Report Questionable Behavior

[jkp1187]

IMO, the AIs should act according to the way they were originally intended, not as bloodthirsty killers. 'Better' AI should be just that...better efficiency of the original intent, not changing the way the AIs operate to such point that the game of Civilization is lost in the shuffle.

Hey Joe,

I did not mean to imply that I thought that the game should be converted into an all-out slugfest. What I *did* mean, however, was that in the appropriate context, the AI should follow through with an effective war plan. In this case, it sounded as though the player was caught up in a bad situation -- but it also sounded as though the AI behaved exactly the way Firaxis intended. Stalin declaring war when relations were "pleased". (That's what I expect out of him -- I would only 'trust' Stalin if I knew he was completely in love with me or utterly terrified of me....and even then, I'd keep an extra defensive unit for each city on the Russian border, just in case). Monty doing a rush with his UUs (that's what I expect out of him.) Mehmet joining in on a dogpile just when his UU comes on line. (I don't have any expectations for Mehmet, but whatever, that sounds like a good idea.) Coupled with the fact that the OP was on Monarch level, this sounds like a not-unreasonable outcome.

I'm not saying that the AI should always DoW you just because you happen to be the weakest kid on the block (no -- that's what the 'relationship' dynamic is all about.) The AI should, however, act in accordance with its personality AND with what is appropriate given the overall game situation as it sees it. If Ghandi's #1 on the power graph and you're #10, but 'pleased' I'd be shocked if he DoW's you. Stalin or Monty not so much.

 

[jkp1187]

Going from 2.08 to the 1/25 build, the game does not play even remotely closely. Military production HAS TO BE your main focus. Otherwise you will be crushed. There is no other way around it. You either 'keep up with the Joneses' or you lose. And just like the AI, if you are going to build a huge military, then there is a need to get some payoff from it. And that means that I'm far more likely to warmonger in 1/25 than in 2.08 (but I'm sure not everyone feels that way).

I have to confess, I am not seeing this to the extent that you are. Again, I have only been playing on straight Noble level, but I have gotten away with not doing a complete military crush in many of my games on Better AI.

Are you only playing it on your modified difficulty level, or have you tried some of the 'standard' levels? I ask only b/c I'm not sure what your mods are doing (and, btw, I would love to have a crack at them if you're interested in sharing....)

 

[Ishon]

I agree that abandoning diplomatic relations would be "just too much", but there is something wrong about Civ IV not punishing the human player for backstabbing a close friend. This is not in the scope of this project, but I think that backstabbing a friend should cause more unrest home or something of this sort. Diplomatic relations DO work in both directions, though. How? What discourages us from attacking a civ that we have good relations with is the fact that they are our friend and it is better to do harm to enemies than to friends. I don't think anyone here will claim that they don't care about the diplomatic relations status when picking a target for invasion. And this is how having good relations with us actually gives the AI some certainty that they won't be backstabbed. Unexpected attacks from our close friends should sometimes happen, though.

So I don't mean that any aspect of Civ IV should be abandoned, I mean that the AI should pursue a goal and not just fill in the empty space (because it would be boring to win the game without civs around). Builders hate the fact that there are warmongers around that might do them harm, but this is what we call life.

Personality does indeed limit the AI to some extent and I would prefer it to be a hidden, random feature about the AI Civs than some overt fact (like now). It is a bit unfair that you do know what to expect from Isabella, but she doesn't really know what to expect from you. This is where I would alter the gameplay, also because this is a new aspect in Civilization and nobody should claim it is something that we should not ever question. I know it is "cool" to know that the Leadeheads Have Personalities, but I would find it cooler if I didn't know what's in their Leaderheads.

And personality should not cause the AI to do stupid things, like in my last 2.08 game where Isabella would keep declaring war on me even though I had twice more power than she did. So: no Suicide in the name of Personality. Let's not move that far. Militaristic should mean that you prefer to use military to pursue victory, scientific - that you prefer scientific solution. But victory is the same goal for everyone, not just being there and moving units around.

What Blake and Iustus are doing here is impressive, because they seem to be able to teach the AI to be much more effective in their attempts to win the game. It seems they can teach the AI to get the cultural victory - this is what we should head for. And I think AI should be able to make use of every feature of the game that we are able to use - like the new Warlords forts.

PS Wouldn't it be possible to give the player an option to randomize AI personalities? Or is it already possible and I'm just not paying enough attention.

