A core set of balance changes

[Buccaneer]

I think Ahriman adroitly presented an accurate case against many of the early mods. It seems that one change could cause a cascading effect of unintended consequences.

 

[Ahriman]

Well, the existing system favors the capital.

But not by a factor of 400% or more.

I think the percentage yield change is best, because this makes it a complement to farms, not a substitute, and its a much clearer way of having it boost 1 city of size 12 by the same extent as 2 cities of size 6.

Whereas anything that starts giving +X per city favors sprawl.

Regarding Passive Victories/Culture. The only Passive Victory is time.

Culture is a passive victory in the sense that it doesn't require you to deal with the other players at all, you can do it all left by yourself on your own, and unless they wipe you out completely, the actions of the other players don't matter.

I'd solve the large empire problem with a penalty to Both Social Policy and Technology cost based on # of cities (30,20,15 for SP; 15,10,5 for Techs)

Why should having more cities penalize technology? This would just feel like an arbitrary bludgeon.

I would prefer to penalize puppets, and control a large empire of annexed/settled cities through happiness, as the game intends. Big part of this is making the opportunity cost of using happiness on small sprawled cities higher by boosting the relative returns of having few, large cities, but adjusting growth rate of large cities and fixing mechanics like Maritime city state bonus.

It seems that one change could cause a cascading effect of unintended consequences.

Absolutely, the economy is all interconnected by costs and opportunity costs.
However, I am not against these early mods; the easiest way to see that some changes don't work well is to mock them up in a mod, test them out, and see where they do/don't work.
Creating a mod with some balance changes is a test, it isn't a final product.

 

[He-Who-Hunts]

You could nerf maritime City States completely, I've tried playing around with some ideas in my head but they usually come out as too over powered or confusing and unintuitive as Ahriman mentioned with regards to the finite option. Also it doesn't really make sense to run into a maritime CS inland, perhaps rename them agricultural City States or something. And I dont mean get rid of a 3rd CS altogether, perhaps we could all come up with a type that helps in another way thats not so beneficial, like science wise or something.

I've also played around with the idea that a Civ can only be allied with 1 city state at a time, you increase the allied bonus and decrease the friendly bonus. For example being friends with a maritime CS gives 1 extra food in your capital and you can be friends with as many as you want but being allied with one gives you 2 food per city. Same with cultural/military, although i haven't really thought of a good friends/allied concept for those.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

A little late to the thread, but here's my take FWIW (ie, nothing ):

1. Block puppet AI from building military structures, forge, or defensive structures. They build only culture, happiness, gold boosts, and science boosts.
Add a flat penalty (probably 30%) to the culture, science, hammer and gold output of puppet states. This makes them much less efficient, per unhappiness point, than regular cities.

Agree 100%. Currently the ability to puppet cities for full benefits and move on with the conquest is far too good.

2. Make great scientists produce a fixed number of beakers, that increases slightly with tech era. The effects of other great people doesn’t scale nearly so much.
Make research agreement costs increase by era proportionally to how beaker costs increase. Its lame that a cheap tech costs 250 gold in the early game, and an expensive tech costs a similar amount of gold in the late game.

Sort of agree here, but this is really almost the ONLY reason to maintain a decent relation with the AIs. Foreign trade and tech trading is gone so you dont gain much from leaving AI Civs alive so I'd prefer not to make it a costly option. I believe it's supposed to be a bonus, not a cost-effectiveness option.

That said, it could stand to increase somewhat as the game progresses.

3. Increase tech beaker costs by era, with later eras increasing by more. Eg: medieval by 10%, renaissance by 20%, industrial by 30%, modern by 40%, future by 50%.

What is the goal here? Just to slow down the tech? I could see a bit of increase, but those numbers are far too high. You'd barely be in Industrial by mid 1900 I would wager. Now maybe increasing the FIRST tech for each Era might work with those values...

4. Reduce the strength of the horseman and companion cavalry by 2.

Not really sure on this. I'd rather see Spearmen/Pikes boosted and give Cav a penalty vs Cities and a slight (10-15% vs units in non-open terrain). Yes, they are dominant now vs the AI, but I dont want to see the units nerfed into uselessness. They should remain a shock unit IMO, although I could see increasing the cost a bit to reflect that role.

