New Beta Version - November 8th

[JamesNinelives]

That sounds likely to be a problem with scaling to epic speed, to be honest.

Plausible. I've never had it happen that bad (Japan's UA may be a factor there), but I do get a lot of great scientists in the late game playing Epic speed. It doesn't help that there seem to be a number of wonders which grant them in the last two eras, but as I say it hasn't so much been an issue in my games.

Human players know they can work processes

Personally I think I'm happier not knowing. Each to their own I guess. I don't tend to play Order.

 

[Earf]

How do you find them in rough terrain?

You can still do hit an runs in rough terrain. Unless you're going up against some unique unit that can easily move through rough terrain, you'll be able to hit a unit and move away without fear of retaliation. Despite the terrain, the point I'm trying to make is that you can use ranged mounted units to do just as much damage, or more, compared to mounted melee units without taking any damage at all in return. It just seems too easy.

 

[usadefcon1]

Okay, for the next version I've boosted diplo AI aggression.

Tentative Changelog:

Fix some more backstabbing bugs

Fix "you forgave them for spying" modifier not being applied

AI will now always declare war if a demand is refused and they're stronger than the other player both militarily and economically, unless a sanity check prevents it.

AI now considers ideological opponents, untrustworthy friends and anyone who captures their Holy City a major competitor.

Increased war likelihood towards major competitors, decreased it slightly for others for prioritization reasons.

AI more likely to use coop or third party war against major competitors (reverted the check requiring the
biggest competitor to be the target, since there's now a separate check to stop any backstabbing).

Greater AI consideration of military & economic strength, ideology when calculating approach.

If there's been a denouncement in either direction, FRIENDLY and DECEPTIVE approach weights are set to 0
(no more obviously fake friends).

AI now more likely to declare war if they have bonuses towards war (authority, imperialism, autocracy, leader
traits, temporary attack bonus).

AI now more likely to declare war against people they don't like on higher difficulties (uses DifficultyBonusBase
and Opinion); combined with the increase in land dispute penalties below, makes the AI smarter, more dangerous, and more aggressive.

Land disputes will matter more in Ancient/Classical and for AIs with leader bonuses towards war, and will
increase war likelihood (should result in more early wars, less passivity).

Increased no contested borders modifier to counteract this a bit; AIs with no contested borders will gain +15-20
opinion rather than +6 in Ancient/Classical, and +10-15 past Classical - should help with early DoFs and bloc formation.

Overall aggression increase.

This ^ is why VP is so much better than Civ VI. In one week the community fixes issues that would take months for Firaxis to fix. Thank you to everyone working on this great project.

 

[Recursive]

Okay, for the next version I've boosted diplo AI aggression.

Tentative Changelog:

Fix some more backstabbing bugs

Fix "you forgave them for spying" modifier not being applied

AI will now always declare war if a demand is refused and they're stronger than the other player both militarily and economically, unless a sanity check prevents it.

AI now considers ideological opponents, untrustworthy friends and anyone who captures their Holy City a major competitor.

Increased war likelihood towards major competitors, decreased it slightly for others for prioritization reasons.

AI more likely to use coop or third party war against major competitors (reverted the check requiring the
biggest competitor to be the target, since there's now a separate check to stop any backstabbing).

Greater AI consideration of military & economic strength, ideology when calculating approach.

If there's been a denouncement in either direction, FRIENDLY and DECEPTIVE approach weights are set to 0
(no more obviously fake friends).

AI now more likely to declare war if they have bonuses towards war (authority, imperialism, autocracy, leader
traits, temporary attack bonus).

AI now more likely to declare war against people they don't like on higher difficulties (uses DifficultyBonusBase
and Opinion); combined with the increase in land dispute penalties below, makes the AI smarter, more dangerous, and more aggressive.

Land disputes will matter more in Ancient/Classical and for AIs with leader bonuses towards war, and will
increase war likelihood (should result in more early wars, less passivity).

Increased no contested borders modifier to counteract this a bit; AIs with no contested borders will gain +15-20
opinion rather than +6 in Ancient/Classical, and +10-15 past Classical - should help with early DoFs and bloc formation.

Overall aggression increase.

Additional changes:

AI tactical aggression for early game territorial wars increased

Tweaks to aid AI with Domination Victories
- AIs attempting a Domination Victory should be noticeably more tactically aggressive
- AI tactical aggression increased if only two major civs are left
- AI diplo aggression towards everyone ramps up once it possesses 1 other capital, not 2+ (provided it hasn't lost its own capital, of course)

Count the following as major competitors (extra aggression):
- Other player has at least one other civ's capital, and AI is going for a domination victory
- Land dispute level of STRONG or FIERCE, if the era is Ancient to Medieval or AI is going for a domination victory
- Wonder dispute level of STRONG or FIERCE, if the AI is going for a cultural victory
- City-State dispute level of STRONG or FIERCE, if the AI is going for a diplo victory

Ignore players who have lost their capital as major competitors

This might overtune it a bit, but better that the AI be aggressive than passive.

If it's overkill it can be tweaked again - I'll be excited to see feedback on this once the changes are added.

This ^ is why VP is so much better than Civ VI. In one week the community fixes issues that would take months for Firaxis to fix. Thank you to everyone working on this great project.

I believe Gazebo has previously referred to the code for one section (the advisor system) as being written by "a team of moderately trained monkeys".

