New Hotfix Version - April 21st (4-21)

[Zanteogo]

I can confirm that defensive packs are not working correctly.

War does not seem to be auto triggered when someone in the pack is attacked.

 

[jaolhe]

I can confirm that defensive packs are not working correctly.

War does not seem to be auto triggered when someone in the pack is attacked.

Yeah, its seems they are totally broken atm. Please take look at the quick answers/questions thread, issue is also discussed there.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Ilteroi, in my current game the AI (emperor level) has had a few instances of leaving civilian units unprotected or underprotected, despite having (better) military units nearby. For example, it left a GG undefended and it moved a settler towards my unit (and towards my allied CS) covered with a scout. When I destroyed the scout, in the adjacent tile there was a fully healed warrior.

 

[Zanteogo]

Ya, I've notice a bunch of unprotected Generals myself as well.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Defensive pacts broken in my games as well.

Still (I remember a lot of discussion about this) no visible positive diplo modifier for forgiving spying/letting transgression go, any chance that will be introduce?

Ilteroi, re: AI war logic:
- I had a redlined AI horseman attack my heavily fortified & fully healthy city and dying in the process, even though I had lots of units around the city and it wasn't under siege or sth. Didn't see any point in this.
- the AI still seems to be too happy to "drip" attack by sending a few units every turn or every couple of turns against my "Maginot" defensive lines, allowing me to weather the attacks (and get culture/science due to authority policies). If it would instead save up units for a while and then send waves of units for several turns, it would sometimes be much more effective.
- still doesn't seem to take enough care of protecting its siege units by trying to have a melee or ranged unit between their siege unit and my units at the end of their turn.

But all in all, the AI has been great in warfare, tremendous progress!

 

[arnoldlcl]

Not sure if intended behavior, but I had a defensive pact with both Arabia and Greece. Arabia then DOWs Greece, which cancels my defensive pact with Arabia but doesn't put me at war with them. On the same turn, they ask for another defensive pact.

I ended up just manually declaring war on Arabia to fulfill the defensive pact.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

New game, this one on immortal. I've seen in a few games now the AI not respecting citadels enough, i.e. letting a unit remain adjacent to a citadel two turns in a row without attacking my unit in the citadel. In the current game, I have a fully healed spearman on a hill citadel, and Napoleon moved a spearman next to it, did nothing, then the next turn moved it to another adjacent tile, and after taking another 30hp hit, I could easily destroy it. No other units (mine or his) were near.

 

[Zanteogo]

Not sure if intended behavior, but I had a defensive pact with both Arabia and Greece. Arabia then DOWs Greece, which cancels my defensive pact with Arabia but doesn't put me at war with them. On the same turn, they ask for another defensive pact.

I ended up just manually declaring war on Arabia to fulfill the defensive pact.

They are currently broken. Use March patch for working def packs

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Suleiman parked a great diplomat next to one of my cities and hasn't moved it for over 50 turns, so that's perhaps something to look at.

I wish religion had a more tangible effect on diplomatic relations, especially in the form of positive and negative diplo modifiers. As it stands now, as far as I can see it only happens in three scenarios: 1. You spread a religion to another civ and that civ is happy about it, 2. You're spreading and the civ isn't happy and 3. A religion spreads to you and the founder is happy. I wish other scenarios had related diplo modifiers - if Civ A spreads its religion to civs B and C (both non-founders), it should be a positive diplo modifier between B and C ("majority of your cities have adopted the same religion), if civ A and civ B have founded different religions, it should be a negative diplo modifier (I've seen denouncements because of religious differences, but haven't noticed negative diplo modifiers) etc.

Also, it seems counterintuitive that when the AI asks you to stop buying land, you're better off in the first 20 turns if you told them to bugger off, since you get a permanent -30 diplo modifier, whereas if you promise to stop, you start by getting a -50, then the next turn -49 etc. In those 20 turns, that -20 modifier difference might make a difference between getting declared on/denounced and not. Furthermore, it seems odd that if you make that promise and then after 10 or 20 turns the AI declares on you, you're still bound by the promise - imho, if you get declared on by the AI, your past promises to them should cease.

Another thing regarding AI's strategy - in my current game, Ottomans are between me and Sweden, who has 12 cities compared to Suleiman's 6. Suleiman declared war on Sweden and was holding its ground very well for the first 20 turns. After that, he attacked me (nothing happened between us in those 20 turns to prompt this), and it wasn't a bribed war ("negotiate peace" button was there, and he also beforehand sailed many of his units (including land) to the other side of my empire (which was very smart tactics-wise)). Following that, he started losing badly against Sweden and has thus far lost a city. It seems odd strategy-wise first attacking the clear leader&neighbour and then so soon attack the other neighbour by sending so many units so far away from owned cities. I was also sending lots of iron and horses and other stuff to Suleiman to help his war efforts, so he lost that as well.

