Relationships between AI Civs

[c4c6]

I seem to remember, that in debug mode somebody switched the human controlled civ ... ??!! IIRC, this might make this check easier.

(Or am I simply beginning daydreaming??)

 

[c4c6]

I've another idea: on a small Pangaea map with 4 - 5 civs altogether and with 2 of them controlled by one human in hotseat&hotseat could/should(?!!) show quickly results. I'll check it out when I come around to be able to play again and finally buy civ6 ... (hope next spring)

 

[nzcamel]

I've another idea: on a small Pangaea map with 4 - 5 civs altogether and with 2 of them controlled by one human in hotseat&hotseat could/should(?!!) show quickly results. I'll check it out when I come around to be able to play again and finally buy civ6 ... (hope next spring)

You don't have VI yet? gutted
I'll give your idea a go. I dunno though...two sets of the same data won't reveal anything new...

I still think it is as Donald23 says it is.

 

[isau]

You can actually see the exact Diplomacy score in Firetuner. It's in the Diplomacy panel. It's a little hard to read, but it does tell you exactly the diplo Score and State each player has with each other.

 

[nzcamel]

Does it tell you whether the views in the screen are the subjects, or are of the subject?
Regardless, we shouldn't need something like this to know that...

 

[MooFreaky]

Hah! Caught Trajan blinking

Maybe he's blinking. But it could also be that he is just vexed from having to talk to the idiots that rule lesser Empires.
His expression looks like he's thinking "FFS not this moron again"

 

[c4c6]

Yes, indeed! And it has really been a long way since I discussed in the newsgroup 'comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic' in the 'civ2proposal' thread the advantages of hexes over squares ...

Traditionally in Civ the odd numbers bring new elements and the even numbers find perfection.
So I feel, the goal is near, finally. Just two more little steps, just two expansions and I'll find salvation.

I voted for civ4 and from what is told in this forum enough (for me to understand), I am sure, I'd not enjoy playing civ6 as much as I want to (in the current state).
So I prefer to wait, read and wait ...
And one day _I_ decide, that it will be alright and I buy civ6. And it will be alright. So long I prefer to vote for 4.

"Think about it - you could wait another 2 years until they polish it ..."
I do wait, until 'I think, it will be alright' (mainly based on what I can read here in the forum) ... and boy, it IS hard to wait! ( & to read )

"But I suppose most people don't have this kind of patience."
This is ok, 'they' need a lot of money to get the whole thing started and lift off a bit above the ground ... and it is good, that 'they' know: out there is still more money, waiting to be harvested, so the whole thing becomes more refined, learns to navigate itself; some day ready to cross the ocean ... (or so)

I suppose, with size 'small' you get always what you get. With significant less tiles the map script can keep the density or the number of luxury types constant. Seems to be density.
"Continents/Landmasses" has probably less land tiles than "Pangaea", so even less luxury types.

I will surely have a look in the map scripts, when I come around to begin my civ6 experience - maybe this fall, or next year. In civ4 'creating' the worlds was a nice sub-game.

I've another idea: on a small Pangaea map with 4 - 5 civs altogether and with 2 of them controlled by one human in hotseat&hotseat could/should(?!!) show quickly results. I'll check it out when I come around to be able to play again and finally buy civ6 ... (hope next spring)

You don't have VI yet? gutted

(see quotes above) Why? I don't have VI yet, but foremost I don't have ENOUGH time to play much while I'm busy working on a project (real life etc.) ... I'm not philandering

I'll give your idea a go. I dunno though...two sets of the same data won't reveal anything new...

If one human player controls 2 civs, he sees the computer player's views towards his ACTIVE civ (special formatted leftmost), BUT ALSO (in standard format) the computer player's views towards his INACTIVE civ - still the icons of his inactive civ towards the computer player's civs should be missing, because the program cannot know that. So the question is: Which icons are missing on which screen in this case.

You can actually see the exact Diplomacy score in Firetuner. It's in the Diplomacy panel. It's a little hard to read, but it does tell you exactly the diplo Score and State each player has with each other.

Thanks for showing that attachment. I'll like those possibilities!

 

[nzcamel]

Maybe he's blinking. But it could also be that he is just vexed from having to talk to the idiots that rule lesser Empires.
His expression looks like he's thinking "FFS not this moron again"

Lol...yep!

(see quotes above) Why? I don't have VI yet, but foremost I don't have ENOUGH time to play much while I'm busy working on a project (real life etc.) ... I'm not philandering If one human player controls 2 civs, he sees the computer player's views towards his ACTIVE civ (special formatted leftmost), BUT ALSO (in standard format) the computer player's views towards his INACTIVE civ - still the icons of his inactive civ towards the computer player's civs should be missing, because the program cannot know that. So the question is: Which icons are missing on which screen in this case.Thanks for showing that attachment. I'll like those possibilities!

I do pay attention to what you write... I swear
I do, for the first time in my life, have time to play an excessive amount of Civ. So I am

Okay. That makes sense. I'll give it a go.

 

[Victoria]

@nzcamel I do think he may be right but its not at all clear. Especially as I do not see consistency over the joint war ability.

The smileys do have use for relationships and should be fixed, the fact that often one is missing means I have to hover my mouse over the empty spave to see what it is so its not the end of the world. Also as most relashionships are mutual both ways this helps.

 

[nzcamel]

When the space is empty that means they are neutral towards the other leader.

