Wars are allowed to go on for too long.

[Rick Drayson]

1UPT is a Civ 5 thing, not a VP thing, and it's not changing.

I get both of your points. Of course its wrong as it was wrong for Civ V to have gone 1UPT in the first place. I stated a fact, without armies you cannot get decisive battles. As ai improves so does the problem as they make more units
A single unit covering 100s of km2 was stupid. Have to wonder what the devs were thinking. Then again, seeing the monstrosity called Civ VI i can see into their intellect.

My dream is that someone creates Civ V remastered based on vox populi and all the cbp mods get $$ AND unit stacking with attrition gets added by the devs because they had the wisdom to do so.

 

[Lee Saxon]

I agree with these complaints about wars just going on forever, sometimes with little clear progress or actions happening, and I especially hate how their mood / willingness to discuss peace can sometimes fly in the face of the war score. But, as with the "declare war whenever the butts you feel like it, even if they were your BFF ally last turn" thing, I feel this is a complaint about most 4X, not VP-specific or even Civ-specific.

My 2 cents? I love the tile exploration and the management of individual units/cities in 4X/Civ 5, but vastly prefer the diplomatic systems of Grand Strategy / EU4. But a hybrid like that is a completely different game well beyond the scope of a mod.

1UPT is a Civ 5 thing, not a VP thing, and it's not changing.

Yeah, I don't get the complaints on this. Doomstacks were way more obnoxious than 1UPT. I do think that when they introduced 1UPT they should've adjusted the scale so that tiles/units were smaller and cities took up several.

 

[vyyt]

I get both of your points. Of course its wrong as it was wrong for Civ V to have gone 1UPT in the first place. I stated a fact, without armies you cannot get decisive battles. As ai improves so does the problem as they make more units
A single unit covering 100s of km2 was stupid. Have to wonder what the devs were thinking. Then again, seeing the monstrosity called Civ VI i can see into their intellect.

My dream is that someone creates Civ V remastered based on vox populi and all the cbp mods get $$ AND unit stacking with attrition gets added by the devs because they had the wisdom to do so.

Have you checked WHoward's Pick'n'mix mods? I think he has several versions of limited stacking. I haven't tried them (I am very happy with 1UPT and I surely see decisive battles after some attrition warring), but I've heard the AI was able to stack and fight quite well. You will also need WHoward's UI mod for stacking.

 

[notaspambot]

I don't really agree that wars are "allowed to go on for too long". Fighting wars can absolutely be a slog from a user-experience standpoint, but purely mechancially speaking, I've rarely had situations where I am winning, but wanting to peace out and not able to. Even if the AI isn't open to peacing out, it's usually because it's either too early, or because the AI has too many units near a specific city and I just need to clear them out, which means that I at least know what I need to do to remedy the situation.

As for wars often devolving into stalemates/AI unit replenishment speeds: Another reason why epic is the superior game speed.

That's not to say that stalemates don't happen, especially on higher difficulties, but it really does help the whole thing feel a lot better than on standard.

 

[Recursive]

I've made some adjustments to peace logic for next version. Should make very long stalemates less likely.

 

[Coffee Shop]

I agree with these complaints about wars just going on forever, sometimes with little clear progress or actions happening, and I especially hate how their mood / willingness to discuss peace can sometimes fly in the face of the war score. But, as with the "declare war whenever the butts you feel like it, even if they were your BFF ally last turn" thing, I feel this is a complaint about most 4X, not VP-specific or even Civ-specific.

My 2 cents? I love the tile exploration and the management of individual units/cities in 4X/Civ 5, but vastly prefer the diplomatic systems of Grand Strategy / EU4. But a hybrid like that is a completely different game well beyond the scope of a mod.



Yeah, I don't get the complaints on this. Doomstacks were way more obnoxious than 1UPT. I do think that when they introduced 1UPT they should've adjusted the scale so that tiles/units were smaller and cities took up several.

I liked the way Endless Legend handled this. Cities can take up multiple tiles and the army only takes one tile until combat. It wasn't perfect as ZOC didn't scale with army size. I still think it was one of the better ways to handle it in a 4x game

 

[Fluffball]

In my experience 1UpT doesn't cause the lack of decisive battles. A decisive battle/victory does take more thought, planning and strategy than with doom stacks and some people do seem to struggle with that.Then, it would seem, because it was so much easier with doom stacks they blame 1UpT instead of adapting to the current system. (It has been 10 year now!).

If i was to suggest a possible issue it would be the happiness bonuses the AI gets over the player. Long 'stalemate' wars are usually much more onerous for the player as the player will often want to end the war due to crippling unhappiness from war weariness rather than because they are losing the war or in danger of losing the war. Although on the other foot, if i have happiness under control and/or causing the AI criplling unhappiness (which is very rare) i will milk it for as long as possible. It is much more likely the player will be sufferring than the AI though so it is usually just if i have happiness under control i will milk it for as long as possible.

