New Official Version - December 1st (12-1)

[youngsteve]

You can destroy them. It usually takes one turn of ownership.



I recommend the same thing, but view it like opting out of a zillion surveillance choices with search software — why is my only choice to be on the defensive?



This is by far my least enjoyable part of VP right now. I suggested that there be a second option: if you don't back off, I'll declare war. Even if it's not fun, I could accept an arguent regarding historical realiam. But at least that way, both sides know what they're getting into.

I brought this up once before, but Recursive said he wrried it might be exploitable in MP. This does not strike me as reason enough, since there are workarounds around that Theoretical possibility.

Yes, I discovered whilst not near the enemy I could destroy it. Seems bizarre to me.

This is what I don't understand. To me this is one of the most aggresive stances the AI can take, & I always declare war on them, though must admit LifeofBrian workaround seems nice. What is ridiclous is none ever takes notice when you tell them not to, whether the civ is peaceful/warlike, weak/strong. I agree there should be an option that if you don't back off war will be declared, & then up to them. The real loser with this in the long run is AI, which doesn't make sense when they can easily go elsewhere with their missionaries.

 

[SpankmyMetroid]

One annoyance I have in the game is regarding enemy missionaries & what to do with them. I am a peaceful sort of player but the one thing that I always go to war about is enemy missionaries trying to convert your cities. The option to refrain never works, however powerful you are, which seems strange, so go to war. Surely, AI should understand that doing this is going to lead to negative reaction, as it certainly should be, & is to the detriment of AI. My problem though is what to do with these annoying enemy missionaries. For some idiotic reason you cannot destroy them, certainly not use them, & they just take up valauble gold for no good reason. I usually just send them on a one way trip around the world so they hopefully get killed by an enemy barb. At least you can use them to explore.

If I have the gold to spare for maintenance, I use them as buffer units in war (capturing a civilian unit counts as a units attack for that turn so you can put a missionary between a unit in a dangerous position and the enemy) or as disposable scouts (4 movement and ignoring borders means you can search through AI land even if they hate you, very good if you need to complete a CS quest for finding natural wonders). Just as often I’ll just delete them to save the gold costs though.

 

[Stalker0]

You can destroy them. It usually takes one turn of ownership.



I recommend the same thing, but view it like opting out of a zillion surveillance choices with search software — why is my only choice to be on the defensive?



This is by far my least enjoyable part of VP right now. I suggested that there be a second option: if you don't back off, I'll declare war. Even if it's not fun, I could accept an arguent regarding historical realiam. But at least that way, both sides know what they're getting into.

I brought this up once before, but Recursive said he wrried it might be exploitable in MP. This does not strike me as reason enough, since there are workarounds around that Theoretical possibility.

Are you leaving inquisitors in your cities? They passively reduce both passive spread and active missionary spread. I think there was a bug on that a version or so ago, but in theory that's the counter.

 

[2506]

One annoyance I have in the game is regarding enemy missionaries & what to do with them. I am a peaceful sort of player but the one thing that I always go to war about is enemy missionaries trying to convert your cities. The option to refrain never works, however powerful you are, which seems strange, so go to war. Surely, AI should understand that doing this is going to lead to negative reaction, as it certainly should be, & is to the detriment of AI.

This is a great point. The big loser here is the AI, since they are very likely to lose that war. I just vassalized a strong, otherwise friendly neighboring Babylon just because he wouldn't back off. During the war I busted my butt to reform, and finally made it. Afterward, passive spread eventually converted all my cities anyway.

Are you leaving inquisitors in your cities? They passively reduce both passive spread and active missionary spread. I think there was a bug on that a version or so ago, but in theory that's the counter.

Forgot all about it thanks to that bug. I agree it's a counter, although maybe not the counter. I'll definitely try it next game as a test.

 

[stii]

That AI war looks great, pretty much exactly what a human should do. Small island so attacking makes sense and mostly ranged units.

 

[Heinz_Guderian]

Anyone else noticing that the AI quite often gets afraid of you now? I would guess it is because of the difference in how AIs calculates human military strength, or the "military performance" rating or whatever you call it, right? What does the "Afraid" approach entail anyway?

 

[Revolutionist_8]

Anyone else noticing that the AI quite often gets afraid of you now? I would guess it is because of the difference in how AIs calculates human military strength, or the "military performance" rating or whatever you call it, right? What does the "Afraid" approach entail anyway?

I noticed it as well, even when having a relatively weak military. But not always, I wasn't able to figure out a pattern of it yet, which is kinda weird

 

[tu_79]

Anyone else noticing that the AI quite often gets afraid of you now? I would guess it is because of the difference in how AIs calculates human military strength, or the "military performance" rating or whatever you call it, right? What does the "Afraid" approach entail anyway?

