1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Vox Populi Diplomacy Feedback

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by HeathcliffWarriors, Nov 25, 2019.

  1. HeathcliffWarriors

    HeathcliffWarriors King

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    958
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    No worries. You can set autosave frequency to 1 and max autosaves to a really high number (e.g. 999) in Game Options to make the game save at the end of every turn, thus allowing you to have a record of when bugs happen. If you plan on reporting crashes or buggy AI behavior, this is always a good idea if possible.

    Merry Xmas!
     
  2. AndreyK

    AndreyK Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2017
    Messages:
    120
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Yakutsk, Russia
    What means settle near? How close is that if I promise to not settle near AI?
     
  3. HeathcliffWarriors

    HeathcliffWarriors King

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    958
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Settling near means that you've settled a new city near the AI's empire and they're upset about it.

    It depends on the AI's Boldness flavor. The higher it is the farther it will trigger from. The promise is broken if you settle even closer to the AI than your previous closest city was.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2019
    vyyt likes this.
  4. HeathcliffWarriors

    HeathcliffWarriors King

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    958
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Upcoming diplomacy changes for next version:
    Code:
    Player proximity now acts as a multiplier on all non-neutral approaches, not just WAR and HOSTILE
    - Makes it more possible to be FRIENDLY with your neighbors if you're nice to them
    - This may not work if the AI hates you sufficiently (Enemy or worse)
    - AI will be more GUARDED/AFRAID of players who are near them
    
    AI will no longer be AFRAID of players who are A) not at war with them and B) unable to declare war on them
    
    AI more likely to declare war and be hostile if they've captured some of your cities, and haven't vassalized you
    
    AI more likely to declare war and be defensive if you've captured some of their cities, and you haven't vassalized them
    
    Increased diplomatic importance of victory competition (was a bit overwhelmed by other changes), especially in later eras
    
    Victory Dispute/Block approach checks will no longer give a bonus when victory competition is disabled, or prior to when victory dispute/block bonuses/penalties can occur (turn 150)
    
    Slight buff to diplomatic importance of religion pre-Modern Era, slight decrease after that
    
    Nerf to diplomatic importance of ideologies (was a bit too high)
    
    Victory Block approach & misc penalties no longer apply to players with at least Friend status
    
    Opinion thresholds for each Opinion rating bumped up by 10
    * note: In the code these values are reversed (negative instead of positive and vice versa)
    
    Ally: 160 opinion (was 150)
    Friend: 80 opinion (was 70)
    Favorable: 30 opinion (was 20)
    Competitor: -30 opinion (was -20)
    Enemy: -80 opinion (was -70)
    Unforgivable: -160 opinion (was -150)
    
    Added these values to DiploOpinionWeights.sql.
    
    Adjusted some Opinion modifiers
    * note: same as above
    
      Victory Dispute
      FIERCE: -45 (was -40), -3 per era (was -1)
      STRONG: -35 (was -30), -3 per era (was -1)
      WEAK: -25 (was -20), -3 per era (was -1)
      NONE: 0
    
      Victory Block
      FIERCE: -35 (was -30), -3 per era (was -1)
      STRONG: -25 (was -20), -3 per era (was -1)
      WEAK: -15 (was -10), -3 per era (was -1)
      NONE: 0
    
      Victory Dispute & Victory Block penalties are now doubled if the other player is considered close to any victory condition
    
      Land Dispute: Maximum bonus for no contested borders is now 20 (for conquerors in the early game) (was 15); note: not visible if visible approach is FRIENDLY
    
      Wonder Dispute: Civs with cultural leader traits will care more (-10 penalty for competition, +10 bonus for no competition); note: neither of these is visible if visible approach is FRIENDLY
    
      City-State Dispute: Civs with diplomatic leader traits will care more (-10 penalty for competition, +10 bonus for no competition); note: neither of these is visible if visible approach is FRIENDLY
    
      Recent Trade: Maximum bonus increased to 40 (was 35), but now decays completely within 100 turns (was 175)
    
      Different Majority Religions Penalty: No longer hidden if approach is FRIENDLY
    
     
  5. civplayer33

    civplayer33 King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    965
    I hope that doesn't make things too easy for those CV players that try to stay friendly with everyone.
     
  6. HeathcliffWarriors

    HeathcliffWarriors King

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    958
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Ways to anger the AI are plentiful, the Friend opinion threshold was increased, and since this version, AIs are significantly more strategic about their friend choices.

