New Version - August 18th (8-18)

[nOxr]

Someone finally posted the "no wars" phenomena on GitHub so thanks for doing that. I piled on with my comments.

https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/issues/2421

Has anyone tried a 8/18 game with Domination-only victory enabled? Does AI behavior change?

Yeah, I only play with Domination too and it's the same problem.

 

[matlajs]

yes yes it has been said by Funak in another post. still doesnt solve fact. that warlike natures should want war just bcoz their nature.

 

[Morgawr]

Thanks for the responses. Until they fix this issue, I have been debating whether revert back to 8-8 version or try a different setting the make the AI play more "normal" and less like a vegetable.. I will first give domination-only a try and see how it goes.

 

[JasTiger]

Still having issues with the game just randomly crashing. It won't give me an error code, it won't be when the AI is thinking...it'll just be sitting there chilling figuring out what to do, then POOF it just disappears.

Are there any files I need to modify in order to make the game more stable with the latest patch?

 

[vyyt]

I will first give domination-only a try and see how it goes.

Adding extra civs to make the map more crowded should help too - it will create border tensions.

 

[vyyt]

Are there any files I need to modify in order to make the game more stable with the latest patch?

And the previous versions were working fine for you? Do you have logging enabled? Do the logs show anything interesting? You could try fiddling with the multi-threading settings (try googling it, I am on my cell now).

 

[JasTiger]

And the previous versions were working fine for you? Do you have logging enabled? Do the logs show anything interesting? You could try fiddling with the multi-threading settings (try googling it, I am on my cell now).

How can i tell what version I am using? I think I'm using 8/19.

DO i need to delete any files if I just install the big community pack with the express installer?

 

[kaspergm]

I think 8/9 was the first version that was too peaceful, but since there are lots of changes between the versions a balance problem like this could be more or less pronounced.

I haven't had a lot of time to play in august, I just checked my folder, and the last version I have is 02-08. In the last game I played, I also noticed an extremely passive AI.

I played inca and made an extremely wide and rapid expansion, yet still I was BEST FRIENDS with every single civ on the map. Even Brazil, whom I literally surrounded with my cities (after he failed to settle Lake Victoria right next to his capital by turn 100 or something like that!), was friendly entire game. So the peaceful AI can go back to at least 02-08, if not earlier, if this was not just a fluke on my end.

Spoiler :

 

[Gazebo]

Let's all be clear re: the 'AI to peaceful' discussion. You all want the AI to be warmongers and attack each other/you. You want them to invest heavily in the gamble that is military conquest. You want them to be the antagonists in your story. That's not what the CP's AI is all about. If it is not in the AI's best interests to attack someone, they will not attack. If it is, they will. I'm always adjusting the AI here and there, but this core principle remains. Some games you will have all-out war. Some games you will not.

G

 

[Txurce]

Let's all be clear re: the 'AI to peaceful' discussion. You all want the AI to be warmongers and attack each other/you. You want them to invest heavily in the gamble that is military conquest. You want them to be the antagonists in your story. That's not what the CP's AI is all about. If it is not in the AI's best interests to attack someone, they will not attack. If it is, they will. I'm always adjusting the AI here and there, but this core principle remains. Some games you will have all-out war. Some games you will not.

G

That a way to tell off those whiners.

Welcome back, Gazebo.

 

[Gazebo]

That a way to tell off those whiners.

Welcome back, Gazebo.

Hello! I'm not trying to tell anyone off, but I do want to 'clear the air' regarding how the AI behaves. If war isn't a good option, it isn't going to war. If DoF 'lovefests' allow an AI to peacefully and happily grow and prosper, why wouldn't it? War is expensive - expecting the AI to slam itself against other AI while the human player watches on the sidelines is not terribly fair to the AI.

G

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Hello! I'm not trying to tell anyone off, but I do want to 'clear the air' regarding how the AI behaves. If war isn't a good option, it isn't going to war. If DoF 'lovefests' allow an AI to peacefully and happily grow and prosper, why wouldn't it? War is expensive - expecting the AI to slam itself against other AI while the human player watches on the sidelines is not terribly fair to the AI.

G

Though if the AI doesn't intend to go to war at all, it shouldn't be picking Authority. I see many AI just take Authority, do nothing and become bottom scored irrelevancies while civs that do the same and took Progress are half an era ahead. That's because Progress is literally better at everything if you don't want to war, with the exception of production. Progress gives you way more Food though, meaning you can work more citizens... And faster buildings and improvements mean you will get more production faster, so I'd argue it's better in this regard too.

I think AI with Authority should be way more aggressive. Progress AI could remain as it is because conflict doesn't really benefit them, but if Authority ones were to behave as they are now, then they will keep on hurting themselves.

 

[Morgawr]

I get that but how about this: In my current game w/ domination-only VC, it's past turn 200 and virtually all AIs are still friendly w/ each other and have DoF. How is that getting them closer to their goal? Are they all being deceptive and waiting for the right turn to attack and start pursuing the only victory condition? I'm just tying to understand.

