Unofficial BTS 3.13 patch

[Wodan]

Bh, what you said implies that when a worker "starts building railroads", it keeps building them. Does it re-check for non-railroad things to do every time it finishes a railroad?

Wodan

 

[Aquatic]

The divisible by three code seems quite useless and counter productive. I don't think a reserve of workers is that valuable.

It does seem pretty useless. Indeed, Bhruic's suggestions seem an admirable way to make the workers perform more as they should.

Oddly enough, however, with regard to the reserve of workers, by the time I reach the point of automating workers so they can (mop up any improvements I might have missed and) build railroads, I have found it useful to have a small store of idle workers that I can call upon to do what I need immediately (sending them to new territories, building roads for armies to sustain an attack, or immediately restoring any essential infrastructure that may be have been destroyed). I would much prefer to be the one who chooses how many reserve workers there are, as I would also wish to be the one to decide where it is best to put them (within easy reach of the most likely tasks to be performed); hence this is not something to delegate to the AI. I would agree, therefore, with the removal of the 'divisbile by three code'.

 

[Bhruic]

Bh, what you said implies that when a worker "starts building railroads", it keeps building them. Does it re-check for non-railroad things to do every time it finishes a railroad?

Yeah, basically every time a worker finishes its current job, it checks for what new job it should take. There's a prioritized list of jobs. So if there is a more important job than railroading, it'll pick that. It'll only choose to continue railroading if it can't find something better to do.

Bh

 

[Bhruic]

I have edited CIV4UnitInfos.xml (based on 3.13 patch). Maybe you would like to use it as a part of the "unofficial patch".

I've made a similar change in my own personal mod that I use. But I don't think something like that should be included in a patch. Ideally a patch should either fix bugs, or make specific improvements. In this case, I think the devs intended flanking to work like it does. Which isn't to say it shouldn't be changed, but I don't think such a change would qualify as a "patch".

Bh

 

[Tatran]

I've have some problems/bugs in a current game.

Vassal open borders bug.
The AP forced some AIs to stop trading with me.
Suryavarman and Shaka opened borders after 10? turns, but Justinian, vassal of Shaka,
didn't offered OB for an infinite time. ASAP he was a free state again the open borders
option was available again.


Negotiating peace between AIs (Vikings <-> Egypt) don't give a forced 10 peace turns.
Next turn the same AI (Vikings) declared war at the same enemy (Egypt).
So, I wasted a lot of techs and gold for nothing.

 

[bmarnz]

Negotiating peace between AIs (Vikings <-> Egypt) don't give a forced 10 peace turns.
Next turn the same AI (Vikings) declared war at the same enemy (Egypt).
So, I wasted a lot of techs and gold for nothing.

I just had this happen as well. I don't want the enemy to capitulate to someone else before I wipe them out.

 

[Bhruic]

Update:

• Mouse-over for Worker actively working a plot no longer counts Worker twice
• Workers will no longer idle when railroading is possible
• Mouse-over for Join City now displays extra bonuses for Great People
• Vassals freed by Capitulating Master no longer refuse to talk

Bh

 

[Bhruic]

Re: The executive problem

Turns out it's a pretty simple problem - the AI can't afford to found the Corporation anymore. But it still has cities that it could spread the Corporation to, so it continues to build Executives, because the cities need them.

I'm thinking the best bet would be to add a "can we afford to spread the corporations" check to "should we build this" check.

Bh

 

[Psyringe]

Wow, good catch.

 

[bmarnz]

What is Joao thinking?
View attachment 162229

 

[azzaman333]

What is Joao thinking?
View attachment 162229

He probably isn't.

 

[Psyringe]

Nah, it's just the game#s way to model reality. You know, corporation executives often *do* have a tendency to make themselves more important than they really are. Joao just made the mistake of listening to them.

 

[Wodan]

Re: The executive problem

Turns out it's a pretty simple problem - the AI can't afford to found the Corporation anymore. But it still has cities that it could spread the Corporation to, so it continues to build Executives, because the cities need them.

I'm thinking the best bet would be to add a "can we afford to spread the corporations" check to "should we build this" check.

Bh

Interesting synchronicity. This morning, I read MrCynical's strategy article on Corps (particularly, Sushi) and he notes the ease of getting the AI to spam a corp for you, plus how easy it is to cripple the AI's economy.

