Please remove the ability from AI to negotiate peace for players

[balthazaar]

What should happen is Civ C declares war on you for not listening. But this is likely hard to code, and is just easier to force peace for 10 turns.

Yeah, that would at least make sense.
The player should be the judge of who is winning the war instead of it being based on war-score numbers which are almost always flawed as to what is actually happening in a war.

 

[Funak]

I do not like this feature as well, and I would like to see it either removed or relegated to CBO only.

I wish the base Community Patch went a step back and respected its core principles: to fix vanilla bugs and inconsistencies, improve the AI and provide a versatile DLL base for other modders. And not introduce core balance changes and mechanics that would probably be better off when confined to a more robust CBO overhaul.

Technically this would count as a bugfix, as it is a feature that the AI is supposed to be able to use, but just doesn't.

That being said I personally don't care at all about CP, so you people that use CP can decide whatever you want.

I feel introducing and keeping such mechanics betrays the vanilla-like experience of the game a bit, and upsets the balance when used alongside other mods like JFD's gameplay mods and a slew of modded civilizations that are not designed to run with CBO. But those are some empty wishes, unlikely to be heard by the powers that be.

No matter what you change, someone is going to claim that it betrays the vanilla-like experience.

Fixing the AIs inability to move and shoot at the same time?
Clearly weakens the vanilla ability to just exploit the AI in naval combat.

Fixing the AIs terrible embarking judgement?
Clearly makes coastal or lake cities harder to defend.

Vanilla Deity play is a long line of abusing AI shortcomings and exploiting AI weaknesses, anything changing those two are clearly changing the AI experience.



Also in case you've missed that, old G isn't ignoring anything or anyone at the moment, he is MIA.

 

[janboruta]

Technically this would count as a bugfix, as it is a feature that the AI is supposed to be able to use, but just doesn't.

Yeah, I can see that. It still feels a bit weird when it happens, but I guess it's not such a big issue that I couldn't live with it around.

That being said I personally don't care at all about CP, so you people that use CP can decide whatever you want.

Since Gazebo provides both versions - a base Patch and a CBO overhaul - I would assume players using both could potentially get equal treatment. Especially since the base Patch is an essential DLL base for quite a few important gameplay mods that aren't CBO.

No matter what you change, someone is going to claim that it betrays the vanilla-like experience.

Of course, the entirety of modding does. Guess I shouldn't bring that up.

Also in case you've missed that, old G isn't ignoring anything or anyone at the moment, he is MIA.

Didn't mean to infer that. I merely expressed the realisation of my powerlessness in the face of Gazebo's design plans and directions.

Sorry if I came across as abrasive - didn't mean to, and I'm sorry if I caused any displeasure.

 

[Funak]

Since Gazebo provides both versions - a base Patch and a CBO overhaul - I would assume players using both could potentially get equal treatment. Especially since the base Patch is an essential DLL base for quite a few important gameplay mods that aren't CBO.

They probably do, the problem is as I mentioned earlier, if no one mentions that they are talking about just CP everyone is going to assume it is about CBO, that's just how it is going to be considering we are in a huge majority (at least among talking people).

I also didn't exactly mean that I don't care what happens, I mostly meant that I don't care if something gets moved from CP to CBO as I never play CP without CBO.

I think the feature makes sense in CBO, if the people in the thread are to be believed then it might need some form of power-check, but as I've mentioned earlier I've really never been in that situation myself.
I mean I used to have problem with this back when the AI could negotiate with the losing civ as long was the warscore was between -19 and 19, because that's a pretty big jump and it lead to some silly AI bailouts.

 

[Stalker0]

Fixing the AIs inability to move and shoot at the same time?
Clearly weakens the vanilla ability to just exploit the AI in naval combat.

Fixing the AIs terrible embarking judgement?
Clearly makes coastal or lake cities harder to defend.

Vanilla Deity play is a long line of abusing AI shortcomings and exploiting AI weaknesses, anything changing those two are clearly changing the AI experience.

The difference is that this "bugfix" has in many people's eyes, removed a choice from the player. 4x games are about choices, so any removal of choice from a player has to be considered very carefully.

I remain in the camp that says the feature should be removed, I don't see a strong reason to keep it in and clearly see the harm it does to people that don't like it.

 

[bumbasaur]

Please remove this. It's annoying as hell that the war that i started to conquer a city is ended by a 3rd party ai giving money to my opponent. Now the city heals to full hp and gets reinforcements for 10 turns. Like wtf now...

 

[Gamewizard]

The feature should stay (because as has been said many times already, it is a fix for a feature that is in the base game), but perhaps warscore calculation could be looked at, or certain warscore thresholds have to be met before a 3rd party can intervene.

Also, you shouldn't be able to shop around for peace, the 3rd party should be the one to start negotiations.

 

[albie_123]

They probably do, the problem is as I mentioned earlier, if no one mentions that they are talking about just CP everyone is going to assume it is about CBO, that's just how it is going to be considering we are in a huge majority (at least among talking people).

Among talking people, sure. But I'd wager that JFD's mods are equally as popular as CBO (possibly more so just by virtue of being on the steam workshop), and they now require the CP.

I get that you don't care - that's fine, I can't make you - but the reason some people (including me!) care so much is that the CP is now vital to many mods being able to function, and partially, that was initiated due to CP's promise of not touching core gameplay. I mean, me complaining is probably not that big of a deal since I tend to be pretty contrarian and abrasive anyway (sorry) but the fact that now even Jan, who is one of the most polite and genuinely nice people in these forums, is bringing up his issue with it, should give us pause.

 

[Txurce]

The feature should stay (because as has been said many times already, it is a fix for a feature that is in the base game), but perhaps warscore calculation could be looked at, or certain warscore thresholds have to be met before a 3rd party can intervene.