It's interesting you say that though, cos there can be a bug when you hover over the little indicators (smiles, frowns etc). What they show and the blurb that pops up when hovered over can be different.
From what I can see at this point, I trust the little indicators more than the pop up blurb.

 

[Victoria]

When the space is empty that means they are neutral towards the other leader.

But as you said the blurb is different!.... you are guessing what to trust.
When there is significant difference between the way they feel about each other it will likely be down to their agendas....So I'll look at it from that angle... but the fact the pop up blurb is different has me very confused.

 

[nzcamel]

But as you said the blurb is different!.... you are guessing what to trust.
When there is significant difference between the way they feel about each other it will likely be down to their agendas....So I'll look at it from that angle... but the fact the pop up blurb is different has me very confused.

Yes, I am guessing to trust the icon over the blurb. It fits thus far. Having said that...in regards to most of this, you are more thorough than me. But!...you seemed to -almost- assume there is no neutral stance by only checking when there is no icon...

I'll look at the icons/blurbs in my latest game, and if they are out of sync at all, I'll report it as a bug.

 

[nzcamel]

Yeah, the blurb to relationships with no icon comes up as a different relationship. Normally an extremely different to neutral too, like either denounced or declared friends.
If this hasn't been reported yet it is about to be.

 

[Victoria]

I would report it

you seemed to -almost- assume there is no neutral stance by only checking when there is no icon

I am in fact tending to look at all the modifiers as the smiley faces seem not enough for the AI settings as there seems to be a

Neutral - friendly
Neutral
Neutral unfriendly

Which may be tied to which side of 0 you are on.

 

[nzcamel]

But as you said the blurb is different!.... you are guessing what to trust.

The examples from my latest game have been put into this here bug report:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-in-ai-relationships-1-0-0-129-260180.613659/

Based on these three examples (and nothing else, so who knows) it looks like the icons are more reliable than the blurbs; as the blurbs are inconsistent in a manner that we do not think happens in game.

 

[nzcamel]

I would report it

I am in fact tending to look at all the modifiers as the smiley faces seem not enough for the AI settings as there seems to be a

Neutral - friendly
Neutral
Neutral unfriendly

Which may be tied to which side of 0 you are on.

Can you see modifiers in game somehow, without using that thingie-ma-jig that isau posted above?

 

[Victoria]

You probably could if you knew the right debug commands
The thingie-ma-jig is a hacked on tool from Civ V that does not show everything

Understanding what you mean by modifiers is confusing and seeing ... well the answer is yes!

When the leader responds to you, as I understand it they have a different video for each mood ... you can play these separately in the thingie-ma-jig to see what they look like for a civ

Equally I suppose you can change the thingie-ma-jig to display how different civs feel about each other but I have not done so yet, I just got it to work and have had a little play, its not hard to do. It is a tool that allows you to give gold, change your status, lots of things It does not seem to show all the modifiers and their decay rates which is what I am after.

 

[nzcamel]

Understanding what you mean by modifiers is confusing and seeing ... well the answer is yes!

I meant modifiers as you referred to them here:

I am in fact tending to look at all the modifiers as the smiley faces seem not enough for the AI settings as there seems to be a

Neutral - friendly
Neutral
Neutral unfriendly

Which may be tied to which side of 0 you are on.

As to the thingie-ma-jig...I'm a technical bundy, so it's probably not for me

 

[nzcamel]

If anyone wants it (cos you're a technical bundy too ), here is the sheet I've been using to track AI Civ relationships, so that in negotiations I am not caught out. Well, given I don't update it often enough, I am still caught out lol; but yeah - it helps.
Here's an example of the smaller table laminated (hence the messy writing - I'm trying not to rub out other writing with my arm )

Spoiler credits :

 

[nzcamel]

I've another idea: on a small Pangaea map with 4 - 5 civs altogether and with 2 of them controlled by one human in hotseat&hotseat could/should(?!!) show quickly results. I'll check it out when I come around to be able to play again and finally buy civ6 ... (hope next spring)

Well. The tests are...inconclusive. I set up a two human hotseat game with 5 AI civs. Once both human Civs (which turned out to be Qin and Monty) met the same AI civ (Harald in this case) I took pictures of the relationship statuses from both human Civs POV.

Here we have Monty talking with Harald. This seemed to immediately confirm the premise that the relationship icon is what the other civ (Qin) thinks of the subject civ (Harald), as there is no opinion presented there because the game cannot know what a human civ thinks of an AI civ beyond our actions in game.
(Of course though immediately adding some confusion, and maybe answering a different issue; we have the blurb popping up and purporting to know that Qin is unfriendly to Harald! More evidence to me that the icons are reliable, and the blurbs are not.)

Spoiler :

With Monty talking to Qin, the premise (that Qin is the subject, and it is Harald's opinion of him on this screen) is backed up, as we can see that Harald is unfriendly towards Qin (in both icon and blurb).

Spoiler :

But then... talking to Harald via Qin screws that premise up. Monty (a human civ) is presented as being unfriendly towards Harald, something the AI cannot know.

Spoiler :

Yet, were it the other way around (i.e. the subject of the icons & blurbs is the other leader and we are seeing Monty's view of them) then we should see a blank here as the AI again cannot know what Monty's view of Harald is.

Spoiler :

I am a bit annoyed, as c6c6's suggestions was a good straight forward one that should have yielded something more concrete than these results!