I'm sorry if this has been done to death already but I'm looking for the rationale for giving Library a specialist? It occurs to me that having temple be the only early game specialist makes temple more attractive relative to library and encourages early-game cultural play.
Getting Started
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
Txurce
Deity
I think the overall rationale is to balance the game so that more specialist slots in general are available, thereby giving you more options. I'm not sure why there would be a tilt toward encouraging early-game cultural play over other approaches.
Because It seems to me that Library+specialist is usually a better choice than Temple+ specialist unless my grasp of the game is weak, which it might be.
Txurce
Deity
I think they're both good choices under the right circumstances - but this is definitely subjective.
Fair enough I'll trust Thal on this one.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Specialists are not a very central part of Civ 5, especially in the first half of the game. I liked the Civ 4 method better where we could either go with a cottage or specialist economy.
So I added 1 slot of each of the 4 specialist types on 4 early buildings, 2 specialist slots on most national wonders, and a specialist bonus to the Commerce tree. I also gave Suleiman a specialist-enhancing trait.
Plus:
@truetom
Actually it doesn't take much work, since most of the patch changes are based in whole or part on this mod.
So I added 1 slot of each of the 4 specialist types on 4 early buildings, 2 specialist slots on most national wonders, and a specialist bonus to the Commerce tree. I also gave Suleiman a specialist-enhancing trait.
Plus:
- Scientists and Great Scientists were nerfed in this mod (3
-> 2, and finite research instead of infinite/free-tech). - Artists and Great Artists were buffed (1
-> 3, and +50% golden age duration). - The Temple improves resources around it, unlike vanilla.
@truetom
Actually it doesn't take much work, since most of the patch changes are based in whole or part on this mod.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I agree, but I think that this comes in large part from the weakening of the social policies and the increasing of the early policy costs, so the marginal value of getting a few more culture is low.
Nonetheless, the right response IMO would be to increase the value of some of the policies, rather than taking away specialist slots.
Perhaps giving Artists 1 science and taking that away at Scientific method like the monastery from civ 4 would make Temple more competitive.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Giving artists a science boost doesn't really seem like the right solution; they're artists, not scientists. If you want science, research science techs and build science buildings and use science specialists. Culture buildings and techs should give culture.
I also think we should keep away from things like monastary expiry. Those weren't really fun mechanics; it is never fun to have to delay a tech because you don't want to lose some other benefit. I think Civ5 took a big step forward by getting rid of building/Wonder obsolesence (except the Great Wall).
I also think we should keep away from things like monastary expiry. Those weren't really fun mechanics; it is never fun to have to delay a tech because you don't want to lose some other benefit. I think Civ5 took a big step forward by getting rid of building/Wonder obsolesence (except the Great Wall).
sav
Prince
What happened to the 'Victory progress' option in the latest version? It's gone, so I can't see how close anyone is to each type of victory 
sav
Prince
And somewhat unbelievably, I went back to my game and lost one turn later! Didn't know I'd get a case in point so soon...
Geppenguin
Chieftain
I'd like to make a proposal for a change to the current puppet penalties. As it is, they produce zero science from population (excepting buildings such as libraries etcc.) and only 25% culture. While I have no problem with the culture penalty (since they don't raise policy cost anyway) but the lack of science makes it very unattractive to conquer a city. Puppeting it means you take a hit to happiness due to the additional city+population, yet the only benefit you derive from it is gold. Gold-farming is just not worth it when you consider the delay in golden ages and the resources spent on taking the city, and with the reduction of happiness from luxuries and buildings, happiness is now pretty hard to maintain. Since puppets do not raise policy cost and therefore have 25% culture, I propose that since both happiness and science are linked to population, they should be a little quid pro quo. Either reduce unhappiness from puppets to below normal cities or give them back the science. While playing as Japan, I found that my conquests left me in the dust as I dealt with low happiness AND low science despite my complete crushing of the Aztecs. Occupation is just not a good option, due to the further hit in happiness and the cost of the courthouse.