Seems to me that this verges on the same sort of situation.... If it's a borderline game breaker for the AI to be garrisoning with 20 executives, isn't it likewise a borderline game breaker for the AI to be cripping its economy by spamming the corp until it runs out of money?

Wouldn't it make more sense to, in addition to the money check, put in some code to tell the AI when it's a good idea to spread a corp, even if it has the money? Otherwise, won't it spam the corp until it runs out of money, and then it'll drop the slider or build more banks, and then it'll spam it again?

Wodan

 

[azzaman333]

If the HQ of a corp is my WallStreet city, it is almost always gains me more money to spam the corp in addition to the bonuses of the corp itself.

 

[Bhruic]

Interesting synchronicity. This morning, I read MrCynical's strategy article on Corps (particularly, Sushi) and he notes the ease of getting the AI to spam a corp for you, plus how easy it is to cripple the AI's economy.

The AI is supposed to "value" executives much less if it doesn't have the Headquarters for it. That might need to be tweaked a little if it's still too prevalent.

Seems to me that this verges on the same sort of situation.... If it's a borderline game breaker for the AI to be garrisoning with 20 executives, isn't it likewise a borderline game breaker for the AI to be cripping its economy by spamming the corp until it runs out of money?

Well, "running out" of money is very relative. In the sample game I'm using, the AI is making over 600 gold per turn. But every turn it ends up with less than 30 gold. Where is the gold going? I'm not sure. I'm guessing rush buying, but that's not a given.

It does make "fixing" this problem more difficult, however, as the AI has earned the money when it's trying to figure out what to build, but it hasn't spent it yet. So when I check to see if it has enough money to add the corporation, it does. But it ends up spending that money before it gets to the point where it could move the executive, which means he stands in the capital twiddling his thumbs.

Wouldn't it make more sense to, in addition to the money check, put in some code to tell the AI when it's a good idea to spread a corp, even if it has the money? Otherwise, won't it spam the corp until it runs out of money, and then it'll drop the slider or build more banks, and then it'll spam it again?

Sure, but we'd need some sort of criteria for "good idea". Let me know when you've got that figured out.

Bh

 

[Thornburgh]

Wow, it's really cool that you've figured out how to fix things the Firaxis has overlooked.

Would it be possible to do anything about cheesy Apostolic Palace wins? (I.e., diplomatic victories where civs that control a certain religion, but have less overall power, win?) It doesn't really make senses to count only religion X for a diplomatic victory. I mean, what if religion X has only 10% of the world's population, but the AP is religion X, and a few countries dominate religion X.

Best fix I think would be an option to "defy" AP diplo victory and go to war with everyone who voted for it.

Second best would be simply to eliminate AP diplo victory.

I don't if this is a patch or a mod, but I would love someone to do it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I can think of 2 ideas


1. if # of available executives >= number of targets then the AI won't build any more
That way the executives will sit around until the money is there but it won't overbuild them.

2. The ideal fix would be to adjust the AI's willingness to spend cash on various things (rush buys/upgrading) to account for executives they have.
So
if # executives>=1 they try and keep their treasury at > the amount needed to spread a corp (not rushing/upgrading/trading away more than that)

And if Treasury is < amount for a corp AND # executives >=1 don't build executives. (This might already be in, but as Bhuric Noted the AI may be spending the treasury before using it on corps, so the first part is also necessary)

 

[JosEPh_II]

Not wanting to dig thru 22 pages so just a quick question.

Does each patch update need the previous patch. The drift I get is no but just want to be sure. As I had a Display problem with 1.07 on start up of a new game. Had Warrior and Settler and Map but No buttons or panels at all.

Yes? No?

JosEPh

Ps. Bh, JeBuS and I want to use your patch for MP.

 

[Psyringe]

As I had a Display problem with 1.07 on start up of a new game. Had Warrior and Settler and Map but No buttons or panels at all.

This usually happens when you have a mod conflict between two mods which modify the interface. Do you play with a mod, or do you have any files in your CustomAssets which change the interface?

 

[JosEPh_II]

Just the 2 python files from bhruic's Supplemental Patch.

Should I remove them?


JosEPh