Damn You Blake!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Diadem
The imperialisti and GW bonus seem to be multiplicative by the way, rather surprisingly. My axeman got 3 exp for a battle, but my great general points increased with 12. Playing as cyrus with the GW build (well, edited into the city :P)

Again, sounds like a bug, but that's really, really good. In fact, you could use that to practically farm GG's...

[Thedrin]

Calvin Vu:
The second one was in the Aztec capital (by that time I have already eliminated both the Japanese and the Aztec). I didn't notice whether the Aztec capital has been turned into my capital or not and I thought it was rather strange that the GG was there instead of my capital but it didn't hurt so I ignored it.

While I haven't witnessed this bug or attempted to recreate it, I regularly see great generals appearing in cities other than my captial.

Welshie:
About the capital thing - when you guys say "stars"

I suspect he means that the city size appears inside a star (as is the normal representation for a capital instead of in a circle).

[ColdPhoenix]

The last general I got last night appeared in my Versailles city, which was also the closest (of my three cities with palace, forbidden palace and versailles) to the battle.

An untested but possible theory is that it appears in the closest city used for distance maintenance calculations (capital, fp, versailles). Maybe if you're running state property it would appear in the nearest city?

[couerdelion]

I've never seen the capital move for a GG.

My last GG was generated far from the battle in the former Inca city of Tiwanaku. Culturally it was OK but nowhere near the culture of my shrine city. There's no forbidden palance or versailles either.

At the moment, I just see random selection at work here and no pattern. Maybe I should pay a little more attention.

[Diadem]

In my test game I simply set up 3 cities, one the capital, and did a lot of battles in the culture of one of the other cities. Most GGs were generated in the capital, but a few were generated in the city where I was doing battle. Capital didn't move though.

None were generated in the 3rd city. This could be coincidence though, the sample size was not big enough for meaningful conclusions about that.

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Assuming the code in the SDK, and my parsing of it is correct....

Your Great Generals can appear in any city, with a bias which favors large cities and cities with high yields.

The biases are based on the ranking of the cities, not the actual totals.

CvPlayer::setCombatExperience

[Calvin Vu]

Originally posted by VoiceOfUnreason
Assuming the code in the SDK, and my parsing of it is correct....

Your Great Generals can appear in any city, with a bias which favors large cities and cities with high yields.

The biases are based on the ranking of the cities, not the actual totals.

CvPlayer::setCombatExperience

I guess it's just a coincidence that the GGs have always popped up in the capital for me before the patch then.

In that case, I could have made a mistake and built the palace in Tokyo then. That's a pretty expensive mistake, almost the same as nuking my own capital .

[binTravkin]

I guess it's just a coincidence that the GGs have always popped up in the capital for me before the patch then.

Bureaucracy..

[Dactyl]

As far as I'm concerned Blake's changes have
broken the game. The game was a challenge for me at Monarch level (Epic speed). Now it's no fun. Unless you want to go to war and stay at war all the time, you can't win. For crying out loud, there are three levels above this. Was the intent to make the game impossible? I could see fixing the AI so that the gimmicks and slingshots were removed. There was no need to change it so that players have to drop down a level, and rolling back is no answer because I DO want the gimmicks and slingshots removed. Beyond that we should have been given the option to accept or reject further AI changes.

[Kuciwalker]

Really, I can't think of any other response to that.

[binTravkin]

As far as I'm concerned Blake's changes have
broken the game. The game was a challenge for me at Monarch level (Epic speed). Now it's no fun. Unless you want to go to war and stay at war all the time, you can't win. For crying out loud, there are three levels above this. Was the intent to make the game impossible? I could see fixing the AI so that the gimmicks and slingshots were removed. There was no need to change it so that players have to drop down a level, and rolling back is no answer because I DO want the gimmicks and slingshots removed. Beyond that we should have been given the option to accept or reject further AI changes.

Dactyl, the AI was made much smarter, but it's still far inferior to even an average human.

The difficulty levels are scaled by the bonuses AI gets and you lose.

If you are comfortable on Prince, that means, you have that much skill and thinking and it's your problem you can't do better.
If you want to improve your skills, this forum is full of advices, strategies and expierences, use it.
If you don't want to improve your skills, well, you're Prince and that's it.

The fact that there are levels above doesn't mean you're not playing the game at full.
Deity AI was pretty much unplayable as is and only so much people were playing on immortal.

Blake has done amazing job and Im hoping for him taking the place of AI programmer for CiV (of course if both parties are interested ).

[Dis]

It all depends on how you view the difficulty levels. Everyone feels like they should eventually be able to advance up and beat Diety. But those top levels should be unbeatable as far as I'm concerned. Most people should be playing the middle levels. My only fear is that I won't be able to beat Noble. I hate to think the AI is better than me with equal footing.

[player1]

For people who see game as "broken":
You just see the effects that are standard on higher diffuclty leveks nothing else. Just lower the difficulty and you'll be back to your standard "unbroken" gameplay.

[SebP]

Originally posted by binTravkin

Dactyl, the AI was made much smarter, but it's still far inferior to even an average human.

The difficulty levels are scaled by the bonuses AI gets and you lose.

If you are comfortable on Prince, that means, you have that much skill and thinking and it's your problem you can't do better.
If you want to improve your skills, this forum is full of advices, strategies and expierences, use it.
If you don't want to improve your skills, well, you're Prince and that's it.

The fact that there are levels above doesn't mean you're not playing the game at full.
Deity AI was pretty much unplayable as is and only so much people were playing on immortal.

Blake has done amazing job and Im hoping for him taking the place of AI programmer for CiV (of course if both parties are interested ).

I haven't had the time to play extensively since patch so i don't know how much harder it has become, but if it means that i, who was comfortable at monarch, will now enjoy the game as challenging at noble (with no bonuses (other than cheap upgrades to counter tactical weaknesses) for the AI) than that is what people have been requesting all the time.

Though i see a case to maybe remove deity and introduce a level below settler, because as far as i know even before the patch deity was unbeatable even for the strongest players if not for somewhat special map settings. Perhaps they should also introduce a level below settler, it's seldom to read from them here on the forums but i understand there were casual players who'd even find settler a challenge at first.

[Diadem]

Well don't worry too much Dis, because Noble level is not really an 'equal footing'. The AI still has some bonusses, most notably to unit upkeep and upgrade cost, and it also does not treat humans the same was as other AIs - which is kind of like a hidden bonus.

So not being able to win on noble doesn't mean you're dumber than the AI