Randomsheep
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2017
- Messages
- 121
Lol
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?
New Version - February 27th (2/27)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,208
UseScreenshots = 1
This is the setting to disable animations outright rather than lowering the level
AllowSM50 = 0
I have overall better stability on my machine combined with the above
Can confirm this issue as well.
Also tried upgrading to farms, farms w/ wheat but nothing gives the science bonus.
Screenshot is with pantheon selected, no other mods running besides IGE.
https://imgur.com/a/ccWIb
Should I put this in the issue tracker?
Edit: Just reread the forum guidelines for bug reports. Testing w/ new version 3/11 and will submit github bug if it persists.
Last edited:
vyyt
Deity
What does this one do?
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,208
Shader Model 5 support, it requires also to be running in Directx11 mode if option is enabled.
vyyt
Deity
Thanks! Does have any impact on the performance? I have no problems with stability, but improving the performance is always good.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,208
I am still tweaking it so I haven't made a decision yet on which version shader model to stick with.
Code:
; Terrain Page in Rate
TerrainPageinSpeedStill = 6
; Terrain Page in Rate
TerrainPageinSpeedMoving = 3
; Block on loading
BlockOnLoad = 1
; Terrain Page in Rate
Terrain64Chunks = 4096
; Terrain Page in Rate
Terrain128Chunks = 4096
; Terrain Page in Rate
Terrain256Chunks = 4096
; Terrain Page in Rate
Terrain512Chunks = 4096
Last edited:
vyyt
Deity
@ryanmusante, nice one, thanks, I will give it a go. (I run on Dx11)
civplayer33
King
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 965
I wanna throw in some anecdotal evidence about warmongers here since that was a question by Gazebo in the thread that shall not be spoken of (since it mysteriously vanished right after the people who were openly targeted without evidence against them being presented were starting to defend themselves).
In my current game (2/27 version that I was/am sporadically playing and will win probably today, Communitas, Large, Epic, King, Japan) there were 4/10 warmonger civs: Songhai, Huns, Denmark and Japan (me). Very different things happened to them:
1. Atilla the Hun
He spawned together with 7 of the 10 civs on the largest continent (along with Denmark and the non-warmongers) and to my surprise was already eliminated from the game when I discovered and explored that continent. I don't know exactly what happened to him but Carthage and Denmark had been his neighbors and they held his cities when my explorers arrived.
2. Askia of Songhai
This guy had pretty bad luck. He spawned alone on the smallest of three continents (with coastal water separating him from the third continent) and thus had no one to war against in the early game (heh). Me (Japan) and the Ottoman spawned on the medium sized continent north of him and when he met us in the classical era he was so happy that he promptly declared war on us both. His hordes of Mandekalu Cavalries didn't do him much good, though, since he had spent the ancient and classical eras completely mismanaging his empire, focusing on filling every tile of his little continent with units (I exaggerate) instead of making scientific or cultural progress and not even having sailing boats to cross the coastal waters. So once I had vassalized the Ottoman I moved over with my knights and samurai and crushed him (another vassal). In the Renaissance era Carthage started settling on that small continent as well and being culturally strong received two out of four of Songhai's remaining cities after they revolted due to even more mismanagement...poor, silly Askia.
3. Denmark
Here is where the story goes more along expected lines. After eliminating Atilla together with Dido (presumably) Harald Bluetooth began to feast on his other neighbors; when I arrived, the Indonesian to his north had already lost all cities but one far removed colony and was thus practically eliminated from the game. Next up was Ethiopia: after crushing him enough to gain him as a capitulated vassal, Harald decided for some reason to liberate him right after the minimum number of turns had passed (15 due to the bug that is now fixed) and take the rest of his cities except for one far removed colony so that this civ was also practically eliminated. The constant warring and pillaging turned Denmark into a culture whore with significant culture lead, but he luckily wasn't able to turn much of this into tourism and so didn't become a real threat for culture victory, especially since Carthage, the Celts and myself were rather strong on culture as well.
While this civ fits closest with the complaints of far away, runaway warmongers, the constant warmongering actually hurt him a lot since it a) plunged him deep into unhappiness for large stretches of time causing him to lose some cities to revolts b) distracted him from dealing with the greatest threat (me), which was particularly stupid when he liberated and conquered his capitulated vassal Ethiopia c) drove Boredom in his cities to such high levels that despite having a huge culture output it made him very vulnerable to my tourism (I will win either by CV or DV) d) caused him to be completely isolated diplomatically and allowed me to vassalize literally every one else who was left (4 civs are now eliminated, all practically by Denmark, though I did take the last city of Ethiopia and Indonesia because they annoyed me with their spies; the remaining civs are all my vassals, except Denmark).