5. Increase the defensive improvement of all city defensive structures by ~25%. Maybe 50%? Defenses should be meaningful. At the moment, they aren't. This would also tend to reduce the problem where as soon as an AI loses its army, you can rapidly conquer all its cities.

I'd say 25%-33% is prolly about right. Again, we can't completely balance the game around an incompetent AI. But I agree that these structures rarely seem to be worth the (ongoing) cost, especially if you can't sell them once the borders have moved on.

6. Change maritime city states. Currently, cultural and military city states provide fixed bonus irregardless of empire size, but maritime give a bonus per city, and that bonus is large.
Make it a flat bonus somehow. One way to do this is to have it be a flat % bonus of food yield, that increases mildly by era. Eg 5% in ancient/classical, 6% in medieval, 7% in renaissance, 8% in industrial, 9% in modern, 10% in future. This way, a size 20 city gets a bigger boost than a size 4 city.

Those bonuses might be a bit small, but I agree with the sentiment. Currently Maritime cities are just far too good.

7. Reduce the amount of food needed to grow to population sizes over ~14. It should not be massively easier to have 2 size 10 cities than one size 15 city. This is a big penalty for small empires.

I dont totally agree here. Maybe a small adjustment could be made, but remember that if you want the 'modifiers' for those 2 size 10 cities, you have to build and pay for both sets (ie, Libraries, Universities, Workshops etc). In addition, you're paying the +2 Unhappiness penalty for those 2 cities vs 1 larger city. If the one city is always more efficient, it gives little incentive to grow. Dont get me wrong, I'd like to see smaller 'more efficient' empires be able to compete, but I dont think this is place to make that adjustment.

8. Make all horses produce only 2 copies, they are far too common. All other resources provide either 2 or 4. Alternatively, limit resources to 2 but have them increased slightly by tech. Resource constraints are not binding enough.

I'd say make them 3 or so. But honestly, if Horseman are 'nerfed' or cost more or whatever, it wont really matter. But making them the scarce just widens the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'. I HATED that in Civ4 where you could not effectively fight if you were missing resource 'x' or 'y'. Civ5 does a good job of rewarding those units without hamstringing those without access to large amounts of them.

9. Make civil service apply only to farms on open terrain next to rivers/lakes. No more super hillfarms. Fertilizer boosts them as normal.

Probably a good idea...removes the no-brainer of farms on hills. Alternatively, make mines on hills get +1 Production with one of the Industrial Era techs.

10. Increase mine yields +1hammer at dynamite. Increase trading post and plantation yields +1 gold at economics. Why are lumbermills the only things that get a yield increase? (And why are they so much better than mines?)
Make farm yield boosts also affect pastures, so that bonus resources are actually decent bonuses.
Maybe fishing boats +1 gold at refrigeration?

I dont think I'd increase gold production. It seems pretty unnecessary to me and would just add too much money to the game IMO. Lumbermills increase to encourage you to save your forests rather than chop them. If you can get the same or better yield from your hills, people will chop the forests ASAP. Now that Health is gone, forests are rated solely on their output. So players are forced to make a choice between the bonus hammers from chopping and the later hammers from lumber mills.

11. Increase the yield of great person improvements with techs. Eg: Education increase Academy yield, Steel increases Manufactory yield, Acoustics increases Landmark yield, Banking increases customhouse yield. These things scale really badly.

Absolutely agree. Right now, I tend to keep 1-2 Great General for combat and I use all Great Scientists for free tech. MAYBE I'll use a Great Engineer for a Wonder. Beyond that, all Great People are currently used to fuel Golden Ages for me. I'd like to see more of a choice there.

 

[Ahriman]

but this is really almost the ONLY reason to maintain a decent relation with the AIs

I think that selling them luxury and strategic goods is also very important.

What is the goal here? Just to slow down the tech?

Yes. I think that the tech rate is ok in the early game, but is too fast in the late game. The industrial and modern eras just fly by. I never build up a decent army of tanks before I can have mech inf. Allowing cavalry to upgrade to tanks (at extremely high gold cost) might also help.

These values would need testing, clearly, and might be too high.

I'd rather see Spearmen/Pikes boosted

This would mess up the balance of spear vs swords.

and give Cav a penalty vs Cities

Cav vs cities isn't really the problem.

