New Official Version - June 19th (6-19)

[Recursive]

One thing I've noted in this (and recent, for the past year or maybe more) versions is that the AI isn't particularly aggressive, especially early-game. If I play a conservative game and don't forward settle and piss of the AI, they won't attack me at all until the "stop the human from winning" mechanic kicks in. I played a few games recently without Vox Populi, with the base-game AI, and I was reminded (painfully) of how your neighbor will almost always attack you with swordsmen and composites. This used to be a thing in Vox, too - I remember well how painful the overwhelming, early invasions was, and I began having to build a strong military force. But that's not a thing anymore. Why is that? Even with a warmongering Civ neighboring you, most of the time there will be no war unless you set them off, but there used to be, and imo it was better.

Now that you say it, as I think about my current games I will echo this. I almost build 0 military until Chivalry nowadays and rarely get called out by a war declaration for it.

Could be a confirmation bias at its best, but I was thinking the same thing with the few recent versions this year. I think I still had these early rushed last year.

I just posted this in the broken things thread after seeing @Snipergw post, and now I come here and see I am not the only one reminded by it of being unchallenged military. AIs passivity is taking out large part of a VP challenge.

I hadn't seen much feedback indicating the AI was passive in the early game, I was under the impression the problems were in Renaissance when Defensive Pacts come online.

I'll adjust AI early game aggression (and aggression in general) as part of my rework.

 

[Cokolwiek]

I'll adjust AI early game aggression.

Nice. Can you compare them with the old values, from the last stable release for example? I feel they might need quite radical upping. To be honest this ma be more impactful on difficulty than the whole deity discussions we are having.

 

[Recursive]

Nice. Can you compare them with the old values, from the last stable release for example? I feel they might need quite radical upping. To be honest this ma be more impactful on difficulty than the whole deity discussions we are having.

I don't intend to make every AI a warmongering menace, but I'll make some quick tweaks.

Remember, odd diplomacy AI behavior needs to be reported if I'm to be able to do anything about it!

 

[Recursive]

I've added a difficulty multiplier to the diplomacy AI's military strength estimations of human players (since it seems it was missing?) and additionally increased AI aggression in response to feedback that it's too passive in this version.

Human military (not economic) strength is now increased by (AIUnitSupplyPercent + (AIPerEraModifier * -7))%.

This means humans will be perceived as:
Settler: 0% stronger
Chieftain: 19% stronger
Warlord: 38% stronger
Prince: 57% stronger
King: 69% stronger
Emperor: 81% stronger
Immortal: 93% stronger
Deity: 105% stronger

This stacks with the skill rating system, where the AI increases or decreases perceived strength based on success in combat.

Changes should be in the next hotfix/version, whenever that is. We'll see how this goes! https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/pull/6757/files

 

[InkAxis]

Remember, odd diplomacy AI behavior needs to be reported if I'm to be able to do anything about it!

I feel like I recall there was a discussion a while ago about runaways, and how they wouldn't run away if their neighbor had just gone to war with them. I agree with that, that while AI do team up in later eras they should also be able to recognize it in earlier eras.

 

[Cokolwiek]

Remember, odd diplomacy AI behavior needs to be reported if I'm to be able to do anything about it!

The strange fact is I was completely oblivious to the fact prior to the mentioning it here. Now everything make so much sense. I remember times when settling too close to Alexander or Octavian in classical was a death sentence. Now I dare to forward settle them even when playing tradition. That will be a great improvement.

 

[Carloshooter]

Well, it had several religions in the city. None had a majority. It was one of my cities and i was trying to use the inquisitors to remove the other competing religions. There was no effect. Is that intended? Was that a change in latest patch?

It's intended, I don't remember in which patch was the change but i think it was a while ago. You can use Inquisitor when you have majority religion in a city to remove other religions in the city. When there is no major religion just use missionaries to gain majority than use the inquisitors to remove the other ones. You can also use the Great Phophet, they are expensive but easier to use because in addition to converting some citizens in the city that don't have religion they also turn some that follow other religions.
I prefer to use missionaries and inquisitors on my cities and than use GProphets to convert AIs cities and City States to dominate the region.

EDIT:

I've added a difficulty multiplier to the diplomacy AI's military strength estimations of human players (since it seems it was missing?) and additionally increased AI aggression in response to feedback that it's too passive in this version.

Human military (not economic) strength is now increased by (AIUnitSupplyPercent + (AIPerEraModifier * -7))%.

