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

[Recursive]

So there IS an issue with AI peace logic: AI has psychic knowledge of whether any of your cities are in danger, and refuses to make peace if they're not in danger and you are, even if they can't see the danger or city in question (although only if it's a major danger).

And in general, its evaluations of danger levels pull the knowledge directly from the game rather than from information the player actually has.

I'll talk to ilteroi about implementing a less unfair danger evaluation system.

https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/issues/6773

Update: Fixed the issue for next version, along with a few other things.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

One of the changes i can feel the impact in my latest game is AI bonuses scaling with game speed; it's actually harder to keep up with AI on epic speed and you are forced to do something about them to not get run over even on Emperor.

Getting a religion in this version is particularly difficult on Epic speed even with a civ like progress Ethiopia with god of open sky with stele then shrine in every city; first religion was founded at t110 with goddess of home by an unmet civ, turn 112 THREE religions were founded two by unmet civs and one by authority America with god of the expanse and no faith monopoly, turn 130 ish tradition polynesia with ancestor worship.

 

[Sp00ks]

Does anyone else ask friendly civ to have declaration of friendship and they refuse, then like 2 turns later they ask for one. Also I've never been able to get a friendly civ to declare war on someone with me, even if it's the person closest to winning, even though they have denounced them. Also they almost always refuse defensive pacts, and yet the AI runaway civ (who you'd think other civs would hate because they are the closest to winning) has like 3-4 defensive pacts (with people I don't even think they are super friendly with), making it extremely hard to try and war the runaway to cut them down to size.

 

[Recursive]

Does anyone else ask friendly civ to have declaration of friendship and they refuse, then like 2 turns later they ask for one. Also I've never been able to get a friendly civ to declare war on someone with me, even if it's the person closest to winning, even though they have denounced them. Also they almost always refuse defensive pacts, and yet the AI runaway civ (who you'd think other civs would hate because they are the closest to winning) has like 3-4 defensive pacts (with people I don't even think they are super friendly with), making it extremely hard to try and war the runaway to cut them down to size.

First point is intended: AI updates their list of desired friends on every turn. For the other two, it's on my list of issues to fix.

 

[Sp00ks]

First point is intended: AI updates their list of desired friends on every turn. For the other two, it's on my list of issues to fix.

Thanks for the reply! Yeah I definitely think if one civ is like 8 or so techs above everyone else (or 2+ policies) everyone should start to hate them. They sorta do if it's the end of the game and they are close to a victory condition, but its too little too late.

 

[crdvis16]

Thanks for the reply! Yeah I definitely think if one civ is like 8 or so techs above everyone else (or 2+ policies) everyone should start to hate them. They sorta do if it's the end of the game and they are close to a victory condition, but its too little too late.

I've been seeing the AI really hate runaways in my games. In my last two games the AI at the top leading in techs/policies/wonders ended up getting denounced and DoW'd by most of the world. In one game it was Korea and he was denounced/DoW'd by all 7 of us. In the next it was Austria and China- they got denounced/DoW'd by 5 of us (for some reason Sweden was China's BFF and didn't dog pile).

Not that anecdotal evidence is super convincing- maybe I'm just getting lucky with AI acting logically or you're getting unlucky with AI acting stupidly for whatever reason. Just wanted to share my experience.

 

[looorg]

I've been seeing the AI really hate runaways in my games. In my last two games the AI at the top leading in techs/policies/wonders ended up getting denounced and DoW'd by most of the world. In one game it was Korea and he was denounced/DoW'd by all 7 of us. In the next it was Austria and China- they got denounced/DoW'd by 5 of us (for some reason Sweden was China's BFF and didn't dog pile).

Not that anecdotal evidence is super convincing- maybe I'm just getting lucky with AI acting logically or you're getting unlucky with AI acting stupidly for whatever reason. Just wanted to share my experience.

Question is then -- did you, not just you but all the other AI civs, manage to stop the snowball? Or was all those declarations, denouncements or wars for nothing? Did they in some way actually just feed the snowballer even more fodder and cities or did it stop them?