Those bonuses might be a bit small, but I agree with the sentiment.

They need testing, but they feel like a good start point to me. Remember that its perfectly possible to have 2 maritime city states allied.
If this bonus were applied once for friends and again for allied, then I would say it would be far too strong still.

I'd say make them 3 or so.

Problem is that its very common to have 2-3 horse resources in the early game. At 3 each, this means you can have your entire army be cavalry, and the strategic resource constraint is non-binding.

I dont think I'd increase gold production. It seems pretty unnecessary to me and would just add too much money to the game IMO.

Yeah, I'm not certain about that either.

If you can get the same or better yield from your hills, people will chop the forests ASAP.

Except that there are only a few hills, whereas there is forest all over the place.
Lumbermill forests should not give superior yield to mine hills.
I have no problem with it being a no-brainer to chop forest-hills, never chop forest-tundra, and make it a tough decision only for forested grassland and forested plains.

 

[ohioastronomy]

It doesn't favor only 1 city games (on a high difficulty level, you risk getting slaughtered by a vast military if you only have 1 city).
But a passive victory condition like culture should require sacrifice. If you can get culture AND a big army AND a big economy AND big research, then what are you giving up?

I don't think that you play for culture victories much. When you go fora culture win in the current game you're giving up an easy Domination win, and you're making yourself vulnerable to trigger-happy AIs. You can't be peacful anyhow - you need to beat up on your neighbors. The scaling problem is very basic:

You get flat bonuses from city-states and you have powerful multipliers for a single city. You also get flat bonuses from puppets. The costs escalate drastically with more owned cities. You can generate ~250-300 culture in your capital. You can generate ~50-60 culture in other cities as long as you can park a wonder in each one, and 25-30 beyond that. Costs escalate by 30% per additional city. You start losing with city 2 and you lose big once you can't plant a wonder in each one (taking AI capitals is probably the best way to have cities with Wonders in them, but even that probably peters out around 4-5).

I can't see how you can defend this scaling as even remotely balanced or interesting. Play on a small map: easy. Play on a large map: very hard. At minimum the social policy costs shouldn't skyrocket so much because people not going for a culture win will hit an absolute wall, effectively removing a core game element unless you gimp yourself early and go for tech slingshots and hoard great scientists, then hyper-expand. You should be able to compete without silly and gamey exploits.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

Quote:
I'd rather see Spearmen/Pikes boosted

This would mess up the balance of spear vs swords.

I meant their bonus vs Cav. This would not bother Swordsman.

Quote:
and give Cav a penalty vs Cities

Cav vs cities isn't really the problem.

To an extent it is. And if Cities defenses were boosted and Cav had a penalty, you would not be able to dominate exclusively with Cav. Sure, you could rout their field army and then bring in the infantry, but I dont see that as a problem. And with increased defenses, you'd either need a LOT of infantry or some siege to take the city.

So if you are using that kind of combined arms, I'd say the problem would be solved. this would especially be tree if Spears beat Horseman even worse (or if the Horseman had more trouble attacking in non-open terrain).

 

[Ahriman]

I don't think that you play for culture victories much.

I've done it as France, India and Siam.

When you go fora culture win in the current game you're giving up an easy Domination win, and you're making yourself vulnerable to trigger-happy AIs.

No you're not, in the current game you can get a culture win by puppeting everything. You can still have a huge economy. France can get cultural victory by going on a conquest rampage.
If domination is "easy" the solution is to buff the AI's ability to wage war, not to make cultural victories easy too.

You *should* be making yourself vulnerable to big armies in order to pursue a culture victory, bit it doesn't work that way atm.

You get flat bonuses from city-states and you have powerful multipliers for a single city. You also get flat bonuses from puppets. The costs escalate drastically with more owned cities. You can generate ~250-300 culture in your capital. You can generate ~50-60 culture in other cities as long as you can park a wonder in each one, and 25-30 beyond that. Costs escalate by 30% per additional city. You start losing with city 2 and you lose big once you can't plant a wonder in each one (taking AI capitals is probably the best way to have cities with Wonders in them, but even that probably peters out around 4-5).

I still don't see a problem. Your ability to get social policies is weakened by having more cities.
Working as intended.

