pacifism and AI

[smusebaer]

Last weekend I joined a game of FFH and took over the kuriotates. They had 9 science and -9 income in turn 350. They didn´t develop any tech for money or scienceand where running pacifism (and had a lot of archers) until than i watched comuters with pacifism and i think they suck. They spamm units and stop researching. Perhaps AI shouldn´t run this civic?

 

[Blackmantle]

Perhaps the civic could use some! reworking (given the other very neat choices in that category. Some of which are available right from the start.)?

Half as much additional upkeep or none might! just be as fine (I'm leaning towards half as much as being a good spot but have no idea if it really would help the AI.).

I don't think trying to teach the AI to neglect military is a good idea... and quite some players might agree that pacifism is a bit subpar (but far from useless so its a viable option even without an improvement even if it doesn't shine.).

If further balancing is seen as needed to compensate for an improvement, increasing the upkeep is always an option.
(and since the benefits take time to leverage, that actually sounds like a more reasonable tool to balance that civic than quite some others.)

 

[Dark Russell]

Instead of costing and extra gold per unit, why not just make units more expensive to build under Pacifism, say +25 to +40% build time? That way you can still build an army, it's just more difficult.

 

[Blackmantle]

Another neat choice which wouldn't at least gimp high-level AIs all to much. Good idea.

40% seems to hefty though. +25% is already quite a fine and it fits the flavor. Even 10-20% might be enough.

Only serious problem with this one i would see with that (unless the penalty is only 10-20%), is that it in turn would gimp human players playing a civ / leader starting with pacifism a bit (since early military is of huge importance especially in higher difficulties). But a change to another civic if necessary isn't all that bad a penalty (since many players already change from pacifism anyways. For most civs its benefits start to not pay off until later anyways...). and fully within a players control.

 

[smusebaer]

The elohim in Fall Further have a penalty to attack outside their land. That would be very nice for pacifism

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

good thread, I support the suggestion of giving pacifism a penalty to production for military units instead than the current +1support. ( this would also fit the Empyrean and the Elohim btw )

right now pacifism is excellent... if you have a death wish

edit: -1 attack outside of cultural borders like FF Elohim would be nice as well, good call.

 

[Corlis]

Another neat choice which wouldn't at least gimp high-level AIs all to much. Good idea.

40% seems to hefty though. +25% is already quite a fine and it fits the flavor. Even 10-20% might be enough.

Only serious problem with this one i would see with that (unless the penalty is only 10-20%), is that it in turn would gimp human players playing a civ / leader starting with pacifism a bit (since early military is of huge importance especially in higher difficulties). But a change to another civic if necessary isn't all that bad a penalty (since many players already change from pacifism anyways. For most civs its benefits start to not pay off until later anyways...). and fully within a players control.

Well, it only takes a single turn to switch civics, so I don't think that they'd be terribly inconvenienced. I usually spend a turn or three shuffling my settler around hills anyhow, so as to scout out the best places to make my first city, so it wouldn't inconvenience me at all.

An alternative to extra build time for units would be extra unhappiness for excess units. Maybe +0.25 in every city for each military unit you own, with 2 "free" units per city you own. Or maybe +0.5 in each city for every military unit inside an enemy's cultural borders? Though that one would be better called "Defensiveness" than "Pacifism" I think.

 

[Imuratep]

Just make it 100% as in vanilla civ or if you want to make it better give it in addition +2 of a certain type in each city and you would at some time and with certain civilizations really consider it.

 

[Blackmantle]

that might! turn it from bad straight to overpowered for a civic you actually start with or can instantly switch to (especially if the +2 GP part is for a good sort of GP. If its for a rather bad sort of GP (provided there is such a thing) it would rather gimp the AI a bit again further penalizing AI vs. Player.).

Purely +100% might! work but i still like the -xx% on unit production far better for various reasons (the biggest one being the reason outlined in the OP . That might just help the player not so much the AI.)

 

[Fafnir13]

I think 100% would make it too good, as well as weaken the philosophical trait. I'd rather see some change to the unit cost or how the penalty enacted. Making units more expensive doesn't seem to really reflect the ideals of pacifism to me.

 

[kouji71]

problem with just a straight penalty to build time is that it doesn't give you any penalty for maintaining a standing army that you may have previously built. the idea of pacifism is to make it harder to build AND maintain an army with a pacifistic government.

i do agree though, the ai needs to be changed, first turn every ai player (even the good ones) switch to fend for themselves/pacifism.

 

[onedreamer]

Instead of costing and extra gold per unit, why not just make units more expensive to build under Pacifism, say +25 to +40% build time? That way you can still build an army, it's just more difficult.

I rather think it should give unhappiness for military units outside your borders, and obviously a War Weariness penalty.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

I rather think it should give unhappiness for military units outside your borders, and obviously a War Weariness penalty.

I really like this solution. pacifism would stay, well, pacifist, but wouldn't mean suicidal tendencies. having lots of GP doesn't mean much if your army sucks, you'll get wiped off pretty soon and what good did those GP do to you?

 

[onedreamer]

In Civ peace can only be achieved through strength of arms. If your military power is low, you will end up in war. Unhappiness for units outside your borders + WW ensures that a pacifist civ will be penalized only if playing aggressively and if it doesn't try to end wars ASAP through diplomacy.

 

[smusebaer]

I think pacifism is ok for players. So teach the AI not to use it, or change it.
If you change, more GP are not the problem. No money= no tech is the problem. And AI builds a lot of units.

 

[xienwolf]

I rather like the idea of having unhappiness apply for units outside of the borders. Can easily just link to the Military Supply cost to get a number for it. And could also bump up the military supply cost considerably instead of using the Military Maintenance cost at all.

 

[Corlis]

If we have it apply to units outside our borders, as opposed to units inside an enemy's borders, then it would be a good idea to give a few 'free' units for this, so that we can have scouts running around and popping tribal villages without incurring negative gold in the early game.

 

[xienwolf]

You already get a few free units for it, the mechanic exists in the game presently, it just isn't significant enough for people to notice it unless they pay attention to the F2 screen.

 

[onedreamer]

I rather like the idea of having unhappiness apply for units outside of the borders. Can easily just link to the Military Supply cost to get a number for it. And could also bump up the military supply cost considerably instead of using the Military Maintenance cost at all.

yep, the game mechanic to check for units outside borders is already implemented
However, I think that in this case the GPP bonus should be toned down to 50%.

 

[Blackmantle]

Isn't it allready as low as 50%?
I believe its only 100% in vanilla Civ/Bts...

So nothing to tone down...

Philosophical trait gives +100%