quote: Originally posted by Apollon on 02-14-2001 01:35 AM For Diplomod 3.2, it's easy to install, just follow the instructions in the readme's.

Hi Apollon,

From another software challenged person, what tool does
one use to edit the 'script.slc' file in the diplomod
instructions.

Everything else is easy because there all .txt files

quote: Originally posted by Dale on 03-06-2001 07:41 PM In what sense? I've read through all the comments relating to AI and diplomacy, and implemented what I see as necessary to bring some intelligence and thought to it. But what specifics were you thinking of?

Richard had identified some bugs in the Activision implementation. Are those fixed in diplomod 3.3?--I'm interested in whether diplomod 3.3 addresses known problems other than the lack of diplomatic interaction between AIs so that it is a suitable default configuration.
Otherwise, I might as well play SMAX until Civ3 comes out. Thanks,

Certainly not realistic, but the computer works with numbers, not realism.

One thing I discovered in experimentation is that range factors have to start at 15. A range factor of less than that will put those units on the front lines, so if you tweak numbers, you have to take that into account.

But here's an example of what I did in diplomacy.txt

The original:

ProposalElement {
Proposal PROPOSAL_TREATY_ALLIANCE
SendPriority 100
AcceptPriority 110
RejectPriority 100
SenderRegardResult 200
ReceiverRegardResult 200
ViolationRegardCost -100
ViolationTrustCost -30
}

The moded:

ProposalElement {
Proposal PROPOSAL_TREATY_ALLIANCE
SendPriority 200
AcceptPriority 200
RejectPriority 50
SenderRegardResult 250
ReceiverRegardResult 250
ViolationRegardCost -300
ViolationTrustCost -50
}

As I said, an extreme. But the increased priorities made the AI consider them. By increasing accept priority to the same, it makes the AI accept more alliance requests, as lowering reject makes it not want to reject it. The violation costs make the AI want to hold onto it a little longer. For example, with a -50 trust, by violating an alliance, the other party is going to take a LONG LONG time before it trusts the violator again. More in line to how I think.

I'll try and fine-tune the diplo a bit more tonight and let you know tomorrow.

But here's an example of what I did in diplomacy.txt

The original:

ProposalElement {
Proposal PROPOSAL_TREATY_ALLIANCE
SendPriority 100
AcceptPriority 110
RejectPriority 100
SenderRegardResult 200
ReceiverRegardResult 200
ViolationRegardCost -100
ViolationTrustCost -30
}

The moded:

ProposalElement {
Proposal PROPOSAL_TREATY_ALLIANCE
SendPriority 200
AcceptPriority 200
RejectPriority 50
SenderRegardResult 250
ReceiverRegardResult 250
ViolationRegardCost -300
ViolationTrustCost -50
}

As I said, an extreme. But the increased priorities made the AI consider them. By increasing accept priority to the same, it makes the AI accept more alliance requests, as lowering reject makes it not want to reject it. The violation costs make the AI want to hold onto it a little longer. For example, with a -50 trust, by violating an alliance, the other party is going to take a LONG LONG time before it trusts the violator again. More in line to how I think.

I'll try and fine-tune the diplo a bit more tonight and let you know tomorrow.

------------------
Author of Diplomod. The mod to fix diplomacy.

------------------
Author of Diplomod. The mod to fix diplomacy.

Another thing I recently noticed. They ask me money for improvements.

It was on the CTP2/Suggestions Board in the "Things to include in patch2" thread. (I think that was the name). It's the biggest thread on the board, so you cant miss it. (about 78 messages).

(Reading through those messages will take a while, though).

STRATEGY_BARBARIAN {

// must inherit from default
Inherit STRATEGY_DEFAULT

STRATEGY_BARBARIAN {

// must inherit from default
Inherit STRATEGY_DEFAULT

I've bumped up the Barb setting in the risk file at about the same level as what you have, though I do not have the goody hut chance set so high, and also bumping up the setting to make them a problem for longer in the game

What I've found to happen is that in just about every test I've run, the Barbs manage to take out a civ early. Then they continually crank out military from their cities they have captured. If the Barb civ is far away from me, then they become a thorn in the AI's side. From a personal preference, I would rather have the original civ in place and the Barbs be an ongoing irritant, but not to the point of having the Barbs overrrun everyone.

