New Version - March 11th (3-11)

[ridjack]

If the problem was really that applicable. You could have just gave us your lua.log or report it on Github to have the issue resolved.

I was (and am) using several other mods. Didn't seem much point in reporting it if the cause was relatively likely to be a conflict or another mod entirely.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

If nothing the AI has is under or equal to the peace deal value they will only white peace. Otherwise they won’t accept the deal anwyays.

I have killed the most of his units and pillaged nearly every improvement of them. He would suffer more every turn the war goes on, than giving me this luxuries.
I think it's a bit stupid that game makes it impossible to get the last copy just because it's already in negative happiness. If I was in his position and a human would treat me like that, the other would not care what my situation is, I would have to give everything I can, otherwise the war would continue to my disadvantage. He cant win, he cant even kill one of my units. Could we increase the amount warscore given by plundering and unit kills to repesent better a lost war? In previous times, cities doesnt have to be captured so that a war was decided. Or otherwise, decrease the cost of luxuries/money in peace deals (this would prevent going to war and gaining a city only by plundering enemy land without any siege equipment).

 

[Enginseer]

I was (and am) using several other mods. Didn't seem much point in reporting it if the cause was relatively likely to be a conflict or another mod entirely.

Something about if you see something, say something. If it's a conflict perhaps the mod author could address it. No harm in trying.

 

[Gazebo]

I have killed the most of his units and pillaged nearly every improvement of them. He would suffer more every turn the war goes on, than giving me this luxuries.
I think it's a bit stupid that game makes it impossible to get the last copy just because it's already in negative happiness. If I was in his position and a human would treat me like that, the other would not care what my situation is, I would have to give everything I can, otherwise the war would continue to my disadvantage. He cant win, he cant even kill one of my units. Could we increase the amount warscore given by plundering and unit kills to repesent better a lost war? In previous times, cities doesnt have to be captured so that a war was decided. Or otherwise, decrease the cost of luxuries/money in peace deals (this would prevent going to war and gaining a city only by plundering enemy land without any siege equipment).

I'm sorry that there are rules. If the AI is so battered that it has nothing to trade in a peace deal, you've already won.

G

 

[Deadstarre]

I'm sorry that there are rules. If the AI is so battered that it has nothing to trade in a peace deal, you've already won.

G

Thats why razing being the "warscore" conquer option will often be useless. They'll often go broke in the fight to begin with

 

[Blue Ghost]

Thats why razing being the "warscore" conquer option will often be useless. They'll often go broke in the fight to begin with

If properly tuned, razing could get the enemy to capitulate more quickly, and more easily than capturing more cities.

 

[Gazebo]

If properly tuned, razing could get the enemy to capitulate more quickly, and more easily than capturing more cities.

that's how it works already.

G

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Asking me, is it intended, several warmonger civilization are denying settling and instead produce units only while other nations already have 4 cities or more?
Ive seen this now in a lot of games, (rome, songhai, sweden,.....)
I think as a human player, this may be ok, going for full risk, with the option to restart. But as AI?

 

[Txurce]

I rarely get CTD's, but have had quite a few with the last patch (not the current hotfix). Does anyone have any suggestions?

 

[Gazebo]

I rarely get CTD's, but have had quite a few with the last patch (not the current hotfix). Does anyone have any suggestions?

I can think of one...

 

[Txurce]

I can think of one...

A bug??? I don't believe it.

I'm sure it's me.

 

[Deadstarre]

If properly tuned, razing could get the enemy to capitulate more quickly, and more easily than capturing more cities.

it wouldnt be a saving grace to design the system around vassalage, nothing is designed around vassalage. I know im not the only one who turns that off, theres a reason it has its own checkbox to disable in game setup, if lots of people didnt like it that box wouldnt be there. think, itd be like designing something around taking into account the events system, its not done for very good reason.

 

[Txurce]

it wouldnt be a saving grace to design the system around vassalage, nothing is designed around vassalage. I know im not the only one who turns that off, theres a reason it has its own checkbox to disable in game setup, if lots of people didnt like it that box wouldnt be there. think, itd be like designing something around taking into account the events system, its not done for very good reason.

I think the reason it has a check box is because it was a major, relatively late change to VP, and Gazebo didn't want to impose it on everyone.

 

[Deadstarre]

I think the reason it has a check box is because it was a major, relatively late change to VP, and Gazebo didn't want to impose it on everyone.

Gazebo the shrinking violet, too shy to make big changes huh? =) anyway, we're in agreement; Imposition is the correct word for that system if it wasnt optional.

 

[Legedi]

I'm on my phone, so I can't post save/logs on github, but in my current game planting GG are not giving extra supplies. Has anyone else had this happen? Or been fixed in the latest version?

