New Version - November 6th (11-6)

[Deadstarre]

Is anyone else getting weird forms of declarations of war, where sometimes DoW is preceded by an "empty" trade screen (picture in the thumbnail).

aye someone else brought that up already

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Thanks, didn't see it.

 

[tu_79]

Every difficulty get additional barbarians. There is now an option in advanced setup "chill barbarians" if you want to go back to vanilla standard spawn rate.
You probably also had bad luck.

Hey it's been a while since I last played. Did Emperor get additional barbarians?

I think the only change was a period of grace when barbarians cannot attack your city. It is shorter the higher the difficulty.

 

[matlajs]

i think Ai has a serious problem with some logics. It is not a first time i have seen an AI, which completed wonder into 1 turn before completition, and then forfeit it for good and left it to another civ to build, even tens of turns later. i don't understand this.

and still present and persistent stupidity of an AI, which will DoW me, regardless of very good relationship while they tributing my cs. I wish this diplomatic conversation get rid out of game and rather become an optional in ,,Discuss'' diplo menu. It is most stupidest and overall horrible Ai logic, which will DoF with me one turn and second will betray because i don't like someone tributed my cs ally, while in opposite situation, they can offend me, without me having an option DoW them in this consequences.

 

[Mad Madigan]

I don't know about your other complaints, but I have noticed the trend of AI Civs seeming to always DoW if you don't back down when they take Tribute from a CS under your protection. Several patches back it felt like not backing down was more of a diplomatic penalty, and the DoW only seemed to trigger about 50% of the time, if that. But now it feels like not backing down leads to a guaranteed DoW. Over dozens of games I have, without fail, had a DoW declared against me if I don't back down when another Civ demands tribute from a CS under my protection. At first I thought this was just a feature, a new way of balancing AI reactions, but I'm really coming to miss the unpredictability of these diplomatic situations. Also, this mechanics seems to bypass Peace Treaties. If I have a PT with a Civ, and they demand tribute from a CS under my protection and I then don't back down, the AI will DoW me, breaking the treaty.

This can lead to "win more/ lose more" situations. For example, I just won a major war against, say, the Zulu and they signed a PT with major concessions to me. Then a couple of turns later they move their remaining army next to a CS under my protection and demand tribute. I don't back down, and they DoW me, canceling our PT and the concessions (gold and resources) they were giving me. But I was already winning, so my army is still right there next to them, so I start rolling over them again. I've had situations like this happen frequently enough that it almost becomes predictable, and I could see the opposite scenario (I'm losing a war but manage to peace out, but then I get dragged back into a fresh new DoW because of a pledge of protection with a CS) really taking the fun out of the game for a human player. I understand that there are other ways of breaking peace treaties (defensive pacts, etc.), but this particular means seems almost exploitative.

Are we sure that this diplomatic scenario is working properly? It feels like the DoW for not backing down when a CS is bullied shouldn't be automatic. It certainly did not used to be.

 

[Txurce]

I don't know about your other complaints, but I have noticed the trend of AI Civs seeming to always DoW if you don't back down when they take Tribute from a CS under your protection. Several patches back it felt like not backing down was more of a diplomatic penalty, and the DoW only seemed to trigger about 50% of the time, if that. But now it feels like not backing down leads to a guaranteed DoW. Over dozens of games I have, without fail, had a DoW declared against me if I don't back down when another Civ demands tribute from a CS under my protection. At first I thought this was just a feature, a new way of balancing AI reactions, but I'm really coming to miss the unpredictability of these diplomatic situations. Also, this mechanics seems to bypass Peace Treaties. If I have a PT with a Civ, and they demand tribute from a CS under my protection and I then don't back down, the AI will DoW me, breaking the treaty.

This can lead to "win more/ lose more" situations. For example, I just won a major war against, say, the Zulu and they signed a PT with major concessions to me. Then a couple of turns later they move their remaining army next to a CS under my protection and demand tribute. I don't back down, and they DoW me, canceling our PT and the concessions (gold and resources) they were giving me. But I was already winning, so my army is still right there next to them, so I start rolling over them again. I've had situations like this happen frequently enough that it almost becomes predictable, and I could see the opposite scenario (I'm losing a war but manage to peace out, but then I get dragged back into a fresh new DoW because of a pledge of protection with a CS) really taking the fun out of the game for a human player. I understand that there are other ways of breaking peace treaties (defensive pacts, etc.), but this particular means seems almost exploitative.

Are we sure that this diplomatic scenario is working properly? It feels like the DoW for not backing down when a CS is bullied shouldn't be automatic. It certainly did not used to be.

I would consider not being penalized for backing down (when you're benefiting from offering protection) to be a flawed feature. Nothing is perfect, but I prefer an automatic approach, where you have to put up or shut up.

 

[matlajs]

I would consider not being penalized for backing down (when you're benefiting from offering protection) to be a flawed feature. Nothing is perfect, but I prefer an automatic approach, where you have to put up or shut up.

no, that is definetely not a good behaviour to a human player, being terrorized by an AI that feature is broken and bothering. i don't mind the situation where neutral or below civ DoW me for this, but it infuriates me, when that does friendly civ. i don't care, if that is an authority civ, which tributing nearby cs, nor i would care if it does to my protected cs. but that outcome is frustrating. that is why i suggest make it optional, like ,,stop digging my sites or do not sprad your religion to my cities''. Mostly because it works for an AI like broken promise modifier if it is human player who is doing so.