On the flipside, I like the fact that I continually have to keep my cities well-defended, as they are constantly popping up. And when they attack a city, even if they lose, they often reduce the pop of that city, setting me back a bit.

What I may do is push back the starting time for barbs from the default setting of 20, allowing the AI civs a chance to establish themselves. Any opinions on this?

A question - how much percentage-wise did you reduce the cost of units? In my setup, I went in the opposite direction for units cost, bumping them up a small amount. (but this is because of the AI boost in DiffDB and the fact that in my early game, there are only military and settlers to build on the tougher levels, as improvements are pushed back) I may have to reverse that trend.

Swiching AI build priorities in the AdvanceList.txt file should help - you may have to determine just what is effective for the AI to build though (and once again, this is a subjective matter), and that may mean having it build something first that goes against its personality. (Having a economic personality go for military advances first, and bump up the production support tolerance levels too)

Could you email me your risks.txt file and your diffDB.txt file to look at?

However, even though I haven't read many of the strategy posts, and I haven't beaten the civ2 and c:ctp AIs at anything beyond 'Prince', I'm still finding that the CtP2 AI is easier to beat. And it isn't that I'm using any fancy strategy, just doing my own thing and attacking cities when they bother me. So there's definitely something lacking here.

I had the same problem at first, with the barbs wiping out entire civs. I at first simply bumped up the garrison sizes but found that the civs werent building any garrisons at all. I found a build queue list (cant remember the exact name off the top of my head) that controls which build list the AIs use. I moved the garrison list to the top of every list and since then the civs arent losing as many cities. The barbs will still wear down some garrisons, and if that city is building a wonder, the civ wont be replacing the lost units. Almost every city I see now that is taken by the barbarians is either very young and hadnt had a chance to build its garrison, or is building a wonder. And since the barabarians are equal to the toughest units currently available (not realistic but i wanted the extra challenge on the impossible level), it forces me to keep my garrisons at modern levels. No more holding my capital with a hoplite when its in the 1900s. Theres another flag in the risk file that tells how close the barbarians can appear near a city. I made it 7 so that any nation with a solid border wont have to worry about its interior cities being under constant attack. Since the AI seems to ignore the minsettledistance flag frequently, they tend to have overlapped cities thus a solid borders and only their outer cities tend to be subject to attack as the game progresses. I also start the AI civs with 3 settlers which helps them build a border faster, and gives them a small starting advantage since I almost always start with 2. I too had contemplated delaying the arrival of the barbarians, but the other changes seem to have balanced everything. My last game I saw 4 cities fall to the barbarians (not the actual cities but I saw parts of red borders on the small map). Every city was "liberated" by 500bc, altho not always by its founder. I was annoyed because I couldnt get to any of them and really needed the settlers that the disbanded cities would have provided. Unfortunately, I've received info that the barbarians are programmed to act like a civ if they capture a city, which is exactly what I see them do too often, instead of becoming the unit producing centers that I had envisioned. I'm assuming the barbarians are using the default strategy so I'll see how changing that will affect them and if it has negative effects on the actual civs.

I reduced most ancient unit costs between 25-33%, and the cost of civilians i think about 10% (I'll post my newest units file too). I'm trying to reevaluate the entire cost/support/attack/defense structure to make it correspond more to reality. I'm starting with a roman cohort (1/10 of a legion) as 500 men, and a roman cavalry was about 250. From that, I'm making most foot units 500 and mounted units 250. Then I try to figure out how many boats would be needed to transport x number of units. Based on these things is how I'm trying to determine costs. Its far from completed so I came up with some basic guesses just so I have something in case my new cost structure turns out to be totally whacked. Eventually, when these units are created, the appropriate number of people will be deducted from that city's population, or added if disbanded within a city.

My guess for my advance screw up is that I have some prequisite(s) after the the wanted advance, so that the AIs are bypassing certain advances which leaves them with only the more expensive ones to research thus dragging down their tech advancment rate. With so many advance lists, i figured i'd mess up a few.

