New Official Version - October 7th (10-7)

[General_Drax]

About lighthouse on lakes: confirmed. You can build them as long an Harbor and a Shipyard. They are full fledged coastal cities.

Difficulty wise: lost (retired) on the last two games on Emperor (Epic pace). Simply cannot meet the AIs development from Renaissance and up. I have 12 policies, AIs 20. I have 47 tech, AIs 54 to 59. I went Authority and pretty much stayed in a state of permanent war to maximize my yields to no avail. Anyway the last game map trolled me with no coal with 8 cities and 20 % of total land in my grasp (Communitu_79a even with strategic balance on and added strategic resources, bad luck i guess).

Going back to King on Continents. Celts with Cerumnos on a wet map and legendary start. Every now and then I want to get a win.

Religious pressure: as Celts was a non issue but checking the other civs: Portugal conquered the whole world with pressure over water and some aggressive missionaries (37 cities converted out of 48 total). I had to spam my missionaries on my own vassal (Polynesia) through the whole game to keep my religion effective.

Bribed wars: as Authority (only one vs all Tradition/Progress) I was the black sheep through all the games. I'm used to have autarchic economy and pretty much sustained myself through war conquest. I do not see a strategy for a tradition/progress game vs AI bonus at the moment. At least on Emperor and maybe King.

The version is very stable: no CTD even with many modmods on gameplay (4UC, more Wonders, better lakes, EAW, ENW), UI (trade routes, left info panel, RAS, more GW)

Tactical AI: very good. Partially my losses were due to losing too many units to sniping and focus firing from AI. Due to their increased spawn AI can lose at 3 to 1 ratio and still win the attrition war. My fault not to keep my units safe and exploiting the 4 range from artillery/gunners. This is the culprit to build the critical mass for military domination.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Religious pressure: as Celts was a non issue but checking the other civs: Portugal conquered the whole world with pressure over water and some aggressive missionaries (37 cities converted out of 48 total). I had to spam my missionaries on my own vassal (Polynesia) through the whole game to keep my religion effective.

Several people reported pressure issues from coastal cities, and I can confirm this too. Cities on the other continent of a communitas map are receiving big pressure from my religion, even its far away and they have their own religion.

GENERAL PROBLEM:
While this coastal pressure thing seems to be not working as intended, the major problem is the AIs inability to defend their religion proper. I was able to easily overwhelm 2 founder civs only with missionaries. I havnt seen any inquisitor or missionary, even they had the chance to buy some to undo my conversion. Theres simply something wrong with the religious AI. And its getting worse for several patches now.

Difficulty wise: lost (retired) on the last two games on Emperor (Epic pace). Simply cannot meet the AIs development from Renaissance and up. I have 12 policies, AIs 20. I have 47 tech, AIs 54 to 59. I went Authority and pretty much stayed in a state of permanent war to maximize my yields to no avail. Anyway the last game map trolled me with no coal with 8 cities and 20 % of total land in my grasp (Communitu_79a even with strategic balance on and added strategic resources, bad luck i guess).

I see all the time the same pattern in my games. (Emperor)
The AI shots away in classical era, tech and policy wise. Gaining a wonder in classical and renaissance gets sometimes tough. But the gap is closed in renaissance and from there Iam able to increase my lead more and more.

GENERAL PROBLEM:
I think, the AI uses too many specialists in my game. I run games with the IGE an each of my opponents cities needs atleast 20-30 (or even more) turns to grow.
Its 1780, and Austrias capital has the size of 17, the other cities are from 11 to 15. None of Austrias cities generate more food than 5.
Netherlands capital is at the size of 19, while all others are around 12-16.
Germanies capital is at 24, but the rest between 14 and 19.
My cities range from 21 to 35.
AI isnt valuing growth enough, so they push ahead in earlier stages by the valuable yields from specialists, but without growth, they cant do that much in late game.

Bribed wars: as Authority (only one vs all Tradition/Progress) I was the black sheep through all the games. I'm used to have autarchic economy and pretty much sustained myself through war conquest. I do not see a strategy for a tradition/progress game vs AI bonus at the moment. At least on Emperor and maybe King.

I havnt been at war a single time in my current game. But Carthage seems to be the black sheep in my game. At one time in the game, they were at war with all AIs and also lost one city to unhappiness revolts.
Since renaissance, everyone is everytime at war with someone. Maybe this irrational bribe was with unit massacres is another part, why the AIs fall behind in my game.