    If it is too easy, there are ways of resolving that problem. :) I'm thinking of adding an explicit diplomatic penalty for wonder spamming.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2019
  7. HeathcliffWarriors

    HeathcliffWarriors King

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    958
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    An explicit diplomatic penalty for wonder spamming has been added for the upcoming version. :)
     
  8. civplayer33

    civplayer33 King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    965
    For the curious: how does it trigger and how is it different from the existing "Wonder competition" mechanism?
     
  9. HeathcliffWarriors

    HeathcliffWarriors King

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    958
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Wonder competition = triggered by beating the other AI in a wonder race

    This penalty = applied if these conditions are met:
    Code:
    Player is not a teammate
    
    Player has more Wonders than we do
    
    Global average = the total amount of Wonders built, divided by the number of OTHER players who have built Wonders
    - AI will include Wonders built by dead/unmet civs, since the human can technically do the same by watching the single player scoreboard very closely
    
    Player meets one of these two criteria:
    - Built at least 3 Wonders, when no other player has built any Wonder
    - Built at least 3 more Wonders than the global average
    
    Wonders acquired through conquest do not count
    
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2019
  10. cerk

    cerk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2019
    Messages:
    87
    I was really scared that wonder spam penalty would be an unfun mechanic like civ 6 agendas and I'm glad to be proven wrong.
     
  11. HeathcliffWarriors

    HeathcliffWarriors King

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    958
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Nah, I wouldn't do that to you. :) I don't like the Civ 6 agendas system either; interesting on paper, but very unfun and oversensitive in practice, and not very strategic.

    It did seem a bit unbalanced that wide had a penalty (reckless expansion) that was not shared by tall. This is more balanced - and realistic, since humans would be more likely to attack a civ that was spamming Wonders too.
     
    vyyt and cerk like this.
  12. TranceBlossom

    TranceBlossom Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2018
    Messages:
    135
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Tokyo
    As a person who generally prefers Tall play, my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt, but I have some concerns.

    I understand the rationale that wide play has a tendency to get a reckless expansion diplo hit, and tall wonderspamming civs only have the "we're competing for wonders" which is a more conditional malus (because it only seems to occur if the other civ also wanted that wonder). However, in the grand scheme of things, are people finding that tall wonderspamming is currently too easy? Even without this new malus, tall civs were already more often the target of AI aggression just because their army is relatively weak due to not spending production on units AND having a lower supply cap. In my experience, playing peaceful tall is actually already slightly more difficult than peaceful wide on emperor, and a change like this risks further shifting that balance (playing aggressive is even easier, but that's a different topic). Do other people disagree? I haven't seen any discussion indicating that tall is too easy as of late.

    I understand wanting to make the AI smarter, and civs with lots of wonders are obviously a juicy target, but I also think changes that unilaterally make one style of play harder across difficulty levels should be approached with caution unless that type of play is already noticeably easier. Making the diplo AI smarter is one thing, but making it more human-like is a slightly different goal. There's a reason that viable strategies with human opponents are very limited and very war-based.
     
    HeathcliffWarriors and ASCII Guy like this.
  13. HeathcliffWarriors

    HeathcliffWarriors King

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    958
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    This is part of the reason the penalty is comparing with the average of players who have built Wonders, and not with the average of all players.

    The penalty isn't intended to punish players for playing Tall per se, it's intended to punish civs that are building lots of Wonders even compared to other Wonder-producing civs - because it's very easy for such a civ to snowball and win the game, if left unchecked.

    If you're building tons of Wonders this will generate extra hostility from both warmongers (who, building less Wonders, see an opportunity to get a juicy long-term infrastructure advantage without the work of constructing it) and other cultural civs (who want to build some of the Wonders themselves, and would benefit the most from them).

    Yes, making the AI humanlike and smart are two different goals. But my point was, "here's this way Wide can snowball out of control; the AI tries to punish that, but does nothing for a way in which Tall can snowball out of control".

    As for it only making one playstyle harder, I've also bumped AI aggression towards reckless expanders, especially if the AI considers them an easy target (think "Fall of the Roman Empire").
     
  14. HeathcliffWarriors

    HeathcliffWarriors King

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    958
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    If either penalty is too sensitive and players regularly obtain the penalty when they're just playing an average game without excessive expansion or Wonder spam, that's a separate issue and can be adjusted by tweaking some of the numbers.

    But no matter if you're playing Tall or Wide, it's a general principle of VP that you should construct a strong military if you want to survive the assaults of your foes, especially on higher difficulties. And if you spend Production on units, that slows down expansion and Wonder spam, thus giving other civs a chance at some land/Wonders.
     
