Units expelling other units, hidden modifiers

[TheMeInTeam]

Not a great track record thus far of things I consider bugs being patched out (aka favorite civics blocking all civic changes, 3.17 influence culture mission, etc.). I'm especially not a fan of hidden modifiers that prevent you from knowing true AI-AI dispositions and can result in diplo losses:

Due to peaceweight (most likely), this AI is getting at least +4 I can't see. However, I do not KNOW it's +4. I've actually lost a game over this when 3 AIs all had hidden modifiers to Inca. The third one, which voted him to win, was at pleased (+5) and I had no idea it was actually +9 or +10 until insta-loss. My issue with this is that, well, I had HIGHER DISPLAYED DISPOSITION TO ALL 3. In this screenshot, I also have higher displayed numerical disposition to this AI, but have it at pleased.

Along with the averaging of diplo with masters/vassals, there's no place for hidden modifiers here. Either SHOW THE EFFECTS OF THIS, or REMOVE this mechanic, or do something that makes it POSSIBLE to actually know the impact of your choices in the game .

The second one is newer but an issue I've seen twice recently:

I go to declare war on Shaka:

And Shaka expels a scout, which somehow can bump my ENTIRE STACK BACKWARDS

This again is minor but it isn't. If you're declaring on a city that has metal, the loss of 1-2 turns could mean an extra 3-4 units lost. If one planned their war carefully this can be a major setback. To my knowledge, this is the only incidence of UNITS expelling other units in the game, and it surely wasn't intended to work this way...right?

 

[obsolete]

I really really hate that hidden diplo modifier . .. .. .. . too. Been on the wrong end of that, and paid some prices. I guess the only thing at the moment is to try and get better at learning when they are going on behind-the-scenes to try and make better evaluations in the future.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I really really hate that hidden diplo modifier . .. .. .. . too. Been on the wrong end of that, and paid some prices. I guess the only thing at the moment is to try and get better at learning when they are going on behind-the-scenes to try and make better evaluations in the future.

Sure, after I got burned I made it a point to find out...so I know about vassal averaging and peaceweight.

The problem comes in when you're both friendly. The hidden modifier for peace weight is based on the difference between the peace weights of the AIs. HOWEVER, the peace weight for a given AI VARIES within a range game to game! For a + or - 3 peace weight variance, the difference between 2 AIs with the same base could be anywhere from 0 to 6. When an AI is friendly though, what we don't know is HOW friendly unless it's right on the border of one of the diplo dispositions. There's literally no way of knowing how much hidden modifier a +9 civ that's friendly to another AI is receiving.

They might actually be +11, but could just as easily be +14 and get a vote instead of you . The fact that it is nearly impossible to tell which (unless perhaps you checked everyone's relations with everyone every turn) doesn't seem well-thought out to me.

The unit expelling one is just downright buggy though, no doubt about that one. Scouts don't push 10+ man armies out of tiles.

 

[obsolete]

I definitely learned not too long ago not to believe everything you read on the forums, even if 99% of people agree with it Contrary to popular belief, the AI can deny trading techs with you even when you are at Friendly status with them. Also, AIs can sometimes vote for you on the diplo-victory, even when it ensures you will win the game, AND you are not listed at friendly with them. Now how the hell will the average player figure out all the details behind the scenes is a good question.

Anyhow, the real big diplo bug with me, is when bribing an AI to peace, they almost always re-declare a turn later anyway. Where the F@%K is that 10 turns enforced peace-treaty???

 

[DanF5771]

For a + or - 3 peace weight variance, the difference between 2 AIs with the same base could be anywhere from 0 to 6.

iPeaceWeightRand = 3 does not result in the possible differences ranging from 0 to 6 for AIs with the same base, but only from 0 to 2 since the leaders only get a non-negative random number [0...2] added to their iBasePeaceWeight. The eventual hidden PeaceWeight-modifier is calculated as Difference + 4, leading to a minimum value of -8 (Difference = -12 for Monty<->Gandhi) and a maximum value of +4 (Difference = 0). IMHO this variance [0...2] is somewhat manageable when aiming for a diplo win.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

iPeaceWeightRand = 3 does not result in the possible differences ranging from 0 to 6 for AIs with the same base, but only from 0 to 2 since the leaders only get a non-negative random number [0...2] added to their iBasePeaceWeight. The eventual hidden PeaceWeight-modifier is calculated as Difference + 4, leading to a minimum value of -8 (Difference = -12 for Monty<->Gandhi) and a maximum value of +4 (Difference = 0). IMHO this variance [0...2] is somewhat manageable when aiming for a diplo win.

I was being way more simplistic than that. I was talking about the...ACTUAL peace weights...not the resulting hidden modifiers.

+2 is workable. +5 when you don't even know if it's +3 or +5 isn't really workable. Diplo often takes planning way ahead. If you can't even tell their dispositions with each other, it can be extremely problematic.

@ obsolete: I've yet to see the re-declare after a stop war bribe inside 10 turns, although I'm sure I will eventually unless they patch it.

