Solver's unofficial BtS 3.17 patch

[KrikkitTwo]

The point about gifting missionaries is that the human player can't use it to get around the game rules that restrict THEM

Human Theocracy is still stuck with the inability of foreign missionaries to give him religion.

The AI will not gift a Missionary to a Human player

So the human player can help the AI theocracy get around the rules, but a human theocracy can't get around the rules that limit himself.


dang jump ahead post

as for the nukes, I'd say keep it as is

the only other option is possibly allow a civ to factor in its power rating... if their power rating is behind and they have the tech for nukes they might want to keep them

and if I have 2 nukes and Shaka has 100, a ban won't stop him from using them... the ban will hurt me more because I only have 2... he can use 98 and still have as many as me (probably killing me in the process)

once nukes are there, the big boys want to ban them to stop the small fry from posing a threat.

plus the AI ban the bomb has the side effect of reducing Global Warming

 

[jkp1187]

You call our finely crafted arguments bickering! How could you! I'm horribly offended...

This bickering is pointless!

Vader -- release him!



Oh, and I like Solver's suggestion. It's always annoyed me that the vote to ban nukes sometimes arises before nukes have even been invented, so anything to alleviate that would be a step forward.

This may go a bit too far given the scope of this project, but perhaps the vote to ban should not even be an option until at least one civ has constructed a nuke.

 

[Psyringe]

If the AI is losing the arms race, it thinks it can try to catch up. Makes sense from that perspective.

Doesn't sound too logical to me. Wouldn't it be better to just ban nukes so that I don't *have to* catch up?

Are you sure that this code deals with the *nuclear* belance of power? Because it *might* make sense if it dealt with comparing *conventional* power instead. The reasoning would go like this: "Okay, I'm lagging behind in conventional power. *But* I'll be able to research and build nukes soon. So nukes are my best chance to tip the balance of power in my favor, hence I shouldn't ban them."

 

[ICNP]

Jeez this thing is almost like a live chat. Every 5 min someone pipes in. I do concur that the AI should be less ban happy. I also say that you shouldn't be able to gift missionaries to Theo AI. It's just how it should be.

 

[DanF5771]

Doesn't sound too logical to me. Wouldn't it be better to just ban nukes so that I don't *have to* catch up?

Are you sure that this code deals with the *nuclear* belance of power? Because it *might* make sense if it dealt with comparing *conventional* power instead. The reasoning would go like this: "Okay, I'm lagging behind in conventional power. *But* I'll be able to research and build nukes soon. So nukes are my best chance to tip the balance of power in my favor, hence I shouldn't ban them."

Only da nukes, which seems wrong to me:

...
else if ((GET_TEAM(getTeam()).getNumNukeUnits() / std::max(1, GET_TEAM(getTeam()).getNumMembers())) < (GC.getGameINLINE().countTotalNukeUnits() / std::max(1, GC.getGameINLINE().countCivPlayersAlive())))
{
	bValid = false;
}

 

[Solver]

I'm pretty sure that works how intended, though. If I'm losing the nuclear race, I have a chance to catch up. If I ban nukes then, I have no chance to catch up and I have someone else with a larger nuke arsenal sitting on top of me.

 

[Psyringe]

Ah, wait. Does the ban only affect the building of new nukes, and not the actual usage of them? I.e., can nukes be used after the ban? In that case, I see what you mean ... Banning nukes while you're lagging behind in nuclear power would fix the balance of power at a disadvantage for you.

(Sorry, I never actually played with nukes, as they *somehow* always get banned in my games )

 

[MaxCiv]

While you guys are bickering about Theocracy, I came to another problem while playing a test game. Many have already observed that nukes tend to get banned by the UN all the time. I just had the UN ban nukes again, all AIs unanimously voting to do so. 3 turns after Roosevelt built the Manhattan, mind you. So I checked the AI code for banning nukes and it's not much good.

The AI, basically, will always vote to ban except two situations: 1) the AI is planning to use its "bwahhhaaa I'm evil" strategy, which involves serious use of nukes; or 2) the AI is lagging behind the average in the size of its nuclear arsenal. And here's a catch, the AI only decides to turn on it's "bwahhhaaa I'm evil" strategy after getting its hands on a nuke.

It's not a good situation and it means the AI civs will always vote to ban if the vote comes up before a nuke is built. What I would like to do is something similar to the probability of all-out AI nuclear war, that is, tie it in with AI aggression. AIs that prefer to build up their armies would not vote to ban while the peacenicks would, although the old considerations would also stay.

Something similar happened to me in a recent game. I was ahead of everybody else in the technology tree and just about to start the Manhattan Project when the UN unanimously (but me) voted to ban nukes. This prevented me from even starting the Manhattan Pr. I don't think this should happen because it doesn't make sense.

Max

 

[DanF5771]

Ok I misunderstood how banning really works, sorry for the confusion.
Thought banning nukes would make nuclear warfare completely impossible, but now I see, that Shaka can send all of his 100 nukes to me after a successful ban voting...

 

[jkp1187]

Something else occurred to me....I wonder if the nuke ban AI logic was coded that way to give players who didn't want to deal with nukes an easy way out. If you want nukes, veto the ban until you've built Manhattan. If you don't, go with the majority and the decision is more or less confirmed forever.