Anyway the last game map trolled me with no coal with 8 cities and 20 % of total land in my grasp (Communitu_79a even with strategic balance on and added strategic resources, bad luck i guess).

I have 10 cities on a standard communitas map and zero coal too. The only one I have is from the Slater mill. There is in total only 54 coal on the whole map for 10 civilizations with a total of 64 cities. Thats far too low.

Does others also notice, that the AI is spamming their Great Diplomats on missions instead of building Embassies?
From the remaining 17 CS (18 originally) only 4 have an Embassy, 2 of them from me, and its 1840 in my game.

 

[tothePAIN]

Several people reported pressure issues from coastal cities, and I can confirm this too. Cities on the other continent of a communitas map are receiving big pressure from my religion, even its far away and they have their own religion.

GENERAL PROBLEM:
While this coastal pressure thing seems to be not working as intended, the major problem is the AIs inability to defend their religion proper. I was able to easily overwhelm 2 founder civs only with missionaries. I havnt seen any inquisitor or missionary, even they had the chance to buy some to undo my conversion. Theres simply something wrong with the religious AI. And its getting worse for several patches now.

I see all the time the same pattern in my games. (Emperor)
The AI shots away in classical era, tech and policy wise. Gaining a wonder in classical and renaissance gets sometimes tough. But the gap is closed in renaissance and from there Iam able to increase my lead more and more.

GENERAL PROBLEM:
I think, the AI uses too many specialists in my game. I run games with the IGE an each of my opponents cities needs atleast 20-30 (or even more) turns to grow.
Its 1780, and Austrias capital has the size of 17, the other cities are from 11 to 15. None of Austrias cities generate more food than 5.
Netherlands capital is at the size of 19, while all others are around 12-16.
Germanies capital is at 24, but the rest between 14 and 19.
My cities range from 21 to 35.
AI isnt valuing growth enough, so they push ahead in earlier stages by the valuable yields from specialists, but without growth, they cant do that much in late game.

I havnt been at war a single time in my current game. But Carthage seems to be the black sheep in my game. At one time in the game, they were at war with all AIs and also lost one city to unhappiness revolts.
Since renaissance, everyone is everytime at war with someone. Maybe this irrational bribe was with unit massacres is another part, why the AIs fall behind in my game.

I have 10 cities on a standard communitas map and zero coal too. The only one I have is from the Slater mill. There is in total only 54 coal on the whole map for 10 civilizations with a total of 64 cities. Thats far too low.

Does others also notice, that the AI is spamming their Great Diplomats on missions instead of building Embassies?
From the remaining 17 CS (18 originally) only 4 have an Embassy, 2 of them from me, and its 1840 in my game.

Concur with 2 of these observations: the AI cities are not growing that quickly (they use a lot of specialists) and the AI does not build a ton of embassies (I've been able to build embassies for votes pretty much throughout the game).

 

[Drakle]

Does others also notice, that the AI is spamming their Great Diplomats on missions instead of building Embassies?
From the remaining 17 CS (18 originally) only 4 have an Embassy, 2 of them from me, and its 1840 in my game.

Yes, this is a major issue. As Byzantium, I was faith purchasing Great Diplomats in the Industrial era, and still using them on embassies, because the AI just does not use them for embassies. Makes diplomacy a bit too easy in terms of votes

 

[General_Drax]

Confirmed on GDiplomats for mission and not Embassies through all my (6) games with the latest version. This is why DiploV is way faster than DomiV: you can pass a global hegemony way earlier.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I wonder what changed. I remember seeing embassies in previous games.

 

[General_Drax]

I wonder what changed. I remember seeing embassies in previous games.

Every now and then, yes. Out of 10 GD roughly one make Embassy.

 

[Stalker0]

Every now and then, yes. Out of 10 GD roughly one make Embassy.

it’s been that way for several versions now. Personally I kind of like it, simply because it doesn’t take much for the pendulum to swing the other way. If AIs prioritized embassies like they “should”, humans would get very few of them.

 

[tothePAIN]

it’s been that way for several versions now. Personally I kind of like it, simply because it doesn’t take much for the pendulum to swing the other way. If AIs prioritized embassies like they “should”, humans would get very few of them.

It's pretty clearly suboptimal play though?

 

[Bromar1]

It's pretty clearly suboptimal play though?

