FIRAXIS: A list of EASY fixes for the next C3C patch - Page 6

asleepathewheel · November 15, 2003, 12:36

Quote:

Originally posted by kwpulliam1973
The ability to enslave Barbs, if it is removed, should be removed with the addition of an editable flag. - I have already modded my preferred game to have all ancient footsoldiers capable of takeing worker slaves. While it may be unbalancing for a single civ to have this ability, when all civs have it, the AI seems to benefit from it. (i.e. if you remove barb enslavement now - others will start calling for it to be added as an editor flag - why not combine the request now)

Great. If there was some ancient unit that would enslave as well, that would end my concerns-just give the maya a two tech or so jump on other enslavers. Still unique, but others can similarly rape the barbs. Not that I think the AI could handle this, probably more an odd coincidence and random luck than by intention...

I'd rather see a new enslaver unit than a modded swordsman, maybe a 2/1/1 enslave for 30 shields at ironworking or something later. But I think giving the ai enslaving units would probably advance their terraformed infrastructure quite a bit.

Backpack · November 15, 2003, 14:42

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

SNIP
Not that I think the AI could handle this, probably more an odd coincidence and random luck than by intention...

SNIP
But I think giving the ai enslaving units would probably advance their terraformed infrastructure quite a bit.

That's exactly how it seemed to help the AI - I admit I'm not playing in debug mode so this is just anecdotal, but all the AI civs seemed to keep up with me in getting tiles improved during the ancient age and a little bit past. I know I was capturing the odd Barbarian worker from AI civs well into Industrial and Modern age.

joncnunn · November 15, 2003, 18:52

Add on the easy list for conquests specific:

1. In WW II: Pacific, Is San Francisico (Capital) missing a starting Factory an oversight? It appears that all the other West coast cities has them, and it just doesn't seem right to me that in Dec 1941 that the S.F. area would be so low in shield production compared to the other cities, especally the Portland area. Also wasn't the Harbor on Long Beach in existance by Dec 1941? (If So, LA would seem to be missing a Harbor)

2. I think that the initial city build list for all civs in all conquests should be looked at. The shear number of cities set to start building a wonder in Rise of Rome was way too large for a conquest orientated scenerio, and what's up with US island cities building Libaries and Universities? (And some of those that won't complete in the score of the game unless rushed.)

Inverse Icarus · November 15, 2003, 20:20

the civlopedia entry for Dias' Voyage is wrong in the Age of Discovery scenario... it's the entry for palace.

DrSpike · November 15, 2003, 21:34

I tried a few Dutch starts tonight and not all my cities got the extra food. Is this a bug?

alexman · November 15, 2003, 21:44

Were they founded next to fresh water?
That's when they get a food bonus in Despotism.

Joncnunn, I'm scared to start adding historical accuracy suggestions for the conquests. It will quickly get out of control.

And as far as I know, you can't set initial builds in a scanario, can you? It's the AI who sets the first build, and it's by no means an 'easy' fix to teach the AI to build the proper thing in all the different conquests...

dexters · November 15, 2003, 21:44

no food bonus under despotism (i think)

WarpStorm · November 15, 2003, 22:10

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
I tried a few Dutch starts tonight and not all my cities got the extra food. Is this a bug?

No, under despotism only your capital and cities on rivers get the bonus.

alexman · November 16, 2003, 02:10

Quote:

Originally posted by joncnunn
Starting worker locations in the Rise of Rome scenario disperately need relocated out of the capitals.

There are no workers in the capitals you mention!

The workers you bought were probably the bonus workers the AI gets for difficulty level. Not an easy fix.

RobC · November 16, 2003, 02:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
Mayan Javelin Throwers should not be able to Enslave Barbs.

Along the same lines, to limit barb-harvesting abuse, I recommend allowing units to only promote up to Veteran after a victory against barbarians (i.e. you can get a bunch of vets but not a bunch of elites; for elites you need to send your vets in against other civs' units)

alexman · November 16, 2003, 02:40

Since barb-harvesting for promotions is available to all players, is it really an abuse though?

Tassadar500 · November 16, 2003, 02:50

IRL can barbarians be made into slaves?

alva · November 16, 2003, 03:18

Was a standard procedure AFAIK.

