New Beta Version - March 2nd (3-2)

[STEPHEN HOFFMANN]

So here is the new healing. I have a city with an arsenal (1040 hp). Currently healing with the new no enemy units within 3 is 27 hp/turn.

So if my city is half damaged (520), it would take 20 turns to heal to full. Still much too long imo.

What speed are you playing? I would agree for quick or normal speed 20 might be a bit much. I usually play on epic, so 20 doesn't seem so bad for me.

 

[pineappledan]

I'm seeing city states that are allied with me really sending their units far to attack my enemies. Was there actually a change here or is it just coincidence? I'm liking it, just wasn't sure if it was a formal change.

unintended but i think it's because AI players now add their allies' local strength to their own, so they figure they have a chance

Laughs in Siamese/Phoenician.

 

[phantomaxl1207]

I'm still seeing 4 Move for Light Tanks.
I do not like that Destroyers have 4 Move and not 5. That makes them slower than Ironclads. Why do Missile Cruisers lose their Bonus vs Subs and "Withdraw before Melee"?

 

[Stalker0]

What speed are you playing? I would agree for quick or normal speed 20 might be a bit much. I usually play on epic, so 20 doesn't seem so bad for me.

That's standard speed.

 

[Stalker0]

Datapoint for the new GS. So playing Progress/Statecraft/Industry/Autocracy (aka not the most science or GP focused play), I am getting 2 turns worth of science for my GS on Turn 328 standard speed.

 

[dostillevi]

Not sure if this is intended or not but i declared war against Japan who was no match to my numbers and the next turn he is the Vassal of Morocco (They were not at war) and i was forced into peace without a treaty.
I'm not sure if it's an intended feature or not but it's kinda clever move.

I just had this happen to me too, with Canada vassaling to Ethiopia who JUST got to the medieval era in time to "save" Ottowa. I immediately decced Ethiopia, but now my units are misplaced and Ottowa is in challenging terrain.

I love the concept, but really think it should work the other way around with me automatically being at war with Ethiopia. This half-turn peace has set back my conquest by 5-10 turns at least, if not more because it allows Ethiopia to maneuver units to aid Canada.

I could see the logic being a little more complex than that too, for example allowing an immediate cease fire if both Ethiopia and I want it, but only if we both agree.

(Note I'm Sumer with highly skilled Vulture spearmen who can absolutely capture Ottawa)

EDIT: Captured Ottawa on turn 172 and then immediately got peace with Ethiopia. Hope they got a lump sum from Canada for that arrangement.

 

[Carloshooter]

Without a major UI overhaul, I think this current option is the best we can ask for. There is not any indication from the trade screen that accepting a voluntary vassal ropes you into a war (unless the AI de facto has a war with those players as a condition of their vassalization. I can see a situation where players feel like they have been tricked into accepting 1 or more wars.

I would prefer to be penalized for brokering war with the wrong civ by they becoming a vassal and double teaming than the a random stop to my war I think it doesn't make much sense flavour wise. It would be more realistic if you had to be super certain of the cost of you declaring a war and that some one bringing an ally, isn't it the same as paying for someone to join your war to help you?
I'm sorry if i misinterpreted your comment but i just wanted to give my 2 cents on the matter.

Just to be clear i'm not defending the UI stuff just the part where when you start a war and that civ becomes a vassal of someone they join the war. I would like to discuss this more because maybe i'm not seeing the full picture of it being worst

 

[usadefcon1]

Something I'm putting on the watch list. I did the whole "10 turns to prepare thing", and then we immediately at war with that person. Perhaps it was just coincidence and they declared on me, but I didn't see a notification so I'm noting it in case anyone else sees the behavior. If I see it again I'll note it as a bug.

This happened to me too, about 2 turns later we are all at war... Even if our enemy (China) declared war on either one of us early it shouldn't have triggered war with both of us since we didn't have a DP... Just the 10 turn promise

 

[tu_79]

About the problem with voluntary vassals, I agree that the master must inherit the war his vassal was into, but also the master or the other contender should be allowed to ask for a cease fire between the greater powers. As long as the aggressor does not capture any city, that should be an easy treaty.

 

[dostillevi]

About the problem with voluntary vassals, I agree that the master must inherit the war his vassal was into, but also the master or the other contender should be allowed to ask for a cease fire between the greater powers. As long as the aggressor does not capture any city, that should be an easy treaty.

Thoughts on order of ops:
Master and soon-to-be-vassal negotiate the deal and agree to it. Before vassalage is enacted, a check is made to see if the vassal is at war with anyone. If so, the master is temporarily flagged as at war with those targets, then a negotiation occurs between the master and each new enemy (just masters, no vassals or city state negotiations of course). The negotiation is a normal trade dialog with any players, where a treaty is on the table. Some improved text for this would be nice, but not necessary at least to get it up and running. Either party may refuse the treaty, so the outcome is either they're still at war, or they're at peace. Since these negotiations are triggered and peace is established (or not) before the vassalage takes place, by the time the actual vassalage code is executed, the master has the correct war states with all targets and there's no interruption of war if peace wasn't agreed to.

For purposes of defense pacts, the new master is treated as an aggressor declaring war. I think the AI needs to understand it's going to war with a defense pact when it picks up a vassal this way, but I don't think the defense pact should trigger until after vassalization in the order of operations.

 

[LifeOfBrian]

@Gazebo , @Recursive , anyone else, can I somehow turn off voluntary vassalage by changing the game files?

 

[bigcat88]

Maybe just after voluntary vassalage at war Master of new vassal must always immediately ask for peace?(If someone dont want to fight against both he can accept peace. If want to fight then decline)
Does it solves the problem? It will not require rewriting the UI.

 

[azum4roll]

Even if peace is immediately declared, all the trade routes/trade agreements/DoFs are still lost.

 

[Stalker0]

So for those curious, the Bomber Targeting Promotions are now 10, 10, and 25%. So a net loss of 10% CS for Targeting III.

So in terms of which aircraft to use against land units.

Bomber with Targetting III: 72.5
Triplane (any promotion): 51.75

So though the Triplane now has a much better attack versus land (a 35% buff if I'm not mistaken), the bomber is clearly still the stronger anti-land unit (ESPECIALLY once air logistics comes online).

That said, with Ace Pilot III (remember you get API for free) + Range you can create a 9 range triplane right out of the gate vs a 6 range bomber. Sometimes range is everything, so the fact that you can create triplanes that hit spots bombers can't is a solid niche.

So on paper I like that dynamic. We will see how it shows up in practice.

 

[James Ryle]

unintended but I think it's because AI players now add their allies' local strength to their own, so they figure they have a chance

Seeing this also, to the extent where my CS ally actually captured my enemy's city. It was a newly founded city and it done with mostly ships but it was still impressive. (The captured city was about 6 tiles away from CS. So I'm not sure are CS more aggrieve over sea than the land.) On the flip side I see that Civs really target CS more overall and take them over.

 

[General_Drax]

Statecraft was a staple for DiploV and CS alliance. Now the nerf bat hit it hard. Fealty and Artistry got a new light.

I'm really struggling in 3.2 on Emperor it seems map scripts (Communitu, Continents and Fractals) hate me. For three game straight I got two AI capitals within 6 tiles from mine.

Bad luck I guess and ofc all went Authority as Zulu, Spain and Aztecs. Meh !

 

[2506]

@Gazebo , @Recursive , anyone else, can I somehow turn off voluntary vassalage by changing the game files?

I'm playing my first game with the new patch, and voluntary vassalage is rampant. It's happened twice in peace and once (possibly) as a way to avoid being taken by an enemy. In evry case, the civ either thriving or surviving. No one was on its last legs. However, in one case the arrangement has already been terminated. So while it can seem maddening in that a major geopolitical change seems to happen overnight, it is also interesting. I am noticing that no one's interested in becoming my vassal, but that could be relate to military size.

 

[dostillevi]

Even if peace is immediately declared, all the trade routes/trade agreements/DoFs are still lost.

I'm hoping that setting the war/peace negotation within the code context of the vassalage negotiation code means that the entire war flag-> negotiation process-> peace/war outcome happens prior to triggering anything else in the code. So the war flag gets set, peace gets negotiated, and the rest of the code never sees the temporary "at war" status before it's changed back to peace.

 

[InkAxis]

Isn't the point of voluntary vassalage that you are supposed to protect your vassal? So by taking a vassalage agreement you should go into war with them, you are protecting them. Making peace suddenly doesn't make sense.

 

[youngsteve]

Presumably, these vassalages can end at any time. I don't usually have vassals, but in last game as Huns had Spain voluntarily offer herself as one. I then had wars with Rome, & kept having to end them, as he attacked Spain's cities who were nearer, & Spain was really unhappy as I wasn't defending her. It was made difficult for mountains being in the way, not for lack of deserting her.

The point I am making is if a vassal is attacked in a war, & the civ they are in vassalage can't defend them properly, will this mean they will leave them a lot quicker, & even join the attacker or another stronger civ. Like with CS, who you vow to protect, & friendship plunmmets the more they are hit.