  15. HeathcliffWarriors

    HeathcliffWarriors King

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    958
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    @TranceBlossom Also, in regards to your report of Montezuma declaring war on you when already at war with someone else (and not decidedly winning), thus opening himself up to attack; I've tweaked this for next version so AIs are less likely to start secondary wars like this; the AI's existing check for third party wars (which is what I suspected prompted it) was only disallowing it if the AI was losing the war, rather than at a stalemate.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2019
  16. Teholb

    Teholb Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    199
    Is it possible to both love and hate something in equal measure? This change will definitely challenge me to be a better player, as I almost always run a skimpy military in favor of infrastructure development and expansion. It's a cheesey strategy, though, so I'm glad the AI will be more aggressive in punishing it. I've literally never played Authority, even as Rome. I typically go for Progress and rely on my massive production to save me in a pinch when threatened.

    Bring on the war machine!
     
  17. HeathcliffWarriors

    HeathcliffWarriors King

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    958
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    If it does turn out to be too challenging, there is always the option of dropping down a difficulty level. :)

    But the change does only apply to excessive expansion and Wonder spam - if you have the modifiers for it in the opinion table, then it applies.
     
  18. Arbi

    Arbi Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2019
    Messages:
    16
    • Scenario: I play a game, I am friends with two leaders throughout pretty much the entirety of the game, vastly positive modifiers. Ideologies come up and suddenly - BOOM - they are hostile towards me, over literally a dozen positive modifiers, which all amount to nothing in comparison to the -70/90/.. of the differing ideologies.
      I don't think this is a rewarding player experience at all, and I thought this is maybe the thread to share it. I get the point that ideologies are supposed to be impactful and form blocks and all..but it feels ill balanced if they overwrite everything else..particularly in the presence of the occasional negative modifiers that are next to impossible to avoid or even control by the player (see also next bullet)
      --> As suggestion, I would love if either the ideology impact would be slightly reduced/rebalanced, maybe -45/65 or similar. So that it is hard, but not impossible to maintain relations over the game.
      or alternatively:
      Friendship modifiers should somehow scale in impact with friendship duration to be at least comparable to the ideology impact if properly maintained.

    • 'Competing over CS' negative modifier. Why does it show up from 'accidental' CS quests alone? It would make sense to me if it appeared through actual competition towards a CS, through great Diplomats or envoy-type units or spies (only). It's like one basically always has a -30(?) modifier towards later into the game, often for doing nothing but accidental quests. Isn't that silly?

    • Idk if it is diplomacy related or whatnot, but I had a -6% (minus 6%) CS coup chance in the last game. Something has to be wrong there.

    • I freed an occupied city and had the on-capture options: liberate/annex/puppet/raze, however, the 'view city' option was missing (which is useful/important when deciding what to do with the city..) Is there a max. 4 options cap? or what is the reason behind this?

    • Why are some modifiers decaying (e.g. -30.. -28.. -26 etc. with turns) and others disappear in chunks after period X? Wouldn't it make sense to have them all decay at some rate (impacted by e.g. severity) or be permanent? I think it would be more realistic if modifiers decayed with time and not like people get selective dementia after X years.

    • Negative modifiers for warmongering seem excessive at times and not that bad at others. It feels random sometimes.. Can I get an insight on how they are calculated by AI (what impacts them besides the AI hate versus warmongering bias?)
    Cheers.
     
    Bromar1 and lunker like this.
  19. HeathcliffWarriors

    HeathcliffWarriors King

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    958
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    • I adjusted the impact of ideologies on approach for next version because it was too high. If it's still too high, more adjustments can be made.
    • Intended, the penalty says "you are competing" but it really means "we want the City-State alliances you have, give them to us". Unfortunately there isn't a way to differentiate, however you can demand tribute/declare war on the City-State to cancel quests.
    • That's definitely a bug, please report it on Github. https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/issues
    • I suggest raising this issue on Github as well.
    • Civ 5 has memory limitations so I've been trying to limit memory usage. I think it's fine, they forgive you after a while and the penalty is impactful until then. There are several different systems for modifier decay and it's a bit complicated; thanks Firaxis. Can look into this for the future, though.
    • Proximity, same or opposing religion/ideology, friendship, global politics (who denounced and befriended who), size of a conquered city, military strength, whether the other AI is also at war with the player you attacked and if so, how well the war is going; these are all factors involved.
     
  20. bigcat88

    bigcat88 King

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    705
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, maybe this is an offtop. A quick question:
    Egypt conquers Korean city.
    Me(Danish) declare war on Egypt and conquer that city for me.(got something like 120-140 hate warmonger score)
    Egypt 2 turns later conquer it back. 3 turns later I conquer it again. After that my warmonger score was something like 280.
    Is it is a bug or not?

    I was thinking that warmonger score will not increase second time for the same city and war...
     
    SwirlSlayer and cerk like this.

Share This Page