This means humans will be perceived as:
Settler: 0% stronger
Chieftain: 19% stronger
Warlord: 38% stronger
Prince: 57% stronger
King: 69% stronger
Emperor: 81% stronger
Immortal: 93% stronger
Deity: 105% stronger

This stacks with the skill rating system, where the AI increases or decreases perceived strength based on success in combat.

Changes should be in the next hotfix/version, whenever that is. We'll see how this goes! https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/pull/6757/files

Can someone please explain to me what this means I read it like 6 times and I can't wrap my head around it... What does it change? What does the human military strength do in this case?

 

[ashendashin]

I've added a difficulty multiplier to the diplomacy AI's military strength estimations of human players (since it seems it was missing?)

This has been requested before. G was against such special human considerations, particularly due it being gamey. Though that was quite a while ago.

 

[Recursive]

This has been requested before. G was against such special human considerations, particularly due it being gamey. Though that was quite a while ago.

If the human is in fact unskilled and loses many units their strength perception will be modified accordingly. Also, this doesn't affect City-States.

I feel it's fair to assume that a human playing on a higher difficulty level is stronger by default. If the assumption is incorrect, the AI will still pose a challenge with the improved logic and increased aggression I've just added.

 

[stii]

Ideally it would just mean the AI has more respect for the human's army. Rather than just being a bonus for being human it would mean the AI doesn't start wars it can't possibly win. Currently the AI will insult you for having a tiny army while you are in the middle of utterly rolling over another AI player.

You need a monstrously huge army before you are anything but last in army demo, which prevents a lot of options. Part of the issue with deity is that some options are off the table reducing the options for playing in a winning style. Some of that is inevitable but making more thing viable with effort is helpful.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

In my current game (Emperor difficulty) as progress Ethiopia i had both England and Russia -both playing authority-with me in the same continent, i had territorial disputes with both yet i made it till the medieval era with an army consisting of only two spearmen and a scout, it felt kinda cheap that i spend my resources developing my infrastructure instead of building army and not getting punished for it.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I think @Recursive has the right approach. Not every civ should want early war unless there's a clear benefit to them from it. Authority civs and warmongers sure, but if Tradition Korea with lots of land to themselves starts trying to invade me as if they don't have anything better to do it's going to be annoying.

I always maintain a standing army anyway tbh, so maybe I'm not seeing those edge cases. I have got very hostile behaviour from AIs like The Songhai and The Aztecs, so it at least feels like I would be in big trouble if I didn't have a strong defensive force.

 

[RyesDaile]

You need a monstrously huge army before you are anything but last in army demo, which prevents a lot of options. Part of the issue with deity is that some options are off the table reducing the options for playing in a winning style. Some of that is inevitable but making more thing viable with effort is helpful.

This seems to be the key issue to me and I usually play on Immortal. You have to go all in on military just to remain competitive in the bottom to middle of the rankings and that typically forces you into a specific play style or you just adapt to AI fighting wars that they have little chance of winning. I like the proposed change and I imagine it will be easier to stay in the middle of the pack without compromising your preferred victory condition. Maybe now I would need to get gamey with positioning my units one tile outside of a city or fort just to boost my rankings.

 

[JohnnyNT]

Noticed weird behavior of Egyptian War Chariots, not sure if intended. The tooltip for unique promotion "Gift of the Pharaoh" states that the unit will provide production on kill for the capital. Yet, I noticed that if the kill is made with the unit standing in my own territory, then production is given to the city the tile belongs to. Bug or feature?

 

[Patee]

Anyone else experienced weird fact of disappearing planes (triplanes in my current game) form the city?
Had two planes garrisoned in the city, next turn they are gone.

Avalivable oil goes up the same turn

 

[CppMaster]

Anyone else experienced weird fact of disappearing planes (triplanes in my current game) form the city?
Had two planes garrisoned in the city, next turn they are gone.

Avalivable oil goes up the same turn

Yes. It's fixed, but the bugfix is not released yet.

 

[Patee]

Yes. It's fixed, but the bugfix is not released yet.

Thanks for quick reply.
So waiting for new release.

