New Beta Version - October 8th (10-8)

[ridjack]

This has been reported many times in the past. If the calculation really is the same then the only option left is that the AI is has a higher unit cap, and if that is needed for the AI to be competitive, the calculation should take that into account and not be the same for human and AI. E.g. If the AI can have 30% more units it should value AI units 30% less.

I liked the vanilla CivV military score much more because it added up all units and not units divided by cities. I find the original way more informational because I (and the AI) don't need to defend every city in my entire empire, ever, only conflict zones. That's why it's very important to know which army is bigger before we clash. Right now I largely ignore the military score and I hope it gets reversed to be useful again.

I wouldn't have a problem with it being wonky, except that AFAIK it's what the AI uses to determine how aggressive they're willing to be with you.

 

[ridjack]

I just noticed I'm getting on-build bonuses when a foreign franchise shows up in my city. Intended?

Spoiler :

(My corporation is Civilized Jewelers.)

 

[Arbi]

This is difficult to reconcile with what I consistently see in-game.

Perfect example in my current game:

• Me, Progress/Artistry/Rationalism, 15 cities, 296 population, 78 military score.
• Carthage, Progress/Statecraft/Industry, 14 cities, 250 population, 142 military score. Nearly double.
• Egypt, Tradition/Fealty/Industry, 9 cities, 182 population, 176 military score.

We're all in similar places technologically, I'm at my unit cap and all of my units are up-to-date with three or four exceptions.

(EDIT: Assuming what G says is true (which there's no reason whatsoever to doubt), it would suggest to me that the weighting emphasizes something which the AI tends to focus and a lot of players (including myself) don't. I don't know if that's something that could easily be accounted for and/or adjusted, but I do know it's a consistent problem I have anytime I'm not conquering.)

That is the point. There is no way the player cap is the same as the AIs. When I play at capacity I'm never close to the AI military score (except maybe in super late-game, where - I can only assume - the AI runs out of tiles to put units on).
This screwed score is unnecessarily punishing (AI aggression, CS protection..) and silly.

[..] and if that is needed for the AI to be competitive, the calculation should take that into account and not be the same for human and AI. E.g. If the AI can have 30% more units it should value AI units 30% less.

this, in essence.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Just some detailed observations after thoroughly enjoying a 5 city Maya game (I finished 2nd): Emperor / Standard / Continents (no events, tech trading/agreements disabled), Tradition / Artistry / Rationalism / Freedom.

I still don't think bartering for votes in WC is reasonable. Despite competing against each other throughout end game, Gandhi and I were friends on great terms, but this is how one instance played out. Here's a snapshot

Spoiler :

View attachment 537041

of his influence situation; similar to mine in that CV was very much an option at that point of the game if he really focused it and focused me with concert tours. Now here are the proposals, and you'll notice he actually proposed travel ban even though we were both equally situated for a CV.

Spoiler :

View attachment 537042

Kind of clever and ultimately what was my downfall, so I guess it worked even though it stunted his tourism also. I thought I could push through despite the passing, and he went into science overload to secure a win. What I don't like is the weirdness concerning the other two proposals. If he was gearing up to switch from a CV to a SV, then why would he not want to vote against Space Regulations, as seen here?

Spoiler :

View attachment 537044

And when I try to get him to agree for my proposal of International games (which technically still aids him and is a wonder he eventually ended up out hammering me to anyway, by the way...) there's this unfeasible value attached to just simply securing a couple votes.

Spoiler :

View attachment 537045

The values are just to impractical and I believe really need to be lowered across the board.

I think perhaps the issue is that Ghandi valued hit votes in the issue he wanted them very highly. Regardless of what else you are proposing, it's either going to be expensive or rejected out of hand if it's not the agenda that he proposed. I don't know if the setting we use are different, but the value given there seems relatively normal to me for buying world congress votes. I remember in one case I found a deal two or three times that expensive (from someone who strongly disliked me) and I agreed to it anyway because I was trying to get people to vote against sactioning me. Not always that expensive, but basically world congress votes are worth a lot and that seems reasonable to me when the stakes are so high.