 

[Mad Madigan]

@Txurce But you're currently penalized either way. If you have a pledge of protection with a CS and another AI Civ bullies them you have two options currently: a) Forgive the Civ and lose your pledge of protection with the CS and 20 Influence or b) Keep your pledge of protection with the CS and get DoW'd by the AI Civ. It used to be that if you challenged the Civ you'd get a negative diplomatic penalty with them and a small chance for a DoW, but currently the DoW seems to trigger 100% of the time.

 

[Txurce]

@Txurce But you're currently penalized either way. If you have a pledge of protection with a CS and another AI Civ bullies them you have two options currently: a) Forgive the Civ and lose your pledge of protection with the CS and 20 Influence or b) Keep your pledge of protection with the CS and get DoW'd by the AI Civ. It used to be that if you challenged the Civ you'd get a negative diplomatic penalty with them and a small chance for a DoW, but currently the DoW seems to trigger 100% of the time.

Yeah, I get it, and can see why someone may not like the way it works. The version you prefer is too advantageous, in my opinion. From my pov, you can either stay out of the protection game and avoid all the problems you mentioned, or opt for the benefits and take the minuses with the pluses. It reminds me of DP's in that way.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I think losing 20 points of influence (along with the PoP) is a very small penalty, so I'd increase it. As for the DoW on not backing down, I don't have enough experience to comment on.

 

[matlajs]

i think it shall be that you come to them and throw the critic on them for bullying your cs ally. not that they come laughing at you because it is either bugged or badly coded(if inteded i don't see the reason behind it). i don't see a Dow on civ, which actually trade with them, providing them free gold just for help, sharing religion with them + more another positive modifiers nothing more than just bug. and increasing penalty on second option just because you can not choose the first one is also stupid idea. once it will be 50-50 or at least DoW will make a sense, than you can come wtih - more than 20 influence for breaking pop.

 

[Moi Magnus]

i think it shall be that you come to them and throw the critic on them for bullying your cs ally. not that they come laughing at you because it is either bugged or badly coded(if inteded i don't see the reason behind it). i don't see a Dow on civ, which actually trade with them, providing them free gold just for help, sharing religion with them + more another positive modifiers nothing more than just bug.

I agree that the true problem is that some civs bully the CS under the protection of their friends.
However, I find it normal that if you bully the CS of someone, even a friend, you end up at war with him...

 

[matlajs]

However, I find it normal that if you bully the CS of someone, even a friend, you end up at war with him...

ofcourse. not strictly imediatelly at war if friend is true. but you are right, that an option for DoW should be on damaged side.

edit: it would be awesome and reasonable having that work same way like espionage conversations. 1 time you can pardon them, second only break pop or DoW them.

 

[matlajs]

and btw. trade routes with firaxite materials still getting plundered. but passing through the enemy lands, so if that works that way, that they can not be plundered just by units in lands of noone, thats ok then.

 

[infidel88]

Can you change CS quest to acquire certain city, so it is accomplished once you liberate that city. Because technically civ did acquire it, but ceded in a second.

 

[Chandler]

Can you change CS quest to acquire certain city, so it is accomplished once you liberate that city. Because technically civ did acquire it, but ceded in a second.

I think it wouldn't make sense that way. Those CS want you to acquire a certain city because they think it's a "strategical settlement" (or whatever). If you are not going to keep the city after conquering it, what's the point? It'd be different if the mission was conquering for the sake of conquering, to show them how strong you are. A change for the objectives of that mission would be needed.

 

[CrazyG]

I have two questions about building wonders

The first is why doesn't production overflow. I've tested this multiple times, any extra hammers you have over the total cost of the wonder will not go into the next project, and I don't see any reason for this

The second is when you advance to the next era, the cost of wonders goes down. Which leads to this weird situation where I've already put more hammers into the wonder than the wonder actually costs (I'm currently 249 out of 244 required for the great wall), but another civ still builds it before me.......... This is pretty silly, isn't it?

 

[Moi Magnus]

The second is when you advance to the next era, the cost of wonders goes down. Which leads to this weird situation where I've already put more hammers into the wonder than the wonder actually costs (I'm currently 249 out of 244 required for the great wall), but another civ still builds it before me.......... This is pretty silly, isn't it?

That's a strange consequence of penalities for having more wonders...
(Since the penality for having wonders to wonder production cost decrease at each new era...)

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

@Gazebo , not sure if intended, but I reload my last game in the early stages and the AI selected two different pantheons in two versions of the same turn. Playing on Deity, I was under the impression that the AI will always make the same choice (the best one) barring changes in circumstances, which there weren't (IIRC, it was that AI's turn immediately after mine, without me picking a pantheon that turn).

 

[Gazebo]

@Gazebo , not sure if intended, but I reload my last game in the early stages and the AI selected two different pantheons in two versions of the same turn. Playing on Deity, I was under the impression that the AI will always make the same choice (the best one) barring changes in circumstances, which there weren't (IIRC, it was that AI's turn immediately after mine, without me picking a pantheon that turn).

No, there's a small RNG added to each selection over a certain score threshold every time (the score, not the end selection). So that's what you are seeing.

G