I can't see how you can defend this scaling as even remotely balanced or interesting.

Sure I can. If you want to settle lots of cities, that should erode your ability to get cultural win, and should erode your ability to get lots of
Social policies are something of an anti-slippery slope mechanic, they assist smaller empires.

I meant their bonus vs Cav.

Ok, but % bonuses over 100% are already pretty weird. If you increased the bonus from 100% to 150%, you're still only changing them from strength 14 to strength 17.5.

T

o an extent it is. And if Cities defenses were boosted and Cav had a penalty, you would not be able to dominate exclusively with Cav. Sure, you could rout their field army and then bring in the infantry, but I dont see that as a problem.

I do. I think the issue is about the general field effectiveness of cavalry, not about whether you need a mixed army or not.
Weakening cav vs cities will slow conquest a little, but it won't stop it. Once the enemy field army is gone, the enemy is defeated, whether it takes 3 turns or 6 turns to conquer the city.

 

[Buccaneer]

However, I am not against these early mods; the easiest way to see that some changes don't work well is to mock them up in a mod, test them out, and see where they do/don't work.
Creating a mod with some balance changes is a test, it isn't a final product.

You're right. Are we learning much from them? Which direction do you think Firaxis will go, in addressing balancing issues? I think perhaps they will be focusing on bug fixes for a little while.

 

[Celevin]

You're right. Are we learning much from them? Which direction do you think Firaxis will go, in addressing balancing issues? I think perhaps they will be focusing on bug fixes for a little while.

There are a lot more "fixes" than "balances" to do right now, though there's a lot of grey area on what is what. And who knows, what the community sees as a problem might not be so bad in their eyes.

 

[JanissaryRush]

No you're not, in the current game you can get a culture win by puppeting everything. You can still have a huge economy. France can get cultural victory by going on a conquest rampage.

That isn't a true culture victory. You won because you conquered everyone and instead of finishing the others off you just sat back and cultured. If you conquer practically the whole world and build a spaceship you won because of conquest, not because of your spaceship.

 

[Roxlimn]

Rolled around and tinkered with saves from some small empire games (about 7-9 cities on a Standard map). I do not agree whatsoever with a percentage increase of food for larger cities.

Percentage increases of food means that larger cities benefit just as much from CS as smaller cities, and large cities get the benefit of hospital + Medlab to boot.

These large cities have a benefit smaller cities do not - they have great production. The science isn't half bad, either. The main break point comes from getting hospital, which should be acquired ASAP if large cities are the plan. Having farms, granaries, and watermills helps as well.

Will test out further with Aztecs, since Floating Gardens does give a percentage growth based on food.

As it is, larger cities can afford to get hospitals, which boosts food by 100%, effectively, and medlabs later on, which boosts food by +300%. Boosting the food beyond this (and larger cities have large food bases!) would increase the output multiplicatively, since hospitals don't actually multiply food, but divide requirement.

In the Modern Era, Maritime bonuses allow the player to rely on Maritime food bonuses alone to support cities, since they are at +5/+3 each. That said, these cities tend to be small and have bad production.

The problem isn't that the large cities are too weak. The problem is that having that many cities boosts gold too effectively. Larger cities cannot keep up because they need farms to make up the larger food boxes, and trade route gold isn't strong enough.

Having played with cities of size 25+ up to 35+, I can say with some confidence that they do not lack in gold output, but the gold output they do have doesn't match that provided by many controlled puppets, particularly because they typically have escalating building costs.

Science output tends to be less as well, but I confess that I haven't actually tried to max out the large city strategy to any exacting extent - only enough to win at King with a comfortable margin.

 

[Celevin]

That isn't a true culture victory. You won because you conquered everyone and instead of finishing the others off you just sat back and cultured. If you conquer practically the whole world and build a spaceship you won because of conquest, not because of your spaceship.

You don't need the whole world, you just need 7-8 puppets. Then all you do is sit back, and before you could even win by domination, you win culturally.

 

[Ahriman]

Percentage increases of food means that larger cities benefit just as much from CS as smaller cities, and large cities get the benefit of hospital + Medlab to boot.