The only advantage Denmark gained by warmongering too much is short to mid-term culture gains and enemy capitals for progress toward Domination (which isn't gonna happen) and diplo votes through Hall of Honor (he went autocracy, same as me). His decision to pick rationalism instead of imperialism was also rather odd and makes it seem that he doesn't have a clear plan of how to win. He goes rationalism presumably for SV, holds 5/10 capitals presumably for Domination, supports and proposes WC options that promote tourism (like passport system) presumably for CV (which I am much closer to than he is, so that's weird) and proposed United Nations as well, presumably for DV (although here as well I have made much more progress).
So all in all, while this is anecdotal (only one game) I can't confirm any particular lack of balance that would lead to OP culture victory by warmongers, though I would say that I was rather surprised by the complete mismanagement of both Denmark and Songhai at times which, in the case of Denmark at least, made the game much easier than it could have been (though I had a pretty easy start to begin with). I think it's a nice and kinda funny case to show how different the development of warmongers can go, especially since in this case there were several rather odd circumstances (especially the weird map and unbalanced civ placement).
Lastly, regarding the settling behavior: the Ottoman settled their very first city much closer to my capital than to theirs (it was a good spot, though, I wanted to settle there as well), which pretty much guaranteed pissing me off; I guess they thought I was super weak from the start but they and other civs continued planting cities in absolutely indefensible and far away locations later in the game as well so I thought I should mention it.
In my current game (2/27 version that I was/am sporadically playing and will win probably today, Communitas, Large, Epic, King, Japan) there were 4/10 warmonger civs: Songhai, Huns, Denmark and Japan (me). Very different things happened to them:
1. Atilla the Hun
He spawned together with 7 of the 10 civs on the largest continent (along with Denmark and the non-warmongers) and to my surprise was already eliminated from the game when I discovered and explored that continent. I don't know exactly what happened to him but Carthage and Denmark had been his neighbors and they held his cities when my explorers arrived.
2. Askia of Songhai
This guy had pretty bad luck. He spawned alone on the smallest of three continents (with coastal water separating him from the third continent) and thus had no one to war against in the early game (heh). Me (Japan) and the Ottoman spawned on the medium sized continent north of him and when he met us in the classical era he was so happy that he promptly declared war on us both. His hordes of Mandekalu Cavalries didn't do him much good, though, since he had spent the ancient and classical eras completely mismanaging his empire, focusing on filling every tile of his little continent with units (I exaggerate) instead of making scientific or cultural progress and not even having sailing boats to cross the coastal waters. So once I had vassalized the Ottoman I moved over with my knights and samurai and crushed him (another vassal). In the Renaissance era Carthage started settling on that small continent as well and being culturally strong received two out of four of Songhai's remaining cities after they revolted due to even more mismanagement...poor, silly Askia.
3. Denmark
Here is where the story goes more along expected lines. After eliminating Atilla together with Dido (presumably) Harald Bluetooth began to feast on his other neighbors; when I arrived, the Indonesian to his north had already lost all cities but one far removed colony and was thus practically eliminated from the game. Next up was Ethiopia: after crushing him enough to gain him as a capitulated vassal, Harald decided for some reason to liberate him right after the minimum number of turns had passed (15 due to the bug that is now fixed) and take the rest of his cities except for one far removed colony so that this civ was also practically eliminated. The constant warring and pillaging turned Denmark into a culture whore with significant culture lead, but he luckily wasn't able to turn much of this into tourism and so didn't become a real threat for culture victory, especially since Carthage, the Celts and myself were rather strong on culture as well.
While this civ fits closest with the complaints of far away, runaway warmongers, the constant warmongering actually hurt him a lot since it a) plunged him deep into unhappiness for large stretches of time causing him to lose some cities to revolts b) distracted him from dealing with the greatest threat (me), which was particularly stupid when he liberated and conquered his capitulated vassal Ethiopia c) drove Boredom in his cities to such high levels that despite having a huge culture output it made him very vulnerable to my tourism (I will win either by CV or DV) d) caused him to be completely isolated diplomatically and allowed me to vassalize literally every one else who was left (4 civs are now eliminated, all practically by Denmark, though I did take the last city of Ethiopia and Indonesia because they annoyed me with their spies; the remaining civs are all my vassals, except Denmark).
The only advantage Denmark gained by warmongering too much is short to mid-term culture gains and enemy capitals for progress toward Domination (which isn't gonna happen) and diplo votes through Hall of Honor (he went autocracy, same as me). His decision to pick rationalism instead of imperialism was also rather odd and makes it seem that he doesn't have a clear plan of how to win. He goes rationalism presumably for SV, holds 5/10 capitals presumably for Domination, supports and proposes WC options that promote tourism (like passport system) presumably for CV (which I am much closer to than he is, so that's weird) and proposed United Nations as well, presumably for DV (although here as well I have made much more progress).