 

[The M'Hael]

PS Wouldn't it be possible to give the player an option to randomize AI personalities? Or is it already possible and I'm just not paying enough attention.

ROFL Ishon. That was an option avalable in the standard civilization game when it was first released.

It's in the game options... good luck


Also, you guys are getting nowhere. Uncle Joe and arguers, Blake has already said this about half a dozen times. the Aggressive AI will become an option for people who are like the people arguing with Joe. (sorry guys, just too many people to list) If you want to play like Joe does, Don't turn on Aggressive AI. Also, for the defender spam, I think Blake and Iustus now realize that it needs more fine tuning after reading it a dozen times. Wait until the next build, if there still is a problem, let Blake or Iustus know.

The M'Hael

 

[Roland Johansen]

Also, you guys are getting nowhere. Uncle Joe and arguers, Blake has already said this about half a dozen times. the Aggressive AI will become an option for people who are like the people arguing with Joe. (sorry guys, just too many people to list) If you want to play like Joe does, Don't turn on Aggressive AI. Also, for the defender spam, I think Blake and Iustus now realize that it needs more fine tuning after reading it a dozen times. Wait until the next build, if there still is a problem, let Blake or Iustus know.

The M'Hael

I agree. There have been really no new arguments in the last few days, so I don't see a reason to continue it but stubbornness. But then again, stubbornness is the reason for many endless arguments.

Edit: I can sometimes be a stubborn guy too by the way.

 

[jkp1187]

I agree. There have been really no new arguments in the last few days, so I don't see a reason to continue it but stubbornness. But then again, stubbornness is the reason for many endless arguments.

Edit: I can sometimes be a stubborn guy too by the way.

Well, winning an argument on the Internets is important.


By the way, I did spot some questionable AI behavior....Wang Kong overreliance on collaterial units...looks like that's all he has in two cities. Check Pyongyang (which has traded hands a couple of times between Korea, Carthage, and Greece,) and another outpost city off to the west. Please don't laugh at how badly I'm sucking in the game.

Please?

 

[Elhoim]

Well, winning an argument on the Internets is important.

 

[kettyo]

Look at it this way. Going from Warlords 1.0 to Warlords 2.08, there is marked improvement in the AI. The 2.08 AI runs its econ better and manages teching and production etc better than 1.0. But the gameplay is completely UNCHANGED.

It's not that simple.
2.08 AI is better than 1.00 at teching but worse at war.
2.08 is even worse at self-defense. 2.08 AI's usually have around 4 defenders in mature cities (which is a ) while 1.00 usually had around twice as much or more and were tougher at offense too.

 

[Arlborn]

By the way..Ah well, probably this can be left alone at least for a while, but IMHO Catherine is not as nice going to Cultural victory as being a bitc..

Why? We all know Catherine asks a lot and demands a lot, and if you refuse too much she send a stack of cossacks to deal with you. But when she is going for cultural victory(note that i think that it makes sense she going for it.), she can ask as much as she wants and I dont need to care because I know she doesent have an offensive military..


OK Im probably being idiotcrazyeye: ) or so(more likely ******ed), but I think it takes off a bit of her 'hot' personality..What about, when you have time and if you want, put her probability of go for Cultural victories a little lower? Unless its already too less leaders gonig to it(I actually dont know)..


Just think about it

 

[peacenik]

In addition to each individual's personal preferences, we all observe only the very limited sample of games we each play. Given all of the various options each map, map type, and number and variety of opponents in each game, any person's individual experience is of very little value in isolation.

Example--My current game is huge lakes, 11 civs, normal aggression, latest AI build. In the middle ages, the Incans are cruising to a cultural victory, I'm Persia, sandwiched by Tokugawa and Gengis Khan and in a recent war with both but hanging on. Roosevelt is about to be wiped out by Alexander in a war that has been going on and off from 1000BC. This game has no defender spam, very good logic by the AI (pillaging, attack stacks---I even saw the AI wait when I sent defender stacks to my border to augment their attack stack before proceeding, something I've never seen before). The Incans are cruising to a cultural victory because they are surrounded by friendly civs, while Roosevelt and I struggle because our neighbors are aggressive/psychotic in their behavior. The game plays better, and the leaders seem to still react logically to their personalities and situations.

This game in isolation proves nothing, but it does suggest that the current build does not always produce constant warmongering (my first war was in 1200AD despite my two neighbors), defender spam or other behavior that ruins the Civ flavor.

