Important question for Medpack users.

WesW · February 22, 2002, 19:52

From comments I keep reading about Crusade, I wonder if the personality-switching code is working. When the code kicks in, you should receive one of these messages:

"Good news, {player[1].sir}, we have received reports that the {player[0].civ_name_plural} have adopted a new, peaceful stance in their governmental outlook."

"{player[1].sir}, the {player[0].civ_name_plural} seem to be following a pragmatic new foreign policy."

"{player[1].sir}! I bring dire news! The {player[0].civ_name_plural} appear to have taken a new, aggressive stance in their foreign relations."

If these messages are being received, can you tell significant changes in AI behavior?
This code is one of the linchpins of the modpack, as it lets the AIs play their differing personalities, but subject to random changes to avoid boredom.
Everyone keeps reporting how the AIs are not aggressive enough. If this code is working properly, the average AI civ should have a couple of warmonger periods over the course of the game, which should be enough to keep things interesting no matter if you start next to India or the Mongols.

Leonidas · February 23, 2002, 00:47

WesW:

I played the medpack until the year 1740 AD on "Hard". It is a very thoroughly polished Mod and I enjoyed it immensely.

And yes, I did see the messages that you mention. However, I did not see any perceivable change in AI behaviour.

From 4000BC until 1740 AD, the AI didn't attack me once. Will the AI attack on the "Very Hard" or "Impossible" settings? The only war I had was the one I started. But I must say that the AI did some very clever stuff on defence.

To spice things up, I declared war on all 23 civs I was playing in the game. After about fifty years, nothing happened. Not a single enemy soldier from any of the 23 civs entered my territory.

Don't get me wrong, it is an excellent civ-building game and mod.

But IMHO, it would be a truly outstanding Mod if the AI was more aggressive. Can this be fixed or adjusted?

You have obviously put a great deal of work into this mod. If you can update it with a better AI, and possibly a few tweaks here and there, it will be one outstanding mod that I will play for a long time.

Cheers

Peter Triggs · February 23, 2002, 15:25

Wes, I think it's just that the PROVOKE_WAR diplomatic state is not very provocative.

If you want to monitor what diplomatic states the AIcivs are using, put this in a .slc file:

Code:

HandleEvent(BeginTurn) 'TestDipState' post {
int_t i;
int_t DipState;

    if (IsHumanPlayer(player[0])) {
	    for (i=1 ; i < preference("NumPlayers");i=i+1){
		    if (IsPlayerAlive(i) && i!=player[0].owner) {
		         player[1]=i;
			    DipState=GetNewProposalPriority(player[1],player[0],4);			   
			    if (DipState==100  ){
			         SetString(0,ID_DEFAULT);
			    }
			    elseif (DipState==250 ){
                        SetString(0,ID_PROVOKE_WAR);
			    }
			    elseif (DipState==75 ){
                        SetString(0,ID_MAKE_FRIEND);
			    } 
			    else{
			         SetString(0,ID_TELL_WES);
			    }
			    message(player[0],'ReportDipState');
		    }
	    }
    }
}

messagebox 'ReportDipState' {
    Text (ID_ReportDipStateM) ;
}

and this in a strings file:

Code:

DEFAULT "DEFAULT"

PROVOKE_WAR "PROVOKE_WAR"

MAKE_FRIEND "MAKE_FRIEND"

TELL_WES "ERROR: Tell Wes about this"

ReportDipStateM "The {player[1].civ_name_plural} are in the {action[0].text} dip state towards us"

Next, in whatever diplomacy.txt you're currently using, add this to the bottom of the DIPLOMACY_MAKE_FRIEND strategy:

Code:

ProposalElement {
		Proposal PROPOSAL_REQUEST_WITHDRAW_TROOPS
		SendPriority 75
		AcceptPriority 0
		RejectPriority 150
		SenderRegardResult -50
		ReceiverRegardResult 200
		ViolationRegardCost -250
		ViolationTrustCost -20
	}

and check that the SendPriority for PROPOSAL_REQUEST_WITHDRAW_TROOPS is 100 in DIPLOMACY_DEFAULT and 250 in DIPLOMACY_PROVOKE_WAR. They should be unless Dale changed them in some later version than the one I have.

You'll now get a message every turn telling you which diplomatic state the various AIcivs are taking towards you, so you can judge for yourself how these states affect the game.

WesW · February 23, 2002, 16:31

Thanks, Peter, though I don't know when I will be able to try out a game. I have been really sick the last couple of months, and it shows no signs of getting better.

Leo, I always play on very hard, but no wars the entire game is still surprising. In my games, if you bordered a militaristic civ, they would always enter into a fight to the death sooner or later, usually sooner. If you did not share a continent with a militaristic civ, that may explain some of it.

Leonidas · February 23, 2002, 22:48

WesW:

I noticed that many of the civs went to war with each other, but not one ever sent troops to fight me.

I checked their profiles, and there were plenty of "Evil Geniuses" leading their respective civs, but none too evil that they considered me to be much of a threat

Mind you, I was playing 28 civs on a huge map, so that might explain the problem. Next time, I'll try very hard on a regular map with perhaps 10 civs and see what happens. . .

Hope you're feeling better. . .

Peter Triggs · February 23, 2002, 23:26

Leonidas,

Were you the 'dominating' civ? There's always been a problem with gettting weaker civs to attack stronger ones.

Leonidas · February 24, 2002, 03:30

Peter Triggs:

Now that you mention it I was the "Overall" leader, although I was third "Militarily" and fourth "Scientifically". I found that most of the civs were on an upward curve.

I only had ten cities and I didn't consider myself very strong. At one point I even declared war on all 23 civs to see what would happen, and not one enemy unit even approached my territory. That is not bad in, and of itself, since if I wanted to conquer the world I would have to go after the other civs. As far as trying to win via the other options, the AI was giving me a run for my money.

The AI might have been doing the smart thing by not attacking me behind a walled city at this point in time. I found to defeat a fortified city on a hill required about 2 to 3 armies. When I took one city like this I lost 31 units! I simply couldn't afford any more "victories" like this one.

So somewhere in the AI's databanks it might have realized that defense is better than offence.

This is an excellent modpack for those who aren't warmongers, and want to build up a civ in relative peace (there will always be threats). If people want to win via the other options, the AI can stand toe-to-toe with the player

An even greater challenge can be had by playing on "Impossible" and with "raging hordes" checked

WesW · February 24, 2002, 21:24

Thanks for the Provoke war observation, Peter. Dale and I apparently had some miscommunication as to what I wanted there. What I wanted was for the new states to mirror the original states. Dale's new states are indeed friendlier than the original states, except for the regard loss per turn. I am going to copy the original states, and copy them into the new states in order to give us what I originally intended.

Leo, thanks for the further clarification of your game. I feel much better after your last post.
Remember that while the game allows over two dozen civs, it was not play-tested or designed with these numbers in mind, so the internal rankings used to determine many things only list the first 8 civs. I don't know if this means the top 8, or some other ranking.

Dale · February 25, 2002, 02:01

Sorry, my bad.

BTW, how's that diplo code coming Peter?

Leonidas · February 25, 2002, 12:53

WesW:

I was thinking that the huge number of civs I was playing with might have been the problem.

When I sent my diplomats around the world, many civs WERE at war with each other (usually the ones close to each other), and they did have armies and seige weapons next to their opponent cities.

So perhaps, it is best to play with 8-10 civs