1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

New Beta Version - Feb. 9th (2-9)

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by Gazebo, Feb 10, 2020.

  1. JamesNinelives

    JamesNinelives Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    1,549
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    As someone who likes to liberate vassals, it's not clear how best to do that currently. I am loathe to donate resources to a vassal given it will make their master more powerful by proxy, who I will eventually have to fight. Sometimes I just to declare war on the master straight up and try to avoid fighting the vassal if I can. That's not always possible though.

    Fighting the master while the vassal rebels is ideal, but I haven't noticed it happen very often. So tbh my primary approach is the world congress, proposing universal liberation when it becomes available.

    Unfortunately, it takes a lot of resources to support them enough that they can remain free. Often I will liberate cities in a war only to find that as soon as I peace out the former master declares war on the ex-vassal and takes those cities back because they have low health and no units to protect them.

    I know I can gift techs and money, and I often do try to bring them back to the present (they are usually a good number of techs behind at that point). Gifting enough money to keep them alive can be expensive though.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2020
    Skidizzle and Bryan317 like this.
  2. Gizmoman

    Gizmoman Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2020
    Messages:
    62
    Not at all, just the regular (You have a different religion, we don't like that you expanded, you picked the wrong social policy tree) along with the occasional 'You built a wonder we wanted' and 'how dare you complete a quest for that citystate that is half a map away from me and I have no claims or stakes in?!'
    And no, no warmonger penalty either, just a ton of war weariness from being stuck in war with the entire map.
     
  3. JamesNinelives

    JamesNinelives Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    1,549
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    That is bizarre. I have all those penalites with my neighbours and my experience has been very different. How many cities do you have? How many wonders have you built?

    In my games so far the expanding too fast seems to the biggest issue the AI has with me. I still have a number of declarations of friendship with people though.

    Granted I haven't got to the late-game yet. That is where people seemed to be having the most trouble in the previous patch.
     
  4. Recursive

    Recursive Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,850
    Gender:
    Male
    The culture and science bonuses are typically trivial. The gold from taxes can be rewarding but it's offset by vassal maintenance and if you've captured many cities and devastated a civ's economy in the course of vassalizing them, a 25% tax rate can sometimes barely cover the maintenance expense.

    The WC and military levy bonuses are much more beneficial if you can expect that your vassal will remain your vassal, especially the votes (since all voting agreements are cancelled if war is declared). If you demanded GPT or resources from them, those are only beneficial while the vassal remains your vassal. Same goes for trade deals and trade routes.

    The ability to control your vassal's war/peace affairs and have their military units defend you and act as a buffer in some situations is also far more useful if you can expect that they will remain so.

    Some turns of gold and happiness and not being declared on are nice, but not nearly as beneficial.

    You have plenty of warning and you can actually do something about vassals meeting the conditions for independence, most of the time. It's easy to monitor, and they're rare. It takes a lot of effort for a vassal to meet the conditions for independence, or for other civilizations to liberate them via the World Congress.

    Having your vassals be potentially removed from you by another civ's trade deal anytime they're discontent is not the same type of mechanic, it's unpredictable, has little to no warning, and can occur on a much shorter timeline. As noted above, sometimes high taxes are required just to break even on maintenance costs, which make the vassal angry and feel mistreated. Or another civ might kill your vassal's units before you have a chance to respond.

    Your third point supports my argument - it's a benefit that is far more helpful if you can be confident the vassal will remain yours.

    As for your fourth point - being able to achieve capitulation after capturing only a single city (with much work ahead required for conquest) sounds like a potential bug to me, not expected behavior. Capitulation is surrender - it makes the civilization unlikely to ever win the game - and they should not be willing to give in so easily.

    I agree there are situations where vassalization is preferable to elimination for the master - I myself prefer it. What I was meaning to say was "vassalization is a surrender option where the civ agrees to stand down in exchange for not being eliminated". If capitulation functioned like a 50-turn peace treaty with unreliable future benefits, many players (including myself) would find this unfun and irritating, and proceed instead with elimination if they had the option - which is against the original intention of C4DF (this is relevant because Gazebo has stated he likes to respect the choices and intentions of the other modders, like Putmalk).