 

[Arlborn]

In addition to each individual's personal preferences, we all observe only the very limited sample of games we each play. Given all of the various options each map, map type, and number and variety of opponents in each game, any person's individual experience is of very little value in isolation.

Example--My current game is huge lakes, 11 civs, normal aggression, latest AI build. In the middle ages, the Incans are cruising to a cultural victory, I'm Persia, sandwiched by Tokugawa and Gengis Khan and in a recent war with both but hanging on. Roosevelt is about to be wiped out by Alexander in a war that has been going on and off from 1000BC. This game has no defender spam, very good logic by the AI (pillaging, attack stacks---I even saw the AI wait when I sent defender stacks to my border to augment their attack stack before proceeding, something I've never seen before). The Incans are cruising to a cultural victory because they are surrounded by friendly civs, while Roosevelt and I struggle because our neighbors are aggressive/psychotic in their behavior. The game plays better, and the leaders seem to still react logically to their personalities and situations.

This game in isolation proves nothing, but it does suggest that the current build does not always produce constant warmongering (my first war was in 1200AD despite my two neighbors), defender spam or other behavior that ruins the Civ flavor.

Well, in my recent game(played only 2 hours, need ot study) with the last version, also I got no defender spam from the 2 CIVs I saw(still in axeman-horse archer era, and its 3 continents) when I declared war on t5hem.

Cathy was real easy to kill, with only 1 chariot in one city and a warrior in other(!!).

Ramses was a little harder but also no difficulty. He did only one archer extra before I destoryed his 3 cities. One had a warrior only, other 1 archer and the other 2 archers. There was also an archer defending a cow that didnt do much..

I shall report more about unit spamming when I actually see the other 6 AIs..

 

[Wodan]

But if the AI's bonus is reduced to a more manageable level, then the need for that 'pre-emptive strike' is obviated.

Sorry for the delay in responding. Had a weekend trip.

Anyway, I think we're still not quite on the same page. By "AI bonus" (above) I think you're talking about the handicaps. Which, for those who install the Better Handicaps (separate mod, available on SourceForge along with the BetterAI mod), will cut back on AI production and AI economic bonuses on higher levels.

But, look at what we're talking about here. You're saying basically "throw out all the improvements made since 2.08 except for bug fixes". (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Such improvements include better citizen management, better unit movement / tactics, etc. These have nothing to do with the handicap bonuses and definitely have an effect upon the AI research rate etc.

So, to repeat my assertion.... This clearly is a situation where the AI will perform research (etc) faster and better than before. Therefore, if you don't attack, then you are leaving the AI to its strength, and it will do better than it would have with the previous algorithms.

The whole point of attacking the AI (and exploiting its weakness at warfare) is a pre-emptive strategy, not a reactive one. (That's why high-level players swear by early rushing.)

Therefore, I maintain that improving the AI military management MUST remain a goal. If the biggest weakess of the AI is military, then ALL players are de facto encouraged to adopt a military strategy, because that is the surest and best way to succeed and do well in the game.

I'll also repeat my caveat... I think the current BetterAI doesn't quite meet this goal. The huge garrison stacks aren't what we want and need to improve Civ's gameplay. So, I agree with you, Uncle Joe.

Is your suggestion better (go back to 2.08 AI with bugfixes only)? Beats me. However, I personally would prefer to throw my vote for the BetterAI team to spend their limited time fixing the deficiencies, rather than "punting", "going back to square one", "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", or whatever idiom floats your boat.

And that is folly I see in the strategy...its not going to possible to WIN the game that early (unless on Pangea). So mortgaging the future to win a few wars is not an effective strategy. You'll eventually run out of steam and be left in the dust.

In order for this AI to work and not convert the game into a simple wargame, there is going to have to be a LOT of moderation put in here. The AIs should not commit to all-out attacks, particularly early in the game. It detrimental to gameplay and to the AI doing it even if it succeeds.

I think there other options available than the only one you present.

Let's look at what humans do. They might adopt an early all-out attack, sure. They often do. However, a human is smart enough to know when to stop. Go for it, cripple your opponent, take a few cities, but don't waste time butting heads against the enemy capitol (with its cultural defense), and definitely don't grab too many cities. Sue for peace and start building infrastructure. The goal was met... the enemy was set back a few rungs, you have bigger territory and a larger empire, etc. Time to stop and consolidate.