I strongly hope that science could be restored to puppet cities.
Should you decide to keep the current arrangement however, could you please tell me which line of the XML code to edit to enable science from puppet states? I've looked under the BCD-other XML file but I can't figure out how to make the necessary change.
P.S. Is there any chance you could restore the happiness and gold values (in trading) for luxuries to pre-patch? The Colosseum and Theatre also seem rather weak now.
Just my two cents
I strongly hope that science could be restored to puppet cities.
Should you decide to keep the current arrangement however, could you please tell me which line of the XML code to edit to enable science from puppet states? I've looked under the BCD-other XML file but I can't figure out how to make the necessary change.
P.S. Is there any chance you could restore the happiness and gold values (in trading) for luxuries to pre-patch? The Colosseum and Theatre also seem rather weak now.
Just my two cents
I think the reason for nerfing puppets was to make them less attractive comparing to annexing into "full member" cities. I personally like this better, as I conquer to include into the nation, not to make them buffer zones and gold farms on a permanent basis. If you want, you can still make use of them but it will cost you (science and happiness and culture). Why not annexing them? 
Geppenguin
Chieftain
:I think the reason for nerfing puppets was to make them less attractive comparing to annexing into "full member" cities. I personally like this better, as I conquer to include into the nation, not to make them buffer zones and gold farms on a permanent basis. If you want, you can still make use of them but it will cost you (science and happiness and culture). Why not annexing them?
I have issues with annexing because I find
a big problem with the reduction of luxury 
from 5 to 4 and the nerfing of :c5happpy: related buildings. Annexing then building a courthouse not only gives me culture policy problems, I also lose valuable time and increased . Also, it harms the AI, which never ever seems to annex in my experience, when it is currently supposed to be the 'smart' thing to do. Again, the nerf I have issue with is the lack of with puppets. @Thal: I changed the line of code under BCD- Other XML for Puppet States from <BuildingType>BUILDING_GOVERNOR</BuildingType>
<YieldType>YIELD_SCIENCE</YieldType>
<Yield>-100</Yield>
to
<BuildingType>BUILDING_GOVERNOR</BuildingType>
<YieldType>YIELD_SCIENCE</YieldType>
<Yield>0</Yield>
for my own gameplay style. Is this the correct way to do it?
Ahriman
Tyrant
I think it is worth re-examining the puppet modifiers in light of the latest changes.
There have been two major things that are relevant here:
a) The halving of the social policy cost modifier per city has drastically reduced the main benefit of puppets (they give you extra territory without increasing policy costs)
b) The drastic reduction in happiness means that it is far less valuable to support dead-weight puppet population who contribute pitiful amounts in culture and science.
For my preference, I think the happiness changes go too far, I would have left happiness from buildings at 1 higher (though happiness from luxuries is fine I think), and I'm not really fond of the very low policy cost modifier.
But if we're keeping these (or something near them) then we should think about what the role for puppets is. Under what circumstances should we want to keep a puppet long-term? Should we really aim to always annex?
I'm not sure that restoring their science or culture outputs is necessarily the way to go; one possibility would be to reduce their unhappiness per pop further, maybe to 0.6 (down from 0.8). This might help drive the distinction between annexed cities (high unhappiness, but high productivity) and puppets further.
There have been two major things that are relevant here:
a) The halving of the social policy cost modifier per city has drastically reduced the main benefit of puppets (they give you extra territory without increasing policy costs)
b) The drastic reduction in happiness means that it is far less valuable to support dead-weight puppet population who contribute pitiful amounts in culture and science.
For my preference, I think the happiness changes go too far, I would have left happiness from buildings at 1 higher (though happiness from luxuries is fine I think), and I'm not really fond of the very low policy cost modifier.
But if we're keeping these (or something near them) then we should think about what the role for puppets is. Under what circumstances should we want to keep a puppet long-term? Should we really aim to always annex?