    We have different opinions. I disagree with your opinion, but that does not make either of us objectively "wrong" - I think there are merits to both sides here. Personally, I like your general idea but I think the execution is not handled well. Maybe vassals do need to be nerfed in some way (I'm neutral on this), but I don't think this would be fun.

    Yes, but the approach and opinion systems are only used to help the AI make other decisions - it's part of the AI, not the game's mechanics. There's no game mechanic that for instance, only works if the AI's approach towards another player is not FRIENDLY. While the AI will not agree to be bribed into war against someone they're FRIENDLY towards, that's the AI's choice, not the game's mechanics making it impossible - a human offered the same choice could choose as they wanted. So it's not the same thing. I suppose you can argue that the AI is a game mechanic, but in principle the AI players are supposed to behave like other humans and have the exact same decision-making options available to them (the exceptions being their difficulty bonuses and a handful of small restrictions, like the random nuke roll and not allowing the AI to declare war on their City-State allies).

    Human vassalage is likely more common in multiplayer, and allowing humans to escape vassalage anytime they want but making it only possible for AIs to do so if not content according to a point system is not a balanced mechanic. Additionally, humans are far more capable at warfare (being able to defend with a smaller number of forces, and by exploiting chokepoints and wars on multiple fronts) and could take advantage of this far more easily than an AI could, particularly since the AI is never hostile towards its own vassals outside of a very few select circumstances.

    On the other hand, if the AI can leave their vassalage anytime they want just by trading, then how is capitulation anything more than a 50-turn peace treaty? It isn't truly surrender with the master taking over the vassal's political affairs if you can just leave at your leisure after 50 turns with no work to become stronger and more independent - and for this reason, players would probably opt for elimination far more often.

    Given the choice between being a capitulated vassal of one civ and a voluntary vassal of another civ, most players would probably choose the latter as soon as they could regardless of how they're treated - when you're a vassal of the new master you can't be revassalized by your old master.

    In regards to the > 25 war score thing, I've already mentioned humans could exploit that very easily if they're able to handle the war weariness; AIs could also become "liberated" by someone on the other side of a Pangaea or across the ocean, making it very difficult to get that high a warscore against the new master.

    This is only (slightly) hyperbolic now because Firaxis's deal AI and diplo AI interaction logic is hot steaming garbage. Firaxis apparently decided that AI players would be just as bothered by spam as human players would be (or wasn't capable enough to avoid the AI making stupid decisions), and therefore implemented the same cooldown system between diplo messages, including trade offers, for AI players as for human players. The Firaxis deal AI is also so hopelessly stupid and exploitable that VP has needed to make numerous adjustments and patch out many exploits by making them "IMPOSSIBLE!", not wanting to go through the enormous headaches of completely rewriting the whole system with all the complicated UI work involved.

    However, throughout this year I plan on fixing all those issues (which will be quite an extensive project). Among other improvements, I aim to make the AI perform its interaction checks every turn and be able to do more than one diplo message or trade deal on the same turn, at least during AI-to-AI communication; it can do so far more efficiently between AIs because it's simply comparing the results of functions, rather than popping up and talking to the human player. No UI work is involved.

    Some work will be needed to make sure the system isn't unfair to humans with the AI trading everything away between themselves before the human has any chance to make an offer, but aside from that, it should be far more intelligent when I'm through with it.

    And as a result, if it would be smart for the AI to be liberated every 50 turns and another AI is willing to do so for a good reason (say, to weaken the master), then it would indeed happen every 50 turns. Remember that any of the other civilizations in the game that isn't vassalized could make the offer, under your proposed system; there's probably at least one that'd want to do so, and there are many reasons why a vassal might want to be the voluntary vassal of another civ rather than the capitulated vassal of someone who conquered them.

    The alternative would be to make the AI deliberately stupid - which I have a personal distaste for, and it's against the spirit of the mod.

    I understand what your proposition is - but how about this: have AIs that are able to revolt reach out to another civilization to be their "guarantor" if their master refuses to give them independence. If the master refuses, the vassal switches to a voluntary vassalage with the new master, with no conditional reversion back to the previous master based on war score.