With every strategy's support rate set at least to 35%, the AIs have plenty of room to build large armies. I did increase the benefit of bazaars/brokerages/banks to compensate ( i thought the %'s too low regardless).

quote: Originally posted by WesW on 02-07-2001 08:21 PM AW, this paste fron the strategies.txt should answer your second question. STRATEGY_BARBARIAN { // must inherit from default Inherit STRATEGY_DEFAULT This means that the Bars will use the default settings unless new ones are listed in their section.

This is true, however, they should using the barbarian strategy but instead are buildings wonders and buildings which means they switched to the default. My theory was towards the "why" not the "what". No doubt in my mind that they switch but I cant figure out the circumstances that cause the switch. I cant change the default strategy for fear that it will have adverse effects on the other civs especially new breakaway civs. I'd like to keep the barbarians confined to their own strategy so i can define their behavior in a primarily barbarians way

Just call me Prince of the Barbarians OOPS, make that Settler of the Barbarians

quote: Originally posted by WesW on 02-07-2001 08:21 PM AW, this paste fron the strategies.txt should answer your second question. STRATEGY_BARBARIAN { // must inherit from default Inherit STRATEGY_DEFAULT This means that the Bars will use the default settings unless new ones are listed in their section.

This is true, however, they should using the barbarian strategy but instead are buildings wonders and buildings which means they switched to the default. My theory was towards the "why" not the "what". No doubt in my mind that they switch but I cant figure out the circumstances that cause the switch. I cant change the default strategy for fear that it will have adverse effects on the other civs especially new breakaway civs. I'd like to keep the barbarians confined to their own strategy so i can define their behavior in a primarily barbarians way

Just call me Prince of the Barbarians OOPS, make that Settler of the Barbarians

quote: Originally posted by phoenixcager on 03-02-2001 03:40 AM I'm not sure about the technical aspects of what you guys are saying, but from the perspective of a regular player, I'd agree pretty much with the statement that the AI isn't very bad. However, even though I haven't read many of the strategy posts, and I haven't beaten the civ2 and c:ctp AIs at anything beyond 'Prince', I'm still finding that the CtP2 AI is easier to beat. And it isn't that I'm using any fancy strategy, just doing my own thing and attacking cities when they bother me. So there's definitely something lacking here.

There are nine words that a reviewer can write that will kill any work of fiction: "I don't care if the hero lives or dies."

quote: Originally posted by Dale on 03-07-2001 03:17 AM Some of the problems with diplomacy are hard-coded problems. IE: the research pact bug. I have tried to counter/elliminate as many as I could, as well as try to enhance the diplomacy activities of the AI. Unfortunately there are some that I can do nothing about. IE: the pay-for-advance bug.

I'm currently running with diplomod 3.3. I'll report any serious problems. Wish me luck!

open stratgy.txt,look at a line near the bottom of each strategic state
it will look like this

// minimum distance between settled cities
// (eg. new cities must be founded atleast 2 cells from nearest cities collection border)
MinSettleDistance 4

// cells with settle scores below this threshold will not be used
MinSettleScore 600

//
if you check out terrain.txt you will find each tile has a value used to determin if its a good place to settle.hope this solves it for you.

Hannibal

- They requested 200 gold in a haughty tone.
- I refused.
- They threatened war.
- I still refused.
- They declared war.

After declaring war, they sent a couple of stacks at me, which I brushed off and they requested a cease-fire.

This is the weekends goals:

1 - Make the AI build diplos.
2 - Make the AI pursue diplo functions as per their government (communist with other communist, repub with other repubs, etc) Birds of a feather flock together basically.
3 - Make the AI pursue diplo functions based on their personality. Eg. Militarilist leaders pursue demands/threats. Scientists pursue advances/research pacts. Etc.

- They requested 200 gold in a haughty tone.
- I refused.
- They threatened war.
- I still refused.
- They declared war.

After declaring war, they sent a couple of stacks at me, which I brushed off and they requested a cease-fire.

This is the weekends goals:

1 - Make the AI build diplos.
2 - Make the AI pursue diplo functions as per their government (communist with other communist, repub with other repubs, etc) Birds of a feather flock together basically.
3 - Make the AI pursue diplo functions based on their personality. Eg. Militarilist leaders pursue demands/threats. Scientists pursue advances/research pacts. Etc.

(if(Apolyton_member){
disable_bugs();
}