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Just finished an Immortal game as the Celts (vs. the Celts, Russia, Poland, Greece, Sweden, the Iroquois and France), won a space victory around turn 365. Some thoughts:
1. No global cooldown on space parts purchases with freedom helped me win before the first vote for diplomatic victory, where Poland might have won. I really think the global cooldown would help.
2. Apollo program is too cheap compared to other wonders/buildings of the time, especially given the rewards for finishing it first.
3. I still saw instances of an AI building a wonder and not finishing it 20 turns later (this time I nabbed Empire State Building).
4. I still saw a few instances of a siege unit moving next to the city or staying two tiles away without the AI moving a melee unit in front of it for protection.
5. Not sure what the solution could be, but it's possible to block the AI from settling by either blocking the pathway for the escorting unit to move through a small gap in your territory (2 movements for the escort unit, with the settler having 3 in cases of Progress), the AI moving away, you "unblocking" the path, the AI moving back, you blocking again etc. It sometimes seems to be stuck for a while before giving up on settling in a spot it had chosen. Also, the AI is sometimes "risking" by moving only the settler on the tile with the human unit, allowing an easy DoW/capture of settlers. Not sure what could be done about it, but just reporting.
6. My experience has been that if I kill an early settler from the AI, that particular AI will be very slow to build settlers and settle in another direction. Perhaps it's a mistaken impression, but it's like they not just lose that one settler, but "the momentum" for settling, for a period of time.
7. Poland was 10 policies ahead of me and 3 techs (when I just finished artistry), yet I still managed to win by a margin of 8 techs. Not sure what could be done, but it seems like it could have leveraged it better by pushing for Autocracy instead of Freedom and going in for a conquering spree, as it had even a bigger advantage over the others civs. My impression is that the Freedom ideology, besides tourism, allows for others to catch-up tech-wise much quicker than usual, and should be discouraged if the first picker has a big tech/policy advantage over others.

Great version! (My computer is not so good these days, can't save logs)

 

[infidel88]

@LukaSlovenia29 how many civs took progress in your game. In mine it's a nightmare - noone takes tradition :/

 

[Moi Magnus]

5. Not sure what the solution could be, but it's possible to block the AI from settling by either blocking the pathway for the escorting unit to move through a small gap in your territory (2 movements for the escort unit, with the settler having 3 in cases of Progress), the AI moving away, you "unblocking" the path, the AI moving back, you blocking again etc. It sometimes seems to be stuck for a while before giving up on settling in a spot it had chosen. Also, the AI is sometimes "risking" by moving only the settler on the tile with the human unit, allowing an easy DoW/capture of settlers. Not sure what could be done about it, but just reporting.

I've remarked that the AI usually does not declare war when you move your settler under its units. Which lead to:
1) Either moving the settler under the unit is the "good choice", and the DoW/capture is a human exploit
2) Either moving the settler under the unit is the "wrong choice", and moving your settler under an AI unit is a human exploit

Even on a multiplayer game, settler capture is debatable (for early settlers), and taking a clear convention is a good idea.

 

[ElliotS]

I've remarked that the AI usually does not declare war when you move your settler under its units. Which lead to:
1) Either moving the settler under the unit is the "good choice", and the DoW/capture is a human exploit
2) Either moving the settler under the unit is the "wrong choice", and moving your settler under an AI unit is a human exploit

Even on a multiplayer game, settler capture is debatable (for early settlers), and taking a clear convention is a good idea.

I disagree. The AI always doing something is easier to exploit than it only sometimes doing it. If it thinks you're unlikely to DoW and goes under your unit, that's smart gameplay. Does it make mistakes from time to time? Sure, but it's still better than a super-easy to exploit "never do X" rule.

 

[Gazebo]

Just finished an Immortal game as the Celts (vs. the Celts, Russia, Poland, Greece, Sweden, the Iroquois and France), won a space victory around turn 365. Some thoughts:
1. No global cooldown on space parts purchases with freedom helped me win before the first vote for diplomatic victory, where Poland might have won. I really think the global cooldown would help.
2. Apollo program is too cheap compared to other wonders/buildings of the time, especially given the rewards for finishing it first.
3. I still saw instances of an AI building a wonder and not finishing it 20 turns later (this time I nabbed Empire State Building).
4. I still saw a few instances of a siege unit moving next to the city or staying two tiles away without the AI moving a melee unit in front of it for protection.
5. Not sure what the solution could be, but it's possible to block the AI from settling by either blocking the pathway for the escorting unit to move through a small gap in your territory (2 movements for the escort unit, with the settler having 3 in cases of Progress), the AI moving away, you "unblocking" the path, the AI moving back, you blocking again etc. It sometimes seems to be stuck for a while before giving up on settling in a spot it had chosen. Also, the AI is sometimes "risking" by moving only the settler on the tile with the human unit, allowing an easy DoW/capture of settlers. Not sure what could be done about it, but just reporting.
6. My experience has been that if I kill an early settler from the AI, that particular AI will be very slow to build settlers and settle in another direction. Perhaps it's a mistaken impression, but it's like they not just lose that one settler, but "the momentum" for settling, for a period of time.
7. Poland was 10 policies ahead of me and 3 techs (when I just finished artistry), yet I still managed to win by a margin of 8 techs. Not sure what could be done, but it seems like it could have leveraged it better by pushing for Autocracy instead of Freedom and going in for a conquering spree, as it had even a bigger advantage over the others civs. My impression is that the Freedom ideology, besides tourism, allows for others to catch-up tech-wise much quicker than usual, and should be discouraged if the first picker has a big tech/policy advantage over others.

Great version! (My computer is not so good these days, can't save logs)

1. Probably just need a gold cost bump.
2. Yeah, probably.
3. Need a log, unfortunately.
4. Ilteroi's still tinkering.
5. AI can't predict human behavior unfortunately - this is just one of those exploits that the new unit stacking system allows (still better than vanilla).
6. Nothing in the code reflects that - again, logs needed.
7. Sounds like Poland was going for diplo or culture (or a mix of both), so freedom was a good choice. Autocracy wouldn't have given him as many internal bonuses.

G