 

[Recursive]

Upcoming diplomacy changes for next hotfix/version:

AI aggression substantially increased (may need additional tweaking; please provide feedback on this)
- Especially increased for Authority/Imperialism/Autocracy AIs and at higher difficulties
- Additional bonus for the early game

Fixed an issue causing the AI to exceed the Declaration of Friendship / Defensive Pact "want" limit and overcommitting (please provide feedback on this)

Improvements to AI approach logic when considering Defensive Pacts, teammates, and coop wars
- AIs that have support will be less afraid/guarded, AIs that have offensive support will be more aggressive (scaling with the strength of the supporting player and their proximity to the evaluated player)
- Other player's Defensive Pacts are only factored in if not already at war with the player being evaluated OR if at war with the Defensive Pact player
- Other player's teammates are now factored in

When war is declared between major civs:
- The attacking major civ will immediately reevaluate its approach towards all other major civs
- All other major civs will immediately reevaluate their approach towards the attacking major civ
- When approach is "reevaluated", AI gets no bonuses to certain approaches based on current/last turn approach, and it sets this turn's approach values as the new average rather than gradually increasing the value

Improved AI military strength estimations (please give feedback on this)
- Humans now get a boost to perceived military strength based on difficulty
- Defensive Pacts are only factored in to a player's military strength estimate if not already at war with the player being evaluated OR if at war with the Defensive Pact player
- Slight adjustments to military skill rating system & bugfix

Reduced warmongering penalties for declaring war by roughly half (base modifier is now 100 + num players we've seen this player attack + 25 or 50 based on military strength, so 100 less)
- Warmongering should mostly be accumulated by conquering cities

Cleaned up warmongering penalty code and fixed several bugs
- Original capital modifier for capturing/liberating cities now works properly
- Fixed decay rate for warmongering (now a minimum of -1 warmonger amount per turn, Casus Belli/Global Peace Accords function properly)
- Using nukes now applies a warmonger penalty with all AI civs, instead of a bugged massive penalty with one civ

Various bugfixes

As usual, all things diplomacy can be discussed in the dedicated thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/diplomacy-ai-development.655040/

 

[ridjack]

On the cusp of having another game ruined by war weariness and AIs sitting on wars endlessly, I'm just about ready to declare this release completely unplayable for me. I'm striving not to let my frustration come through too much in this post, because this is really, really, really infuriating. I'm doing quite well for myself aside from this, I declared war on Greece to remove a forward settled crappy city; that city was taken easily and, as he wouldn't let up the war, I took another irritant city of his and razed it, then backed off completely. My warscore was 26 at the time; it has since decayed to 23 as we've had zero interactions since then. All indications are that they should be ready to let up:


(Note: "The war goes well?" I have to assume that's on my side and not theirs, given that they've lost two cities and several units while I lost maybe two ships.)

Meanwhile, Songhai declared on me immediately after I declared my war. I expected this and was prepared for it militarily; he's accomplished nothing other than occasionally moving a trireme forward and getting it killed.

I'm currently drowning in unhappiness that's stemming almost entirely from war weariness. I've had barbarians spawning and a city is about to revolt in four turns. Once that happens, I'm done with this game and this release.

I understand that this could be considered a valid military strategy from the AI, but it's not a strategy I'm remotely interested in playing against. This is still a game, and losing this way simply is not fun. I hope this is a bug or an unintended consequence of something else.

 

[Recursive]

On the cusp of having another game ruined by war weariness and AIs sitting on wars endlessly, I'm just about ready to declare this release completely unplayable for me. I'm striving not to let my frustration come through too much in this post, because this is really, really, really infuriating. I'm doing quite well for myself aside from this, I declared war on Greece to remove a forward settled crappy city; that city was taken easily and, as he wouldn't let up the war, I took another irritant city of his and razed it, then backed off completely. My warscore was 26 at the time; it has since decayed to 23 as we've had zero interactions since then. All indications are that they should be ready to let up:


(Note: "The war goes well?" I have to assume that's on my side and not theirs, given that they've lost two cities and several units while I lost maybe two ships.)

Meanwhile, Songhai declared on me immediately after I declared my war. I expected this and was prepared for it militarily; he's accomplished nothing other than occasionally moving a trireme forward and getting it killed.

I'm currently drowning in unhappiness that's stemming almost entirely from war weariness. I've had barbarians spawning and a city is about to revolt in four turns. Once that happens, I'm done with this game and this release.

I understand that this could be considered a valid military strategy from the AI, but it's not a strategy I'm remotely interested in playing against. This is still a game, and losing this way simply is not fun. I hope this is a bug or an unintended consequence of something else.

I'll take a good look at peace logic as part of my rework - a bug may indeed be involved here. I think being able to endlessly prolong a war and cause unhappiness is a problem with the war weariness mechanic itself, however.