    This would require far less new code, risks no shenanigans with the trade system, isn't unbalanced between humans and AIs, isn't exploitable by never making peace, could be done even if the vassal is sanctioned by the World Congress thanks to the master's bullying, and doesn't require the implementation of a "hybrid vassalage". All it would require is a new type of leader message, some UI work, new lines of dialogue, perhaps a new notification, some code to handle the AI's decision-making, and some code to handle the transition, which could use existing functions. It would also conflict less (or perhaps not at all) with Putmalk's original intentions when creating the mod.

    And yes, it is "hybrid vassalage": a voluntary vassal can leave after 10 turns; if it can't leave and is auto-reverted back to the master upon winning a war as you propose, it's not a voluntary vassal, but it isn't a capitulated vassal either - and this would be relevant to a number of code sections; for instance, when the AI gains a new capitulated vassal this resets all non-permanent diplomacy penalties, and voluntary vassals are handled differently for certain diplomacy behavior. Easier to handle it in a way like this.

    The AI doesn't do that - yet. I plan to improve it, and I suggested an alternative just above. I don't think my idea is perfect, and I'm open to changing it, but if a solution can be found through smarter AI and tweaking existing mechanics, I'd rather do that. :)

    If you have the "They believe we are expanding our empire too aggressively" modifier it means you have a lot of cities compared to the global average and the AI considers itself to be stronger than you militarily, meaning you're a "reckless expander". The AI is programmed to punish aggressive expansion without corresponding military strength very heavily to prevent snowballing (although I do think some adjustment to the AI's military strength evaluation would be a good idea).
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2020
  5. Gizmoman

    Gizmoman Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2020
    Messages:
    62
    Not a huge fan of the AI treating players differently like that. I mean there's always an AI doing even more reckless expanding, warmongering, backstabbing grabbing citystates and so on, and you never see them getting dogpiled that way.
     
    SuperNoobCamper and Gidoza like this.
  6. JamesNinelives

    JamesNinelives Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    1,549
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    Back to feedback on this patch; just played another game for a couple of hundred turns (Huge map, Epic speed, Immortal).

    My main complaint was actually that recon units have relatively few promotions available to them (something I've brought up before). Would really love if there were just a couple more options - at the moment is you keep your starting pathfinder alive long enough to get to level 10 (or even 9 in some case), you have no choice what promotions they take from there. This is particularly annoying because two of the promotions you end up taking at some point are Medic I and II which decrease you combat strength on defense. Medic is nice but honestly I really would love to have an option that doesn't make my most experienced unit squishier.

    Other than that, the game was OK. Played a perfume start which I thought would be rather nice as I got some nice early ruins (as Shoshone) and was able to found my second city next to the natural wonder Mt. Sinai. Turned out to be much tougher than I had anticipated as though, because there were zero city-states nearby and very few ruins after the first 20 turns. I was able to do OK anyway with the help of my UI, but I missed on out a few things I would have liked (Way of Transcendance, Angkor Wat, and no mountains available for me to build Macchu Picchu) so I'm going to try another game and see if I can grab at least one of those.

    It was one of the first games I've played on Immortal, and the AI was competing noticeably better than they do on Emperor. Poland took the lead relatively early and Russia and I have been competing for second place score-wise. I did end up using the new archers this time (with the reduced production cost from the hotfix). Only for fighting babarians, but they were OK. Spearmen are much more significant than they used to be. Barbarians were a bit more of an issue for me this time as I was a bit isolated from the AIs. Starting with a military unit still made them more or less a non-issue until I founded more cities though, and had to protect a larger area.

