New Version - December 18th (12-18)

[Ayana the Pale]

Can you share your save? We cant really help without some screenshots or a save.

Sorry for the delay, college classes started today. It's been busy.

View attachment 514348

That's the capital - as you can see, save for a tiny amount of poverty (manageable), it's all distress.

View attachment 514349

This is the total civ stats - there's a ridiculous amount of distress.

View attachment 514350

And this is the demographics. As you can see I'm second in crop yield and fifth in manufactured goods - i.e. I shouldn't be below the global average for distress. I'm above the average on both counts, yet I'm up to my eyeballs in distress (even though I've also got synagogues in the cities that have religion spread so far, and those are supposed to reduce distress).

As for game settings, it's a twelve-civ huge pangea map. I forget the total number of city states but it's usually right around 32-34 for me. 3 billion years, high sea level, average setting for everything else. Prince difficulty. I can also supply a mod list if you'd like, but none of them change values or anything of that nature - my best guess is that the historic game speed mod I'm using is changing things (i.e. cities are growing faster than the game expects compared to tech level), but I don't see why that would matter if distress is calculated based on global averages. Honestly if nothing else I'd just like to know where I can manually tweak the distress modifiers myself if there's no other option, because there's not really anything else I can do at this point in the game, and this level of distress is absurd for someone on Prince difficulty this early on in the game.

 

[Stalker0]

I agree the distress seems disportionately high. I will note that you only have one luxury at this point, which seems low to me by turn 106. It would not solve your problem entirely, but it would address some of it

 

[glider1]

And this is the demographics. As you can see I'm second in crop yield and fifth in manufactured goods - i.e. I shouldn't be below the global average for distress. I'm above the average on both counts, yet I'm up to my eyeballs in distress (even though I've also got synagogues in the cities that have religion spread so far, and those are supposed to reduce distress).

I've got the same problem, all unhappiness is distress, there is no other source for me. Could be a mod, trying to track it down. Hard to believe it is a bug if no-one else is reporting it.

 

[Txurce]

I've got the same problem, all unhappiness is distress, there is no other source for me. Could be a mod, trying to track it down. Hard to believe it is a bug if no-one else is reporting it.

My unhappiness has come from poverty lately.

 

[tu_79]

I've got the same problem, all unhappiness is distress, there is no other source for me. Could be a mod, trying to track it down. Hard to believe it is a bug if no-one else is reporting it.

In my current game, I have mostly boredom. I had distress rampant during classical age, but that was gone by the Renaissance. With 7 cities, I'm rarely getting into the negative happiness. Spain, Emperor.

 

[Moi Magnus]

This makes me think: since I never play with transparent diplomacy, I always need to gauge/guess how impactful certain actions really are with the AI and I think I've probably been overzealous with my espionage activities and possibly my warmongering.

So I'm thinking about turning TD on for my next game to help me gauge penalties for the future (where I want to turn it off again), but I have a question for the people who use it often: would one playthrough with TD be representative enough for this to work or do the penalty values for individual actions such as warmongering and tech stealing vary greatly between games (making it hard to get a feel for them from just one game)?

Something I recently learn (september, maybe), is that refusing a co-op war (the dialog where you can say "yes, no, never, or give me 10 turns"), if you say "no" or "never", you have a hidden diplomatic modifier with this AI saying that you are untrust-worthy in time of need. It does not decrease your relationship (you can still be good friends), but permanently (or at least for a long time) ban you from being considered as a trust-worthy ally. (I think it makes far more difficult stuff like defensive pact, voluntary vassalage, ...)

 

[civplayer33]

Something I recently learn (september, maybe), is that refusing a co-op war (the dialog where you can say "yes, no, never, or give me 10 turns"), if you say "no" or "never", you have a hidden diplomatic modifier with this AI saying that you are untrust-worthy in time of need. It does not decrease your relationship (you can still be good friends), but permanently (or at least for a long time) ban you from being considered as a trust-worthy ally. (I think it makes far more difficult stuff like defensive pact, voluntary vassalage, ...)

Yeah I remember that one; I think it was from that post about unpacking the AI approach algorithm for us dummies; I saved it in a file.
For anyone interested, here it is.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I ask myself, is this code and the values from vanilla or by Vox Populi? A lot of the decision making and their values makes no real sense.
If the looked at civ has a defensive pact, the hostile and war approach towards him is decreased by 2 times the war bias. But having unlocked and atleast one Unique Unit MULTIPLIES the war approach by 10 times.
So, having only one UU in the whole army may increase the war approach score more, than several defence pacts of the enemy could reduce.
Or, having soon the tech for a UU decrease the war and hostile approach by 5 times, but having it already unlocked but not build, decrease it by 10 times. Its weird.

 

[civplayer33]

Original post.
And a comment from Gazebo:

Pretty much spot on, just want to note:

'And then adds and removes points from each approach many times, using their bias/"personality weight" in some way, based on a number of factors. The approach with the highest number at the end of this process is the one selected.'

As you noted, the function looks at last turn's values and then makes it a smooth curve, so the change from turn to turn is limited.

G

Note: I didn't realize it's been updated in the meantime. I diffed it with my version and there are quite a few changes; I updated the algorithm in the spoiler of my previous post. Edit: I changed it to just link to the original post in case there will be more updates to it in the future.

 

[tu_79]

The only positive approach in global politics is FRIENDLY? How sad. There's no TRUSTED TRADER, CONVENIENT, BFF, PITYING whatsoever.

 

[civplayer33]

Not even ROMANTICALLY INTERESTED...what a sad, sad game

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Not even ROMANTICALLY INTERESTED...what a sad, sad game

Wasn't there a diplomatic modifier on one of the civ 6 leaders if the other has different sex?

 

[Gazebo]

Not even ROMANTICALLY INTERESTED...what a sad, sad game

A civ dating sim would probably sell like hotcakes. Don’t tell firaxis though.


G

 

[Aristos]

A civ dating sim would probably sell like hotcakes. Don’t tell firaxis though.


G

They would need to add a new district though...

 

[Aristos]

Wasn't there a diplomatic modifier on one of the civ 6 leaders if the other has different sex?

Two hidden agendas (could affect any leader):
Curmudgeon: Has no time for dalliances with members of the opposite sex.
Flirtatious: Friendly to members of the opposite sex.

 

[Gazebo]

They would need to add a new district though...

Roooooxxxaannnne...

G

 

[Txurce]

Presently a cultural powerhouse chooses an ideology — Freedom most often — and the resultant pressure is so great that most games end up in a one-ideology world. Adjusting ideology pressure could lead to a more entertaining late game where all three ideologies jousting is the ideal.

 

[Txurce]

I also question whether Hubble and CERN should require multiple more SP's than other Wonders in the Information Age. The advantage it gives to the culture leader is brutal at the end, when they can pick up 3+ techs overnight with these 2 uncontested Wonders.

 

[Rekk]

The other option is that the science leader gets them and immediately has all the tech he needs to win.

 

[Txurce]

The other option is that the science leader gets them and immediately has all the tech he needs to win.

Or... the middle ground. Which could range from one or two less SP's required (right now I think it's 3 more than other Wonders in the same Age) or, alternately, disempowering those techs a little — especially CERN. The more I think about it, the more I think that's the problem. Whoever gets CERN at that stage has a huge advantage.