If i was to suggest a solution it would be along the lines of allowing the AI to assess the situation every so often turns to see if it is actually making progress.e.g. every 10 turns the AI asks itself, have i killed an enemy unit, pillaged a tile ot taken a city, if not then there seems no point carrying on. Or have some sort of variable.
The variable starts at 100 when a war starts.
Every turn of the war adds -5.
If an AI tile is pillaged, worker is captured or trade unit is destroyed unit is killed it adds -10.
If an AI military unit is killed, a great person tile or resource tile is pillaged it adds -20.
If an AI city is captured it adds -50.
If the AI has unhappiness it adds -75.
If the AI is lacking a strategic resource it adds -5 for every unit the AI controls which requires that resource.

If the AI pillages a player tile, captures a player worker or destroys a player trade unit it adds +20.
If the AI kills a player military unit, pillages a great person tile or resource tile it adds +40.
If the AI (re)captures a player controlled city it adds +100

If the variable reaches zero the AI will accept peace 'white peace' if offered.

 

[Recursive]

In my experience 1UpT doesn't cause the lack of decisive battles. A decisive battle/victory does take more thought, planning and strategy than with doom stacks and some people do seem to struggle with that.Then, it would seem, because it was so much easier with doom stacks they blame 1UpT instead of adapting to the current system. (It has been 10 year now!).

If i was to suggest a possible issue it would be the happiness bonuses the AI gets over the player. Long 'stalemate' wars are usually much more onerous for the player as the player will often want to end the war due to crippling unhappiness from war weariness rather than because they are losing the war or in danger of losing the war. Although on the other foot, if i have happiness under control and/or causing the AI criplling unhappiness (which is very rare) i will milk it for as long as possible. It is much more likely the player will be sufferring than the AI though so it is usually just if i have happiness under control i will milk it for as long as possible.

If i was to suggest a solution it would be along the lines of allowing the AI to assess the situation every so often turns to see if it is actually making progress.e.g. every 10 turns the AI asks itself, have i killed an enemy unit, pillaged a tile ot taken a city, if not then there seems no point carrying on. Or have some sort of variable.
The variable starts at 100 when a war starts.
Every turn of the war adds -5.
If an AI tile is pillaged, worker is captured or trade unit is destroyed unit is killed it adds -10.
If an AI military unit is killed, a great person tile or resource tile is pillaged it adds -20.
If an AI city is captured it adds -50.
If the AI has unhappiness it adds -75.
If the AI is lacking a strategic resource it adds -5 for every unit the AI controls which requires that resource.

If the AI pillages a player tile, captures a player worker or destroys a player trade unit it adds +20.
If the AI kills a player military unit, pillages a great person tile or resource tile it adds +40.
If the AI (re)captures a player controlled city it adds +100

If the variable reaches zero the AI will accept peace 'white peace' if offered.

I like this idea, thank you for suggesting it.

I've added a placeholder memory value for it and I'll code something like this soon.

 

[DeAnno]

I agree the most problematic situation is when you have a perfect defensive position and the AI just sacrifices troops into it for no gain for 30 turns without even being willing to consider White Peace much less consider stop charging their units into death. I think this is actually part of what makes Orders overpowered, even a defensive civ can milk so so much faith out of them with a good position to massacre units.

If the AI starts to really feel reluctance to continue in such situations I think it'll be very good for the game.

 

[azum4roll]

In my experience 1UpT doesn't cause the lack of decisive battles. A decisive battle/victory does take more thought, planning and strategy than with doom stacks and some people do seem to struggle with that.Then, it would seem, because it was so much easier with doom stacks they blame 1UpT instead of adapting to the current system. (It has been 10 year now!).

If i was to suggest a possible issue it would be the happiness bonuses the AI gets over the player. Long 'stalemate' wars are usually much more onerous for the player as the player will often want to end the war due to crippling unhappiness from war weariness rather than because they are losing the war or in danger of losing the war. Although on the other foot, if i have happiness under control and/or causing the AI criplling unhappiness (which is very rare) i will milk it for as long as possible. It is much more likely the player will be sufferring than the AI though so it is usually just if i have happiness under control i will milk it for as long as possible.

If i was to suggest a solution it would be along the lines of allowing the AI to assess the situation every so often turns to see if it is actually making progress.e.g. every 10 turns the AI asks itself, have i killed an enemy unit, pillaged a tile ot taken a city, if not then there seems no point carrying on. Or have some sort of variable.
The variable starts at 100 when a war starts.
Every turn of the war adds -5.
If an AI tile is pillaged, worker is captured or trade unit is destroyed unit is killed it adds -10.
If an AI military unit is killed, a great person tile or resource tile is pillaged it adds -20.
If an AI city is captured it adds -50.
If the AI has unhappiness it adds -75.
If the AI is lacking a strategic resource it adds -5 for every unit the AI controls which requires that resource.

If the AI pillages a player tile, captures a player worker or destroys a player trade unit it adds +20.
If the AI kills a player military unit, pillages a great person tile or resource tile it adds +40.
If the AI (re)captures a player controlled city it adds +100

If the variable reaches zero the AI will accept peace 'white peace' if offered.

What about AI vs AI wars though? It's very possible the value never reaches zero for one side, so that AI never considers peace despite having crippling unhappiness.