There are several reasons the AI won't trade at friendly though...IIRC the only thing friendly blocks is WFYABTA and that monopoly tech rule. Of course having vassals can gum things up too.

Indeed, an average player will never know how any of this works. The problem is that the game actually LEADS HIM ASTRAY, too!

Edit: Anyone have anything on the units expelling units, or have I found a 100% legit bug? I have a feeling it's the latter.

 

[obsolete]

@ obsolete: I've yet to see the re-declare after a stop war bribe inside 10 turns, although I'm sure I will eventually unless they patch it.

I have been screwed by this so many times in BtS that I am too scared anymore to do any peace deals, even if it means I'll let one AI turn into a giant. Somewhere on the forum I read a comment that if you bribe an AI to peace, another is able to re-bribe them to war again in the same turn.

 

[PaulusIII]

What I find odd about this bug is that the moment you declare war there shouldn't even BE units in the same square. See for instance this game: I'm Gilgamesh planning a vulture rush on Toku. So I come here and see a nice worker along the border, and think of taking him when I declare war...


Oh wait. There was a Japanese archer with the stack. Never mind that the whole stack is marching over the Japanese border and should not be bumped; thankfully the damage is limited but I wanted that worker.



I think it's got something to do with the order in which things happen in Civ: you're supposed to declare first, then send your stack across the border. It shouldn't work that way.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Concerning the way units are bumped on war declaraition, I think the way the game works is appropriate and probably as designed.

First of all... How else would you propose it should work? You argued the scout should not be able to bump your stack of units. What if it were a single archer? What if it were 5 archers? Where do you draw the line? And then, assuming you go over the line, where his units are stronger, should your units get bumped off the tile then?

When you declare war by moving a unit into enemy territory, I assume the way it works beneath the surface is that you declare war then the unit move is attempted. But in fact before your unit move is attempted, conflicting units in tiles are sorted out first. This seems sensible really. Otherwise you could attack from an enemies defended positions. Suppose in your screenshot TMIT, that you were going to attack his worker from the gold hill. Also suppose he had two archers defending the hill. Also, suppose the two flood plains to the left of the gold hill are peaks instead. Then what are you saying should happen if you declared war by attempting to attack his worker?

Just generally speaking, if the civ who is being declared on has a number of units in neutral territory defending forrest hills, are you saying that if you place stronger units on those tiles the attacked civ should have his units insta bumped off of those tiles (and then exposed to be attacked)? That sounds way too exploitable to me. The responsibility to sort out occuppyting tile inconsistencies should be on the current civ's turn ie. the one who's attacking.

If you were to make the rules different for combat and non combat units, I think that also would be unnecessarily complicating things. His unit was a scout, but I think it has every right to bump your stack off that tile.

If your argument is that all that planning leading up to the war shouldn't go to waste, then part of the planning should be attacking from a tile which is not occupied by an enemy unit.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I just realised. TMIT you said Shaka "expels a scout" which then bumps your entire stack. Did you even notice the scout was already in that tile when you went to attack? If yes, why did you describe it as Shaka expelling a scout? The scout never moved...

 

[r_rolo1]

Why would the human units be expelled, instead of the AI? It is the human turn , after all....

Or, if you want to be fair, make a calc of the relative strengths of the units of both players in the tile and expel the weaker. Far more sensible than seeing a non-attack unit expelling a 10 unit stack out of a tile :/

 

[PieceOfMind]

Why would the human units be expelled, instead of the AI? It is the human turn , after all....

Purely for gameplay reasons... nothing to do with realism necessarily. It would be too exploitable if you could force units off of all sorts of tiles in neutral territory just by declaring war on them. I say the onus is on current player's turn only because they are the ones initiating the attack and the other civ has no option to move his units.

Or, if you want to be fair, make a calc of the relative strengths of the units of both players in the tile and expel the weaker. Far more sensible than seeing a non-attack unit expelling a 10 unit stack out of a tile :/

And how exactly would you calculate relative strengths? In a MP game, if you have 3 longbows on a very important forrest hill, fully fortified, in neutral territory, are you saying the enemy should be able to just put 3 swords and 1 warrior on the hill, DoW, then quickly wipe out those longbows?

The change you propose would make it way too cheesy on the first turn of war, since you could just bump all these units and kill them instantly for a fast xp boost.

What I do agree with however, is that the insta bumping of these units should be made more obvious when going to DoW. In TMIT's example, it can look like the attack can go ahead according to the displayed odds and this is the problem. Interface changes - not rule changes - are all is needed here in my opinion.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Purely for gameplay reasons... nothing to do with realism necessarily. It would be too exploitable if you could force units off of all sorts of tiles in neutral territory just by declaring war on them. I say the onus is on current player's turn only because they are the ones initiating the attack and the other civ has no option to move his units.



And how exactly would you calculate relative strengths? In a MP game, if you have 3 longbows on a very important forrest hill, fully fortified, in neutral territory, are you saying the enemy should be able to just put 3 swords and 1 warrior on the hill, DoW, then quickly wipe out those longbows?

The change you propose would make it way too cheesy on the first turn of war, since you could just bump all these units and kill them instantly for a fast xp boost.