This is intended. The only way to make buildings like public school valuable, by making large cities more feasible and more useful.
Its a deliberate design change to try to make few large cities more viable, relative to many smaller cities and expansion. Currently the game favors the latter in an extreme way.

Why *should* small cities get more benefit from Maritime city states?

The main break point comes from getting hospital, which should be acquired ASAP if large cities are the plan.

Biology is not gettable any time soon, at least not without massively delaying military development.

These large cities have a benefit smaller cities do not - they have great production.

Until factories, there are no particular benefits to having one city with 20 production as opposed to 2 cities with 10 production.
And thats not even how it ends up working out, since its massively easier to have two size 10 cities than a single size 20 city.

I can say with some confidence that they do not lack in gold output, but the gold output they do have doesn't match that provided by many controlled puppets, particularly because they typically have escalating building costs.

If their gold gold output can't match that from puppets, then they *do* lack in gold. Everything is relative.
Hence the boost for large cities and the nerf for puppets.

You don't need the whole world, you just need 7-8 puppets. Then all you do is sit back, and before you could even win by domination, you win culturally.

Precisely.

 

[jwallstone]

Great thread and discussions all around. Just jumping in with my thoughts.

I agree with almost everything Ahriman said - nice work. I agree with the lower movement horsemen more than a strength nerf.

I like the scaling of maritime CS with total food production.

I like the idea of Aqueduct filling the role of of hospitals, but I want to point out that you have to be careful with the %benefit. Somebody suggest having it give +25% instead and having +50% on the hospital, but these are essentially inverse growth speed quantities. As it is right now, the first +50% does exactly the same thing as an additional +25% - they double your growth rate. You can't just look at the % number and compare it on that basis. As an example, if the med lab also gave +50% for a total of +100%, that doesn't make it equal to the hospital, it makes it overpowered - your city grows every turn then.

So the suggestion to break up the hospital/medlab into three parts with +25% each is not quite right, as the first +25% is worth far less than any subsequent +25%. Just a simple change like an aqueduct with +50% earlier and a hospital with +25% much later is the best way in my opinion.

I do also agree that the +30% per city for social policies is a bit rough, especially since there's also a cost growth rate just from adopting a policy. It's growing faster than exponentially then for someone who wants to grow an empire while keeping up with social policies, regardless of whether or not they are eventually going for a cultural win.

 

[Celevin]

Ahriman, if you're interested, maybe we can actually get something started up to try and implement some of these changes?

I don't agree with all of them, and I'm constructing my arguments on why, but for the most part we agree on things. I'm also still doing up my list of problems with the game as-is.

 

[King Jason]

I think all the things you've mentioned are only a problem on lower difficulties. On immortal and, especially on diety, the city state just don't work that way. First of all the AIs have so much gold that, even if they don't prioritize city states at all, they'll still wind up with allies because they have enough gold to spend on everything. And the more warlike AIs will just conquer all the city states around them. As stupid as they are on offense, they can still run over a city state with their vast numbers. You definitely can't just gift a city-state a few units and expect it to hold off a runaway deity AI- that AI will have a tech lead on you. I find that most city states are gone before I can even benefit from patronage.

Firstly, it is the case that it works like that on immortal... because I play on immortal. ad have observed it as such. You just need to take a more active role in the CS defense, which is easy.

Secondly, Right. So a mechanic is balanced if it doesn't work on Deity... the intended "impossihard difficulty".

Come on, seriously, The only reason I play on immortal is because with city-states any difficulty lower than it is cheese with city-states. Immortal is cheese with city-states too because I just conquer the city-states back from the conquerers... In fact I like this even better since the A.I. is so inept at war... retaining allies is cheaper this way.

I can't speak specifically for deity cause I've played only a few games at that level but Deity doesn't set the standard. and shouldn't.

A player shouldn't have to raise the difficulty in their games because one system makes it too easy to beat the A.I. ~ a player should have to raise the difficulty because they've become generally better at the game.

Having now played a bunch of games without city-states, it's the next best thing to actually raising the difficulty level. Think of it as the reverse... rather than giving bonuses to the enemy, you're removing bonuses to the player.