I don't think it's always suboptimal.
I've heard from some of the veteran deity players ( @CrazyG ) that they often bulb their GDs in the early game, especially for faith or culture CS. However, I have seen AI use multiple GDs on the same embassy-less CS, which is probably suboptimal

 

[tothePAIN]

I don't think it's always suboptimal.
I've heard from some of the veteran deity players ( @CrazyG ) that they often bulb their GDs in the early game, especially for faith or culture CS. However, I have seen AI use multiple GDs on the same embassy-less CS, which is probably suboptimal

It isn't always suboptimal but it seems to be at the rate the AI are doing so

 

[SilentReply]

Bulb vs embassy is of course situational, but I agree that the AI needs an adjustment. I often see them continue to bulb with the same CS even when they are 1,000+ influence above the contender. See example below where Germany has nearly 3k influence over contender but embassy is still available.

Spoiler Example :

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Agreed, AI should be more proactive in planting embassies, in fact I'd rather hard-code them to plant embassies until there aren't any available any more.

 

[Stalker0]

It's pretty clearly suboptimal play though?

It is, but my warning is it doesn’t take much for the pendulum to shift the other way and suddenly there are no embassy spots. AI can get GDs quick, and if your 7 opponents all get 1-2 more embassies...well that’s the majority of spots taken right there.

just like we have tweaked the AI so it doesn’t get all of the early wonders, in order for the human to enjoy that aspect...we want to be careful that embassy play is not completely removed for the human.

 

[tu_79]

It is, but my warning is it doesn’t take much for the pendulum to shift the other way and suddenly there are no embassy spots. AI can get GDs quick, and if your 7 opponents all get 1-2 more embassies...well that’s the majority of spots taken right there.

just like we have tweaked the AI so it doesn’t get all of the early wonders, in order for the human to enjoy that aspect...we want to be careful that embassy play is not completely removed for the human.

Maybe it just need a more sophisticated logic. Something that reduces the willingness of putting more embassies the more that civ already has embassies. There are two City states per civ, I think we can afford having diplomatic civs rushing a couple of embassies. After that, let ai throw a dice. If ai have 0 embassies, 75% chance of putting an embassy, then reduce this value by a percentage for every embassy that civ already has. Or have diplomatic civs start with a 100% chance of desiring an embassy instead of 75%.

 

[Solic]

We could make it more dynamic and influenceable by only being able to place an embassy, if you're allied? This way you can "conquer" or "defend" city states for potential embassies. It would make embassies less easy to obtain and this less of a problem.

It also puts domination and diplomacy victories more at odds, where you might want to tribute, but lose chances for embassy.

 

[Bromar1]

We could make it more dynamic and influenceable by only being able to place an embassy, if you're allied? This way you can "conquer" or "defend" city states for potential embassies. It would make embassies less easy to obtain and this less of a problem.

It also puts domination and diplomacy victories more at odds, where you might want to tribute, but lose chances for embassy.

Being forced to bulb feels pretty bad though. Also what happens if you plant an embassy but then lose the alliance?

 

[Solic]

Being forced to bulb feels pretty bad though. Also what happens if you plant an embassy but then lose the alliance?

You wouldn't be forced to bulb. You could use the other means like spies/religious pressure/WC spheres/diplomatic units/city state quests over bulbing, however it makes bulbing a more likely option as you might want to use one GD to allow another GD to be able to make an embassy.

I'd envision losing an alliance would not affect this, since the embassy had already been planted.

In this sense, it'd turn every city state that has no embassy yet into an influence battleground. Even more so than normal where you just fight over the more temporary benefits alliances give you, which would be overall more interesting to me.

Also realized that it makes the WC open door proposal a lot more potent as a diplomatic counter, because it eliminates that city state possibly gaining an embassy, if it didn't have one already.

 

[tu_79]

We could make it more dynamic and influenceable by only being able to place an embassy, if you're allied? This way you can "conquer" or "defend" city states for potential embassies. It would make embassies less easy to obtain and this less of a problem.

It also puts domination and diplomacy victories more at odds, where you might want to tribute, but lose chances for embassy.

A mini Austria UA.

 

[ilteroi]

good news everyone!

the excessive religious pressure over long distances is fixed.

and i do see inquisitor use in the logs, especially in the late game, but missionaries outnumber them about 4:1.

if you can write down some clear rules on when to use an inquisitor vs when to use a missionary i can check whether it's possible to implement it that way.