Also, you shouldn't be able to shop around for peace, the 3rd party should be the one to start negotiations.

Yes. The second point should also address the silly gpt deals.

 

[Funak]

The difference is that this "bugfix" has in many people's eyes, removed a choice from the player. 4x games are about choices, so any removal of choice from a player has to be considered very carefully.

I remain in the camp that says the feature should be removed, I don't see a strong reason to keep it in and clearly see the harm it does to people that don't like it.

Well, should the players ability to do the exact same thing, which has been present since vanilla, be removed as well? I mean it's clearly unfair if negotiating peace is something that the player can do but not the AI, and how would people react to the removal of this feature?

I can tell you straight away that Gazebo is really sold on the whole "The AI should be able to do everything a player can" thing, and he is definitely not going to make an exception here.

Among talking people, sure.

But I'd wager that JFD's mods are equally as popular as CBO (possibly more so just by virtue of being on the steam workshop), and they now require the CP. I get that you don't care - that's fine, I can't make you - but the reason people (including me!) care so much is that the CP is now vital to many mods being able to function, and partially, that was initiated due to CP's promise of not touching core gameplay.

All I'm saying is that if you want people to understand that you're talking about a CP feature when you're posting on this sub-forum, you should probably mention that it's about CP and not CBO.
This is definitely not a popularity contest, but as you probably understand, there is a whole lot more to talk about in CBO(re-balancing issues, a whole lot more bugs, new features that may or may not work, suggestions), meaning that most people posting here are CBO players and for that reason everyone assumes everything posted here is about CBO.

 

[albie_123]

I can tell you straight away that Gazebo is really sold on the whole "The AI should be able to do everything a player can" thing, and he is definitely not going to make an exception here.

Considering that CP allows the AI to move units in a way that the player can't (stacking in cities, stacking on allied units, etc.) I have to say I can't really see the logic here. If it's okay to allow the AI to do things the player can't, why can't we allow the player to do things the AI can't?

But yeah, you're right on the point about discussions - from now on I'll try to be more clear that I'm talking about CP (and for the most part CP + JFD) instead of CBO.

 

[Bromar1]

Can we put a ten turn timer from the start of the war before peace can be brokered? I think that will help alleviate a lot of the issues I've experienced. Everytime a war starts, a wealthy civ will buy out the war in 5 turns or less.

 

[balthazaar]

Well, should the players ability to do the exact same thing, which has been present since vanilla, be removed as well? I mean it's clearly unfair if negotiating peace is something that the player can do but not the AI, and how would people react to the removal of this feature?

It doesn't have to be removed but players should have the ability to deny peace or at the very least be actually LOSING the war ie has lost cities, all its army and is hemorrhaging gold etc. At present it's just much too easy for an AI to force peace and it's almost always an unjust peace.

 

[balthazaar]

Here's a thought...
If civs A & B are at war and B is winning and Civ C wants peace, then civ B should have to ask civ A if it accepts. If civ A does accept then civ B gets whatever deal civ C was offering... if not, the war continues.
Probably a coding nightmare but I wouldn't know. If it's a simple enough change it would be a good solution/compromise.
Failing that then the calculations for what constitutes "losing a war" should be raised considerably before peace can be enforced.

 

[bumbasaur]

So i'm cornered behind a bit larger celtic empire on my game(marathon, 20ai pangaea huge) and to expand i started a war to capture her cities. I've had 4 wars to try to capture cities from the celts. My previous wars lasted about 6 turns before japan declared peace between us by brokering with the celt. My last one lasted only 4 turns and this was done while i'm in war against the brokering civ aswell. The city i target gets fully healed, resupplied with units around it and all the countryside reconstructed within the time i can declare war again. I'm pretty sure this same thing keeps going on and i'm unable to expand and get back into the game.
Tell me how this is intended mechanics and fun?

 

[pandasnail]

Considering that CP allows the AI to move units in a way that the player can't (stacking in cities, stacking on allied units, etc.) I have to say I can't really see the logic here. If it's okay to allow the AI to do things the player can't, why can't we allow the player to do things the AI can't?

Well, those are bugs that the team hasn't been able to solve. No civ is supposed to get multiple military units per tile. In fact, I've never seen it last a whole turn, you're saying you have?

As to the issue at hand, I like this bugfix in general, its fun to have a more interactive AI imo, but I could go for the the number going up to 20 or 30.

 

[tu_79]

Well, those are bugs that the team hasn't been able to solve. No civ is supposed to get multiple military units per tile. In fact, I've never seen it last a whole turn, you're saying you have?

As to the issue at hand, I like this bugfix in general, its fun to have a more interactive AI imo, but I could go for the the number going up to 20 or 30.

This is perhaps the easiest fix.

 

[Jdoug312]

I don't see how anyone could not be in favor of simply making it optional like events, research agreements, tech trading, vassalage, etc all are. Look at how many people dislike this feature.

 

[thunderbird_14]

I don't see how anyone could not be in favor of simply making it optional like events, research agreements, tech trading, vassalage, etc all are. Look at how many people dislike this feature.

Isn't this a dll feature (so not easy to be optional)? and also a lot of people like this (count me on that club)

 

[steemroller]

I'd rather see the code reverted than updated (my prior position) to allow for a "negotiation" amongst warring parties as that's more than G has signed up for. I do agree that any correction of the current situation should not render such that the AI is unable to do what the human player is able to thru the UI. We should adhere to KISS.

Can someone that knows how start a poll on the issue? If we're stuck in the middle with some loving this, and some hating it, then make it a configuration option. We have that with the event system -- what's another check box in the advanced configuration?