    Spoiler Screenshot :
    20200217004846_1.jpg
     
  7. Recursive

    Recursive Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,850
    Gender:
    Male
    It isn't specific to humans, AIs also get the same modifier. I suspect the problem has to do with the AI's evaluation of the human player's military strength.
     
    vyyt likes this.
  8. civplayer33

    civplayer33 King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    965
    @HeathcliffWarriors Regarding Vassal bonuses:
    I think you are almost completely ignoring the costs of the alternate scenario; if you compare having a Vassal with having that area converted to Puppets with 1 or 2 annexed Cities you cannot claim that the Vassal's yields will be trivial compared to that alternative; you haven't conquered those Cities, therefore their population isn't reduced and their buildings haven't been destroyed, which alone ensures that you will get far better yields. Currently the percentage is the same as from Puppets (20%), except you get a lot more due to this lacking destruction; if you boost with the appropriate tenets (Imp. or I.F.) then the Vassal "wins" even more in the analysis, not to mention the 1 or 2 annexed Cities you'll need, which will increase your Sci / Cul costs (so no advantage there), and this is only talking Culture, Science, Faith into account...Gold is extremely divergent in these two scenarios as Puppets are Gold sinks (don't forget you also need to pay maintenance for the roads in that territory, since it's yours, as well as for the army that is guarding it, which is also yours (you can but need not guard your Vassal, since his Cities getting captured doesn't increase any enemy's Warscore with you, so it's a much smaller risk), in addition to the building maintenance, all of which you don't pay with a Vassal; the Vassal maintenance can be equalized most of the time with 15% tax rate, sometimes even lower...even if you have a situation where only a 25% tax rate can cover the expenses you're still covering the expenses instead of paying for everything through your nose...since the fact that more yields are better than less is not really controversial and follows directly from the percentage numbers and considerations which I have published in previous posts in this very thread, and, since I think you are smart enough to realize this, your very biased portrayal tells me that maybe you are not interested in a good faith discussion of this.

    Military levy isn't a significant bonus as the units you get will typically be a small percentage of your army and will often need to be upgraded, which is why I suggested dropping this, though I don't mind much if it stays.
    (this is more a general comment, so less addressed to HCW) The Happiness from Vassals, on the hand, must either be removed or the lacking removal compensated with more Unhappiness from Annexed Cities and Puppets; the Happiness system currently does not do a good enough job of counteracting rapid military expansion, IMO...after all, there have been many suggestions of rebellion or revolutions in different new ways, while such mechanics already exist: it seems to me that people are suggesting things they don't actually want, otherwise they would be supporting this liberation war idea or calling for making the Happiness system more harsh for warmongers as it is precisely the system that will give you rebellion and revolutions. If Deity warmongers were actually experiencing revolting Cities to a sufficient degree I am certain we would hear the "usual suspects" whining about it, but we don't, so it's likely not occurring either at all or not nearly often enough. If you're conquering half the world and literally have half the Cities on the map then you should have to fight multiple impending revolutions simultaneously...if someone doesn't like that then drop down some difficulty levels, but this is how it should be on Deity, because otherwise we get the old "Deity is ez lol" comments again after months of whining has made Deity easier.

    Regarding reliability of Vassals...I have already addressed this: just keep your Vassal Content, which is easy enough in most cases and you'll have a reliable Vassal, which is much easier than you claim and I say this as someone who takes 1 or more Vassals almost every game; the only situation where it can be difficult is when they still have a Holy City, which you can prevent by just taking it from them before you vassalize. Overall the contentedness of the Vassal is actually very predictable, certainly much more so than the opinion and approach of AIs and I'm not going to repeat myself about how to easily keep your Vassal Content, just see my previous posts.
    Vassals gained in Medieval / Rennaissance are not reliable even with the current system for the purposes of Diplo Vic. as they will almost always reach liberation criteria (1 + 2c typically) before you get to that point, which, unlike your assertion, you can't really do much against and this is me speaking from experience as I do typically try to counteract it...sooner or later they will inevitably reach at the very least the 2c criterion.