It was one of recursive changes, evaluating human performance when checking player's military strength. It should make ai wait until it has the right amount of units to face the human.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

What do you guys think of forcing the first great prophet to spawn in the capital rather than the current city with highest faith output/city whose faith generation last contributed the GP faith accumulation?

 

[Rean]

What do you guys think of forcing the first great prophet to spawn in the capital rather than the current city with highest faith output/city whose faith generation last contributed the GP faith accumulation?

Would disagree, I think the way it works now is more interesting than just forcing it in your capital.

 

[stormfallen]

What do you guys think of forcing the first great prophet to spawn in the capital rather than the current city with highest faith output/city whose faith generation last contributed the GP faith accumulation?

I have never in my life wanted to found a religion in a city other than my capital. And there are few things more aggravating than when another civ founds while your prophet is walking and takes that belief you wanted.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

I have never in my life wanted to found a religion in a city other than my capital. And there are few things more aggravating than when another civ founds while your prophet is walking and takes that belief you wanted.

This is a rare situation where I'll sometimes cheat with IGE if I'm hellbent on designating a holy city and my prophet spawns like 5 turns away in another city (while only 1 founding spot remains); just teleport him to that city immediately after he spawns and pretend like nothing happened. Most times I'll role-play some sort of religious pilgrimage though.

 

[Recursive]

It was one of recursive changes, evaluating human performance when checking player's military strength. It should make ai wait until it has the right amount of units to face the human.

It was overtuned I think , the modifier will be changeable in XML for the next version...

 

[Gazebo]

Hola everyone! I took a break from things for the holidays, but I'm getting back in the swing of things this week. I see you've been busy in my absence...excellent!

G

 

[azum4roll]

Would disagree, I think the way it works now is more interesting than just forcing it in your capital.

There's a point though. The AI always founds on spot, AND sometimes loses their holy city to revolution due to unhappiness. It just hurts too much.

 

[ChefBRD]

Been playing some other games for a bit (holy horsehocky was Outer Wilds great!) and just started with this version this past week. Absolutely loving it. Great work one and all, but Iliteroi and Recursive's changes are very noticeable and great. I just played my most fun Medieval loss ever!

I was a border-popping Authority Russia, feeling very cocky slowly shredding Alexander's hoplites and swordsmen with a mostly heavy skirmisher army, when just after I completed Angor Wat, Suleiman declared on my opposite flank and took a city. By the time I stabilized the situation there, Alexander had clawed back to take one for himself. And just then a certain Mr. Bluetooth declared on my final border and I gave up. I was playing around with a wide Russia mostly using Authority for border perk and heavy tribute and plopping cities where I could, and I was mercilessly punished for not taking out one of my neighbor's early when I had the chance. Really excellent AI strategy and tactics.

One quick quibble/ question and sorry if they've been addressed before...
Natural border growth has always prioritized flat over hills (I don't love it, but it is what it is). Lately I've been seeing it even prioritize resource-less grassland over even luxuries on hills, 2 hexes from city, no rivers in the way. Is this intentional or is there a way to tweak it to grab luxes before other hex? Additional question: why doesn't it *ever* prioritize hills, even if you already have 10+ floodplains/ grasslands/ plains and very low production?

Thanks!

 

[ChefBRD]

I have never in my life wanted to found a religion in a city other than my capital. And there are few things more aggravating than when another civ founds while your prophet is walking and takes that belief you wanted.

I'm usually happy to found in an alternate city with a religious natural wonder. These are also the only times I've ever experienced a prophet spawning outside my capital. The flavor feels like Mecca and Medina or Kyoto and Edo or something. Plus, it's usually a relief to know I can build my religious wonders there rather than add another thing in the queue of my capital.

I wouldn't miss the possibility if it was gone, but I kind of like it being there.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

Would disagree, I think the way it works now is more interesting than just forcing it in your capital.

May you elaborate why is it "interesting"? It feels like a clear disadvantage the vast majority of times.

 

[DukeBrani]

Natural border growth has always prioritized flat over hills (I don't love it, but it is what it is). Lately I've been seeing it even prioritize resource-less grassland over even luxuries on hills, 2 hexes from city, no rivers in the way. Is this intentional or is there a way to tweak it to grab luxes before other hex? Additional question: why doesn't it *ever* prioritize hills, even if you already have 10+ floodplains/ grasslands/ plains and very low production?

@ChefBRD , I may be imagining things, but I feel that the choice of city tile manager (governor) affects which tiles will be targeted next by the border growth algorithm. I normally lock tiles that I wish to have worked and then set the governor to "Production". The border growth algo then seems to go preferentially after hills and plains instead of grasslands, but again, I could be imagining things

 

[azum4roll]

Production focus has the problem of picking plain hills (2p) and engineer over much better tiles like 5f1p. You can always lock tiles, but you usually won't lock farms.

Speaking of engineer, late game Great Engineers really need a buff. It takes 4-5 of them to complete one wonder.