 

[Aristos]

Let's all be clear re: the 'AI to peaceful' discussion. You all want the AI to be warmongers and attack each other/you. You want them to invest heavily in the gamble that is military conquest. You want them to be the antagonists in your story. That's not what the CP's AI is all about. If it is not in the AI's best interests to attack someone, they will not attack. If it is, they will. I'm always adjusting the AI here and there, but this core principle remains. Some games you will have all-out war. Some games you will not.

G

Hear here! Agreed completely.

I remember the G&K AI, it behaved exactly like that, and was a walk in the park. No thank you, never again that type of stupid WIN button.

 

[lordrune]

I get that but how about this: In my current game w/ domination-only VC, it's past turn 200 and virtually all AIs are still friendly w/ each other and have DoF. How is that getting them closer to their goal? Are they all being deceptive and waiting for the right turn to attack and start pursuing the only victory condition? I'm just tying to understand.

There's an argument to say that the AI shouldn't war, even in a domination game, unless it has such a good chance of winning that it will decisively crush the enemy.

Otherwise you just end up weakening both sides and opening up the way for a third party - maybe the player - to take advantage - or you drag yourself behind on economy and infrastructure.

 

[tu_79]

I'm playing now with more civs in the same map, to see if there is some action. I agree that a civ should only be aggressive when it has something to gain, and that it's not a good idea that AI weakens itself before the player comes into play. It's just weird that civs with mostly uniques geared towards aggression are passive too. It would be weird too if Brazil or Korea went on rampage conquests.

I'm surrounded by Mayas, Assyria and the Huns, and I've taken what they may think is their rightful land, but still no DoW in turn 150, King. I'm even refusing to trade horses to the Huns. My army is not that big. I'll report if something changes.

My last game was peaceful, but it was very contended too. On every pacific battle: missionaries, diplomats, WC, archaeologists... the AI was fighting heavily against itself. Some CS changed alliances every few turns. They were wasting diplo units, somehow, for I just needed to protect my nearest CS. I had the smallest and weakest army for most of the time, thus saving gold for rushes. Usually this is a bad idea if a neighbour decides that he wants your lands, but even this way I only was under attack twice: the first attack was stopped by a brokered peace and in the second one I could maneuver to stand by myself (rushing units, mostly).

Has the AI finally given up on domination? Or does it think that by developing its cities it's going to improve better than just fighting, even going Authority? Or is it just that AI is brokering for peace with too much zeal (stopping warmongers when they find the chance)?

 

[lordrune]

On that 'I took their rightful land' note, I think sometimes it can be hard to know whether you have a territorial dispute with the AI or not. You can be literally touching borders but the AI didn't want the location you settled, whereas you might have grabbed a different location and the AI is raging "I was going to settle MY second city by that national wonder twenty tiles away from me but five tiles away from your capital, so it is my land, I declare we have a territorial dispute".

I'm not sure if it really works that way, but sometimes it feels like it.

 

[JFD]

Let's all be clear re: the 'AI to peaceful' discussion. You all want the AI to be warmongers and attack each other/you. You want them to invest heavily in the gamble that is military conquest. You want them to be the antagonists in your story. That's not what the CP's AI is all about. If it is not in the AI's best interests to attack someone, they will not attack. If it is, they will. I'm always adjusting the AI here and there, but this core principle remains. Some games you will have all-out war. Some games you will not.

G

The problem with this, however, is that, if the CP AI is designed with (if not only) the CBO in mind, then the AI may never reach a point where they are capable of conducting a war. And AFAIK its not merely that the AI is too peaceful - its that they're too friendly, as well. That is, they never become hostile, or guarded, or even neutral, even when you take a city that will supposedly make them very upset. This seems like an unintended irregularity.

 

[matlajs]

u made them already modern civs with that behaviour and with this ,, thinking'' . why should zulus/huns/mongols/ etc DoW when they can develop? bcoz maybe investing into army may guarantee themcapture developed cities? ye ofc, thats not how it works. i thought see few of those is guarantee of more interesting and fun game. i already got it isnt. i say just this. civs who are supposed to try win with diplomacy, science or culture are working fine, but domination just dissapeared from game.

So if i am getting it right, thats not problem about warmonger nations are not enough willing into warmongering. but u also provided them with logic ,,if there are too many DoF'' or jesus God def pacts, they will stay asside. and that is fortunatelly for you, unfortunetely for me, inteded? pls dont.

 

[Morgawr]

The problem with this, however, is that, if the CP AI is designed with (if not only) the CBO in mind, then the AI may never reach a point where they are capable of conducting a war. And AFAIK its not merely that the AI is too peaceful - its that they're too friendly, as well. That is, they never become hostile, or guarded, or even neutral, even when you take a city that will supposedly make them very upset. This seems like an unintended irregularity.

I agree. Forget the "too few wars" for a second and focus on the "over-friendliness". The base friendliness of all AI has gone up significantly. Virtually no denouncements until ideologies. AI stays friends even with warmonger AIs that wipe out other AIs. Can this be looked into as a separate item?