 

[bigcat88]

New tactics: let capture your capital and leave in peace with all world? )

 

[Bromar1]

- AI diplo aggression towards everyone ramps up once it possesses 1 other capital, not 2+

What's the reasoning behind this? I've played many games where I'll capture only one capital to secure my corner of the continent and then play the rest relatively peacefully.

 

[Stalker0]

What's the reasoning behind this? I've played many games where I'll capture only one capital to secure my corner of the continent and then play the rest relatively peacefully.

I think it’s the fact that even securing one capital is a huge surge of power. It often means gaining wonders, some of the best land, might even bag a new monopoly.

 

[usadefcon1]

What's the reasoning behind this? I've played many games where I'll capture only one capital to secure my corner of the continent and then play the rest relatively peacefully.

Does this scale with era? Taking a capital early should be weighted much less than late in the game.

 

[Recursive]

What's the reasoning behind this? I've played many games where I'll capture only one capital to secure my corner of the continent and then play the rest relatively peacefully.

The magnitude of the increase is personality based and scales with the number of capitals captured (+1 per).

Very war-like AIs who will tend to have lots of units anyway, if they succeed, will be extra motivated to continue along the "swallowing up the world" rampage, and will thus be more of a challenge.

I'm hoping to see more aggressive action from the likes of Denmark and the Aztecs, and avoid AIs fizzling out without reaching their full potential because they couldn't get enough hostility.

As @Stalker0 said, it's a significant power boost, and the AI will be inclined to A) build a strong army to defend it and B) use their extra resources in an attempt to become even more powerful.

The goal of these changes is not to make the AI hyperaggressive all the time, but to enhance their aggression in favorable circumstances so they avoid passivity.

Again, it can be easily tweaked if it's overkill.

Edit: Also worth noting that this will mostly impact the AI's enemies and immediate neighbors. AI prioritizes adopting WAR/HOSTILE towards the people they have the largest negative weight towards, and get a bonus to being non-aggressive, scaling with the number of people they're aggressive towards. Furthermore they avoid getting into wars when already at war.

 

[Recursive]

New tactics: let capture your capital and leave in peace with all world? )

That'll leave you vulnerable to aggression increases because you're militarily and economically weaker.

It doesn't zero out the weight, just reduces it haha.

Of course, you can always try capitulation...

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Still playing in the previous version but I think it may be relevant to discuss also for this version.
I got 2 DoW by other civs and cause of that earned a +2% anti warmonger favor to fight my enemies, so far ok.
But after peace, I declared war to one of them and only captured their capital by a swift strike.
Now Iam denounced by half the world and have to face already a +49% anti-warmonger penalty.
I want to ask...... isnt that a bit too harsh? Its not like ive burned everything in the way like the mongols (while playing the huns ).

EDIT:
Again, after 160 turns, plantation luxuries behind forests are not improved.

 

[Ess85]

Any ETA on these diplomacy changes?
Can't wait to try them out

 

[TikiB]

I am using the latest beta, when I founded a (second) city creating enough culture to adopt a first social policy it messed up my culture score. I now gain a huge amount of culture each turn and my next policy cost is -21 million!

 

[pineappledan]

Any ETA on these diplomacy changes?
Can't wait to try them out

updates aren’t on a regular schedule, but you can see yourself from beta patch release dates that patches/new betas are rolled out approx 15-20 days apart. Given the last patch was nov 8, don’t expect another beta for at least another week

 

[Guynemer]

But Dan, what do you expect me to do with myself for the next week?

Work?

Meaningful interactions with my wife?

Come on.

 

[pineappledan]

None of that crap, of course not.

the only reasonable use of the intervening time is to dogpile the skirmisher balance discussion thread and argue with strangers on the internet.

 

[Gazebo]

I'm out of town this week for work, won't be back until next week. Your best bet at this point is to beg @ilteroi to merge and compile the new DLL and post it or to convince @Recursive that the IDE is his friend.

G

 

[Kim Dong Un]

@ilteroi ,

 

[Recursive]

I am using the latest beta, when I founded a (second) city creating enough culture to adopt a first social policy it messed up my culture score. I now gain a huge amount of culture each turn and my next policy cost is -21 million!

Very likely a mod conflict, make sure you're not using any other incompatible mods.

I'd really love to see something happen with this. It gets quite silly.



This seems perfectly acceptable to me. Echoes the real world Cold War quite well.

@tu_79 @Recursive So I posted a brain-dropping I had recently about AIs being tuned to 'seek out' masters to vassalize them in the late-game, when they're no longer really capable of getting an actual victory; that idea hasn't gained much traction as far as I can tell, but this thread does have me wondering if something along those lines could be used to reduce the strain.

My thinking is something like... if you have, say eight out of twelve Civs "resigning" from the game, so to speak, and lending what power they have to one of the world powers, you could tune them to reduce military to only what's needed for border defense, vastly simplify their AI so that they're basically only reacting as opposed to proactively working towards a victory they can't possibly attain; that sort of thing, if any of that makes any kind of sense.

It's not a terrible idea, but it'd need a lot of work to implement, and runs the risk of making the game too easy/uncompetitive. Perhaps something that can be looked at.

or to convince @Recursive that the IDE is his friend.

G

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr, I suppose it's time I gave figuring out how Visual Studio works another try

 

[General_Drax]

I saw some strange behaviour with AI settlers. Venice built a lot of railroads towards another civ (Inca). Are they getting faster trade routes ?

Conquered Venice (capital) and one of his satellite city and both showed this pattern.

In modern era it seem AI discovered aggression again. They are hammering with DoW. I think the -75 penalty for wormongering was the culprit to start the violence.