The bigger question here is whether it is preferable to teach the AI to act like humans do, or to teach the AI to act in such a way that it makes for an entertaining game for the human. Getting pwned isn't usually entertaining. So, if that is the goal, then I agree, AIs should never go all out.

However, I'm not sure that's the goal. Personally, I would like the AI to act like humans do, and that includes the knowledge of when to stop throwing bad money after the good.

This is a good question, though, I think, and worth discussing. It's good to know the goal before we start arguing about how to get there.

OK, so by that rationale, why bother to have 'relations' with the AI? Why bother trying to develop good relations or share a religion or anything of the sort because if the AI is playing only to 'win', then none of that would matter a whit. ...making the AIs play solely to 'win' regardless of other circumstance is COMPLETELY throwing the core concepts of Civilization out in favor a game of conquest.

I disagree, both with the premise and with the conclusion.

Here's an analogy. Every play the board game Diplomacy? Seven human players, each with a country (on an Europe map), and each with the blatant goal of conquering 3/4 of the map. It's in your face. So, we have to ask, how in the world is this simply not a wargame? Simple: the game mechanics allow players to support each other. So, if two players gang up on a third, then they will have an advantage. Seems obvious, but there it is.

So, in Civ, "why bother trying to develop good relations"? Because the game mechanics give you a benefit for doing so. You get economic benefits by trade routes. You can get military benefits by both attacking a third player. You can trade techs. etc.

Yet, despite all this, the human, and the AIs too, each have a goal of "winning" the game. And that's how it should be. This doesn't change the fact that one way to get an advantage to win is by making a tacit alliance with another player/AI. Call this a Catch-22, or a dichotomy, or a paradox. At some point, there may be a backstab or change of alliances, and that's fine too. All part of the game.

Wodan

 

[cf_nz]

The bigger question here is whether it is preferable to teach the AI to act like humans do, or to teach the AI to act in such a way that it makes for an entertaining game for the human. Getting pwned isn't usually entertaining. So, if that is the goal, then I agree, AIs should never go all out.

The goal seems to be as stated "ultimately to play a balanced game more like a human". Blake wrote an interesting post at the end of the 2nd page in the AI aggression level thread regarding the design goal.

I tend to share the views of Uncle_Joe and Elandal on this so I'm interested to hear what you think.

My personal preference is towards entertainment, I play primarily for fun. Though it's nice to have a challenge once in a while, I don't look for it every game. That being said I quite liked Elandal's post re: the AI being an obstacle not an opponent.

It's tough to strike a balance that pleases everyone. Hopefully a combination of the Aggressive AI option and difficulty levels will allow for variation in AI playing styles.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

You're saying basically "throw out all the improvements made since 2.08 except for bug fixes". (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Not precisely. What I'm saying is the the 'military buildup or die' every game is extremely 'unfun' IMO. And in fact, its so 'unfun', that I would be willing to throw out the rest of the improvements to avoid it. By the same token, I know that the 2.08 AI is a bit too soft. I know that the Better AI team doesnt want to bother with tons of parallel mods and all of the versioning headaches that would involve.

So, if the heavy military emphasis is going to continue as part of Better AI (for whatever reason), then I was hoping for a one-time 'sub mod' that doesnt develop further that simply catches the worst of the problems of the 2.08 bugs. I can always tweak the handicaps to season to taste for difficulty, but the gameplay is what I believe CIVILIZATION should be.

Since then, Blake has mentioned potentially controlling the military aspects via the Aggressive AI setting. It remains to be seen how that works out and if it provides what I'm looking for. If not, then again I would ask for an update to 2.08 which I know already has the gameplay I'm looking for but unfortunately with the AIs neglecting defense a little too much. My hope is that such a 'quick fix' wouldnt be a ton of work since most the bug fixes would already be known quantities.

Here's an analogy. Every play the board game Diplomacy? Seven human players, each with a country (on an Europe map), and each with the blatant goal of conquering 3/4 of the map. It's in your face. So, we have to ask, how in the world is this simply not a wargame? Simple: the game mechanics allow players to support each other. So, if two players gang up on a third, then they will have an advantage. Seems obvious, but there it is.

Yep, I've played Diplomacy numerous times (as well as tons of multiplayer strategy games). But that is not even the same ball park as trying to program an AI. You can get a 'read' on people and you can leverage betrayals as currency with the other players. Some times it might be 'tactically' sound to backstab someone, but if that means others dont trust you then perhaps in the long run its not worthwhile. Trying to get an AI to duplicate the nuances of multiplayer diplomacy is not realistic (until we get self aware AIs and then we have that whole Skynet thing or the Cylons turning on their masters etc etc ).

