodora can get a religion very late in the game, but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Being late still means you miss out on a lot of yields.
I don't really like the pantheon in general, it works a lot better with Spain, or maybe Carthage or China as well. I know that BiteintheMark likes it with India too. But generally you lose a lot of early game power, for late game power.
tu_79
Deity
God King gives nothing to the ones you spread to. That's worthy in itself.
@HeathcliffWarriors, may I ask how do you plan the global powers of late game to understand how far they can meddle in worldwide affairs? I should think it has to do with the travel time of a decent intervention force. Like, if I can move an army that is at least a 33% of the expected defense forces in less than 5 turns, then I might consider that country in my influence range.
But devil's in the details. How many units would you consider? Only naval? England was one of the first worldwide powers, thanks to the huge navies and bases everywhere.
Last edited:
A few more cents from my current playthrough (America, epic, immortal, I made notes); I was playing sort of a self-challenge to not found cities, only conquer and annex, anyway:
- Pantheons do not 'spread' to conquered cities, which was kind of very annoying and added to the, in any case, difficult start. The cities also did not keep the Pantheon of the original owner, so it doubly sucked. Could that be changed.. in either way really..?
- Trading luxury resources could use some general re-balance, considering that you can get so much value out of them (WLTKD/CS quests). Imo they are way too cheap.. both ways actually. The AI wants/gives 2-7 gpt for a multi-copy luxury, which is okay early game, but why would I ever take that deal and help their game later on, when I make several hundred gpt anyway? Also, I don't really need imported luxuries from midgame onwards aside from CS quests and WLTKD (if happiness is managed properly), and it's much easier to get WLTKD resources if you leave several luxuries on the market (otherwise cities are more likely to want something that I cannot get for a few bucks).
- America's UA to buy other Civ's tiles. The diplomatic penalty is huge and seems to not decay at all(!?), up to the point where I am better off taking the whole city in a war. Seriously, why even have a UA that is borderline unusable?
I don't mind a penalty in general, not even a large one, but it would feel much better if it continuously decayed.. maybe get refreshed and increased or something if you continue to buy tiles? Or make those tiles a lot more expensive (I think they are pretty cheap from midgame onward, like 1-2 turns of gold kind of cheap). - Balance-wise, should the scout promotion tree include medic I and II? They are pretty strong promotions to get for free early game (to siege the AI or sth), and I cannot see the AI use it as effectively as the player will (scout mobility and all).
- Since I only play epic, I wonder what average (player) unit levels on normal game speed are. I don't 'farm experience' and usually freshly build units are ~ on par with units I have from way earlier eras.. Like.. I usually never have units above level 5-6 if I play naturally. Is that the same as on Normal game speed? The question arose for me, since I never get anywhere far in the promotion tree, so I wondered why its that large in the first place ? (relatedly: in which file could one adjust the increased exp need on epic ever so slightly?)
- Can the player disadvantage be somehow compensated when world congress wonders are build 'late'? The player production is added last, if I get it correctly, and there was literally no way for me to get the treasure fleet wonder, because it was essentially finished when my turn came..
- Does the great merchant WLTKD duration scale properly with towns or sth? I'm pretty sure it gave me 7 turns always.
- Strategy-wise, I was not able to get open borders from Brazil (in that case), even though it was the only option for me to reach our common enemy in war. We had embassies, I did not have a lot of tourism, but I could not get open borders for any prize or whatnot.
- As a general observation for a while, Austria seems to be doing very well in every game they are in.. I will probably check their 'brokenness' next game.
Omen of Peace
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2018
- Messages
- 404
Great work, @HeathcliffWarriors!!
I like the subtle nuances you added like:
- Anti-frustration feature: AI vassals are now required never to dig in their master's lands for artifacts or convert their master's cities. They will refrain from doing this even without asking them.
- If you ask the AI to do something (like not settle near you) and they agree, but they then ask you to stop doing that thing and you ignore them or break a promise to stop, this will cancel the AI's promise not to do that thing against you.
I also have some remarks:
- Other civs won't care if you DoW your vassal, but will usually apply a global opinion penalty for breaking war promises. The diplo malus for
DoW'ing a vassal lasts 3x the game deal duration (150 turns on standard).
Suggestion: perhaps other vassals should care ("what if it's my turn next?").
- I think I see the idea behind Montezuma's warmonger reduction, but I don't like AI-specific mechanics on principle. If Montezuma is deemed to weak an AI, then we should consider balance changes - but it deserves to be discussed in the Aztec thread. A smaller reduction could be made part of the UA.
- regarding the 3 Tiers: can't I exploit this setup by first interrupting a DoF via the Discuss menu, then declaring war or denouncing? I wouldn't get the highest-tier penalties then?
I like the subtle nuances you added like:
- Anti-frustration feature: AI vassals are now required never to dig in their master's lands for artifacts or convert their master's cities. They will refrain from doing this even without asking them.
- If you ask the AI to do something (like not settle near you) and they agree, but they then ask you to stop doing that thing and you ignore them or break a promise to stop, this will cancel the AI's promise not to do that thing against you.
I also have some remarks:
- Other civs won't care if you DoW your vassal, but will usually apply a global opinion penalty for breaking war promises. The diplo malus for
DoW'ing a vassal lasts 3x the game deal duration (150 turns on standard).
Suggestion: perhaps other vassals should care ("what if it's my turn next?").
- I think I see the idea behind Montezuma's warmonger reduction, but I don't like AI-specific mechanics on principle. If Montezuma is deemed to weak an AI, then we should consider balance changes - but it deserves to be discussed in the Aztec thread. A smaller reduction could be made part of the UA.
- regarding the 3 Tiers: can't I exploit this setup by first interrupting a DoF via the Discuss menu, then declaring war or denouncing? I wouldn't get the highest-tier penalties then?
civplayer33
King
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 965
Is it working as intended that asking civs not to send religious units to your cities anymore does not incur a diplomatic penalty?
- Status