Also, that bit about the massive gold amounts is also off ~ I've seen opponents reach levels of several thousand gold stockpiled on every level from king to immortal and the most allies I've ever seen an A.I. have at one point has been two. Maybe three. In fact, city-states wouldn't be an unbalanced concept if the A.I. would actually invest their thousands of gold into them and a utilize them as an asset just the player does. But they don't; they don't care about city-states. They sit on their gold for no reason.

lastly, the most important thing you said:

And the more warlike AIs will just conquer all the city states around them.... I find that most city states are gone before I can even benefit from patronage.

Which is bad strategy on part of the A.I. because a conquered Maritime is vastly inferior to an allied Maritime.

Again, like I said; Perhaps "city-states" are balanced. Sure. But Maritimes are not. They absolutely have to be scaled back.

 

[Ahriman]

Ahriman, if you're interested, maybe we can actually get something started up to try and implement some of these changes?

I don't agree with all of them, and I'm constructing my arguments on why, but for the most part we agree on things. I'm also still doing up my list of problems with the game as-is.

See PM. A number of these things I'm flexible on, or would require testing.

Firstly, it is the case that it works like that on immortal... because I play on immortal. ad have observed it as such

Agreed. On immortal, I can still hog maritime city state alliances no problem. I hardly ever even lose them.

I haven't played Deity much yet either, but thats not the only game level.

Agree that AIs hoard gold rather than buy city states.

Again, like I said; Perhaps "city-states" are balanced. Sure. But Maritimes are not. They absolutely have to be scaled back.

Strongly agree.

 

[iop]

Excellent work, Ahriman! Even where I disagree.

1. Block puppet AI from building military structures, forge, or defensive structures. They build only culture, happiness, gold boosts, and science boosts.
Add a flat penalty (probably 30%) to the culture, science, hammer and gold output of puppet states. This makes them much less efficient, per unhappiness point, than regular cities.

I would change that even more drastically. IMHO, puppets should give you gold only (and, of course, all their resources) in return for unhappiness, so that you have a real incentive to annex them. Also, if they only produce good buildings, they become too powerful even with the 30% nerf. Puppets producing culture for no SP cost increase, and being able to finance themselves? Sign me up for a new cultural victory strategy!
I suggest that for every population point, a puppet may give you e.g. 3 gpt and 1 unhappiness. Puppets would, as you suggest, produce only culture/science/happiness buildings (maybe at a production penalty - it could be interesting if the amount to which you tax puppets would affect their production), and no buildings that would consume strategic resources.

2.,3.

Agreed.

4. Reduce the strength of the horseman and companion cavalry by 2.

I think the alternatives, i.e. reducing movement and city attack penalty would be nice as well. After all, mounted units are the only units with explicit counters.

5. Increase the defensive improvement of all city defensive structures by ~25%. Maybe 50%? Defenses should be meaningful. At the moment, they aren't. This would also tend to reduce the problem where as soon as an AI loses its army, you can rapidly conquer all its cities.

Does a defensive building also increase city attack strength? That would make defensive improvements nicer - especially if you could get cities to shoot at range eventually.

6. Change maritime city states. Currently, cultural and military city states provide fixed bonus irregardless of empire size, but maritime give a bonus per city, and that bonus is large.
Make it a flat bonus somehow. One way to do this is to have it be a flat % bonus of food yield, that increases mildly by era. Eg 5% in ancient/classical, 6% in medieval, 7% in renaissance, 8% in industrial, 9% in modern, 10% in future. This way, a size 20 city gets a bigger boost than a size 4 city.

For the moment, city state benefits of cultural and military CSs scale inversely with empire size, i.e. the bigger your empire, the less important the bonus. What you suggest is making the bonus smaller, but it still scales with empire size. One possibility could be to give a %yield bonus, but no more than X food. That means that for empires up to a certain size, you get the full bonus, but if the empire becomes too big (in # of citizens working food tiles), the bonus decreases.

7. Reduce the amount of food needed to grow to population sizes over ~14. It should not be massively easier to have 2 size 10 cities than one size 15 city. This is a big penalty for small empires.

I like this - even though/because this leads to two interesting consequences: If cities grow large faster, large empires become more difficult to maintain, since cities are outgrowing happiness faster (i.e. you have to "avoid growth" faster). Furthermore, if cities start working more of the possible tiles, starting position becomes more important again - now it often suffices to have 1/3 to 1/2 of the tiles in the BFH workable.

8. Make all horses produce only 2 copies, they are far too common. All other resources provide either 2 or 4. Alternatively, limit resources to 2 but have them increased slightly by tech. Resource constraints are not binding enough.

This makes it more difficult for small empires to field powerful armies, which may be a good thing. In general I agree that it is a bit easy to get access to lots of resources.
I'm not sure about the limitations to late-game resources. These are uncovered in a time when it is hard to found new cities just to claim the resources, so you have to hope to have multiple coal pop up somewhere nearby, or you're pretty much out of any race that involves production, because you aren't going to build factories, for example.

9. Make civil service apply only to farms on open terrain next to rivers/lakes. No more super hillfarms. Fertilizer boosts them as normal.

Aww. But yes.

10. Increase mine yields +1hammer at dynamite. Increase trading post and plantation yields +1 gold at economics. Why are lumbermills the only things that get a yield increase? (And why are they so much better than mines?)
Make farm yield boosts also affect pastures, so that bonus resources are actually decent bonuses.
Maybe fishing boats +1 gold at refrigeration?

Good ideas. Fishing boats should get +1 food at refrigeration instead, or maybe even +1f1g to make coastal cities a bit better, since if growth is easier due to #7, building on the coast will hurt a lot.

11. Increase the yield of great person improvements with techs. Eg: Education increase Academy yield, Steel increases Manufactory yield, Acoustics increases Landmark yield, Banking increases customhouse yield. These things scale really badly.

Very much so.


In addition, I like to propose
12. Social policies are accumulated as picks, not as total culture. It's fine to postpone picks, but burning down your empire to bring culture costs down is wrong, and having to wait building more cities because you otherwise suddenly won't be able to spend picks you have gotten before is also not so much fun.

 

[Ahriman]

I would change that even more drastically. IMHO, puppets should give you gold only (and, of course, all their resources) in return for unhappiness, so that you have a real incentive to annex them. Also, if they only produce good buildings, they become too powerful even with the 30% nerf. Puppets producing culture for no SP cost increase, and being able to finance themselves? Sign me up for a new cultural victory strategy!
I suggest that for every population point, a puppet may give you e.g. 3 gpt and 1 unhappiness. Puppets would, as you suggest, produce only culture/science/happiness buildings (maybe at a production penalty - it could be interesting if the amount to which you tax puppets would affect their production), and no buildings that would consume strategic resources.

I don't like making puppet yields too pathetic. Why no science? Some basic realism is still needed.
An alternative method: make puppets increase social policy costs by 10% each (rather than 30% of a regular city).

After all, mounted units are the only units with explicit counters.

I don't think this is really true. Ranged units have mounted units as effective counters.
A strength modification isn't the only way to be a counter.

Does a defensive building also increase city attack strength?

Yes. City strength is just a single value, like unit strength (though a strength X city is not the same as a strength X ranged attack).

For the moment, city state benefits of cultural and military CSs scale inversely with empire size, i.e. the bigger your empire, the less important the bonus. What you suggest is making the bonus smaller, but it still scales with empire size. One possibility could be to give a %yield bonus, but no more than X food. That means that for empires up to a certain size, you get the full bonus, but if the empire becomes too big (in # of citizens working food tiles), the bonus decreases.

A hardcap is a bit messy and can be non-transparent, but might be best.
I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea of not making them scale at all with empire size, but I'm worried about very concentrated strats that let you concentrate large food bonuses in the capital, particularly when combined with say the Aztec Floating Gardens.
Maybe if the city state bonus can be hardcoded to apply only after all other food modifiers?

This makes it more difficult for small empires to field powerful armies, which may be a good thing.

Intended. Resource limits don't mean anything unless its hard to satisfy them when you're small.

I'm not sure about the limitations to late-game resources. These are uncovered in a time when it is hard to found new cities just to claim the resources, so you have to hope to have multiple coal pop up somewhere nearby, or you're pretty much out of any race that involves production, because you aren't going to build factories, for example.

Trade for them, get city state for them, or conquer them.
I have never not had coal.

12. Social policies are accumulated as picks, not as total culture. It's fine to postpone picks

Yes, I like this from a design perspective, but its harder to code. Shouldn't be impossible though.