youngsteve
King
They do & kill the units inside, but never venture in to destroy the camp, so there is a constant supply of Barbarians, until one of the civs/human destroy it. Cannot understand why myself.
New Beta Version - May 24th (5-24)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
They do & kill the units inside, but never venture in to destroy the camp, so there is a constant supply of Barbarians, until one of the civs/human destroy it. Cannot understand why myself.
James Ryle
Warlord
In this version (for me) CS land troops don't attack camps while CS ships will attack Barbarian Camps. Also, I'm finding CS troops quite passive in not really attacking that often (just fortifying it seems) or retreating a lot more.
Sure they have been somewhat passive for some time, the new thing here is that they run out to the camps, surround them so there is no access to them and then just stand there. They keep spawning quests to take out the camps. I guess it's sort of "smart" in the regard that the camps doesn't spawn new barbarians as easy it seems since there are no close free tiles. But the barbs never attack the city-state troops either. So they just stand there ... looking at each other.
I think it's an improvement. It used fairly common for the CS to clear most or all barb camps on Deity continents before you could even take authority.
Spoiler the horror :
Last edited:
pineappledan
Deity
Nothing worse than a when a city state used to clear the camp they had given a quest to you for. I’m very happy that they can’t clear camps anymore.
Previous CS were all like: Call an ambulance... but not for me!
*Proceeds to crush their barb enemies, sees them driven before us, while hearing the lamentations of their women.
Edit: at the same time, I still want them being actively engaged in allied wars (e.g. militaristic CS could have a more aggro behaviour).
Militaristic CS should produce their own UU. Aggro behaviour should be reserved for hostile CS though.
Grassland Farm
Prince
Yeah I'm ok with CS not clearing camps of their own.
They seem generally passive/defensive though, including when brought in to war with major civs.
They seem generally passive/defensive though, including when brought in to war with major civs.
James Ryle
Warlord
I've not been able to play much the last couple of versions so I must have missed the passivity of CS.
What happened to me was that I thought I had my southern border pretty secure because it contained two allied CS with a foreign Civ city sandwiched between them. Feeling secure to the south I posted most of my troops to the Northern border then was surprised when China attacked and my Allies just smoked a few cigars and sat back to watch the carnage at my boarder. You live and you learn hey!
I like the idea of militaristic civs being more combative. Adds another layer of strategy.
LifeOfBrian
King
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
- Messages
- 757
I'm having three war-related problems with the new version (latest hotfix):
1.) The AI is extremely reluctant to make peace. I've been at war with Assyria for a veeeeeeery long time (over 50 turns), I have a positive warscore (varying from 5-10) and he still refuses to make peace with me, even though no cities are in danger of being taken etc.
2.) War weariness. Despite the changes to war weariness I don't feel any difference. I've been at war with Assyria for over 50 turns, haven't lost a single unit, had only 3 tiles pillaged, didn't kill anyone outside my borders and yet I'm at 14 war weariness at around turn 110. Since I can't peace out (see point 1), I'm now below 50% happiness and I imagine soon I'll be below 40. I thought the changes were supposed to mean you don't get war weariness from killing enemy units if the enemy is unwilling to peace?
3.) City state units are extremely passive with barbarians, which means barbarians are more raging (good for Authority, bad for everyone else).
1.) The AI is extremely reluctant to make peace. I've been at war with Assyria for a veeeeeeery long time (over 50 turns), I have a positive warscore (varying from 5-10) and he still refuses to make peace with me, even though no cities are in danger of being taken etc.
2.) War weariness. Despite the changes to war weariness I don't feel any difference. I've been at war with Assyria for over 50 turns, haven't lost a single unit, had only 3 tiles pillaged, didn't kill anyone outside my borders and yet I'm at 14 war weariness at around turn 110. Since I can't peace out (see point 1), I'm now below 50% happiness and I imagine soon I'll be below 40. I thought the changes were supposed to mean you don't get war weariness from killing enemy units if the enemy is unwilling to peace?
3.) City state units are extremely passive with barbarians, which means barbarians are more raging (good for Authority, bad for everyone else).
