|
Gort posted:AIs never agreeing to peace even when they're clearly losing is definitely something in vanilla Civ 5. As is human players saying "I guess I'll declare war on this guy on the other side of the world, maybe the sucker will pay me for peace". Really? I don't remember ever seeing that, but I've mostly played G&K and BNW - and my general take is either the AI pushes for peace relatively quickly regardless of circumstances - circumstances of surrender depending on who's winning.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Really? I don't remember ever seeing that, but I've mostly played G&K and BNW - and my general take is either the AI pushes for peace relatively quickly regardless of circumstances - circumstances of surrender depending on who's winning. Oh, when I was saying "vanilla Civ 5" I meant "unmodded Civ 5 with both expansions", not "unexpanded Civ 5". Whether the AI decides to accept your peace offer is a total crapshoot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
I've had AIs refuse peace before, but only when the war actually hasn't had anything of note happen yet. If I've trounced his armies or taken a city, then the AI will generally be willing to listen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
The on thing I've noticed in Vox Pop is that if the AI offers peace, you have to either accept it, or be ready for a large number of turns of war, because there seems to be some sort of cooldown on peace negotiations. I've had a number of wars unexpectedly extend because I didn't' want to make peace while I was two turns away from taking a city.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:The on thing I've noticed in Vox Pop is that if the AI offers peace, you have to either accept it, or be ready for a large number of turns of war, because there seems to be some sort of cooldown on peace negotiations. I've had a number of wars unexpectedly extend because I didn't' want to make peace while I was two turns away from taking a city. This, exactly. I'll have them on the ropes, or just want to get this one stupid city out of the way and they sue for peace. So I say no, take the city or whatever, leaving them with one stupid tiny city in one backwater and they respond with "My armies cannot be stopped". You HAVE no army, idiot. I really like the new flavor text in Vox it does really help, but its frustrating to have them say "Whats wrong, tired of war? HEH" all cocky. Why yes, yes I am. I have negative 20 happiness from war weariness because you refuse to accept peace despite being down 4 cities and no army, so despite me winning easily its actually hurting me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:This, exactly. I'll have them on the ropes, or just want to get this one stupid city out of the way and they sue for peace. So I say no, take the city or whatever, leaving them with one stupid tiny city in one backwater and they respond with "My armies cannot be stopped". Maybe make peace next time, you greedy dictator.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
War weariness is a loving stupid mechanic and I'm glad it's not in vanilla civ anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I really like the new flavor text in Vox it does really help, but its frustrating to have them say "Whats wrong, tired of war? HEH" all cocky. No, the Vox Pop AI knows exactly what it's doing. Your choices are to finish them off, or to fix your happiness deficit by other means. The AI keeps track of your happiness and will keep you locked in war on purpose if you're in the negatives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:No, the Vox Pop AI knows exactly what it's doing. Your choices are to finish them off, or to fix your happiness deficit by other means. The AI keeps track of your happiness and will keep you locked in war on purpose if you're in the negatives. I really doubt this for a few reasons. IF they were going to exploit the happiness mechanics, why do they trade luxury resources with the leading player? Why don't they go after luxury resources when they pillage? I think its more likely that the AI has a cool down on when it can accept peace and is set to never accept peace when the player initiates it. THey will say no to peace, so I'll take 3 more cities and they STILL won't sue for peace until THEY come to ME. I think its just hard wired that way and it works out that because the AI gets hax for its happiness it doesn't have a problem with war weariness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
I have successfully initiated peace negotiations in Vox Pop, but I had to try every turn for a while.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
AIs who you aren't at war with will trade luxury resources with the player because they're at peace. AIs at war will try to drag you to hell. C'mon it isn't that hard to figure out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:AIs who you aren't at war with will trade luxury resources with the player because they're at peace. AIs at war will try to drag you to hell. C'mon it isn't that hard to figure out. I think you're being pretty dismissive of it. I think its a genuine issue with Vox/Civ 5 and its frustrating because I don't think its meant to work that way. I think it ends up being that way because of behind the scenes mechanics, not because the clever AI is forcing you to be at war to tank your happiness. The AI literally does no other things to mess with your happiness in any other way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
So I'm trying to install some mods via the Steam Workshop... having an issue. I've trying to use mods that add techs + units (like Future Worlds or Enlightenment Era) and the starting unit is some crazy future tech unit. If I have just Enlightenment Era installed it'll be Line Infantry, or with Future Worlds it'll be Robotic Infantry. I played a couple turns and the barbarians are all replaced with future tech stuff too, and I seem to have just been given a few techs from way in the future as well. The tech tree is all messed up as well, most of the mod techs are not there but there are lines leading to where they should be. I think it's on my end because any combo of mods results in the same thing happening but I dunno what I'm doing wrong. It's not a mod conflict because it happens even if I just have 1 mod running.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
