New Beta Version - September 25th (9-25)

[BiteInTheMark]

Not certain if it is just me, but...

...has the AI increased its' tendency for forward-settling right to your border? I feel like most games these days start with the expectation that before I feel I have big enough capital to start pumping out settlers, I will have to start my expansion by beelining Spearmen and Archers, then removing couple of forward-settled second-or-third cities from right next to my capital, basically on anything except Large or Huge maps (and with bad luck, even there).

Sure, I can (and will) capture and probably raze these cities (setting the AI back and making me the world's warmonger from the get-go) but it does kind of force my hand into early warfare every game. Is it the expectation that to get anywhere in the game, you start by wiping your nearest neighbour off the map?

Ask yourself: If you are able to forward settle and AI, get a great spot and additionally weaken your direct neighbors expanision, would you do it?
FOR SURE! You would do it.
Why should it be alright that a human uses this strategy, but it is wrong when AI does it? We all want the most possible human-like-AI we can get, so this is a fair strategy.

 

[Moi Magnus]

Ask yourself: If you are able to forward settle and AI, get a great spot and additionally weaken your direct neighbors expanision, would you do it?
FOR SURE! You would do it.
Why should it be alright that a human uses this strategy, but it is wrong when AI does it? We all want the most possible human-like-AI we can get, so this is a fair strategy.

You would be surprise of the number of players that are "polite" with the AI by not settling out of the area they consider as their (and expect the AI to be "polite" and not settle in this area).
It does not invalidate the conclusion you make, but I just wanted to point out that the "FORE SURE!" may assume too much from the player.

 

[tu_79]

You would be surprise of the number of players that are "polite" with the AI by not settling out of the area they consider as their (and expect the AI to be "polite" and not settle in this area).
It does not invalidate the conclusion you make, but I just wanted to point out that the "FORE SURE!" may assume too much from the player.

Flavours. Do they still work?

 

[Gazebo]

So i have recently lost a game with Inca really great rush of nerves here. I should have turned it off once i saw that stupid 2 volunteer vassalas sitting in comfort,sending Iroques to the undisputed finalle. Well, it was disputed as i have passed that proposal about ceasing all the vassals. But like i have pointed out above, the game could be much more balanced if AI knew how to attack those, which they desired to. Playing for CV, also with science lead, Iroques got almost every culture wonder and very quickly reached tourism increasing technologies. But in the end, they weren't capable of influencing me, so nice Hiawatha turned onto diplomat. And because everyone was stupid democrat, he passed Freedom WI for free. In the end, he betrayed their, so long best friends India, and captured Westminster from them. I balanced on the edge of the sword, have launched invasion on, yet weakened, unwalled puppet city containing Westminster and i succed. But i lost because fuking vassalized Siam voted for them with 16 votes...... May i ask two things? 1) Why following WI grants so many votes? 2) Why vassals are able to vote against you for sanctioning you, yet they vote for their master to helping them win? 3) How can 2 crapp city Siam have 16 votes? Shouldn't a votes granted by this and that also be dependant on seize of empire?.

To adittion. Seeing again that decision making AI willingly serve to another AI(while this ofcourse would never be possible for player, even far behind average), this also leads a little to questions, why should i play peacefully when it leads only to loss

I must admit, that i admire how flexible AI became. But then i don't understand that completely.

Lets be clear: the AI bested you. It didn’t cheat or abuse anything. It played the game and won. Why can’t the AI just win? I don’t get it. There is nothing wrong with vassalage.

G

 

[FoxOfWar]

Ask yourself: If you are able to forward settle and AI, get a great spot and additionally weaken your direct neighbors expanision, would you do it?
FOR SURE! You would do it.
Why should it be alright that a human uses this strategy, but it is wrong when AI does it? We all want the most possible human-like-AI we can get, so this is a fair strategy.

I wasn't advocating change, actually. Or saying it is directly wrong. Just making an obvervation and asking if I should just get used to this and, well, start my games with the expectation to raze a city or two.

(And I do prefer the peaceful expansion to games where I have to go to war if I want any at all.)

 

[Omen of Peace]

I don't get peacetime vassalage either, but I think I'll start a separate thread / poll about that at some point.

If you can clue us in on how the submissive AI values it / whether they get a big payday in exchange for it, that would be helpful.

 

[Gokudo01]

I don't get peacetime vassalage either, but I think I'll start a separate thread / poll about that at some point.

If you can clue us in on how the submissive AI values it / whether they get a big payday in exchange for it, that would be helpful.

I smile

Am I the only one to know that when an AI is afraid you can demand it to become vassal even if there is impossible in the demand menu ? try it you will see

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I smile

Am I the only one to know that when an AI is afraid you can demand it to become vassal even if there is impossible in the demand menu ? try it you will see

You can also demand luxury/strategic resources and unless you really go overboard or a demand was made some turns ago, they accept at Impossible. Very useful for more brutal William players, like me.

 

[matlajs]

Lets be clear: the AI bested you. It didn’t cheat or abuse anything. It played the game and won. Why can’t the AI just win? I don’t get it. There is nothing wrong with vassalage.