So all in all, while this is anecdotal (only one game) I can't confirm any particular lack of balance that would lead to OP culture victory by warmongers, though I would say that I was rather surprised by the complete mismanagement of both Denmark and Songhai at times which, in the case of Denmark at least, made the game much easier than it could have been (though I had a pretty easy start to begin with). I think it's a nice and kinda funny case to show how different the development of warmongers can go, especially since in this case there were several rather odd circumstances (especially the weird map and unbalanced civ placement).
Lastly, regarding the settling behavior: the Ottoman settled their very first city much closer to my capital than to theirs (it was a good spot, though, I wanted to settle there as well), which pretty much guaranteed pissing me off; I guess they thought I was super weak from the start but they and other civs continued planting cities in absolutely indefensible and far away locations later in the game as well so I thought I should mention it.
Moi Magnus
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2015
- Messages
- 1,868
At king difficulty, the AI always toss a coin between the two best options. It would not surprise me if imperialism was the first choice.
Askia -> I'm sure peoples on Github would be interested by your saves and logs. That kind of mismanagement is a quite old issue, and was supposed to be solved.
ElliotS
Warmonger
Mismanagement is much more possible when the AI can pick from multiple/worse choices.
civplayer33
King
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 965
Good point; however, if I remember correctly, the variance in choice was largely put in place to produce more variance in the AI behavior so that they would be less predictable. If I am wrong and this is mostly to make it easier for the player then I would be strongly in favor of reducing or entirely eliminating the variance beyond what is necessary to make the AI less predictable; to compensate for that maybe some of their "cheated" bonuses can be lowered. I think most people would prefer to play against an AI that was as smart as possible even on lower difficulties if it means that their AI bonuses can be reduced.
I unfortunately don't have any logs, but I can surely provide some saves if that would help with AI tweaking...just let me know what kind of saves are needed; I have them fairly spread out but not at regular intervals.
While playing some more just now, two Ottoman cities revolted to me from more mismanagement, I guess, since I'm not at war with anyone and the Ottoman has been my stable vassal for a long time.
ElliotS
Warmonger
AI always chooses best on higher difficulties. (7&8 I think?)
The AI literally getting smarter (or rather more focused) as the difficulty increases is a good choice.
civplayer33
King
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 965
Can you elaborate on this, please? It just seems really counter-intuitive that this would be a good idea since the whole justification for the AI bonuses in the first place is that humans are smarter than the AI. If the AI is capable of compensating the gap with "more smarts" then why would anyone dumb it down while simultaneously giving it cheats? It's like if two people are about to sword fight and one is better than the other but then in order to make it a fairer fight you bind the legs of the person who is worse while also giving them a gun or something...
ElliotS
Warmonger
Because difficulty needs to increase when you increase the difficulty level...
If you only increase the bonuses it feels more cheatyface.
Also many players are more casual and like to play at lower difficulties, and complained about things feeling too repetitive when we had the AI making the best choices 100% of the time.
Moi Magnus
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2015
- Messages
- 1,868
In DifficultyMod.xml, there is 3 variables CityProductionNumOptionsConsidered, TechNumOptionsConsidered, PolicyNumOptionsConsidered. They have for value 3 for Settler-Chieftain-Warlord, 2 for Prince-King-Emperor, and 1 for Immortal-Deity.
When making a policy/tech/production choice, the AI will rank all the possibilities, and chose at random between the top 3/2/1.
Meaning that the AI is coded to make suboptimal choices at lower difficulty.
This value can be modified quite easily if you want to play against the best possible AI, but without the Immortal AI bonuses.
civplayer33
King
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 965
Okay thank you both, I understand the reasoning now!
The increase in unpredictability is already at its minimum for prince - emperor, so that way it makes sense, although I guess one could use weights to favor the better choice more but at this point that's pretty nit-picky.
Thank you Moi Magnus for pointing me to the right place! For my next game I'll try to see if I can notice a difference when setting those to '1'.
The increase in unpredictability is already at its minimum for prince - emperor, so that way it makes sense, although I guess one could use weights to favor the better choice more but at this point that's pretty nit-picky.
Thank you Moi Magnus for pointing me to the right place! For my next game I'll try to see if I can notice a difference when setting those to '1'.
I think its a question of degrees. An AI picking a suboptimal unit to build or maybe a different tech than is optimal has much less of a lasting impact than a whole policy tree. That may be an area where its best to let the AI pick the best regardless.
- Status
Similar threads