 

[Fluffball]

I like this idea, thank you for suggesting it.

I've added a placeholder memory value for it and I'll code something like this soon.

I am honoured to have my suggestion considered to be added to the game and i hope it proves useful.

What about AI vs AI wars though? It's very possible the value never reaches zero for one side, so that AI never considers peace despite having crippling unhappiness.

It may be useful in an AI vs AI wars but the concept is not meant to be a replacement for the existing peace coding but a back up to the existing peace coding to deal with a very specific issue where wars are not ending between a player and the AI but nothing is actually happening.
As my thought process was primarily about AI vs Human wars that is why the figures are biased as Player infrastructure is usually more valuable than AI infrastructure. i.e. the Player losing one unit is usually a great victory for the AI and a significant blow to the Player where as the AI losing one unit is often much less significant.

A legitimate question is does this even need to be included in AI vs AI wars?
Does the human player even notice if the AI is stuck in a war and does it have a noticeable effect on their enjoyment of the game as the core elements that keep the player enjoying the game is fun, interest and challenge, not fairness to the AI. If we weren't having this discussion would anyone have considered or noticed if the AI gets stuck in stalemate wars?
From a player perspective AI's being stuck in wars probably does have a potential effect on the Player experience in an indirect way in that i assume more processing takes place when an AI is at war than when it is at peace which could slow the game down. How much of an effect would that have and is it even noticeable by the player?
How often does the AI get stuck in a war with another AI and does this affect their ability to provide a challenge to the player?

If this was implemented for AI vs AI wars, my Blue Sky Thinking was that the AI would accept white peace if offered and the value was at zero, not that the AI would automatically offer peace or only consider peace once it reached zero. I assume there is other code which tells the AI to consider and ask for peace which would instigate the peace offer and the recipient would automatically accept white peace if their value was zero as a simple back up if other processes fail to do so even though the current conflict is pointless.
For AI vs AI wars the values would really have to be equal which would probably mean different sets of values for Human vs AI wars and AI vs AI wars to ensure that if the recipient value is not zero then they have to be actively participating in the war and having some success as either the countdown timer would reduce them to zero and/or they would be losing more infrastructure than the enemy which would drive them to zero. They would have to be doing more damage to the enemy than they are receiving to stay above zero and significantly more damage and thus have a chance of 'winning' to avoid the coutdown timer driving them down to zero.

 

[Recursive]

What about AI vs AI wars though? It's very possible the value never reaches zero for one side, so that AI never considers peace despite having crippling unhappiness.

Yeah, it's a backup, not a replacement.

 

[Delvemor]

. Oh look , both civs have 20 army units fighting over a front three tiles wide with forests and mountains limiting range shots.

That situation is never a problem on a Pangea map. I don't play Communitas or Continents maps anymore for that very reason. On a Pangea map I have a lot of space for land warfare while naval warfare remains very much relevant.

Having a lot more space to maneuver around allows you to hurt the AI a lot more by killing multiple units every turn, pillaging trade routes and tiles and attacking more than one city at a time. I guess you could also play on a bigger map with the same settings but with less AI for more space.

 

[Recursive]

In my experience 1UpT doesn't cause the lack of decisive battles. A decisive battle/victory does take more thought, planning and strategy than with doom stacks and some people do seem to struggle with that.Then, it would seem, because it was so much easier with doom stacks they blame 1UpT instead of adapting to the current system. (It has been 10 year now!).

If i was to suggest a possible issue it would be the happiness bonuses the AI gets over the player. Long 'stalemate' wars are usually much more onerous for the player as the player will often want to end the war due to crippling unhappiness from war weariness rather than because they are losing the war or in danger of losing the war. Although on the other foot, if i have happiness under control and/or causing the AI criplling unhappiness (which is very rare) i will milk it for as long as possible. It is much more likely the player will be sufferring than the AI though so it is usually just if i have happiness under control i will milk it for as long as possible.

If i was to suggest a solution it would be along the lines of allowing the AI to assess the situation every so often turns to see if it is actually making progress.e.g. every 10 turns the AI asks itself, have i killed an enemy unit, pillaged a tile ot taken a city, if not then there seems no point carrying on. Or have some sort of variable.
The variable starts at 100 when a war starts.
Every turn of the war adds -5.
If an AI tile is pillaged, worker is captured or trade unit is destroyed unit is killed it adds -10.
If an AI military unit is killed, a great person tile or resource tile is pillaged it adds -20.
If an AI city is captured it adds -50.
If the AI has unhappiness it adds -75.
If the AI is lacking a strategic resource it adds -5 for every unit the AI controls which requires that resource.

If the AI pillages a player tile, captures a player worker or destroys a player trade unit it adds +20.
If the AI kills a player military unit, pillages a great person tile or resource tile it adds +40.
If the AI (re)captures a player controlled city it adds +100

If the variable reaches zero the AI will accept peace 'white peace' if offered.

Update on this: AI now has a war progress score; if they're making very little progress they will accept a white peace faster. Needs playtesting.