Announcement

**Palaiologos** · October 15, 2003, 18:58

Originally posted by tanelorn
Ãéá íá ãïõóôáñåé áëçèéíá ìéá ãõíáéêá êáìðéíãê ðñåðåé íá'íáé áíôéêïéíùíéêç,*ã*ìçôç, ìðé÷ëïöéëç,êåñáôïõêëù, áðåëðéóìåíç, öôõóìåíç & ãåíéêùò âëáììåíç.

A comment about the Zatarn love for the forests. No wonder they are grey and have horns, hey Peri?

Kala pou to skeftikes auto?!!!!

**tanelorn** · October 15, 2003, 19:40

1 A certain person I know fits the bill.

2 Compare the two new maps. City expansion is still minimal, in comparison but the Civs expand in open ground, and in the new map the Zatarn have just that. The rest are uniformly blocked by a) icelands (UNDEAD,CRUSADE) b)dense forests & mountains (HARPIES) or a combination.

It is not a unit stats issue, its a terrain stats issue.

The new map mostly even less AI friendly, because it has more continuous icelands and forests.

If you want to see for yourself, replace @ terrain with @terrain from the mainfile MGE rules.txt, without the worker tweak. I expect human civs to fare better, and the Harpies & Undead to get stuck, because they start in such hostile terrain.
Honestly, the previous map was better.

**Palaiologos** · October 15, 2003, 20:11

1.I bet it was your ex LOL!

2.Sorry, but are we viewing diferent maps?The Crusaders have plenty of expansion space in the east, and the Coven both to the west and south.Yet they build nothing.

In one of other experiments i made, i build a full grassland(bitterfrost's thawland) map and started playing with the bitterfrost's rules file.Same results.But none of the civs this time build any cities.So i cheated and replaced the Crusader's city production item with Settlers.Being on deity they cranked up three settler units next turn(apparently extra shields are not lost in Deity) and immediately build three nearby cities and then again stopped.

Now in one of Curts events file Settlers were constantly created for the civs after 12 turns or something.Yet the AI just stacked them in his city.

In the end my guess is that the unit slot definetely has something to do with it, because once i made that worker tweak the AI started expanding normally with Bitterfrost's @terrain.
So its propably a combination of terrain and unit slots.

**Exile** · October 15, 2003, 20:22

Well . . . . .

It seems obvious, but . . .

There are numerous "hard-wired" aspects to both the terrain and units. Keeping both of these sets as close to the default game's original numbers and slots is recommended. Too much variation, too much alteration, too many exotic numbers will play havoc with the way the AI operates, both in terms of military expansion and city creation. This is what you're seeing. For exotic units and terrain types, it's best to use the types that are already exotic; the "inhospitable" terrains and the extra unit slots.

Suppose I should've chimed in before now, but then I just now took a look at this thread.

**curtsibling** · October 16, 2003, 06:58

UPDATE

Hey!
Thanks to all for advice and pointers, especially my fellow alchemist, Pericles.

I think tanelorn has the right of it.

I will return the rules file and it's terrain values back to normal.

A new AI-friendly map is being made,
Also the undead will lose their settler,
the slot will be uesd to create a new diplo unit for the Crusaders.
The witch also is to become a diplo unit for the Coven.

Time for a holy war!

A new map, less settlers, more normal terrain values, these will help get this scen working right.

**curtsibling** · October 16, 2003, 07:00

Originally posted by tanelorn
Ãéá íá ãïõóôáñåé áëçèéíá ìéá ãõíáéêá êáìðéíãê ðñåðåé íá'íáé áíôéêïéíùíéêç,*ã*ìçôç, ìðé÷ëïöéëç,êåñáôïõêëù, áðåëðéóìåíç, öôõóìåíç & ãåíéêùò âëáììåíç.

A comment about the Zatarn love for the forests. No wonder they are grey and have horns, hey Peri?

Come on!

Translation please!

You forget we poor English-speaking Brits!

**Cyrion** · October 16, 2003, 07:29

First of all, forgive me if that's what you were speaking about while disserting on the terrain values (but I guess you were meaning the values that appear in the rules.txt). If I'm mistaken, then stop reading as you all know much more about scen building than I do...

The food a square gives is not all that is important for the AI to found a city: there is an attribute for each terrain: "fertility". This can't be modified in the rules, only by hex-editing! This value determines whether the AI will found a city or not, I believe!

So you might keep the actual values you gave to the terrain and "just" modify the fertility value, and then the AI should be founding the cities!

As I don't know much about this subject, here is an extract of a discussion, as well as a link to the related thread! Mercator seems to know what there is to know about it, so ask him...

Remember the conversation, Palaiologos??

No that's not right.... The rules.txt has nothing to do with it. The AI only builds cities on grassland/plains anyway so you'd only waste a terrain type.
I meant hexediting the savegame. In the savegame, each map tile has a "fertility" value, this number is what determines how desirable a tile is. If you change that to the maximum, the AI will (almost?) certainly build a city on it (regardless of the civ's attitude).

Apolyton Civilization Site

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=92070&highlight=fertility

And see Mercator's post in this thread too:

Apolyton Civilization Site

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60948&highlight=fertility

**Palaiologos** · October 16, 2003, 08:01

Bugger!
You are right Cyrion!

Had completely forgot about fertility thing!

Although we wouldn't want the AI to build cities in every square, it would certainly help raising the fertility values of iceland.

**Cyrion** · October 16, 2003, 08:09

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Bugger!
You are right Cyrion!

Doesn't happen often enough...

**curtsibling** · October 16, 2003, 08:34

Cyrion, that is a good point!

I have changed the terrain back to an only mildly differing version of CIV2 vanilla.

It is still a case of using 'I' to improve terrain, though...

Are y'all OK with this new Cleric and Witch diplo idea?

**tanelorn** · October 16, 2003, 17:10

Originally posted by curtsibling
Come on!
Translation please!

No way,let's say it's not quite PC eco-feminist-wise.
Besides, I am a gentleman.

Peri hit the bull's eye with his remark, though.

Whenever a scenario offers a diplo option, I go for it head on. However will these diplomats have the ability to bribe the Undead/Ancient units and cities? I can hardly imagine bribed skeletons fighting for the Crusade. Deleting the bribe option from the menu only works for human players, not the AI. The only way to have unbribable ancients/undead in MGE is to make them a permanent democracy.

**curtsibling** · October 16, 2003, 18:11

This thought has crossed my mind...
Problems of this nature may occur.

I might not be a biggie to make the ancients and undead a democracy, but it would play hell with their war-capability.

I wonder if there is some hex solution.

**Palaiologos** · October 16, 2003, 18:36

Actually Curt they won't occur.

You see the AI anyway bribes units with its non-diplo soldiers(only on Emperor and deity though).

**curtsibling** · October 16, 2003, 19:14

Hmmm....

I wonder what else I could do with the diplo units then...?

**Palaiologos** · October 16, 2003, 19:20

Originally posted by tanelorn
The only way to have unbribable ancients/undead in MGE is to make them a permanent democracy.

Don't tell me that in ToT you can make specific units non-bribable?

Announcement

Welcome To Bitterfrost!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment