The Celts

[Gokudo01]

So after all this whining we are back to stronger celt than before the nerf : nice

 

[Gazebo]

Well if that is an option I am all for it! Doesn't this encourage Celts to spread as much as possible though because you are essentially denying the city you spread to a pantheon? Not sure if this is too much of an issue though.

Going to be very hard for it to hold, though: Cities with your Religion generate nor receive foreign Religious Pressure.

G

 

[doublex55]

Yup. While you are working on the Celts, can you take a look at their personality/behavior? It seems they are one of the most friendly Civs early in the game despite having one of the earliest UUs that NEEDS to be taken advantage of.

 

[Gazebo]

Yup. While you are working on the Celts, can you take a look at their personality/behavior? It seems they are one of the most friendly Civs early in the game despite having one of the earliest UUs that NEEDS to be taken advantage of.

Observation bias- I see a lot of celtic murder.

G

 

[CrazyG]

Seems like a solid solution, I will try out the new beliefs (Ogma and Nuada in particular seem much better with this change)

Observation bias- I see a lot of celtic murder.

G

Isn't that also confirmation bias though?

So after all this whining we are back to stronger celt than before the nerf : nice

I don't know about that. Both Epona and Lugh are quite a bit weaker than they were before, and the social policy changes really hurt her as well

 

[Gazebo]

Seems like a solid solution, I will try out the new beliefs (Ogma and Nuada in particular seem much better with this change)
Isn't that also confirmation bias though?

I'd say that, empirically, the number of AI games I dissect moves me beyond limited observation bias and into the realm of quantitative analysis.

G

 

[Blue Ghost]

I'd say that, empirically, the number of AI games I dissect moves me beyond limited observation bias and into the realm of quantitative analysis.

G

How many AI games is that, out of curiosity?

 

[Gazebo]

How many AI games is that, out of curiosity?

Goodness me, I honestly can't say, but I'm going to guess that I digest the logs of around 5 games a day (I leave it running in the background all day pretty much, and offload logs for analysis after each match/CTD). Been doing that for a few years now...so...rough math tells me maximum 5.5k. So let's say 3k to account for work, work travel, research time, and off-days.

G

 

[doublex55]

Only 5 games per day? What a Pleb!

If G says he sees Celts playimg aggressively enough i believe him.

 

[Gokudo01]

Seems like a solid solution, I will try out the new beliefs (Ogma and Nuada in particular seem much better with this change)
Isn't that also confirmation bias though?


I don't know about that. Both Epona and Lugh are quite a bit weaker than they were before, and the social policy changes really hurt her as well

no we are back to celt being able to secure religion just by settling. The difference between 2 and 3 is that with3faith i can build shrine in my capital, ignore it in my other cities and i dont even need to know that pickish warrior generate faith :

You get a religion just by being in the game

Which should never be the case because religions have almost got too strong bonus and impact over the game until late(even stronger with celt) and you should work for it in order to get them.
Try ignore religion in your next game with a non religion civs, you will have a really rough game.

Moreover 2 faith per city is on average for other civs, a super strong local pantheon or god of commerce which requires a heavy investement to make it worth fast enough to get a religion

All in all celt has always been strong(overpower before the nerf) when played the optimal way and the only thing that needed a tweak after the nerf is the ub which is not bad but not great like lots of ub or ui.

 

[Owlbebach]

no we are back to celt being able to secure religion just by settling. The difference between 2 and 3 is that with3faith i can build shrine in my capital, ignore it in my other cities and i dont even need to know that pickish warrior generate faith :

You get a religion just by being in the game

Which should never be the case because religions have almost got too strong bonus and impact over the game until late(even stronger with celt) and you should work for it in order to get them.
Try ignore religion in your next game with a non religion civs, you will have a really rough game.

Moreover 2 faith per city is on average for other civs, a super strong local pantheon or god of commerce which requires a heavy investement to make it worth fast enough to get a religion

All in all celt has always been strong(overpower before the nerf) when played the optimal way and the only thing that needed a tweak after the nerf is the ub which is not bad but not great like lots of ub or ui.

Celts never were overpowered, in all of my games they were performing quite bad even before nerf.

Keep in mind that religion IS Celtic UA. They MUST have a religion and it should be strong. You can't ignore shrines in all other cities, because (1) you loose faith from pantheon when you found (2) you want a religion ASAP, it is the only advantage that you have in this game!

Imagine two civs with the same land and same amount of cities, and imagine they founded religion the same turn and they have the same faith-per-turn income. One civ is Celts, the other civ is Korea. Who will perform better? This is why Celts get religion "for being in the game" (as well as Byz, btw)

 

[Gokudo01]

Celts never were overpowered, in all of my games they were performing quite bad even before nerf.

Keep in mind that religion IS Celtic UA. They MUST have a religion and it should be strong. You can't ignore shrines in all other cities, because (1) you loose faith from pantheon when you found (2) you want a religion ASAP, it is the only advantage that you have in this game!

Imagine two civs with the same land and same amount of cities, and imagine they founded religion the same turn and they have the same faith-per-turn income. One civ is Celts, the other civ is Korea. Who will perform better? This is why Celts get religion "for being in the game" (as well as Byz, btw)

Performing has nothing to with not being overpower or being underpower. Some gameplay are hard to handle for ai while some are easier:
that s the reason why iroquois are a top tier ai civs while being a average civs in even good players' hands.

Moreover +faith per city is also a part of this ua and you can do the same notice for india if they are not able to secure a religion.
Still you have to work on it while using your bonus.

And korea will never get a religion the same turn than celt for a simple reason they dont get free super god of commerce once they ve got their pantheon

 

[CrazyG]

I'd say that, empirically, the number of AI games I dissect moves me beyond limited observation bias and into the realm of quantitative analysis.

G

Let me ask, just how aggressive is Boudicca, quantitatively speaking?

The thing about confirmation bias is that it confirms a pre-existing opinion, but originally I thought she would be super aggressive, like Persia or Songhai. So this isn't confirmation bias, Boudicca seems very naturally pre-disposed towards friendship. She will not charge extreme values for luxuries like the other warmongers do. I believe you've seen her go aggressive early, but I'm sure you've also seen India do the same.

Imagine two civs with the same land and same amount of cities, and imagine they founded religion the same turn and they have the same faith-per-turn income. One civ is Celts, the other civ is Korea. Who will perform better? This is why Celts get religion "for being in the game" (as well as Byz, btw)

The Celts definitely used to be OP. On like the February version I'm confident I could win like 100 games in a row on Deity as Celts, it was ridiculously easy. The AI doesn't understand that it has to snowball, but some of the pantheons were really ridiculous

And at 3 faith per city I usually didn't build shrines until after a lot of other stuff. This is why I really advocated dropping the faith on kill if it went back to 3 per city

 

[Gazebo]

Let me ask, just how aggressive is Boudicca, quantitatively speaking?

The thing about confirmation bias is that it confirms a pre-existing opinion, but originally I thought she would be super aggressive, like Persia or Songhai. So this isn't confirmation bias, Boudicca seems very naturally pre-disposed towards friendship. She will not charge extreme values for luxuries like the other warmongers do. I believe you've seen her go aggressive early, but I'm sure you've also seen India do the same.



The Celts definitely used to be OP. On like the February version I'm confident I could win like 100 games in a row on Deity as Celts, it was ridiculously easy. The AI doesn't understand that it has to snowball, but some of the pantheons were really ridiculous

And at 3 faith per city I usually didn't build shrines until after a lot of other stuff. This is why I really advocated dropping the faith on kill if it went back to 3 per city[/QUOTE

Not building shrines is somewhat by design. Lets them focus on early war if they want.

G

 

[Txurce]

The thing about confirmation bias is that it confirms a pre-existing opinion, but originally I thought she would be super aggressive, like Persia or Songhai. So this isn't confirmation bias, Boudicca seems very naturally pre-disposed towards friendship. She will not charge extreme values for luxuries like the other warmongers do. I believe you've seen her go aggressive early, but I'm sure you've also seen India do the same.

You saw the Celts be peaceful in a (necessarily limited) number of games, so confirmation bias led you to the conclusion that they don't play as aggressively as they should.

 

[CrazyG]

You saw the Celts be peaceful in a (necessarily limited) number of games, so confirmation bias led you to the conclusion that they don't play as aggressively as they should.

