Seafaring trait and distance corruption

[Predator145]

Seafaring, just like commercial, is bad in the hands of the AI because it has no clue how to leverage commerce besides obtaining tech (which the AIs already can do so cheaply so it's kinda moot). The AI hoards cash rapidly. It only takes a couple of turns for a late game AI with banks built in its core to amass 10000 gold and do nothing with it. The tech leading ones are even worse. They'd amass gold with no way to spend it. You'd see things like 300000 gold sitting there. When I piloted the AI with cash rushing on debug it became so much more potent, esp the ones with commerce boosting traits.

In this huge map I'm currently playing communism, which is by far the strongest late game gov for an always warring AI (I'd never give them peace, always pitting them against each other), is not as strong for the OCN is far higher. The avg sized AI by 1000 AD doesn't really benefit from switching to it from monarchy. But not being able to cash rush means now they hoard gold even worse. I wish there was a way for the AI to calculate when it's better to use fascism and only switch to communism when it yields higher output. But I guess long term, I communism with its higher shield ceiling is still better.

I think a good boost for the AI, esp. commerce heavy ones like seafaring and commercial, would be a way for them to spend their cash. Since they can't properly cash rush on their own or in communism a good solution would be to have SWs auto produce units that would need upgrading. Let's say you have SWs produce ship hulls that cost 10 shields. The AI will then spend its huge wad of wealth upgrading them into 200 shield battleships. That way, even shield poor seafaring civs can have a large navy and "mercenary" land military.

 

[timerover51]

Turns out the AI appears to get horribly confused if you make 2x government options available at a single tech. They keep trying to pick the inferior human version of the government and ignore the buffed up AI version I made that is identical in every way but has superior unit support. Back to the drawing board.

The AI is actually quite stupid at times. Like sending 15 galleys one at a time against one of my massively upgraded battleships. A fast way of racking up points for me.

 

[Takhisis]

This is typical example of the AI not being able to make good use of the Seafaring coastal commerce bonus. Their city placement is atrocious. Not only do they not place enough cities (you wanna maximize the amount of coastal cities), they sometimes place a city 1 tile away from the coast. Yes, 90% of the time they place them next to the coast line. But once in a while you will see this:

View attachment 715107

Credits to Plotinus for being the only scenario maker ever to have made a map where it's better to settle inland whenever possible.

The AI also likes to plant cities on future resources. That may be the case here.

It's mostly because the AI wants to try for a Domination victory with as few cities as it can, so, since ocean tiles don't count (I don't remember about sea tiles) then it secures the landmass. Future resources also play a part, yes.

I think what made me overlook this is that the Dutch & Carthiginians often do well longer into the game, but that is perhaps because their defensive UUs help them repel their opponents in that initial war (even if their productivity is also reduced) so they don't lose their good initial start.

Well, yes. The AI is bad at naval warfare (the entire game is, really: there's no way that you can replicate ancient-style sea battles) so what decides expansion at that stage can be your UUs showing up (and -also- triggering your golden age). The Dutch and Carthaginians, having such superb defenders, are bound to trigger a golden age (I for one think that the Swiss mercenary should cost 40 shields).

Turns out the AI appears to get horribly confused if you make 2x government options available at a single tech. They keep trying to pick the inferior human version of the government and ignore the buffed up AI version I made that is identical in every way but has superior unit support. Back to the drawing board.

Why would it do that???

 

[Fergei]

Why would it do that???

I don't know. But it gets even worse. Cue longish post that goes nowhere!

With my mod the AI will ~90% of the time go for Code of Laws first after Writing on that section of the tech tree, possibly because I have the Feudalism government type available at Code of Laws. ~10% of the time they'll go for Mapmaking. 0% of the time Literature (despite being necessary for era progression) and almost 0% Philosophy.

So I have Feudalism at Code of Laws to give the AI a quick route out of Despotism. So Feudalism (AI) was buffed and remained at Code of Laws. I then made my nerfed Feudalism (human) available at Philosophy, so that, in theory, as the human I could get access to Feudalism at roughly the same time as the AI and was not being disadvantaged.

The AI that took the Writing route (rather than the tiny minority that might reach Monarchy first) all unanimously switch to Feudalism (AI). No issues there. Then I beaver away for a while and decide to check back in on the blighters and literally about half the AI that had learnt Philosophy by that time (but not Monarchy or Republic) have gone into anarchy for the privilege of switching to my nerfed Feudalism (human). The other half of AI stayed in the Feudalism (AI) government despite having access to the human version (which is what is making me think I did not make an error, or else I'd have thought more would have switched over to the nerfed human version).

To repeat, when all other values are equal, including resistance modifier and propaganda modifiers (that are not listed as variables in AI government selection type) roughly half of the AI will happily go into anarchy to change to a government that is identical but has inferior free unit support levels.

At that point I was gobsmacked and realised that this was an avenue I was going give up on completely before I lost my sanity. I wanted to test it again today but I have messed up my version control and have overwritten the versions with the AI & Human different Feudalisms and Communisms. I can't be bothered redoing it because I'm very confident that I replicated the two versions of Feudalism exactly as intended. However, for the sake of scientific rigour I must conclude that despite looking very closely several times at the settings of the AI & Human Feudalisms I have somehow made a human error.

The only other explanation, which is completely speculative, is if there was some kind of modifier for AI government decisions on the turn in which they learn a new government (e.g. when the human gets interrupted mid-turn with the option for a revolution which I believe will take 1 turn off their anarchy duration). I have zero evidence that such a modifier would exist on turn 1 of accessing a new government that would make an AI more inclined to switch. Its not something I've really paid attention to in their playing (i.e. do the vast majority of AI switch government on that first turn, or do a large proportion wait until later in the game?).

This is why if I'm serious about modifying governments I make sure I test it repeatedly in debug mode, because the AI makes very curious decisions and their government preference can swing wildly based on tiny adjustments. I thought only their aversion to Communal corruption was the only exception to the variables/formula for why an AI selects a certain government, but now I (without evidence) suspect there may be other strange little modifiers/variables (and not just 'Favoured' or 'Shunned' government which are the obvious suggestions but are irrevelant here). Ignorance certainly keeps things interesting!


On topic: It is very early days but my buffed Communal Feudalism does appear something the AI will consider over Monarchy, which really surprised me - they just love free unit support! However, its not really been the Seafaring Civs that have opted for it. It doesn't help that the seafaring Civs in my game all have been inept and therefore have smallish empires (less conducive to Communal corruption).

I'm getting slightly obsessive about this now to the point I think I will make it part of my game strategy to make favoured trading and military relations with the Seafaring Civs because I should not be considering them as a threat for overall victory (except possibly the Dutch and Byzantines who arguably have the strongest accompanying traits to get them into the top few positions by the start of the Industrial era, with Agriculture and Scientific). Whereas if I favour a non-seafaring Civ they have a greater chance of turning into a game wrecking monster.

 

[Takhisis]

I've experienced situations in which the AI always changed governments when they became available, so one could cripple the AI by gifting it techs at the appropriate times.

 

[Fergei]

I've experienced situations in which the AI always changed governments when they became available, so one could cripple the AI by gifting it techs at the appropriate times.

Good to know. At least I'm not going insane.

 

[Takhisis]

Yeah. You can also cripple the AI by giving it the right tech at the right time, making it waste shields on wonders or just making a new unit appear. E.g. they have a crapton of pikemen and you give them the much less cost-efective musketmen.