Getting Started

Thalassicus said:

@Sneaks
It was an easy change because there's a direct comparison between Korean and Ottoman traits.

• Ottomans: +1 specialists
• Korea: +2 specialists, +2 great improvements, 1 free tech with each science building

The Ottoman trait is very powerful since specialists are more accessible and useful in VEM than vanilla. The Korean trait was significantly better than the Ottoman trait, so by association it was too powerful.

I also buffed the Turtle Ship. It's on an earlier tech, upgrades to a more powerful unit, and gets +50% vs cities. Korea is the only civilization who can start their Ships of the Line with more than 30xp.

Click to expand...

Buffing the Turtle Ship by giving it 50% vs cities goes against the essence of the unit, and the civ. This change is philosophically the opposite of what you did in switching Denmark's Ski Infantry for the Jelling Stones.

Korea doesn't get one free tech per science building - it gets the equivalent of a vanilla RA boost. And the "great improvements" are practically limited in number.

Unless you have played with Korea and scored significantly better than you have with the Ottomans (or Babylon), you have no reason to conclude that they are OP. As you often note, the game's mechanisms are pretty complex. That you didn't take the time to play a single game with Korea before altering it threw me for a loop as well.

Apparently you view the DLC as pretty much a failure, with the signature trait needing a nerf and the UU needing a total overhaul. But for me the result flattened Korea's impressively conceived, singular identity, and I couldn't disagree with it more.

I update quickly after patches so everyone can continue playing right away. This means I have to trust my instincts and make fast decisions, and there's two options afterward:

• Finish updates and immediately release the mod for public testing.
• Wait to release for a few days, while doing private testing.

I do A because everyone can choose to start playing the mod again right away, or wait until it's been tested more thoroughly. It leaves the choice in your hands. These early-release versions won't be perfect, but nothing in the project is set in stone, and things change based on feedback and discussions.

Here are some examples of conclusions I came to when adapting the patch to the mod, which have turned out to be more controversial. These are open to discussion!

1. The Turtle Ship is naval.
2. VEM improves leader slots involving naval UUs.
3. I improved the turtle ship.

1. Catapults and Trebuchets in VEM get +20% ranged strength, +50% vs cities, and -50% vs units.
2. This places Hwach'a around equal strength to Artillery.
3. I've seen discussions Hwach'a are already powerful without the boost.
4. I reduced the strength of Hwach'a to vanilla and omitted Demolish.

1. Specialists are more available and powerful in VEM than vanilla.
2. Ottoman +1 to specialists is powerful.
3. Korean +1 to specialists plus research boost trait is more powerful than the Ottoman trait.

I can buff the Ottoman and Korean traits if you feel they need it. I used +1 because Ahriman stated a few months ago +1 is powerful, due to the increased availability and yield of specialists in VEM over Vanilla. With either trait specialists become better than most tiles.

Thalassicus said:

I update quickly after patches so everyone can continue playing right away. This involves making rapid decisions that haven't been discussed thoroughly yet. I think we can agree there's two options:

• Finish updates and immediately release the mod for public testing.
• Wait to release for a few days, while doing private testing.

I do A because everyone can choose to start playing the mod again right away, or wait until it's been tested more thoroughly. Rapid responses won't be perfect, but nothing in the project is set in stone, and things will always change depending on feedback and discussions.

Let me give an example of one of the quick decisions. Most siege units in VEM get +20% ranged strength, +50% vs cities and -50% vs units. This places Hwach'a around equal strength to Artillery. So I had to decide... is this what we really want, or should I reduce the strength of Hwach'a back to their vanilla values? I figured that since Artillery are so powerful and the Hwach'a is available in the Medieval era, it would probably be overpowered. I therefore decided to reduce it to vanilla.

Here are the other conclusions I came to. If you disagree with the logic I'm always open to discussion:

1. The Turtle Ship is naval.
2. VEM improves leaders with naval UUs.
3. Improve the turtle ship.

1. Korea's specialist/GP abilities are decently powerful in vanilla.
2. Specialists/GPs are more available and powerful in VEM.
3. Korea is more powerful in VEM.
4. Reduce the trait to keep Korea equally powerful as vanilla.

Click to expand...

Updating the mod to work with the patch right away makes sense so people wouldn’t have to wait, but you did this with 9.2. There was no need to rush out the 9.4 “Korea” mod. People could have kept playing with it as it was. Then, if it was revealed to be OP in game-play comparisons to the other science whizzes, changes could have been made.

As to the logic tree:

1. VEM improved two leaders with naval UU’s because largely due to those UU’s, the civs were considered bottom of the barrel. This is clearly not the case with Korea. The Turtle Ship helps to balance the civ, in a very creative manner. (And in my opinion the change to it morphs its personality.)

