Quo's Combined Tweaks v7.0.19 BETA

[ease]

You see this bug with the DefaultYieldBias

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/84d5cz/firaxis_please_fix_ai_crippled_by_dumb_typo/

 

[isau]

You see this bug with the DefaultYieldBias

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/84d5cz/firaxis_please_fix_ai_crippled_by_dumb_typo/

Whoah.

Well Firaxis will probably fix this soon. That's a pretty egregious bug. LOL.

If you want to insert a quick fix for now, paste this into the MyScratchpad file included in the mod folder:

UPDATE AIFavoredItems SET Item='YIELD_PRODUCTION' WHERE Item='YEILD_PRODUCTION';
UPDATE AIFavoredItems SET Item='YIELD_FAITH' WHERE Item='YEILD_FAITH';
UPDATE AIFavoredItems SET Item='YIELD_CULTURE' WHERE Item='YEILD_CULTURE';
UPDATE AIFavoredItems SET Item='YIELD_GOLD' WHERE Item='YEILD_GOLD';
UPDATE AIFavoredItems SET Item='YIELD_SCIENCE' WHERE Item='YEILD_SCIENCE';

 

[ease]

Can correcting the typo ourselves in the leader.xml file fix it? Or does it get revert when the game loads so we need the mod that fixes it

 

[isau]

Can correcting the typo ourselves in the leader.xml file fix it? Or does it get revert when the game loads so we need the mod that fixes it

If you are running this mod I would do it in the MyScratchpad file. I generally do not recommend directly editing any values in the core game files because messing up with even the smallest typo can break the game and force you to do a complete reinstall. There are a few minor cases where editing files directly is okay (mainly the recent case with the mod load order bug, which was resolved by Firaxis).

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

barb scouts should get -1 sight when the farsight option is enabled, same as slow scouts option ( and slow scouts option should probably just give -1 )

 

[isau]

barb scouts should get -1 sight when the farsight option is enabled, same as slow scouts option ( and slow scouts option should probably just give -1 )

Hmm. Do Barbarian Scouts trigger raids based on vision? I guess I never thought about it. I could nerf their sight if it's an issue.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

Hmm. Do Barbarian Scouts trigger raids based on vision? I guess I never thought about it. I could nerf their sight if it's an issue.

well the added vision means they can spot your cities from further away, especially if they climb a hill. I'd just make slow scouts depend on rocketboots instead of being their own option, and the same for vision. that way they remain unaffected by changes to all other units.

 

[isau]

well the added vision means they can spot your cities from further away, especially if they climb a hill. I'd just make slow scouts depend on rocketboots instead of being their own option, and the same for vision. that way they remain unaffected by changes to all other units.

The extra vision is a pretty direct hack. It just rolls through the database and adds +1 vision to the base vision of every unit in the game. The Barbarian Scout is indistinguishable from the Player scout, it only becomes a "Barbarian Scout" when the Barbarians build one. I can apply a Modifier to those Scouts specifically to reduce the vision if this is an issue. I thought Barbarian Scouts triggered invaders only if they actually touched your borders. If that's wrong and it's just based on vision to the city I may consider addressing it specifically.

FWIW I struggled for a while with how and whether to apply the extra vision. I decided to add it after watching the AI seem to struggle with the extra movement they get without the ability to see where they are moving. I thought about making the extra vision AI-only but worried players would feel it was unfair. So I just applied the code at the lowest level, to every unit in the game. Maybe that needs some refining,

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

The extra vision is a pretty direct hack. It just rolls through the database and adds +1 vision to the base vision of every unit in the game. The Barbarian Scout is indistinguishable from the Player scout, it only becomes a "Barbarian Scout" when the Barbarians build one. I can apply a Modifier to those Scouts specifically to reduce the vision if this is an issue. I thought Barbarian Scouts triggered invaders only if they actually touched your borders. If that's wrong and it's just based on vision to the city I may consider addressing it specifically.

yeah I'm pretty sure it's based on vision, I've seen barb scouts get the red exlamation mark a few tiles away from my borders

FWIW I struggled for a while with how and whether to apply the extra vision. I decided to add it after watching the AI seem to struggle with the extra movement they get without the ability to see where they are moving. I thought about making the extra vision AI-only but worried players would feel it was unfair. So I just applied the code at the lowest level, to every unit in the game. Maybe that needs some refining,

I guess making it AI only would be the best course of action, players won't care because it's not noticeable and besides everyone knows the AI in civ doesn't play with the same exact rules as the player

 

[Balerune]

I was playing as Arabia. There was England and Nubia on the continent. There was a military emergency against England to recapture a Nubian city. Nubia did not join the emergency.
I joined the emergency and @ 5 turns later Nubia declared war on me. I did not have a good relationship with Nubia.
Is this is working as intended?

Thanks.

(Have the latest mod.)

 

[Rambo919]

My one bug was capturing a city that had somehow had an encampment but no bedrock....