Similarly as you discuss the unit upgrade costs in the later eras are pretty high. I tend to play wide so my income is large enough that it doesn't bother me as much. I haven't noticed the upgrade from explorer to zeppelin being that much higher than other similar upgrades in that era (cannons to field guns for example I remember being pretty pricy). That said I tend to have a few high level recon units that I've kept around so upgrading them is worth a lot to me.

On another note, I'm glad to see Ghandi doing so well in your game. He's not often super strong in mine (often gets invaded by a warmonger), but I suspect playing on a Huge map size isn't in his favour. He has done better in my games when he's next to peaceful civs though.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I just noticed I'm getting on-build bonuses when a foreign franchise shows up in my city. Intended?

Spoiler :

(My corporation is Civilized Jewelers.)

I think that it is, although now that you mention it I'm not certain. It's pretty familiar to me in any case.

 

[Flaku]

I Think I have some really bad AI behavior in this beta, possibly some bug. I am not avert experienced player, so please don't hate if I am not understanding something. I am playing Emperror game on standard continents map, so in theory there should be everything ok, but I have seen that Sweden has picked progress and did not settle it's second city up to turn 81(first city settled after capital). For some reason I cannot make a screenshot of the game (whole screenshot is black if I am trying to do this), but there were no obvious obstacles for him to settle, I have expanded to terrain next to him with no problem, just one barbarian camp. I don't think it is some secret strategy, as he is the last civ in ranking because of this. I have not disrupted his plans of settling, no other civ was even close to him, just some city-states, so progress seemed good choice, but then he should expand, right? If this is known issue, then sorry for reporting, but if not, I can try to take some photos with a phone to analyse this tomorrow.

 

[arthurF]

Is there a way to remove Corporations entirely? By editing an xml or whatever?

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I Think I have some really bad AI behavior in this beta, possibly some bug. I am not avert experienced player, so please don't hate if I am not understanding something. I am playing Emperror game on standard continents map, so in theory there should be everything ok, but I have seen that Sweden has picked progress and did not settle it's second city up to turn 81(first city settled after capital). For some reason I cannot make a screenshot of the game (whole screenshot is black if I am trying to do this), but there were no obvious obstacles for him to settle, I have expanded to terrain next to him with no problem, just one barbarian camp. I don't think it is some secret strategy, as he is the last civ in ranking because of this. I have not disrupted his plans of settling, no other civ was even close to him, just some city-states, so progress seemed good choice, but then he should expand, right? If this is known issue, then sorry for reporting, but if not, I can try to take some photos with a phone to analyse this tomorrow.

Some patches ago, this happened sometimes, and in most cases it had hit warmonger civs (Ive seen it some times too and saw Sweden, Rome, Japan staying up to 90 turns without second city).
In my current game, the Inca waited also extremly long with settling another city (turn 82), so it seems that bad behavior is back.

 

[Yaviel]

I looked through Technology_Flavors and see it hasn't been updated for a long while. I'd be willing to rework it for the next major release @Gazebo.

 

[swapoer]

This screwed score is unnecessarily punishing (AI aggression, CS protection..) and silly.

I agree with the CS protection part. It is very hard to get pledge, which makes the mechanic useless.

 

[General_Drax]

I sa

Some patches ago, this happened sometimes, and in most cases it had hit warmonger civs (Ive seen it some times too and saw Sweden, Rome, Japan staying up to 90 turns without second city).
In my current game, the Inca waited also extremly long with settling another city (turn 82), so it seems that bad behavior is back.

