Solver's unofficial BtS 3.17 patch

[jkp1187]

That is a dangerous path , Wodan.... if we are going to halt humans to do stuff just because the AI will not be able of countering it properly , we need to prevent the open fort tactics, woodman warrior choking, the UN ( FR vote can make a WW... I already done that once ), 2+ move units ( because AI simply does not understand it )...... basically the humans would need to be forced to be as smart ( dumb ) as the AI if you push that to the end.

Yes, but it's also true as Roland put it that "missionary gifting" effectively permits the spreading of a foreign non-state religion under Theocracy. That isn't supposed to happen.

I'm thinking that we need to include the code and allow users to toggle it on and off via a new check-box option added to the customize game screen. (These are actually pretty easy to add.) That way, we can all be happy and turn our attention to a better debate: should "missionary gifting on" or "missionary gifting off" be the default setting?

 

[r_rolo1]

That way, we can all be happy and turn our attention to a better debate: should "missionary gifting on" or "missionary gifting off" be the default setting?

That would be the normal development

In fact I would not be happy with any of the options..... It is like admiting that we can't do the AI smart enough to decide if a religion would help or not. And I don't think that is the case.

 

[jkp1187]

In fact I would not be happy with any of the options..... It is like admiting that we can't do the AI smart enough to decide if a religion would help or not. And I don't think that is the case.

I absolutely agree w/you, but unfortunately time, money, and resources being limited, I'd rather devote our (the Royal "Our", meaning: Solver's ) efforts to improving AI military tactics or economic strategy instead of teaching the AI the best way to use a gifted missionary.

 

[r_rolo1]

In certain aspect, given that it looks that Firaxis want Theo as it is, it is better to forward this to the Better BtS AI team.... Firaxis doesn't want the Bh solution ( Solver said ), there is a clear exploit behind it, so the only solution aceptable that fulfils both Firaxis and that fixes the exploit is a better AI code

 

[Woody1]

I can gift a missionary to each civ, put in an AP vote, and quite easily win the game in 100AD. That's not a big deal?

No, not really. I can open up worldbuilder, give myself 100 tanks in 3000 BC and wipe out all enemies. Frankly, that's not a big deal either, because I choose not to do it. (Not usually... heh.)

If you consider it cheating to gift missionaries to theocracies, then simply don't do it. It's only an exploit open to the human player.

I really don't understand why people need code fixes to stop them from doing something they consider a cheat (or loophole or exploit or whatever you call it).

I'd much rather have fixes for AI problems, or GUI interface bugs.

 

[Caboose]

I agree with Woody. If it were multiplayer I would understand it.

 

[Wodan]

No, not really. I can open up worldbuilder, give myself 100 tanks in 3000 BC and wipe out all enemies.

That would be cheating. The two situations are not analogous in the slightest. One is cheating, one is not.

If you consider it cheating to gift missionaries to theocracies, then simply don't do it. It's only an exploit open to the human player.

It's not cheating, period.

Saying don't do it is like saying "Rushing an AI is an exploit because the AI doesn't know how to handle it. If you consider that cheating, then simply don't rush." The whole argument is nonsensical.

And exploits by definition are only open to the human player.

I really don't understand why people need code fixes to stop them from doing something they consider a cheat (or loophole or exploit or whatever you call it).

It's not a cheat. It's the way the gameplay is programmed. However, the programming provides a loophole to circumvent other programmed gameplay. Thus, the programming should be changed, one way or the other.

I'd much rather have fixes for AI problems, or GUI interface bugs.

I agree. Good thing it's not a zero sum situation.

 

[Caboose]

Yeah, but it's still - as you say - a loophole. Who would want to gift missionaries to the AI unless they knew it would bypass the Theocracy civic?

 

[r_rolo1]

^^3 missionary/civ/religion limit ,maybe?

 

[jkp1187]

^^3 missionary/civ/religion limit ,maybe?

No, actually that's the fix that keeps the AI from spamming missionaries and corporate executives....

 

[r_rolo1]

What a can of worms.....

 

[Solver]

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.

 

[r_rolo1]

Maybe linking predisposion to ban nukes to the power or to the perceived threats?

 

[Roland Johansen]

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.

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



It sounds like a decent change to me. I would like to see the aggressive AI's a bit more nuke happy. Maybe also combine it a little with the aggressive AI setting?

 

[Solver]

Yeah, AI predisposition to actually use nukes does depend on Aggressive AI, so I was going to add it to its banning consideration, too

 

[DanF5771]

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.

2) confuses me: AI does not want to ban nukes although (code = "because") it recognizes that it loses the nuclear arms race
Should be fixed in my eyes.

Also the availability of SDI and Bomb Shelters should be taken into account when assessing the nuclear leverage.

 

[Solver]

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

How would you factor the SDI in? If a civ has the SDI it should be less likely to ban, right?

 

[r_rolo1]

Yup.... SDI makes your nukes more useful than the enemy ones, after all. You will lose more than you win with the ban.

BTW the AI in any sense factors GW in the ban vote?

 

[Solver]

Leave Global Warming alone

 

[DanF5771]

Ok, I have 2 nukes, Shaka has 100 nukes.
Sure I can try to catch up, but I would most likely be more inclined to ban these devilish things.

Yes, SDI means strongly decreased risk for me, so a ban is not (as much) needed.