So,it seems to you right, that one AI capable of doing just alright themselve is able to get 2 volunteers with no obvious reason? If Ai with conquered vassal defeat me- ok. If some runaway beat me in the end- ok. When Iroques were ahead from me and by far from the others( not in science, but in culture and tourism), why India and China(volunteers) didn't recognize them as a threat for their own victory and didn't leave vassalage at once? This will lead to nly thing, that reasonable players will turn it off, because it only lead to one thing- domination. When i will consider my actual dificulty level to easy i will raise it myself. No need for AI to do that on my behalf. Do you atleast care about those broken aspects, like AI is uncapable of attacking one of the vassals because it won¨t automatically DoW their master? As i said, i am not totaly against an idea of some kind of aliance, which volunteer vassalage may serve as a tool for it, but in its actuall form it doesn't feel much immersive.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

You would be surprise of the number of players that are "polite" with the AI by not settling out of the area they consider as their (and expect the AI to be "polite" and not settle in this area).
It does not invalidate the conclusion you make, but I just wanted to point out that the "FORE SURE!" may assume too much from the player.

Ok, with forward settling, I mean settling in direction of direct neighbor first, if the space around you is equally worth. Wasnt meant to be those "place city in front of enemy capitol and camp there" strategy.
But I try to be polite too, and do dirty tricks only rarely.
I doesnt wanted to sound offending, but we had a similar discussion about runaway AI. People complained they were sometimes meeting AI civs late in game and those had reached a runaway status. I didnt get it why people complained about it. Like Gazebo said, the AI has the same goal and the same tools, if AI use it tools correct, it has the same chance as you to do the same things.

But I must agree to matlajs... some volonteery vasselages make no real sense to me, and if the master is going to win, it should immidiatly try to get free.

 

[Questdog]

Lets be clear: the AI bested you. It didn’t cheat or abuse anything. It played the game and won. Why can’t the AI just win? I don’t get it. There is nothing wrong with vassalage.

G

I beg to differ on that one. Vassalage may be working as intended, but it is still wonky. If voluntary vassalage was disabled, I may play with it, but why would any AI submit to another when they do not have to? They are basically giving up the game. No one ever won by being a vassal. Often times the vassal does not seem to be much weaker than its master, if at all. There is also a bug where I can declare war on someone else's vassal, kill some units and/or steal some civilian units and then peace is automatically reinstituted next turn. If they are earlier in the turn sequence than me, it is just me getting to attack without a chance of them retaliating at all.

 

[Moi Magnus]

I beg to differ on that one. Vassalage may be working as intended, but it is still wonky. If voluntary vassalage was disabled, I may play with it, but why would any AI submit to another when they do not have to? They are basically giving up the game. No one ever won by being a vassal. Often times the vassal does not seem to be much weaker than its master, if at all. There is also a bug where I can declare war on someone else's vassal, kill some units and/or steal some civilian units and then peace is automatically reinstituted next turn. If they are earlier in the turn sequence than me, it is just me getting to attack without a chance of them retaliating at all.

A long time ago (1 year ago), I've won as a vassal, and this victory was only possible because I had voluntary vassaled myself.
(I would have been crushed militaristically by another civilisation instead).
But balance changed a lot since then, and a lot of the tricks I've used to win as a vassal are no longer possible.
(Ex: I made my voluntary vassalage during a war, while I was about to lose my exposed capital, in order to force a peace treaty against a civ that refused peace negociation)

Ideally, voluntary vassalage should be used like this: when you have a weak army and seek militaristic protection from another civ.
Thus trading a certain defeat against a probable defeat (that you will hopefully manage to trade latter against a possible victory, and then a victory).

 

[Gazebo]

I beg to differ on that one. Vassalage may be working as intended, but it is still wonky. If voluntary vassalage was disabled, I may play with it, but why would any AI submit to another when they do not have to? They are basically giving up the game. No one ever won by being a vassal. Often times the vassal does not seem to be much weaker than its master, if at all. There is also a bug where I can declare war on someone else's vassal, kill some units and/or steal some civilian units and then peace is automatically reinstituted next turn. If they are earlier in the turn sequence than me, it is just me getting to attack without a chance of them retaliating at all.

Vassals can still win via science or culture. I’ve seen it many times. Furthermore the AI plays to win, but it isn’t suicidal most of the time. If it has a good relationship with its vassal master it won’t rebel. What would be the point of good diplomatic relationships if they all flew out the window when you got close to winning? You want an unrealistic, gamey AI.

G

 

[BiteInTheMark]

What would be the point of good diplomatic relationships if they all flew out the window when you got close to winning?

You integrated a mechanic which makes the AI more hostile towards the player, if he gets closer to victory.........

 

[Gazebo]

You integrated a mechanic which makes the AI more hostile towards the player, if he gets closer to victory.........

If they’re already not friendly with you. I’ve always said being friends with the AI makes them ignore stuff like this.

G

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I'd prefer if there were a game setup option to turn off voluntary vassalage, as it's often game-breaking when a very strong civ voluntarily becomes a vassal of an even stronger civ.

 

[Gazebo]

I'd prefer if there were a game setup option to turn off voluntary vassalage, as it's often game-breaking when a very strong civ voluntarily becomes a vassal of an even stronger civ.

I have never seen this happen.

If you think there is a bug report it.

G

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Ah, ok, I thought this was a feature, not a bug. Ok, will report it!

 

[TwoPodRay]

I met Spain halfway through the game and discovered they were about 40% higher on the scoreboard than me, yet the very next turn they declared that they were afraid of me. That doesn’t make much sense. Another continent, no military presence or a big military at all, they were leading in science and culture, yet they were afraid and I made them a vassal.

 

[CCruise]

I vassaled Ghenis Khan who had double the amount of cities (25) of anybody else. He won every war he fought and got cities out of that from all sides. Felt like a cheat. Granted I already had multiple vassals which gave me more points than him but maybe it also factors in the military of all vassals?

Maybe @Gazebo wants to clarify how a successful vassalage demand is calculated before this turns into a witchhunt.