I'm a friend of the creator for Future Worlds, and I passed your issue along to him. This is what he had to say in response to your problem:quote:Not specifically, but particularly since it seems to be happening with EE as well, it's probably some kind of mod conflict that messes up the tech tree. If the xml files that define the new techs crash, the game will think that the new units don't have tech prereqs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Oh nice thanks! Hm so sounds like my system is having an issue with the .xml files then. I enabled logging and poked around, found this (among tons of other xml errors): [176166.656] In XMLSerializer while updating table Technologies from file XML/FutureTechnologies.xml So looks like your friend was right... The question is how do I fix that? Tried to google the error code but nada. e: looks like it basically failed to get anything at all from the .xmls including buildings and policies and everything... Makes me think of permissions errors but I'm running it as admin. \/\/\/ just tried that, didn't work Roylicious fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Roylicious posted:Oh nice thanks! Hm so sounds like my system is having an issue with the .xml files then. I enabled logging and poked around, found this (among tons of other xml errors): You could tell Steam to verify the game cache, since that's probably where the issue's coming in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Roylicious posted:So looks like your friend was right... The question is how do I fix that? Tried to google the error code but nada. Next step would be to delete the mods in question from the hard drive manually, then reinstall them. If that doesn't work, your problem may be with Civ5 itself, and not any of the mods, necessitating a full reinstall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:The on thing I've noticed in Vox Pop is that if the AI offers peace, you have to either accept it, or be ready for a large number of turns of war, because there seems to be some sort of cooldown on peace negotiations. I've had a number of wars unexpectedly extend because I didn't' want to make peace while I was two turns away from taking a city. I encountered this yesterday, but at least it makes sense in context in my game. The Celts started a war and took Brantford, it flipped a couple times, then Boudicca offered white peace while it was in her hands. By the time we were both done with it it was a pretty poo poo city, but it had strategic value as it controlled a strait into a Mediterranean-style sea. So I declined the peace, took the city back, and then offered peace. She wasn't having any of it. I just assumed at the time that the AI is programmed to reject peace if they have the upper hand (she's several techs ahead) and think they can make more gains.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I encountered this yesterday, but at least it makes sense in context in my game. The Celts started a war and took Brantford, it flipped a couple times, then Boudicca offered white peace while it was in her hands. By the time we were both done with it it was a pretty poo poo city, but it had strategic value as it controlled a strait into a Mediterranean-style sea. I love how Civ AIs think "I will take your city and keep it" is a white peace.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
Ive seen that too, but also where they are being crushed and still refuse to make peace, even a peace that is better for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
It's kindof unclear whether the Civ AI is meant to be 'roleplaying' as an actual nation would or just trying to win the game like another player. They do a bit of both.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Well, the Firaxis design policy is that the AI isn't trying to win or play the same game as the player, but rather exist and be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
I think in vanilla civ v, the AIs were supposed to be players trying to win, so there's probably some bits of that still left in brave new world
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Pvt.Scott posted:Well, the Firaxis design policy is that the AI isn't trying to win or play the same game as the player, but rather exist and be interesting. Do you know this from somewhere? The Firaxis devs are on a very tight leash when it comes to any kind of comment regarding their games, it seems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Gort posted:Do you know this from somewhere? The Firaxis devs are on a very tight leash when it comes to any kind of comment regarding their games, it seems. I know they've said something to that effect in a couple articles or interviews, but no ideas which ones. The idea is to profile foils for the player, not necessarily AI "players". Most Civ players just play to dick around in pseudo-history, not compete in a cutthroat competition for the win conditions, so that's what they program for. Dumb by design, somewhat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Yeah, I always thought that if you wanted roleplaying AIs in your game you shouldn't make it a "one guy wins, everyone else loses" deal. Otherwise there really is no point to making a game-long alliance, or refraining from just nuking the biggest threat the moment you get the bomb. It might be better if victory wasn't effectively just "have the best army at game end" (since even the peaceful victories require you to be able to withstand the other players trying to end you) but instead required you to hit competitive targets for each era. So the ancient era might have some victory points for having the most wonders, the classical might have victory points for the most territory, medieval might have victory points for killing the most units, and so on. They'd reshuffle each game. Then when the game ends you tally up your VPs and the winner's the civ with the most. And bring back respawning dead civs while you're at it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