I'm not sure that restoring their science or culture outputs is necessarily the way to go; one possibility would be to reduce their unhappiness per pop further, maybe to 0.6 (down from 0.8). This might help drive the distinction between annexed cities (high unhappiness, but high productivity) and puppets further.
Its too bad that TBC has gone so far down some paths that obviously the vanilla game has gone a different direction on such a core mechanic.
I liked TBC more when it was focused on improving problems in the existing game that needing improving. With such a drastic patch I don't think the list of things that need improvement is the same anymore.
Ahriman obviously you've contributed way more to these forums than I but I would ask that you give the changes that Firaxes made to the game more time to gel with the community before judging them. In the end TBC is either going to be another mod that goes to far away from the core game and isn't useful for fixing balance problems or it remains an awesome tool to try ideas out that don't radically alter the vision of the designers. I think its very cool that some ideas from TBC show up in the core game. Stray to far from that and it won't happen anymore.
Right now TBC is so very different from the vision and the vanilla game is so good now TBC doesn't have the same appeal to me personally as it did prior to the patch. I know once the patch settles I hope TBC hasn't become just another MOD.
Maybe the solution is to rethink what's in CivUP and what's in TBC?
I liked TBC more when it was focused on improving problems in the existing game that needing improving. With such a drastic patch I don't think the list of things that need improvement is the same anymore.
Ahriman obviously you've contributed way more to these forums than I but I would ask that you give the changes that Firaxes made to the game more time to gel with the community before judging them. In the end TBC is either going to be another mod that goes to far away from the core game and isn't useful for fixing balance problems or it remains an awesome tool to try ideas out that don't radically alter the vision of the designers. I think its very cool that some ideas from TBC show up in the core game. Stray to far from that and it won't happen anymore.
Right now TBC is so very different from the vision and the vanilla game is so good now TBC doesn't have the same appeal to me personally as it did prior to the patch. I know once the patch settles I hope TBC hasn't become just another MOD.
Maybe the solution is to rethink what's in CivUP and what's in TBC?
Txurce
Deity
Thal has done an impressive job steering TBC since Civ5 first came out, keeping it close enough to vanilla while increasingly pushing it into new, improved territory with changes to the Social Policies, Leaders, research and diplomacy systems. Before the last patch, it could be said that TBC was very different from vanilla - and as a result I couldn't imagine playing the latter.
Due to how closely the latest patch hewed to TBC, and the fact that it's so recent, TBC today is closer to the vanilla version than it was before the patch. It's worth keeping that in mind in this discussion. As much as I like vanilla post-patch and therefore agree with Architect, I could step back and argue that I may really only be arguing to have TBC mirror my own preferences.
What makes me not feel this way - and the main reason why I share Architect's concerns - is that the early criticisms of TBC post-patch (and some of Thal's subsequent changes) have struck me from the first as ignoring the vanilla game's change in its basic approach. If TBC is to continue being an enhancing and balancing mod, rather than a parallel game, then I think more time needs to be devoted to how the devs rebalanced the game, and why. The vanilla game now works on different principles than the older vanilla, or the version 7-and-prior TBC. I fear that changing the happiness of coliseums or boosting a swordsman or policy out of that context only hurts TBC's vanilla underpinnings, and "balances" a system that no longer exists. And it is impossible to sufficiently grasp that context without playing at least a few vanilla games.
That's why I continually encourage fewer changes days after the release of the patch, and a more systematic (rather than piecemeal) approach to what changes are made.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Right.
This criticism: "Its too bad that TBC has gone so far down some paths that obviously the vanilla game has gone a different direction on such a core mechanic." seems off-base to me.
The main point I was making with puppets was that *given* the vanilla changes to other mechanics which have been adopted here, we should consider moving puppets back closer to vanilla (ie: more powerful), because the reasons why we nerfed the puppets are not as valid anymore.
I also think that if we are keeping the general vanilla changes, we might need to revert the changes to Liberty, and push it back to +1 happy, or at least give it a flat +X happy. +0.5 per connected city is not enough.
Agreed.
Similar threads