My one annoyance was the AI positively begging to be swallowed up, I eventually swallowed two neighbours half just to get them to shut up with their constant dow's even though neither had an actual army.... funny thing is I strategically befriended city states that did half of the fighting for me with my chief annoyance loosing cities like dominoes, destroyed by city state armies..... sigh someone needs to teach the AI fear or something.

The other annoyance was that after the first hurdles to get to 1000AD I always suddenly snowball while the AI stays static.... I think the expansion was only ever tested in multiplayer on the dev side cause the AI seems completely flabbergasted even without any mods.

Possibly mod related though at about the point where the AI goes static they don't expand at all, in this last game a full third of the map was completely unsettled with the AI preferring to play at war with me and each other. No conquering or settling was taking place at all.... I think soldier and settlers got too expensive for the AI? On my part it initially took targeted planning to keep expanding and then I was snowballing like crazy so planning did not really matter any more.

 

[isau]

I guess making it AI only would be the best course of action, players won't care because it's not noticeable and besides everyone knows the AI in civ doesn't play with the same exact rules as the player

My concern is that it would mean

I was playing as Arabia. There was England and Nubia on the continent. There was a military emergency against England to recapture a Nubian city. Nubia did not join the emergency.
I joined the emergency and @ 5 turns later Nubia declared war on me. I did not have a good relationship with Nubia.
Is this is working as intended?

Thanks.

(Have the latest mod.)

Because Nubia did not join the emergency, she is free to declare war on you. That's just how the core game is coded. Not sure I agree with that design decision but it's probably to prevent a situation where you get locked out of being able to declare war because someone joined an emergency.

My one bug was capturing a city that had somehow had an encampment but no bedrock....

My one annoyance was the AI positively begging to be swallowed up, I eventually swallowed two neighbours half just to get them to shut up with their constant dow's even though neither had an actual army.... funny thing is I strategically befriended city states that did half of the fighting for me with my chief annoyance loosing cities like dominoes, destroyed by city state armies..... sigh someone needs to teach the AI fear or something.

The other annoyance was that after the first hurdles to get to 1000AD I always suddenly snowball while the AI stays static.... I think the expansion was only ever tested in multiplayer on the dev side cause the AI seems completely flabbergasted even without any mods.

Possibly mod related though at about the point where the AI goes static they don't expand at all, in this last game a full third of the map was completely unsettled with the AI preferring to play at war with me and each other. No conquering or settling was taking place at all.... I think soldier and settlers got too expensive for the AI? On my part it initially took targeted planning to keep expanding and then I was snowballing like crazy so planning did not really matter any more.

Interesting bug with the Encampment with no Bedrock. I'm trying to think of what could cause that but not coming up with anything. Is there a scenario anywhere in the game where buildings can be completely eliminated? I can't think of any but I wonder if that somehow happened. Creating "dummy buildings" like Bedrock is kind of a pain, the Bedrock building actually requires Lua support to function correctly as it is. Hope there aren't yet more headaches with those buildings.

The other AI issues I mostly agree are annoyances. For the most part, I don't directly change AI, just change the core game to be somewhat easier for them to navigate. That said I've never seen an AI completely stop expanding. Did you try applying the YEILD ---> YIELD typo fix described above? That might help some. You could also try combining this mod with the AI+ mod.

 

[Rambo919]

Well, it's possible that I simply snowballed too early on, one of the civ's I swallowed was a expander. The only other civ rivaling my position was Scythia which basically sat back taking advantage of my keeping the two aggressive civ's busy. It was a game of two continents so theoretically me and Scythia carving up the one between us should leave at least one dominant civ on the other eventually... Maybe my actions broke the supposed "typical" mode of playing because I simply silenced the opposition instead of humbling it and thus I "broke" the game? Sigh I think RF might have made the game unstable in a way that only the next major dlc can fix... Too many extra's on a already burdened and downright schizophrenic AI.

Perhaps you could increase the warmongering cost for declaring war to make the AI more weary of it while keeping the rest as is but that might mean no one ever starts a fight. I usually play with the ages of pace mod to force progression slower but the dev of that seems temporarily stumped as to how exactly to adapt to RF so dont have a mod atm to slow the world down so to speak. My concern is that things move so quickly the AI can't keep up and the AI prefers aggression to settling because the settlers become too expensive.

To put things into perspective I play large maps on marathon. Lots of space to expand making settling that last percentage cost about as much as a wonder per settler eventually.... maybe capping the total settler cost?
No havent tried that fix yet, and last I saw the AI+ mod made the civ's bankrupt themselves as apposed to the too small armies they now have... perhaps a hard cap on the total number of military units... a percentage of the total number of cities? Also a similar hard cap on culture and research districts seperately though that ballance might be more challenging if even possible.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

My concern is that it would mean

I think this part of the reply got axed

 

[isau]

I think this part of the reply got axed

LOL oops. My PC froze while I was posting.

I was going to say my concern was that it would mean the AI could fire arrows at you in situations where you can't fire back. That's why I just bulk applied it to every unit. I have the code that could target just AI or just players etc (the basis of it is Lautoro's extra sight special ability this mod provides). I need to think about a best course of action. I don't want to create too many new MyOptions. I could maybe include some MyScratchpad code that people could uncomment if they wanted.