    More about the form of this debate: "Some turns of gold and happiness [...]"...C'mon man, 50 turns on standard during / after Medieval are more than just "some turns", especially since the Vassal isn't going to rebel immediately when being reaching that, as I've pointed out before; you can easily keep most Vassals in a state of no possible rebellion for 200+ turns; it would still be far easier with my system to liberate Vassals via WC than through the new mechanism, unless the Master has Iron Fist.
    "Your third point supports my argument [...]" - no it doesn't; you're just misrepresenting it as I was clearly arguing against your false dichotomy of Vassalization vs. Elimination.
    "If capitulation functioned like a 50-turn peace treaty with unreliable future benefits, many players (including myself) would find this unfun and irritating [...]" - this statement, which you even repeat twice, is just more evidence that this is not a good-faith discussion on your part...if you are seriously asserting that my suggestion equals that quote then I am done discussing things with you because that is beyond dishonest.
    "We have different opinions. I disagree with your opinion, but that does not make either of us objectively "wrong" - I think there are merits to both sides here." - this is relativism, which is self-refuting. On the one hand you keep asserting that "most players share my view", which is practically equivalent to "I am universally right", at least as long as, for pragmatic purposes, I'm willing to overlook that an appeal to consensus doesn't make anything right, while at the same time denying me that argumentation...are you some sort of privileged being who gets to decide what rules I'm allowed to operate under, unlike yourself? "Do as I say, not as I do" is a "good" principle if you're a genocidal commie, not so much for an earnest discussion participant.

    Regarding similarities with approach and opinion systems: the distinctions you draw are completely arbitrary and I already laid out how the new system would actually benefit the AI as well as pointing out how rare human vassalage is; until recently human vassalage was apparently even bugged completely, God only knows for how long, as one player has reported, so it's clearly not in regular use and it even has it's own option, which by default turns it OFF in the game settings, so clearly it is already distinct and not even active by default.
    "when you're a vassal of the new master you can't be revassalized by your old master." - except you can with the system I proposed if the old Master gets a Warscore of 25...I have stated my proposal about three times now, yet you keep misrepresenting it, while showing in the very next sentence that you have read and understood it...like I said, this is not an honest exchange. No, you couldn't "become 'liberated' by someone on the other side of a Pangaea or across the ocean", because that's not what a human would choose, which thus means the AI should not accept liberation war offers from the other side of the map, either, since it's not in their interest as their old Master would revassalize them directly or wipe them out and the "never making peace-exploit" is hardly that as your Warscore doesn't just increase with the other Master by doing nothing, though your War Weariness certainly will...please don't use hypothetical versions of my system that have intentionally been implemented in nonsensical ways in your mind to "refute" it...this is called straw-manning. Also, not even the human would necessarily break off directly after 50 turns, since there's a reason why he got to be in the dilemma of being an AI's Vassal: the Master is much stronger than he, which means breaking away can only be successful if there is a very strong other AI close-by that is willing to help him (which, going by my experience of geostrategic layouts in Civ games thus far, would often not be the case).
    And no, again, it doesn't require an entire new type of Vassalage, which makes it sound like we suddenly have thousands of lines of new code to write; it merely requires some additional checks compared to yours; it may be the case that your idea can be implemented with less code but the difference isn't as huge as you make it out to be, but my problem with your idea is more fundamental:
    I actually don't mind it at all but it is not an alternative to mine, because it doesn't at all address the issue that mine is designed to address, for the most part, as I have clearly stated:
    " the main motivation for all of this, however, is to apply a bit of a nerf warmongering in a more interesting manner."
    Your system, while very similar to mine conceptually, has one "small" difference, namely that it doesn't change the fact that Vassals cannot rebel until a millennium or so (sometimes even more) has passed, which is ridiculous and way too beneficial to warmongers, as I have also already stated. Therefore it doesn't nerf warmongering and thus is not an alternative, but at most a supplement (though my system would obviate the need for such a supplement).
     
  9. Gizmoman

    Gizmoman Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2020
    Messages:
    62
    Ah, that makes more sense. That said it's kinda weird if the AI is that hung up on army size that they don't care at all what someone does as long as their army is big enough.
     
    JamesNinelives likes this.
  10. Gidoza

    Gidoza Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,271
    I would tend to disagree with you on this one. I just don't see the evidence that AI's get picked on when they're on a roll. I've needed to go to extreme lengths to round up other AI's to team up on the leader - namely, vassalizing everyone else while the leader gets even stronger but miraculously chooses not to bother me. Only by attacking on 6 fronts simultaneously am I able to deal with this monster - but to convince anyone that this needs to be done without physically forcing them? Naw.
     