 

[Recursive]

Upcoming diplomacy changes for next version:

Bugfixes
- Fixed "turns since city capture" mechanic to work properly when considering peace, war score
- Fixed war damage not decaying properly while at war
- Fixed unit valuation issue in war score calculation
- AI no longer psychically detects whether the other player's cities are in danger when evaluating war state/peace willingness (they now need to have visibility of the city OR have revealed the city and have units/visibility nearby)
- Other bugfixes

AI approach prioritization now gives a bonus to the player with the #1 value for that approach, scaling with the number of other players in the game

Improvements to AI peace willingness
- If you have >= 95 warscore, the AI will ignore the requirement to be at war for 10 turns, and will always accept peace if it can
- AIs with the Cult of Personality tenet will now intentionally prolong the war against their highest warscore target, not all players they're at war with (if multiple players are at 100 warscore, the weaker enemy is prioritized)
- Code cleanup

Significant improvements to AI danger/threat evaluations
- AI logic for evaluating war state improved
- AI diplomacy more responsive to war state
- AI is now significantly more aggressive & guarded towards large-scale conquerors throughout the game
- AI desire to attack weak players scales, and factors in current state of relations, AI personality values, level of weakness and level of competition
- Adjusted comparative strength evaluation thresholds ("weak" now 33% up from 25%, "average" now 75-125% instead of 75-100%)
- AI more opportunistic in evaluating player weakness
- When considering whether to declare war, AI now searches for nearby other players who it thinks might dogpile them, assesses their threat level based on current state of relations, proximity, 
military strength and # of cities captured, and changes war willingness accordingly

AI approach selection now factors in Social Policy choices
- Authority, Imperialism, Autocracy AIs are all significantly more likely to declare war or be hostile (this was already the case, but intensified)
- Tradition AIs are more aggressive against early game competitors who are weaker than them, more aggressive to Wonder competitors, and more friendly otherwise
- Progress AIs are more reluctant to declare war in the early game, as they focus on building infrastructure
- Fealty AIs are more friendly towards players with shared religion, more aggressive towards players with an opposing religion
- Statecraft AIs are more aggressive towards players who mess with their City-States as well as their top World Congress competitor, and are more friendly otherwise
- Artistry AIs are more aggressive towards players who have cultural influence over them, are stealing artifacts from them, or are competing for Wonders, and are more friendly otherwise (particularly if you build landmarks)
- Industry AIs are more friendly to players they consider strategic trade partners
- Rationalism AIs are more aggressive to technological competitors and more friendly to non-competitors
- All of these changes scale with AI personality, leader traits, and competition status
- Backstabbers receive no positive bonuses from any of this

I would really like to get feedback on the AI's diplomacy in the next version, as it needs playtesting

As always, you can discuss all things diplomacy in the dedicated thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/diplomacy-ai-development.655040/

 

[Dolen2]

Thanks!

Btw, I'd prefer that there be less defensive pacts made for more dynamic gameplay.
It seems that AI is too hesitant to declare war because of that, in one instance my pal Shaka never declared war for the entire game

Let there be war, let there be blood!

 

[Recursive]

Thanks!

Btw, I'd prefer that there be less defensive pacts made for more dynamic gameplay.
It seems that AI is too hesitant to declare war because of that, in one instance my pal Shaka never declared war for the entire game

Let there be war, let there be blood!

I fixed an issue causing the AI to make too many Defensive Pacts, there should hopefully be some improvement in the next version. If not, improvements are forthcoming soon.

 

[Dolen2]

Can't wait!

 

[ridjack]

Update: Fixed the issue for next version, along with a few other things.

Glad to hear there was a trackable issue and that it's been fixed! Any notion when a version with these changes will be forthcoming? The current suite of issues is at showstopper status for me, so I'm eager.

 

[Recursive]

Glad to hear there was a trackable issue and that it's been fixed! Any notion when a version with these changes will be forthcoming? The current suite of issues is at showstopper status for me, so I'm eager.

I changed it so that AI doesn't consider what's happening in a city for war state evaluation or peace willingness unless it can:
- See the city, or an adjacent plot
- Has revealed the city, and the city is within 8 tiles of one of its own cities or 6 tiles of one of its units (+1/2 on Immortal/Deity), not counting trade units. Sea units have a "sight radius" of 3 if the other city isn't coastal, to reflect that limitation.

Also tweaked another thing or two relating to peace logic.

No idea at all, you'd have to ask Gazebo.