I'd again float the idea of being able to negotiate "non-aggression pacts" (different than defensive pacts) and "don't declare war on ____ for a certain number of turns).

Excellent version (besides the defensive pact thingy), the game is continuing to improve tremendously, so kudos to all!

 

[vyyt]

you start by getting a -50, then the next turn -49 etc

Are you talking about the transparent diplomacy? If I am not mistaken this number is not a diplo modifier, but number of turns until the penalty dissolves left. If you choose the other option though, then I think it is really showing the diplo modifier / penalty value. I could be wrong, but I remember seeing this explanation about messy diplo numbers somewhere.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

As far as I understand, it shows separately both the number of turn and the diplo modifier -> On the first turn, it says something like "You have promised to not buy land near theirs for another 50 turns" (50), then it says "You have promised to not buy land near theirs for another 49 turns" (49).

 

[vyyt]

Ah, ok, I was probably mistaken then, sorry.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

When a unit dies because of being adjacent to a citadel, does it grant bonuses from policies and beliefs? I'm asking because I think it doesn't - I've been playing recently with God of War pantheon and authority policies, and I think I haven't noticed getting faith, culture or science when an enemy unit gets destroyed by my citadel.

 

[bigcat88]

As I know, u must destroy a unit to get a bonus, not ur citadel.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

That was my impression as well, BigCat88, but I'm not sure I see why it is set up like that. If it'd be too hard to code otherwise, cool, but if it's for gameplay/realism purposes, then I'm not sure...

Another thing I'd like to propose, just in case it comes to fruition: I'd love to have the option to negotiate (in the trade screen,...) with a civ A to not open borders to civ B for ___ (10?15?) turns. Not sure how hard it would be to code or to teach the AI to (not) use this, but it would further bring the diplomacy game to realism, where allowing your territory to be used by another military in times of war can have huge consequences militarily, diplomatically,... for everyone. And in gameplay terms, it would allow a civ to secure a flank/close the frontier if it could ensure that the enemy couldn't cross the buffer zone (= another civ's territory).

 

[Txurce]

Another thing I'd like to propose, just in case it comes to fruition: I'd love to have the option to negotiate (in the trade screen,...) with a civ A to not open borders to civ B for ___ (10?15?) turns. Not sure how hard it would be to code or to teach the AI to (not) use this, but it would further bring the diplomacy game to realism, where allowing your territory to be used by another military in times of war can have huge consequences militarily, diplomatically,... for everyone. And in gameplay terms, it would allow a civ to secure a flank/close the frontier if it could ensure that the enemy couldn't cross the buffer zone (= another civ's territory).

This would be prohibitively expensive, since it would deprive the AI of the benefits of OB with that particular civ. More meaningful in gameplay terms, you would probably want to make such a deal after the AI already has OB with the other civ. So you'd be asking for an end to an OB agreement as a precondition for your deal. Would the AI then have the ability to ask for an end to your "closed borders" deal, and reinstitute an OB agreement?

You can see where this is going.

 

[bigcat88]

Troops are just died passing throw ur citadels - for what u want science/culture/faith or xp? It's fine with that here, realism here is present.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Defence pacts dont work, with the exception for city states. Allied city states of the attacker to someone with a defence pact with me declare war on me, but no influence to major civilizations.
A solution for the way of the transcendence discussion
- Calculate the gained yields based on the total population/population of capitol to compensate the weak effect in lategame
- Split the gained yields over 10 rounds instead of instant gain do deny the one turn wonder result.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

This would be prohibitively expensive, since it would deprive the AI of the benefits of OB with that particular civ. More meaningful in gameplay terms, you would probably want to make such a deal after the AI already has OB with the other civ. So you'd be asking for an end to an OB agreement as a precondition for your deal. Would the AI then have the ability to ask for an end to your "closed borders" deal, and reinstitute an OB agreement?

You can see where this is going.

I know, but we already have a number of diplomatic options (make peace/declare war with another civ, defensive pacts,...) that influence relations vis-a-vis third civs. No, it wouldn't necessitate ending the open borders agreement (I don't think there's a way to stop a trade for OB besides a declaration of war and I wouldn't want to introduce such a mechanic into the game), you'd be able to "trade" for this no-OB-for-___-turns only when there weren't open borders already allowed. So you'd have to catch civ A at the time where it didn't have open borders with civ B. If not, tough luck, wait for them to expire (and hope they're not renewed immediately).

Troops are just died passing throw ur citadels - for what u want science/culture/faith or xp? It's fine with that here, realism here is present.

Citadels imply that there's at least a few soldiers in the citadel manning the cannons etc. and thus causing damage to the enemy. So it's your troops that kill the enemy.

 

[Stalker0]

To me citadels should be no different than a unit for the kill and any bonuses it provides