  11. Recursive

    Recursive Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,850
    Gender:
    Male
    It's because the AI is considering human players weaker compared to AIs.

    It has to do with the way the AI is programmed, but I've isolated human military strength estimations as being a significant problem for three reasons:
    1. Humans tend to be better at war than the AI, especially if they're playing on higher difficulties, but this is not accounted for.

    2. Humans can defend against large assaults by using a smaller but more skilled military force and/or by exploiting terrain and chokepoints and/or with better tactics and superior memory. The AI does not account for this and considers humans with smaller forces weak, even if they've fended off a dozen wars so far without losing a single city.

    3. The AI, especially on higher difficulties, has more units and unit supply, which causes them to consider humans weak.
    This estimation issue causes a number of problems which snowball into each other and result in AIs targeting humans (especially on higher difficulties), doing things which make them more likely to target them in the future and less likely to target other players, and then not shifting from that mindset except with great difficulty. I'm working on resolving it.
     
  12. Recursive

    Recursive Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,850
    Gender:
    Male
    I think this discussion should be moved to its own thread because it's taking over the new version thread.

    You are assuming bad faith, malicious intent, and a sense of superiority on my part where there is none. If you have problems with my arguments, that is fine (I'm not perfect, sometimes I have unconscious biases and make flawed arguments, like any human) but I am not deliberately attempting to discredit you or misrepresent what you're saying for any malicious purposes, and I find you have a tendency of assuming malice when something could be explained by miscommunication or disagreement.

    And honestly, chill out. Unnecessary comparisons to "genocidal commies" and unfounded accusations of malice are not constructive discourse, and do not encourage people to speak up if they have a different opinion. Attack my arguments all you want on their own merits, but there's no need for the discussion to get so heated. We can disagree without getting at each other's throats over it, which is what I was trying to get at in a nicer way (although I concede I did a poor job of conveying it, so I've made my meaning more explicit).
     
  13. Rekk

    Rekk Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    1,075
    This, along with an improved ability for a vassal get into position to ask for liberation, is an excellent idea.
     
    JamesNinelives and Recursive like this.
  14. Rekk

    Rekk Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    1,075
    The vast majority of people on this forum are not trying to make Deity or any difficulty easier. Months of "whining" were only to change the bonuses that the AI gets, not with the purpose of making them easier. Removing the starting worker and removing the independent bonus growth were good for the game and ABC values are/were to be changed to compensate. Changing settler speed was a policy focused change, the AI just currently isn't handling it as well as it is hoped.

    Besides, there's still numerous reports of the AI not improving their tiles, which no one asked for, and if still the case hurts their competitiveness significantly.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2020
  15. SuperNoobCamper

    SuperNoobCamper Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2017
    Messages:
    570
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Egypt
    Barbarians stealing yields is a over tuned big time.
    Spoiler :
     
  16. ryanmusante

    ryanmusante Regular Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,087
    This should probably be mentioned on github.
     
  17. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,956
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    People complaining deity beeing too easy may be wrong and correct at same time.
    The fact the most high tier players are playing epic speed is a bit like cheating, cause you improve the time you are able to conquer your enemies by 50%, while for every other win condition, nothing changes. If you really want bigger challenges, try to get a Domination victory on a standard or large map with standard speed (on deity), maybe your game experience will change a bit.
    The other part (too easy) may not have to do with the decreased bonuses for the AI, but simply with worse playing AI since some months.
    Spoiler 1.) Improvements :
    Ive watching the AI getting worse and worse in building improvements. They build now more forts on the borders but at the same time, they neglect everything else. Since over 6 months, the AI refuses to improve some plantation luxuries behind forests, and I cant explain why this is already known for so long but at the same time ignored. The AI civs in my game have all only as much or even less worker than cities. In some of the AI cities, only two third or sometimes only half the amount of citizens are able to work improvements, cause the rest of the territory is barren lands. Some of the cities are working unimproved hills or jungle tiles, and this after 250 turns. Often farms are performing under their ability, cause neighboring tiles are not improved with other farms, using the adjactancy bonuses. Constructing and using the adjactancy bonuses for lumbermills is the same. It seems the AI only build improvements, if they are directly necessary in the moment, but didnt plan into the future. Its unknown to me, if the AI uses city focuses, but this doesnt may change anything, cause it has constructed only enough mines and farms for the standard setting, but not for a hammer or food focus.