 

[crdvis16]

Question is then -- did you, not just you but all the other AI civs, manage to stop the snowball? Or was all those declarations, denouncements or wars for nothing? Did they in some way actually just feed the snowballer even more fodder and cities or did it stop them?

In the first instance with the Korea runaway, yes. I was India, Korea was 10+ techs ahead in the mid game (standard/standard/immortal). Everyone denounced, sanctioned, and DoW'd him. He didn't lose any cities but it impacted him nonetheless. I was able to reach parity and then squeeze a few techs ahead and snatch a science victory. Sanctions and or luxury bans = no corporation, which can be huge. Sanctions also mean less trade routes and no strategic/lux trading which can hurt your economy and happiness. Last, having to replace units and suffering war weariness can spiral things too.

Once I got parity with Korea and began building spaceship parts everyone turned on me too, though it was a bit too late at that point and I was able to defend myself for long enough.

In the 2nd instance, I'm not sure. China/Austria were running away. I was Byzantium trying a goofy wide/tourism game based around sacred sites and Prophecy so more for experiment/fun. It seemed like the wars were going to hurt Austria (Portugal and I were taking his CS allies out and threatening coastal cities). China was geographically more safe so not sure if his nearest threat (Ottomans) were going to make headway. I ended up abandoning the game not long after, though, once it became apparent that even if Austria/China got slowed down I still wasn't going to be the one to win. It seemed like Portugal was the one joining Austria/China as a leader so from her perspective it worked I suppose?

 

[Bromar1]

Sanctions and or luxury bans = no corporation, which can be huge. Sanctions also mean less trade routes and no strategic/lux trading which can hurt your economy and happiness. Last, having to replace units and suffering war weariness can spiral things too.

This is why I think there should be a 60 turn time limit on sanctions. It's one thing getting sanctioned as a wide warmonger, but tall-leaning civs have little to no chance of meaningfully regaining any kind of geopolitical control.

 

[InkAxis]

This is why I think there should be a 60 turn time limit on sanctions. It's one thing getting sanctioned as a wide warmonger, but tall-leaning civs have little to no chance of meaningfully regaining any kind of geopolitical control.

I like where sanctions are right now. Usually if someone is running away the only option is to declare war or sanction, I would like to keep that option, and right now it's short enough that you can survive but not too short were you can thrive and grow too much.

 

[danymatrix]

Hi. will there be a new version soon with the corrections? thanks in advance

 

[Sp00ks]

Honestly, I think WC stuff needs to get stronger, not weaker by limiting sanctions. Sanctions and decolonization are basically your only way of counterplay against a runaway civ (or theirs against yours). You can pass scholars in residence and travel ban or whatever, but none of that will ever help you actually catch up to someone. On Continents, you literally cannot stop a runaway civ on another continent until late Renaissance, and by that time, it's often too late to actually cut them down to size with a DoW. Idk, maybe I'm just unlucky or bad, but every game there's one civ (sometimes it's me, I'm not saying this is just the A.I.s fault) that just completely runs away with it, and it's almost always too far away to deal with mid-game. Maybe I'm alone on this, but I think adding a few late-game WC choices that can actually help even out the playing field. Something like, "Freedom of Information (Civ)", which would automatically bring everyone else up to their tech level. Or "Liberation (Civ)" which would free all their captured cities (maybe not capitals though?). Or instead maybe something that limits their army size.
The reason for those is, we already have travel ban as a counterplay to tourism wins, and we have decolonization/sphere of influence/open door as counterplay to diplomacy wins. All we have for Science is global science initiative and the one that makes spaceship parts take more hammers, and against war is just global peace accords and stopping nukes. And those two just feel like they aren't enough. Especially the spaceship parts one for science doesn't (at least in my experience) do very much

 

[bigcat88]

Hi. will there be a new version soon with the corrections? thanks in advance

we all waiting for it. maybe a day? maybe a week? no one except Lord knows..

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

I started three games on this patch Epic speed Emperor difficulty and there is something really odd but i cannot put my hands on it, the game feels significantly difficult for a reason or another ... Civs start to runaway in techs & policies much earlier, there is an incredible happiness problem in late medieval/ early renaissance that even as a progress civ with 7 or 8 cities i cannot stay above 50% bappiness for whatever reason.