Backpack · November 16, 2003, 03:55

Editor Feature Request - Maybe Easy May be not - opinions?

Rate of Enslavement (X in 10) drop down box, or percentage - Per unit settable

Background - In much of history, the choice of the victors was to accept the parole of surviving losers, take them into servitude or slavery or kill them. - I would like to make / see a mod where many of the non-technical units had a 10% chance of recruiting a similar unit from the battle - This is exactly what lead to the ability for any unit to enslave and create any other unit - All that remains is the ability to Mod the rate of enslavement (currently set to 33%)

Is it an easy change? - I would think so - I can't imagine the 33% being hardcoded into the game more than once, since it is a new feature itself. -

Thanks

Kevin P.

RobC · November 16, 2003, 04:19

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Since barb-harvesting for promotions is available to all players, is it really an abuse though?

Well, I'm pretty sure the AI doesn't intentionally leave a barb camp standing and surround it with units, rotating in vets to until they get promoted to elite...

notyoueither · November 16, 2003, 04:25

And the AI doesn't really use bombard either. So let's get bombard units out of the game. Where do you stop?

statusperfect · November 16, 2003, 05:42

Quote:

Originally posted by RobC
Well, I'm pretty sure the AI doesn't intentionally leave a barb camp standing and surround it with units, rotating in vets to until they get promoted to elite...

Hey... nice "strategy"

DrSpike · November 16, 2003, 07:48

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm

No, under despotism only your capital and cities on rivers get the bonus.

Thanks. I wondered if it might be restricted on purpose but didn't draw the river conclusion, especially since the first start I tried had almost every city on rivers and hence I didn't notice their effect.

It's probably just as well, that first start I played the early expansion was killer. I had 6 cities ludicrously fast.

alexman · November 16, 2003, 10:02

Quote:

Originally posted by RobC

Well, I'm pretty sure the AI doesn't intentionally leave a barb camp standing and surround it with units, rotating in vets to until they get promoted to elite...

No, but this is not the only case where AI tactics are different than human tactics. The AI does actively pursue barbarians though (and always knows where they are), and on the higher difficulty levels you have to be lucky to kill a barbarian before the AI gets there with all its extra units.

Dominae · November 16, 2003, 11:21

Quote:

Originally posted by RobC
Along the same lines, to limit barb-harvesting abuse, I recommend allowing units to only promote up to Veteran after a victory against barbarians (i.e. you can get a bunch of vets but not a bunch of elites; for elites you need to send your vets in against other civs' units)

I agree with alexman here. Promotions from Barbs is not a major problem because: 1) all tribes benefit from it equally (making it like bombardment, which we're not taking out of the game) and 2) the discrepancy between what the AI gets out of it and what human players do is not very big (compared to Slave farming).

Dominae

Alfonso · November 16, 2003, 12:29

To the Spanish community of players we do not like the names of the cities of c3c, name of military leaders and scientists leaders.

we have prepared a list with the names that we would like that you changed in the next patch.

Name of the leader:

Isabella is an Italian name, is more correct to call it Isabel. Isabel is Spanish name.

Name of cities:

Madrid
Barcelona
Sevilla
Valencia
Zaragoza
Málaga
Toledo
Bilbao
Santiago
Murcia
Valladolid
Palma
Córdoba
Vigo
Gijón
Alicante
Salamanca
A Coruña
Granada
Santander
Alcalá de Henares
Cartagena
Tordesillas
Vitoria
Pamplona
Cádiz
León
Almería
Oviedo
Las Palmas
Logroño
Mérida
Burgos
Tarragona
Segovia
Tenerife
Albacete
Elche
Jaén
Sagunto
Badajoz
Vigo
Zamora
Soria
Aranjuez
Lugo
Cáceres
Castellón
Almansa
Lleida

Spanish UU:

That the Conquerors cost 50 shields instead of 70, that have 3 of defense (3.3.2).