    Spoiler 2.) AI growth :
    Ive noticed now for long, that from around mid renaissance, but not later than mid industrial age, most of the AI cities are running many specialits and/or food low tiles, which lead to an extreme slow growth. The standard governor setting seems to target very often a food surplus of only 30 food. Together with the direct AI yield bonuses a suprlus of food by that amount may be enough in pre-renaissance, but definitly not enough from industrial age on / cities with a size bigger than 20. By entering the industrial age, most of my cities are often 5+ citizens bigger than the average AI cities (even with progress). My capital sometimes 10 citizens bigger than other capitals. The fact a lot of people feel the mid to late game is too easy may be a result of the AI kinda completly neglecting growth already from the mid of the game. Using IGE in several games reveal AI cities which need 20-30 turns till the next citizen is born (some growth civs excluded, but Ive seen India cities with only average city sizes too). Having nearly all time 20-50% more citizens per city than the AI is something that I wouldnt really expect, buts every game like this. (I agree I love growth, but AI has other bonuses which should be able to compensate this, but it doesnt happen)

    Spoiler 3.) AI religious mess :
    The AI is picking more and more strange religious beliefs, it was already mentioned several times and someone has opened a direct thread for it. India picking a missionary spread founding belief, celts or spain picking inquisition or syncretism, peaceful tradition civs pick orders.
    Another part I am watching for a long time is the completly irrational and passiv behavior of non-founder civs. Often enough Ive spread my religion to non-founders till the "they have happily adopted...." message comes and think, they will finish the job, but nothing happens. I remember a game 2 cities of a converted civ stayed without religion (only pantheon) for atleast 80-100 turns, even those cities were founed already by the conversion of the civ. Even founder civs seem to be completly unable to protect their own religion in their own territory, Inquisitors doesnt cost the world, the passiv spread needs forever to completly turn a city, what the hell are the AIs doing with their faith?

    Spoiler 4.) Happiness... :
    Its too easy. Far too easy. Iam really wondering not every emperor+ gamer is moaning about how easy it is to maintain 100% happiness. (I already hear people complaining I have to up my difficulty... )
    I only had one time some happiness problems after I conquered and settled half the world in only 150 turns in standard speed but I still were around 50 +/-10% in happiness. War weariness and puppet unhappiness and empire modifier by overextension should be able to easily stop me from expanding so fast but I rarely feeled forced to slow down. Checking the happiness values from all AIs in my current games reveals..... they are all at 100% or close to it.
    I really dont know why a "local" happiness system was introduced, if still the majority of my happiness comes from global luxuries and other global stuff.
    Why was the happiness from digging sites introduced? Who wanted this and who really needs this? Its only another unnecessary happiness source which makes the happiness system more complex.
    Why does vasalls give happiness? Make no sense. The system tries to slow down warmongers with unhappiness by war weariness and overextension from the empire modificator, at the same time you get happiness for beeing a warmonger and make someone to a vasall.
    War weariness reduction in the Authority tree. Its simply silly to create an anti-warmonger mechanic but add a partly removal of this mechanic available already at the start of the game. Making the happiness game even easier for warmongers.