I, personally, don't like it that way....but perhaps there are some who do?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Actually the ideal way to make it work

1. Ban is not available until Manhattan Project is built
2. Building the Manhattan Project gives a nuke (perhaps a unique unbuildable nuclear unit that is shorter range than an ICBM... ie like a Nuclear bomber... or just give them a Tactical nuke)

so that as soon as the ban is available everyone (except for 1) is already behind in the nuke race... the issue is how MUCH behind they are willing to fall

If the builder of the MP is friendly+DP/PA with everyone, then they will likely vote to ban them. (he only has one nuke, and we trust him with it) the enemies of the nuke owner will try to 'close the missile gap'... and when enough civs are at peace/happy with the 'super powers' that feel they are at parity, then nonproliferation happens.

 

[Woody1]

I do think the AI is a big too eager to ban nukes. However, I don't want it changed to see them too nuke-happy, either. The suggestion to make aggressive AIs less willing to ban nukes is a good idea. Also, I think the option shouldn't even be available until someone builds the manhatten project.

Whatever the change, it shouldn't be too predicatable. i.e., Don't simply make all aggressive AIs vote "no". Make aggressiveness just one of the factors used in determining the way they will vote. (Kind of like the way it factors into the probability they will sneak-attack.)

 

[Solver]

Something else occurred to me....I wonder if the nuke ban AI logic was coded that way to give players who didn't want to deal with nukes an easy way out. If you want nukes, veto the ban until you've built Manhattan. If you don't, go with the majority and the decision is more or less confirmed forever.

I, personally, don't like it that way....but perhaps there are some who do?

That wouldn't really work, either. Vetoing hurts and isn't supposed to be always necessary. Also, even after you've built the Manhattan, the ban still hurts. If all you can build is 1 ICBM before nukes get banned, you're stuck with that 1 ICBM, the ban also prevents construction of any additional nukes.

 

[Woody1]

I've never vetoed, so I'm not sure how the unhappiness works, or how much of a hit it is. Does the penalty last the entire game, or do you get a chance to vote again and remove the unhappiness?

If it's not a permanent penalty, then I don't see a big issue with using a veto. You use the veto, and then go on a nuke-building spree. When you've caught up in nukes, then vote to ban them and your happiness is restored.

Does it work that way, now?

 

[DanF5771]

The "lose arms race" check seems to always let everybody vote "Yes, ban them" unless countTotalNukeUnits>=countCivPlayersAlive.
So a single nuke for the builder of Manhattan would not work with this, since nobody would feel that he is falling behind.

Another thing: IMHO the negative diplomatic effects should at least be doubled for someone pushing red buttons with the nonproliferation resolution passed.

 

[Solver]

I am going to go with logic for AI nuke bans for now:

[The old logic stays, AIs that really want to get nuke happy won't ban and AIs that are behind will not ban]

The AI will look at whether it has the SDI and will consider its own personality. Has SDI - less likely to ban.... errm, what the heck is up with SDI having 75% interception probability? I could swear they wanted to make it 50%. The more the AI likes building military units, the less likely a ban. Warmonger AI personalities always less likely to ban. If the game is set Aggressive AI, less likely to ban again. As an additional consideration, if the AI civ has built some nukes and is the only civ in the world with the SDI, it's much less likely to ban.

Without modding the leader personalities, here are some values.

Gandhi, no SDI: will ban 85% of the time.
Gandhi, SDI: will ban 60% of the time.
Monty, no SDI: will ban 30% of the time
Monty, SDI: will ban 5% of the time
Ragnar, no SDI: will ban 20% of the time
Ragnar, SDI: will never ban

With Aggressive AI, they become considerably less likely to ban.
Aggressive Gandhi without SDI will ban 70% of the time, with SDI he'll ban only 20% of the time. So if they have the SDI, most leaders won't ban under Aggressive AI.

 

[r_rolo1]

Like it.... makes the nukes to fall in the the same pattern than the rest of the weapons ,and not like evil stuff that was not meant to be used ever.

P.S. And GW ?

 

[Caboose]

I like it.

 

[Wodan]

Re: Nukes

I would suggest not linking it to who has nukes, but to who has the technology.

Think in real world terms. Even peaceniks who have nuke tech do not necessarily vote to ban nukes, because of cold war. Either they feel that nukes are the only thing keeping "the aggressors" in check, or they feel that if they simply have more time, then they can build enough nukes to keep "the aggressors" in check.

Aggressors who have nuke tech certainly do not vote to ban, ever.

Now, BOTH aggressors and peaceniks who do NOT have nuke tech, while others have nuke tech, almost certainly vote to ban.

In any event, once the secretary general civ gets nuke tech, he should re-evaluate and consider bringing the vote back up.

Wodan

 

[Wodan]

Doesn't sound too logical to me. Wouldn't it be better to just ban nukes so that I don't *have to* catch up?

Ban doesn't stop use of nukes, it stops building more nukes.

Your suggestion is like saying, "Monty already has macemen. I'm not going to bother getting Civil Service so I don't have to bother building them myself to compete." What?

edit: sorry, cross-post. I see you already corrected this.