Given that, the only thing we have is the diplomatic modifiers. In many cases these arent even 'in game' events. But they give the illusion of nation-states as opponents. But trying to base actual diplomacy off of them is folly. How can you convince another AI that double-teaming the leader is a good thing even though all of you are 'friends'. You'll get the 'We couldnt betray our good friends' response regards of how beneficial it is. And there is nothing you can do. That is only the barest hint of the limits on diplomacy between humans and AIs.

To me, trying to go down that particular path is a waste of time and effort. Its not going to work within the framework of Civ4. So again, that leads me back to square one. If that is going to be the focus of the mod from this point, then its something I can personally do without. Trying to make the AIs behave like humans is just going to suck the suspension of disbelief out of the game IMO. On the other hand, there are so many improvements made to the way the AI handles things such as expansion or the way it distributes its econ. I hate to miss out on those too. Which is why I'm asking for a 'quick fix' if the situation cant be compromised with the Aggresive AI setting toggle. I dont intend to say that the project should 'punt' or 'fold' or whatnot, but simply that the direction that the mod is heading makes the game LESS fun for me, not more...unlike the original improvements that were added with the first versions of Better AI.

I realize that the mod cant be all things to all players. And obviously Blake and company are doing this 'on their own time with their own dime' so they can shape the project however they please. If they want AIs that try to play as humans always going for the win, then thats fine since its their hard work going into it. But along the way, if they can throw a bone to those of us who would prefer the AIs to play closer to 'roleplaying' than as 100% direct competitors, I think it would be greatly appreciated by those fans. I'm hoping the current compromise with the Aggressive AI does just that, but I fear it may start the whole diverging of the project that they were trying to avoid by not developing concurrent mods.

 

[Sam_Yeager]

Interesting though this discussion is, can i suggest that Uncle Joe, Wodan etc. move it to a new thread within this forum so that it doesn't overwhelm this thread.

 

[Arlborn]

I think the agressiviness thread and this one are talking abotu the same things

Anyway, what I understood of the Blake's replies, is that others AIs beside the economy-based ones can and will win the game in their own way. Being it by spaceship building(the only way to AI win in vanilla arghh, I hate it), by Cultural victories, by diplomacy headed game, by dogpilling, or by 'all or nothing' in the military aspect. I like that, I actually love that as long as their main personality remain, for example Isabella should aim only for Civs out of their religion, or Toku should never make much dipllomatic deals and attack ASAP. Monty should hardly like somebody(mind you, I never saw Monty as a backstabber if somebody gets to be his friend) or Alex backstabbing the heck out of it or Gandhi NEVER attacknig somebody, and etc. If they can win respecting their own personality, then oh my, that is the project!

Did you ever see military AIs trying to win in the Vanilla? Getting out at least 2 AIs? I didnt..

 

[Doomed_UK]

Before we move the discussion to another thresd let me pitch in with my comments.

I am coming to the same conclusion as Uncle Joe.

I am now on game 4 with the 25/1 build.
all games 3 continents, 6 AI, standard aggression, no tech trading, the first 2 games on prince, the second 2 on noble, and with my own custom speed mod.

My custom speed slows tech down to marathon, has most other things on slow, except unit building on normal and culture just a bit under marathon. (this does tend to lead to unit spam in early game and some financial problems, but this has been fine up until this build).

The first 3 games had me sharing 1 continent with 1 other AI. Each game they went for me in an all out attack soon after they got bronze working, even if they were previously friendly towards me (I had spread an early religion in one game).
In one game I could of held out, but I was aware by the wonders being built that the rest of the world was out teching me badly. (I also never had copper in any of these games - not the better AI's fault but annoying). One of the games it was Roosevelt who went for me - I was surprised.

In my current game I started on a big land mass with 4 other AI, chinese, greek, korean, spanish.
The spanish were going for religions, the Koreans for wonders and the other 2 for military build up.
Greeks slaughtered the spanish, Chinese slaughtered the Koreans (just after bronze working). I had been concentrating on keeping a large military this time.
Greeks then attacked the Chinese, and the Germans from another continent found the main land mass, adopted the same religion as me, traded some goods with me and then next go declared war on me.

It is almost as if there is a bit of code that says 'if have bronze working and military is greater then neighbour then attack'

This is not fun.

In my current game the 2 AI's that were adopting a peaceful stratagy died too easy, and as a builder player (only being aggresive if I have to be) I get attacked too frequently, even when I am fostering good relations with the people near me.

This level of aggresion has only appeared in the new build. I would expect a war at some point in earlier builds, but not the genocidal tendancies I am seeing from the AI now.

Could it please be toned back a bit.



edit: (Arlborn posted while I was composing this)

QUOTE:
Anyway, what I understood of the Blake's replies, is that others AIs beside the economy-based ones can and will win the game in their own way. Being it by spaceship building(the only way to AI win in vanilla arghh, I hate it), by Cultural victories, by diplomacy headed game, by dogpilling, or by 'all or nothing' in the military aspect. I like that, I actually love that as long as their main personality remain, for example Isabella should aim only for Civs out of their religion, or Toku should never make much dipllomatic deals and attack ASAP. Monty should hardly like somebody(mind you, I never saw Monty as a backstabber if somebody gets to be his friend) or Alex backstabbing the heck out of it or Gandhi NEVER attacknig somebody, and etc. If they can win respecting their own personality, then oh my, that is the project!

Exactly! What I am seeing is the military AI's having the upper hand too much. They need to be toned back a bit. I was surprised to be attacked by Roosevelt, and even more surprised by Frederick attacking me when we shared a religion, were trading goods and had no negative relations at all.

 

[Elhoim]

I think the agressiviness thread and this one are talking abotu the same things

Anyway, what I understood of the Blake's replies, is that others AIs beside the economy-based ones can and will win the game in their own way. Being it by spaceship building(the only way to AI win in vanilla arghh, I hate it), by Cultural victories, by diplomacy headed game, by dogpilling, or by 'all or nothing' in the military aspect. I like that, I actually love that as long as their main personality remain, for example Isabella should aim only for Civs out of their religion, or Toku should never make much dipllomatic deals and attack ASAP. Monty should hardly like somebody(mind you, I never saw Monty as a backstabber if somebody gets to be his friend) or Alex backstabbing the heck out of it or Gandhi NEVER attacknig somebody, and etc. If they can win respecting their own personality, then oh my, that is the project!

Did you ever see military AIs trying to win in the Vanilla? Getting out at least 2 AIs? I didnt..

My thougts exactly.

 

[Wodan]

I don't have any problem moving to a new thread. Though, I think I'll just move my response here over to the Aggression one.

Wodan

 

[Iustus]

(from bug reports thread)

Assert Failed

File:  .\CvPlayer.cpp
Line:  11483
Expression:  isHuman() || isBarbarian() || ((getGold() + iGoldChange) >= 0)
Message:  

----------------------------------------------------------

This is the second time I got this. I didn;t have frequent enough auto-saves last time, so I'm just posting this one.

It always appears between turns (while the AI is presumably moving). It's non-recreatable unfortunately.

Here is a save before the assert failure.

I made my moves the first time and hit enter and it froze between turns. (I had to minimize the window to see the assert.)

The second time (trying to recreate it) I just loaded the save and hit enter. It didn't get the assert.

The third time, I loaded the save, duplicated my original moves, and hit enter. Again I didn't get the assert.

The moves I made were:
-Promote all cannons outside istanbul to CR2
-Launch all the non-critically-injured cannons into Istanbul
-Then attack with all the Infantry on the same tile.
-Using the bombers in Alexandria, attack Edrine, then the unused ones into the Mehmed's other city (can't remember name.)
-Set all infantry in Alexandria to heal (for one turn).
-Then move all the other bombers into Alexandria
-Then hit enter.

It should be noted that both repeat attempts, on the new turn, Frederick offered me 830 gold for Democracy. That didn't happen the original time I got the assert. I don't know if that's significant or not.

Julius Caesar managed to get himself in quite a financial hole in this one. He is at 100% to gold, and still negative, and this is not the first turn he has been so. I am happy to see that too many units is not the cause for his financial hole.


It seems it lost Rome to Wang Kon, but took all his other cities and then vassalized him (Rome is Wang Kon's only city).

Being at war with Washington isnt helping JC, but it isnt hurting him that much, it looks like he just took Washington's capital, that gold influx probably helped some.

The real problem is he is paying high maint cost because his capital is now in a poor place, and he has not built any courthouses or even his UB market.

This may be a case where he has been using wars to finance himself, but that is causing him to fail to build enough buildings, keeping the war effort going.

-Iustus