What's the hard and fast rule for improvements? It doesn't matter since Civ VI comes out in two weeks but I may squeeze a game or two in. Farms on grassland, plains and hills with fresh water, trading posts on jungle, ignore bananas?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Gort posted:Yeah, I always thought that if you wanted roleplaying AIs in your game you shouldn't make it a "one guy wins, everyone else loses" deal. Otherwise there really is no point to making a game-long alliance, or refraining from just nuking the biggest threat the moment you get the bomb. Civ 4 was pretty good about this with the option for permanent alliances. Even if I only ever used them with the AI once, and aside from that to play long games with my friends and blockade them with Privateers because it's funny Admiral Joeslop posted:What's the hard and fast rule for improvements? It doesn't matter since Civ VI comes out in two weeks but I may squeeze a game or two in. Farms on grassland, plains and hills with fresh water, trading posts on jungle, ignore bananas? Always be building Academies until about Scientific Theory, at which point the cumulative benefit from a newer academy probably won't outweigh the instant boost from a GS before the end of the game. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:The on thing I've noticed in Vox Pop is that if the AI offers peace, you have to either accept it, or be ready for a large number of turns of war, because there seems to be some sort of cooldown on peace negotiations. I've had a number of wars unexpectedly extend because I didn't' want to make peace while I was two turns away from taking a city. There's a reason for this. The Vox Populi AI has a subroutine that it uses to determine whether it is willing to make peace. Having a city that's likely to be conquered soon raises this willingness, while the existence of an opposing city that is low on HP decreases this willingness. As soon as you conquer that city, their willingness to peace out craters as they try to retake it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:Farms, farms, farms, and farms. Even without fresh water, loving farms everywhere you possibly can. Leave bananas without a plantation because they cause -1 production, Jungles produce 2 science, and plantation only gives you +2 food +1 gold eventually. Maybe a Banana/Hills would be okay, but probably not. Unless you're playing Brazil - in which case Brazilwood camps EVERYWHERE.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
I'm having significant problems conquering cities in Vox Populi, and I don't remember having this much trouble when I played the CBP before. even with 2 catapults + 2 composite bowmen + 3 spearmen or so, I can't seem to whittle down a backwater city on plains without walls. Is my mistake trying to capture it before wiping out the enemy army in a pitched battle between our borders? Or am I just unlucky that in my two previous games, I picked a fight with the wrong guy? I was playing as America and tried defeating Siam, if that helps. I got their city to +- half of its HP after 10 turns of shuffling and bombarding and then my catapults got too damaged from his city's counter-fire to stay in the fight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
If cities have a fortifying unit, they seem to take dramatically less damage, and some of it gets transferred to the unit. You'll want a lot more ranged attackers--my vanilla stone age rush can work with just two archers, but I'm concerned to go up against an early city with fewer than five in Vox Populi. On the other hand, the city defense does have the whole change to how bombardment range works, so archers and siege outranges them and you can take cities pretty handily for a while until your opponents finally tech up to whatever lets them fire two tiles away instead of just the one. Part of me is disappointed that it's easier to take cities (because it's easier for the wrong reasons), but part of me is glad to have a cruise time 
Fur20 fucked around with this message at 09:30 on Oct 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
Glidergun posted:There's a reason for this. The Vox Populi AI has a subroutine that it uses to determine whether it is willing to make peace. Having a city that's likely to be conquered soon raises this willingness, while the existence of an opposing city that is low on HP decreases this willingness. As soon as you conquer that city, their willingness to peace out craters as they try to retake it. That's awesome. That's basically how I approach it too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:If cities have a fortifying unit, they seem to take dramatically less damage, and some of it gets transferred to the unit. You'll want a lot more ranged attackers--my vanilla stone age rush can work with just two archers, but I'm concerned to go up against an early city with fewer than five in Vox Populi. Ah, that makes sense. I noticed the defending unit takes damage too but I thought that was on top of the damage the city itself takes. Still, it's difficult for me to get more units than I brought because otherwise I'm paying like 20 gpt in unit maintenance around turn 100 and that's usually unfeasible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Ah, that makes sense. I noticed the defending unit takes damage too but I thought that was on top of the damage the city itself takes. Take a screenshot of how you're attacking the city.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
Something strange just happened. Playing vanilla, a city belonging to another civ just up and swapped control to me. We share no borders, I'm not influential with them in culture, and they're not in open revolution from ideology. I've never gone to war with this civ. Any ideas what happened?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
By Vanilla, you mean BNW but no mods, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Krazyface posted:By Vanilla, you mean BNW but no mods, right? Correct. Edit: Hell, a second city of theirs just converted. This is actually kind of annoying, it's tanking my happiness. Shooting Blanks fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Correct. When you say they're not in a revolutionary wave, are you talking about the description in the tourism menu? City-flipping happens due to unhappiness, the descriptions in that one menu are a very loose summary (I think it's based on how long they've been affected rather than how severely). If their happiness is bad, and you have at least some cultural influence over them, and your ideologies are different, then cities can flip, even if they're only described as in mild unrest. If any of that does not apply, it sounds like a bug to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
Their total happiness was -7, but we did have different ideologies. Third city just flipped - and I won the game the round after that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 07:00
|
|