That is not confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is when you hold a belief, so you tend to remember experiences which confirm that belief, while ignoring experiences which do not. Observing something that happens isn't confirmation bias, I really don't think the Celts fight more often early on than an average civ. If fact, what G has posted doesn't dispute that idea (only that he has seen them go aggressive, but I've seen everyone go aggressive and he certainly has too)

The thing is for most of my time playing this mod, I expected the Celts to be a warmonger and played expecting that. So if confirmation bias is a factor, it would dispose me to think they are more aggressive than they actually are. There are several objective and observable things that most of the warmongers do, which the Celts do not. How they manage luxury trades or how they denounce early on. I do see the Celts fight sometimes, but only if I have a negative modifier with them, such as territorial disputes or CS rivalries (all civs will sometimes be aggressive in these circumstances). Boudicca should be as consistently aggressive as Askia or Montezuma (and she needs to do it early)

 

[Txurce]

That is not confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is when you hold a belief, so you tend to remember experiences which confirm that belief, while ignoring experiences which do not. Observing something that happens isn't confirmation bias, I really don't think the Celts fight more often early on than an average civ. If fact, what G has posted doesn't dispute that idea (only that he has seen them go aggressive, but I've seen everyone go aggressive and he certainly has too)

The thing is for most of my time playing this mod, I expected the Celts to be a warmonger and played expecting that. So if confirmation bias is a factor, it would dispose me to think they are more aggressive than they actually are. There are several objective and observable things that most of the warmongers do, which the Celts do not. How they manage luxury trades or how they denounce early on. I do see the Celts fight sometimes, but only if I have a negative modifier with them, such as territorial disputes or CS rivalries (all civs will sometimes be aggressive in these circumstances). Boudicca should be as consistently aggressive as Askia or Montezuma (and she needs to do it early)

Confirmation bias doesn't lock you into a permanent perspective. Here's how I see it, based on my understanding of it. Your pre-game analysis of the Celts as a likely warmonger would indeed lead you to seize on random examples of aggressiveness as supporting your assumption, had you experienced that. But instead you played a few games against them, and they were notable in that they were actually peaceful. So you arrived at your first actual experiental opinion, or belief: that, to your surprise, they tend toward the peaceful. I'm suggesting (partly tongue in cheek) that ever since, confirmation bias has probably continued to validate that opinion, which runs counter to Gazebo's fact-based disagreement with you ("I see a lot of Celtic murder").

By the way, my own view of them is that they are peaceful as long as you don't cramp their usual rapid expansion, and aggressive when you do.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Observation bias, not confirmation bias. The Celts happened to be peaceful in the limited sample you have, but with a larger, more representative sample, Gazebo can tell that they're generally aggressive.

Actually, observation bias doesn't seem to be the right term either. Overfitting? Anyway it's the cognitive bias that assumes that anecdotal observations are universally true.

 

[Gazebo]

Boooty's stats:

UPDATE Leader_MajorCivApproachBiases SET Bias =    8 WHERE LeaderType = 'LEADER_BOUDICCA'                AND MajorCivApproachType = 'MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_WAR';
UPDATE Leader_MajorCivApproachBiases SET Bias =    6 WHERE LeaderType = 'LEADER_BOUDICCA'                AND MajorCivApproachType = 'MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_HOSTILE';
UPDATE Leader_MajorCivApproachBiases SET Bias =    8 WHERE LeaderType = 'LEADER_BOUDICCA'                AND MajorCivApproachType = 'MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_DECEPTIVE';
UPDATE Leader_MajorCivApproachBiases SET Bias =    8 WHERE LeaderType = 'LEADER_BOUDICCA'                AND MajorCivApproachType = 'MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_GUARDED';
UPDATE Leader_MajorCivApproachBiases SET Bias =    6 WHERE LeaderType = 'LEADER_BOUDICCA'                AND MajorCivApproachType = 'MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_AFRAID';
UPDATE Leader_MajorCivApproachBiases SET Bias =    8 WHERE LeaderType = 'LEADER_BOUDICCA'                AND MajorCivApproachType = 'MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_FRIENDLY';
UPDATE Leader_MajorCivApproachBiases SET Bias =    8 WHERE LeaderType = 'LEADER_BOUDICCA'                AND MajorCivApproachType = 'MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_NEUTRAL';

Her personality:

UPDATE Leaders SET Personality='PERSONALITY_DIPLOMAT'     WHERE Type = 'LEADER_BOUDICCA';

I (personally) disagree with her being Diplomat, but I didn't put here there...I think Lynnes did forever ago? In any case I'm happy to change this around.

G

 

[Gokudo01]

So crazyg was right she was just fighting unavoidable war or prey on the weak war but she wasn t a warmonger which should be her main playstyle