I can confirm this strange behaviour in two of my last three games. First time it was Egypt that spawned stranded in desert and basically died there. 1 city never expanded. The other one was Bismarck in an heavy jungle environment. I think it's related to starting bias (better never uncheck or some civs die outright) and resources generation in mapscript.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I want to note 2 additional minor things/bugs.
- The AI seems to be more unlikely to improve some luxuries/strategics. Seeing now on turn 291 an unimproved citrus luxury (forested) after I saw last game an unimproved horses tile at around turn 150.
- Still earning sometimes, only 3 gold with pillaging improvements,even Iam in later eras. Its not really uncommon in my games.

 

[intelli]

The not improving forest resources has been a problem forever, feels like the worker automation script is overbiased towards production; automated workers building mines and lumbermills rather than moai chains - negotiable for the human player but a big nerf for Polynesia AI.

 

[ridjack]

I don't think Flood Plains are considered rough terrain, are they? To the contrary, you move faster on them than on the surrounding desert.

@BiteInTheMark Are the unimproved tiles outside the 3-tile working radius?

 

[BiteInTheMark]

The not improving forest resources has been a problem forever, feels like the worker automation script is overbiased towards production; automated workers building mines and lumbermills rather than moai chains - negotiable for the human player but a big nerf for Polynesia AI.

@BiteInTheMark Are the unimproved tiles outside the 3-tile working radius?

I didnt noticed unimproved luxuries/stategics till maybe 2 month ago. Before that, everything was fine. Maybe I mixed something and it wasnt horses, but it was a not improved ressource.
The the luxury in my current game and the horses in the previous game were directly adjectant to the city.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Is it possible that the AI tried to expand but had their settlers captured by barbarians? I noticed that happened with France in one of my games, 2 of their settlers turned up on my border (I liberated them, but not before they re-routed to the barb camp to the north-west). It's pretty rare but I do remember a couple of other incidents I've seen of barb camps containing multiple settlers belonging to the AI in previous patches (and as one would might expect a relatively small empire as a result).

Spoiler Les Miserables :

I wonder if the +movement for civilians from Progress makes it difficult for the military unit that the AI sends to escort their settlers keep up. I've found that I need to intentional move my settlers slower to accomadate for it. I didn't think to check France's policy choice at the time, so it's just a thought really.

On the subject of tile improvement, I've seen unimproved jungle/forest resources, but I've never seen a horses tile unimproved before. My guess (based on the screenshot you shared earlier Bite) is that it registers as a net loss in yields even with the extra hammers because of farm adjacencies.

With regards to military score, does the level of fortification of cities count towards it? It seems like it should, if it determines how likely people are to invade. Perhaps that could account for the difference between civs with similar sized armies?

I agree that it's difficult to get pledges of protection, although it also seems about right in my games at least - the AI very often has more units than me when I play on Emperor difficulty. I only tend to be able to secure pledges of protection when I both have lots of units and am significantly ahead on tech. As I just mentioned, I don't know if level of fortification counts.

 

[CrazyG]

I think you shouldn't lose influence for losing a pledge to protect. Its an unnecessary downside to an already weak feature.

 

[amateurgamer88]

I know this change was made in the last beta and it's tied to the city defense tied to garrison unit strength. Is it possible to use the strongest the unit in the city even if it's the naval unit? It's so frustrating to have your Corvette garrison a city to give it 40 CS when, if you put a land unit in the city, to have its CS drop to 30 CS despite your Corvette still healing in the city.

 

[Gazebo]

I know this change was made in the last beta and it's tied to the city defense tied to garrison unit strength. Is it possible to use the strongest the unit in the city even if it's the naval unit? It's so frustrating to have your Corvette garrison a city to give it 40 CS when, if you put a land unit in the city, to have its CS drop to 30 CS despite your Corvette still healing in the city.

Boats historically make bad garrisons. They eat too much.

 

[amateurgamer88]

Boats historically make bad garrisons. They eat too much.

Then how about make Boats not boost the city defense at all? From a gameplay standpoint, it makes no sense that a city with two garrison units uses the lower of the two since land units generally have less than their naval counterparts.