    Its really hard to belief that all this is unknown to the developers now for months. I know the test runs are done with AIs only, so point 2 may be harder to detect, cause all the AIs are doing the same is hiding the issue, cause there is no human empire to comparison the growth with. Fixing performance issues, AI diplomacy logic, military logic, all fine. The work is done in the background and too complex to be adusted in only 2 or 3 versions. Some changes lead to unexpected results, can happen, nothing wrong with that.
    Spoiler No Plan :
    But then we should atleast have a plan to fix and balance all the other stuff which can be seen by everyone. But is there a plan? I think we run in circles with an endless fix here an there with no concept, no objective data collection no set goal.
    Fixes were done to keep the game running, no definitions were set to achieve a set goal.
    Take the luxuries for example. Some give in total +4:c5production: and others give +4:c5gold:. So, which one would you prefer? Of course the one with hammers, cause 4:c5production: is worth double as much as 4:c5gold:. Some luxuries need many more techs to be improved but they are sometimes even worse than those which can be improved by easy improvements like camps or mines. Gold gets improved by the bank, 3 eras later than quarry luxuries, what does gold get in exchange for its late bloom? 1 more yield, to be exactly 1 gold. After your gold income has increased by 10 times, you only get 50% more yields for gold, not even counting, that the quarry luxury has now already generated yields for atleast 2 full eras.
    There seems to be no evaluation how much each yield is worth in comparison with each other, making the luxuries balanced. Monopolies could be changed to give a small flat yield AND a small modifier, so each one is better comparable (flat early culture but only food or gold as modifier versus flat food but culture modifier). This may be less unique or radnom, but I prefer winning by skill and not winning cause I started with the better luxuries/monopolies/corporation.

    Spoiler overreaction/underreaction and number explosions :
    After Denmark lost its exponential yield power, cause it was seen too powerful, a discussion about corporations was started. People were calling Giorgio too powerful and TwoKay + Hexxon useless. What was done? Giorgio was acceptable nerfed, while TwoKay got..... what?..... some flat extra food and Hexxon.... some flat extra hammers..... Nearly everyone was saying that food in that late stage of the game was useless and to solve this issue, the corporation got..... a small amount of extra food? (same with hexxon, some little extra hammers didnt change anything with this corporations issues).
    And then.... something absolutly NOBODY was calling, not even expecting, we got an exponential system for the corporations, able to generate more science/culture/gold by corporations than the whole rest of the city.
    Later on, the factory was called as too weak. What was done? We got an exponential system, more factories means even more yields in more cities. (same thing as with Denmarks UB)
    Later on, the people were complaining about too much influence in city states, what do we get? Spies which are able to generate more and more influence over the time of the game, making the whole thing even worse.
    A buff for the influence by trade routes was wanted, and we got an exponential influence system, able to generate between 1 influence per turn (1 trade routes) to 225 per turn (15 trade routes). (later capped but this aspect is still buffed by +400%)
    A discussion about the worth of food was done, mainly based around the agriculture business. The result was really disappointing cause nothing has changed about food. The Agribusiness simply pumped steroids into farms, making them able to outclass villages on railways, jungles with logging camps and even half the UI from civilization abilities. Its like you were able to build now lumbermilss on flat grasslands and plains. Such yield explosions simply feels like spitting on all the focus and effort you have to do to get a bit more yields out of improvements by spending tons of culture or faith or thinking time.


    Sorry for the long text, but there was a lot to say, I love this mod and I am thankful for the amount of effort which is used to hold it online, but it makes me so sad and also a bit angry to see no real progress in the development.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2020
    Maxxim69, Kim Dong Un, DeAnno and 3 others like this.
  18. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Beijing
    I think another factor here is that if playing defensively, I often have almost pure ranged units, which seem to contribute a lot less to your military score than melee units do.

    Also AI having huge military scores partially because they have like 50 ironclads but my cities are inland.
     
    Heinz_Guderian and Arthur Jama like this.
  19. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Beijing
    On Bite's comments, I often have 100% happiness by Renaissance and it never drops to an actually low point. Usually just a small amount of boredom or urbanization.

    I think its because if you are improving your tiles, and the AI isn't, your yields will be well above the world average.

    Also the agribusiness. It is such an important building (generally far better than the factory), but the AI can't build that many because they use horses for military.
     
  20. Gizmoman

    Gizmoman Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2020
    Messages:
    62
    upload_2020-2-17_1-53-28.png
    Would it even be possible to complete this quest? I mean wouldn't going to war with them nullify all their quests before fulfilling the quest has a chance to trigger?
     

Share This Page