Recent content by wobuffet

Scaling per-tile Happiness to map size would be a nightmare, no?

Wouldn't the simplest solution be to simply add a "-50% XP earned" effect to Logistics? The opposite of "Fast Learner" or whatever it's called.

When you conquer a City, you can Occupy, Puppet, Raze, or (if it's been captured by another Civ) Return it to its original owner. Once you take ownership of a City, you can trade it, but if I recall correctly, trading Cities is limited to Friends in VP (and even then, they might not want it).

I never play with Tech Trading on (so I have no idea what's driving the current behavior!), but theoretically yes, would be affected.

I think @CppMaster 's point is that if your yields increase by (say) 1% and every other player's benefits by 5%, then you don't actually "benefit" in the sense that Civ is a game where only one player can win.

My understanding of the DP limit was that you could only be part of 1 DP, but that DP could include any number of Civs (from just 2 to, say, 7). I do agree that the game would be more interesting if some games, you see little DPs and some games you see big ones. Intuitively...

Tend to agree. Theoretically the logic should overweight Civs who are rivals and/or who are winning the game. I always thought it was silly that everyone always loved the Natural Wonder resolution — although arguably there's a place for people-pleaser resolutions too, I guess.

All of this looks fantastic! Very excited to try when the next beta drops.

Not sure this is true. If it works like Declarations of Friendship, the AI will offer you a DP if it would rather have one than not. So it'll never accept your offer, true, but only because it will offer you one first if it ever calculates that DP > no DP.

+1 from me as well. Halve DP duration to 25 turns or so + increase visibility (to human players and hopefully to AIs too), then see what folks think. No sense in starting from scratch when changing 1 constant and adding little accessibility/transparency might be good enough.

If you mean my math, bolded number should be 4 * 5.55 = 22.2 :c5gold:GPT, which after your "1/3 worth" heuristic would lead to 7.4 :c5gold:GPT. Definitely agree! I have no idea how the AI evaluates the benefit of a Lux... presumably in terms of :c5happy:Happiness, resulting yield/combat...

@Recursive @Gazebo In terms of adjusting AI valuation of :c5gold:Gold as the game progresses, cost of typical Unit/Building investment in the current Era would be a natural starting point. Or since Era is a pretty chunky unit, maybe just scale it with # of :c5science:Techs to make things more...

Don't think my solution (bolded above) is more complicated at all. Much to its credit (and unlike vanilla), VP's trade system fundamentally doesn't peg AI valuations at fixed values for resources like Luxes. Manually inserting a time/Era valuation factor specifically for Luxuries seems, if...

Wouldn't the right solution to this problem be AI gold valuation in mid- and late-game? Presumably if the AI is too stingy with (i.e., is overvaluing) Gold in Lux trades past turn 200 or whatever, it's doing the same in non-Lux trades too. Maybe anchor AI Gold valuation to the median price of...

What am I missing here? I do agree that an archive of the last 5 betas or so would be nice. Certainly more useful to archive a few newer betas rather than (even lots of) older ones.