What I do agree with however, is that the insta bumping of these units should be made more obvious when going to DoW. In TMIT's example, it can look like the attack can go ahead according to the displayed odds and this is the problem. Interface changes - not rule changes - are all is needed here in my opinion.

Well, I didn't notice the scout in this screenshot. I HAVE had another game where the unit was expelled to my stack as a result of the declaration, and still bumped the stack.

However, this is not good for gameplay balance and it's hard to imagine somebody actually contending that this works as intended. Even after seeing you do it. We're in neutral territory, not enemy territory, and that isn't even a combat unit!!!

 

[PieceOfMind]

Well, I didn't notice the scout in this screenshot. I HAVE had another game where the unit was expelled to my stack as a result of the declaration, and still bumped the stack.

What do you even mean by it was expelled? Do you mean it was in your territory, expelled to a tile in neutral territory, hence bumping your stack that was in the neutral territory? That, I agree would be a bit frustrating but how often does that occur, seriously? In that situation, however, I would say the enemy unit should be expelled to a tile that is not occupied by your forces. Your units should not be bumped off a tile because his unit was bumped off another tile.

However, this is not good for gameplay balance and it's hard to imagine somebody actually contending that this works as intended. Even after seeing you do it. We're in neutral territory, not enemy territory, and that isn't even a combat unit!!!

Actually it is still a combat unit... It just can't attack. You can attack the scout and risk being killed right? I probably would agree with you with things like settlers or workers. They are definitely not combat units and should perhaps be insta killed or captured when you DoW. But I don't think an AI is ever going to send a settler or worker outside his territory unprotected, so that situation would never come up except in MP.

If you think it should be changed, then suggest how it should be changed TMIT. It's no good complaining about something if there's no better way to do it. With your suggestion heard, then we can look at that critically and decide whether it is better than the current system.

 

[r_rolo1]

@Piece of Mind

The way this game handles combat is the generator of this anomalous situation. In civ IV only units that aren't of enemy parties can share the same tile and combat is defined as one unit trying to ocupy the tile where a enemy unit is . In this case of enemy units in the same tile, if you follow that reasoning line, there should be a "combat" to assert who will control the tile and not assuming that a certain player should be kicked out like if the tile simply belonged to the enemy ( that it not true ) just because the war started in his turn. If you want to toss defensive bonus, be my guest......

What you can't say is that this is working OK. No player should have primazy over a neutral tile ( otherwise it isn't neutral, right? ) just because it plays later.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Yes but I believe in the absence of a better solution it should be left as is.

IMO the suggestions that have been made so far have either not been detailed enough, or have been too open to exploits.

Automatic combat of the conflicting units is an interesting idea for a solution, but I feel that is possibly even more confusing. By alt-clicking on the leader I wish to declare war on, it's possible that several of my units suddenly enter battle - perhaps because I did not realise they shared tiles with enemy units.

I'm all for making the rules fair and sensible/realistic as much as possible, but I feel the need to avoid exploitative behaviour is greater than the need for sensibility.

I think another solution would be that when you go to DoW, you would have a warning given to you that there are enemy units on some of the neutral tiles your forces occupy, and that by DoW'ing you are agreeing to either auto-attack or be auto-bumped - whichever we decide is the best system.

But all said, are we realistically talking about trying to patch this? I assume there's no hope for an official patch for BtS, and since in the unofficial patch only the most obvious of bugs are normally fixed, I'm not sure sure where you or TMIT intend to go with this.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Update!

In a game today I had an AI declare war on me via taking a target I was currently at war with as a vassal. Guess what happens!

The guy's MISSIONARY expels ME on HIS declaration, out of the original target's territory, into mine. Except, that shouldn't happen, because I'm still at war.

So, if you declare on the AI and it has a unit in your stack, your stack will be expelled, but if the AI declares on you and you have a unit in the AI stack, you still get expelled? What?

 

[PieceOfMind]

Correct me if I'm wrong but when a civ A whom you are at war with vassalizes to another civ B whom you weren't at war with, it is you who declares war on civ B. I'm not saying that is fair but I think the mechanics are at least consistent with regard to which units are expelling which. Are you claiming anti-human bias?

Note I always felt something was wrong with the way you automatically declare war on the master when that master takes on the civ.

 

[DanF5771]

No, IIUC in that case player A bribes player B into the war vs. the human via "selling himself" by agreeing to become a voluntary vassal. Thus the new master player B declares war on the human. But TMIT's problem was that he had his stack not in unowned territory (IMO then his stack would expel the Missionary) but in the territory of the vassal where the master's units have the privilege of staying put and TMIT's stack needed to jump...
But I'm not 100% certain on that plus I'm also not a great fan of these mechanics.

 

[PieceOfMind]

TMIT can you show a screenshot of the master declaring war on you? (from the event log or whatever). I want to put my suspicion to rest if it's wrong.

I always thought it was like the new master takes the vassal under his control, but the human player is furious at this action and declares war on the new master.

The problem if this is true though, is that the human player's units are being bumped outside of his turn which I would argue is unfair.