Current :
When the two AI are at war, they will always spell blast each other's good spells, which triggers a diplomatic penalty to the "peace interest" variable. The war thus never ends, even if no units manage to reach each other to fight at all.
For example if AI1 has Armageddon or Great Drake and AI2 has Spell Blast, AI1 will never be able to cast those unless AI2 somehow fails to pay for the spell blast or starts making artifacts.
The same is true for nuking cities with famine, call the void etc, except the wizard casting it needs to have a maniacal or at least ruthless personality otherwise they won't spam the spells often enough to prevent peace.
Either way the wizard on the receiving end of Spell Blast, Call the Void, Famine, etc will keep staying in that position for the rest of the game.
Plan for 2.52 :
Spell Blast and other spells do not reduce the "peace interest" variable if the wizard using them is the AI. Thus, unless battles prolong the war - meaning they at least have direct access to each other and a good supply of units - the weaker AI player will eventually form a peace treaty and the war ends. The peace treaty prevents the other AI from using those spells (unless it was a global enchantment or disjunction), so the AI on the receiving end is "safe" until war restarts.
In the above example, eventually a peace treaty is made, then AI1 is free to cast Armageddon, however doing so will of course result in a penalty and possibly restart the war or make it happen earlier than otherwise would. AI2 will of course still try to dispel the Armageddon, but not blast it until war or hostility restarts.
If AI2 was spamming Call the Voids on AI1 instead of Spell Blasts, peace also stops this activity and there is nothing that would result in a new war so peace will last a while and eventually something else happens (either a wizard's pact, a new war, or nothing at all)
The core logic behind this change is the following :
Peace Treaties between AI players are binding contracts, so forming one prevents the casting of those nasty spells. Thus, refusing peace because those spells were cast is dumb and does the opposite of what the AI should try to achieve.
At the same time, peace treaties with the human player are not "binding", the human player is allowed to break them any time. So if they cast those spells, the AI should assume they intend to continue doing so and should avoid peace, as in 2.51 and before.
Note the Spell of Mastery is a different diplomatic category and will always result in a reduction in peace interest.
This will probably have mixed effects on game difficulty : if the stronger AI was on the receiving end of the spells then they were being held back, now they won't be as much, but if the weak ones were being held back and now they're allowed to do stuff that later they might use against the strong wizard, then it's the opposite, the game gets easier. Also, not blasting Meteor Storm kinda kills all the AI players equally since they have most of their armies in the open.
When the two AI are at war, they will always spell blast each other's good spells, which triggers a diplomatic penalty to the "peace interest" variable. The war thus never ends, even if no units manage to reach each other to fight at all.
For example if AI1 has Armageddon or Great Drake and AI2 has Spell Blast, AI1 will never be able to cast those unless AI2 somehow fails to pay for the spell blast or starts making artifacts.
The same is true for nuking cities with famine, call the void etc, except the wizard casting it needs to have a maniacal or at least ruthless personality otherwise they won't spam the spells often enough to prevent peace.
Either way the wizard on the receiving end of Spell Blast, Call the Void, Famine, etc will keep staying in that position for the rest of the game.
Plan for 2.52 :
Spell Blast and other spells do not reduce the "peace interest" variable if the wizard using them is the AI. Thus, unless battles prolong the war - meaning they at least have direct access to each other and a good supply of units - the weaker AI player will eventually form a peace treaty and the war ends. The peace treaty prevents the other AI from using those spells (unless it was a global enchantment or disjunction), so the AI on the receiving end is "safe" until war restarts.
In the above example, eventually a peace treaty is made, then AI1 is free to cast Armageddon, however doing so will of course result in a penalty and possibly restart the war or make it happen earlier than otherwise would. AI2 will of course still try to dispel the Armageddon, but not blast it until war or hostility restarts.
If AI2 was spamming Call the Voids on AI1 instead of Spell Blasts, peace also stops this activity and there is nothing that would result in a new war so peace will last a while and eventually something else happens (either a wizard's pact, a new war, or nothing at all)
The core logic behind this change is the following :
Peace Treaties between AI players are binding contracts, so forming one prevents the casting of those nasty spells. Thus, refusing peace because those spells were cast is dumb and does the opposite of what the AI should try to achieve.
At the same time, peace treaties with the human player are not "binding", the human player is allowed to break them any time. So if they cast those spells, the AI should assume they intend to continue doing so and should avoid peace, as in 2.51 and before.
Note the Spell of Mastery is a different diplomatic category and will always result in a reduction in peace interest.
This will probably have mixed effects on game difficulty : if the stronger AI was on the receiving end of the spells then they were being held back, now they won't be as much, but if the weak ones were being held back and now they're allowed to do stuff that later they might use against the strong wizard, then it's the opposite, the game gets easier. Also, not blasting Meteor Storm kinda kills all the AI players equally since they have most of their armies in the open.