General_Drax
Warlord
In my current game (5-24 latest hotfix): Rome - Emperor - Milae Pangea map - Standard. (Auth/Statecraft)
_ confirmed CS kill barbarians but not their camps leaving them free to spawn units if there are free tiles
_ confirmed CS being passive and they do not help on attack. I have 3 CS allies bordering Zulus (my objective) and not a single unit pursue the attack
_ About peace offers: threatening their capital Zulus tried to peace out multiple time. As my vassal finally Shaka could.
_ Siam (in DP with Zulus) sued for peace after 20/25 turns losing a lot of units vs my heavy fortified southern front. Total defensive war for me and low war weariness. So I think it's fine.
_ strategic are just internal resources now. They do not worth selling. So decided to ditch religion and just going for a full scale domination keeping up economy through trade routes vs CS.
_ confirmed CS kill barbarians but not their camps leaving them free to spawn units if there are free tiles
_ confirmed CS being passive and they do not help on attack. I have 3 CS allies bordering Zulus (my objective) and not a single unit pursue the attack
_ About peace offers: threatening their capital Zulus tried to peace out multiple time. As my vassal finally Shaka could.
_ Siam (in DP with Zulus) sued for peace after 20/25 turns losing a lot of units vs my heavy fortified southern front. Total defensive war for me and low war weariness. So I think it's fine.
_ strategic are just internal resources now. They do not worth selling. So decided to ditch religion and just going for a full scale domination keeping up economy through trade routes vs CS.
AI peace logic has shifted towards being very reluctant to make peace. I had a 50 turn war with a neighbor from classical - medieval where the war score was 0-1 the whole time. Milae difficulty mod. I couldn’t go on offense, due to being outnumbered and behind on tech, and they didn’t pillage anything or kill any units. But no willingness to make peace, even though neighbor was tradition.
Well that is part of the mod I guess. I seem to recall my observation being that the AI produces a f*ckton more units with it enabled. Which might then have a negative impact on the their desire to peace out, or declare war. After all they have so many units that it's hard to really push forward sometimes. In which case the war doesn't become as dangerous for the AI. You are not threatening anything, it's just units that keep dying that it's more or less instantly able to replace.
With it on and even if you have or are close to the maximum of units it won't be long before your neighbors will start to **** talk you about your army size etc and how puny your army is. It's standard for that particular mod I would say.
pineappledan
Deity
I’ve seen a lot of people play @Milae’s difficulty mod. I know a lot of people swear by it at this point. Milae has also done a good job of thoroughly documenting playthrough and contrast journals with his difficulty adjustments.
I wonder if it’s time to assess what is/isn’t working better in that mod and contemplate incorporating parts of it?
I wonder if it’s time to assess what is/isn’t working better in that mod and contemplate incorporating parts of it?
The AI seems to be very reluctant to make peace even without the difficulty modmod. I had a defensive war with a neighbour that lasted more than a hundred turns even though no gains were made.
No doubt, I went and had a look at the thread about it cause I had noted the increase in units previously and there is a unit discount for the AI, my thinking here was more that I wonder if their extreme unit count compared to normal would have implications for war/peace compared to without it. I mostly play with it these days. There was some issues with war and war weariness in the last patch (fixed in 5-28?) but this is beyond that. I have also experienced the 100 turns wars now and such.
Alternative Difficulty Mod (my observation)
Alternative Difficulty Mod (milaes answer)
Last edited:
I’d actually say it’s just as or more unbalanced than base VP mod? I think it smooths out AI early science / culture a little bit but on the higher difficulties, it gives the AI an extreme amount of units. Even more than base mod. Which affects balance both directly and indirectly. Peaceful play doesn’t seem as viable as base mod. Authority seems even stronger, but that’s because the AI has more units to kill and defend from.
I absolutely love that it 'nerfs' the Pyramids. In regular VP the AI gets an extra wave of bonus for a wonder and for settling a city so they tend to zoom ahead on higher difficulties if they grab the Pyramids. Milae's mod removes that and it's lovely.
- Status