 

[isau]

Well, it's possible that I simply snowballed too early on, one of the civ's I swallowed was a expander. The only other civ rivaling my position was Scythia which basically sat back taking advantage of my keeping the two aggressive civ's busy. It was a game of two continents so theoretically me and Scythia carving up the one between us should leave at least one dominant civ on the other eventually... Maybe my actions broke the supposed "typical" mode of playing because I simply silenced the opposition instead of humbling it and thus I "broke" the game? Sigh I think RF might have made the game unstable in a way that only the next major dlc can fix... Too many extra's on a already burdened and downright schizophrenic AI.

Perhaps you could increase the warmongering cost for declaring war to make the AI more weary of it while keeping the rest as is but that might mean no one ever starts a fight. I usually play with the ages of pace mod to force progression slower but the dev of that seems temporarily stumped as to how exactly to adapt to RF so dont have a mod atm to slow the world down so to speak. My concern is that things move so quickly the AI can't keep up and the AI prefers aggression to settling because the settlers become too expensive.

To put things into perspective I play large maps on marathon. Lots of space to expand making settling that last percentage cost about as much as a wonder per settler eventually.... maybe capping the total settler cost?
No havent tried that fix yet, and last I saw the AI+ mod made the civ's bankrupt themselves as apposed to the too small armies they now have... perhaps a hard cap on the total number of military units... a percentage of the total number of cities? Also a similar hard cap on culture and research districts seperately though that ballance might be more challenging if even possible.

Re-exploring the war monger costs has been on my agenda for a while. I need to watch that area a bit closer. Thanks for your comments on it, I try to incorporate player feedback into my edits.


On the other points, unfortunately Civ 6 was not really designed for super large maps. In fact, the ideal map for Quo's Combined Tweaks is probably these settings:

• Continents
• Small Map
• Add two extra civs (total of 8 AI players)
• Low water table (to make the ocean smaller)

Those settings to me produce the most satisfying worlds for gameplay. As maps gets larger, you start running into issues like you mentioned.

If you want to stop Settlers from increasing in cost you can insert this into MyScratchpad:

UPDATE Units SET CostProgressionModel="NO_COST_PROGRESSION" WHERE UnitType="UNIT_SETTLER" ;

There may be some other changes you can make to make bigger worlds more playable. I don't think there's a way to hardcap the number of military units though, or the number of culture or research districts.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

could the 2x regional building yields feature be OP combined with Magnus' ability that lets the city benefit from multiple IZ? It might be a good idea to change it to 1.5x instead

 

[Guynemer]

Magnus is just OP in general. That ability and the chop ability are just insane. They should both be cut in half, at minimum.

 

[isau]

The origins of the regional building increase are from when Firaxis removed the ability to stack multiple Factories. I felt at the time that the small amount of Production a Factory produces for the region was too small. 1.5 might be a good number for Rise and Fall. I'll consider adjusting it as the default. Players who want a higher value can use the MyOptions to adjust it

I'm still assuming Firaxis will nerf Magnus at some point. But you're right he's overpowered, even with the Chop ability moved down his ability tree. If Firaxis doesn't make a move soon I may replace that ability completely, perhaps with something that provides Production from Trade Routes instead.

 

[isau]

Just wanted to make note of some current bugs and issues I'm aware of:

• Something changed in R&F that made Norway's ability to let ships enter enemy territory trigger a "Do you want to declare war?" pop-up. This is probably unfixable so I will have to be redesigning Norway soon. Poor Norway. LOL.
• I think the same bug is affecting the God of the Open Sky pantheon. The ability to let Scouts disregard open borders isn't very useful anyway (IMO). I'm thinking this could become +25% XP for Light Cavalry units.
• Popular opinion on the forums is England is very weak at the moment. I am probably going to change the RNDY somehow again. I probably won't re-instate the old version in this mod from early 2017 that let you build both a RNDY and a regular Harbor. Instead I think I'll let it provide an extra Trade Route when built on a continent other than your starting one. Seem fair?
• Magnus. Magnus. Magnus...
• It has been duly noted that a lot of religious beliefs are weak to the point of useless. I want to expand a few of them.
• The Khmer AI doesn't appear to build Aqueducts which is frustrating because that's his main focus even when unmodded. Not sure I can convince him to with what we have available but it would be nice.
• AI Brazil still isn't building his Brazilian Revolution Project despite it being in his priority list. I may give in and convert the project to a National Wonder instead, which I can hopefully convince the AI to build.
• Still need to tweak the Secret Agenda flavors. Comrade in particular is too easy to trigger (just need to be friends) without the Comrade reacting at all if you do in fact war on their neighbors.
• I think Tamar's bonus production and faith near a government center needs some mild tweaking. It unlocks a bit too early in game. Looking at options. Possibly having the radius start at 1 and increase by 1 with each government tier unlocked.

If you are aware of other things please let me know.