Name of military leaders:

El Cid
Colón
El Gran Capitán
Zúñiga
Agustina de Aragón
Espartero

Name of scientists leaders:

Miguel Servet
Gerardo de Cremona
Severo Ochoa

Suggestions:

Leader naval: They would have the same options that the terrestrial ones, that is to say, could finish a wonder or form a Navy. When discovering Navigation and having an active Navy would unblock the small wonder “Naval academy” that would serve to create Navies. The Navies serian in the sea the equivalent thing to the earth armies.

Spanish cities in other civilizations:

There are Spanish cities in other civilizations that would not have to appear.

Portugal: Badajoz is spanish.

I hope that it can solve these errors in the next patch.

Kuciwalker · November 16, 2003, 14:10

Naval leaders: NO!

They would make naval combat one-dimensional.

WarpStorm · November 16, 2003, 14:26

Naval Leaders also don't fit in the category of Easy Fixes, IMHO.

Theseus · November 16, 2003, 15:37

I liked the suggestion to prevent Curraughs from traveling on ocean.

DrSpike · November 16, 2003, 15:52

What are the sinking probabilities for seafaring and non-seafaring nations in sea and ocean?

Tassadar500 · November 16, 2003, 16:13

Theseus even if that isn't done we can put that into the AU mod if people want to see. You are on the panel.

Theseus · November 16, 2003, 17:02

Yeah, certainly. It just seems from what I've read that human use of Curraughs in general, much less suicide runs, is unbalancing.

Catt · November 16, 2003, 18:23

Not sure how easy these fixes would be . . .

Make AIs value Ivory more than other luxuries until the Statue of Zeus is completed. You can trade for Ivory and the imported ivory is sufficent to enable the wonder build.

Make AI civ with ivory place higher priority on Mathematics. The Japanese researched Mysticism, Polytheism, Philosophy, Map Making, and Literature before I traded Mathematics to them. The map is an archipelago max land, and each civ (except for one pair) is alone on a landmass. I also have an ancient age tech lead, so I am sure that the map conditions and the deppreciating research cost of techs I had already researched may have influenced Japan's choices, but with an early monopoly on ivory, I would hope that Math would be a priority.

Refine AI decision regarding declaration of war. This one is probably tough, but there is virtually no reason I can think of for an AI civ, without Map Making (or Writing!) and halfway around the world, to declare war on the human. It provides a happiness boost for the human and potentially skews the AI's build choices disproportionately towards units in the early game. I am not sugesting a whole reqorking of the war decision process -- but perhaps some sort of check on whether the AI can even actually mount any sort of an attack on the rival.

Catt

vmxa1 · November 16, 2003, 18:44

I agree with you Catt, the AI needs a sanity check on war declarations and MPP deals.

dexters · November 16, 2003, 19:12

Two points.

1st, an agreement. I think should should infact be relatively easy to implement. The AI could simply be made to check for a land route to your empire. Second, check for distance, third check for # of units capable of traversing that distance., multiplied by the average of their movement factor and then multiplied by the tech level plus number of units that can travel that distance as a base score. (if we're dealing with galleys for example, its 2 transport capacity can be included as well to make a total of 3 units)

If they are on a different continent, the only units would be ships and transports.

There are a lot of smart math type people here, so I leave it to you guys to come up with a nice algorithm for the AI to calculate. It should be relatively easy to come up with a score. The higher the score, the more likely they will to declare war and lower the cost.

2nd point is that we don't really know what the AI is getting out of it. I've noticed, and note this is just from random observations resulting from my regular visits to each AI civ each turn to peddle my warez, that when AI civs are enticed into declaring war via military alliance tends to get gold, and maybe even techs. It may infact be a good thing for an AI to engage in these phoney wars, and most of the time, they never bother sending anything.

A question then is, can the AI be programmed to conduct these phoney wars like a human? Where they declare war but build like they are at peace. I think they can. The bigger question is, will Firaxis or BA bother with adding the extra coding? I think they are obligated to... considering the amount of money the fanbase has poured into their coffers with 2 xps, and the original release.

Quote:

I agree with you Catt, the AI needs a sanity check on war declarations and MPP deals.

I've noted, and Alexman has included in the list an MPP related craziness with the AI making peace with a Civ, not realizing the civ is MPPed with another Civ is it still at war with and this retrigging war, again and again, since part of the AI wants to make peace but it can't fathom its own actions are retrigging the war.