2. I was under the impression that while VEM has more specialists than vanilla, their effect is lower, due to the different way research works. So I didn’t necessarily think that the additional slots created an imbalance. If you managed to graph it all out and arrived at an identical science output… I’m impressed!

On a side note, I disagree that VEM tries to balance each civ’s three traits in any systematic way. Top-tier VEM civs like Germany, Babylon, France and Persia all have UA’s that clearly outperform their UU/UB’s… and this is why they’ve been top-tier for a long time now. Germany in particular jumps out at me as the best conquest civ. Does this mean they should be reduced to the recently buffed vanilla values? I’d say Yes more quickly than I would that Korea needs to be brought down to Babylon’s or the Ottomans’ level.

Since you feel that strongly about it, I've returned the Korean numbers to v9.2 settings for v9.6. It's up now.

Comparing the new civ to a UA that was created in the mod is not the proper balance point methinks. I have been having a blast with the Koreans in my vanilla games so far because they do what I consider the most important thing a trait can do: cause me to actively play a different style. I was actually running merchants and artists for the GPP.

So, my thought is more along the lines of the fact that now we have a vanilla civ that is designed to do X, rather than trying to nerf it down to make it in line with our X, what can we do to make our X differently powerful.

Thalassicus said:

If you feel that strongly about it, I'll revert things back.

Click to expand...

Sneaks said:

Comparing the new civ to a UA that was created in the mod is not the proper balance point methinks. I have been having a blast with the Koreans in my vanilla games so far because they do what I consider the most important thing a trait can do: cause me to actively play a different style. I was actually running merchants and artists for the GPP.

So, my thought is more along the lines of the fact that now we have a vanilla civ that is designed to do X, rather than trying to nerf it down to make it in line with our X, what can we do to make our X differently powerful.

Click to expand...

If there's an open door, the civ can stay at 9.4 for a period of contemplation. In the meantime, I'll just keep playing with 9.2, using Korea, Babylon and Ottomans for comparison.

I don't know if Sneaks has anything specific in mind, but I happened to have been thinking along similar lines right before the DLC came out. To cut to the chase, I think the only unsatisfying aspect of VEM is the RA mechanic. I've seen others ask about it as well, with the basic issue being its passivity. It's just not fun to wait for the AI to give you an RA (or not). It takes too much of the game out of the player's hands. So I was going to try to come up with a more active alternative... and that may in turn affect the power of the scientists.

The Turtle Ship and its effect on exploration (limited in vanilla to embarked units until Combustion) are a different issue. I love that it's Korean, and steers you toward a certain type of play on a continents map. I like how it lines up with the defensive tilt of the Hwacha. Ideally the philosophy of the concept that the devs designed could survive.

Playing as Korea on King difficulty, and my god, it's just ridiculous.

There is definitely a point where a 'fun' trait becomes simply OP, and I seriously feel that this is the case.

I feel that both UU's are actually quite decent in their own regard - the Hwacha is really great, but then again, so are many other UU's, to a greater extent than Korea, and there's nothing wrong with that. Turtle Ships are just a useful bonus and fit the hermit style of play for Korea brilliantly.

But this trait is obscene. I feel the problem with it is that it helps in every regard, not just a scientific victory - my armies are more advanced than anyone else's, my improvements increase yields more than anyone else's, and, obviously, I was rushing ahead in the tech tree. I can see that the idea the DLC had in mind was for Korea to be a small, defensive Civ, focusing on tech. But my advanced tech allows me to go on the offensive with ease.

Sneaks said it best when he said that "now we have a vanilla civ that is designed to do X, rather than trying to nerf it down to make it in line with our X, what can we do to make our X differently powerful", but at this point, Korea needs its trait changed. When compared with any other civ, the trait is leagues ahead.

EDIT: The Improvements are also pretty intense, I have a bit of a tendency to have plenty of great monuments around my cities, and the boost I got from them was pretty high as well.

albie_123 said:

Playing as Korea on King difficulty, and my god, it's just ridiculous.

There is definitely a point where a 'fun' trait becomes simply OP, and I seriously feel that this is the case... at this point, Korea needs its trait changed. When compared with any other civ, the trait is leagues ahead.

Click to expand...

This wasn't my experience in my first game (on Emperor) at all... but neither my result nor yours means much left at that. Did you finish well ahead of your best prior Science game? I didn't play an optimal game, but I finished about 40 turns behind. That is why I have serious doubts that Korea is OP in a quantifiable way... but again, I may do a lot better next time around. Or maybe VEM has become more difficult since I set my own record with Babylon. That's what careful testing is for.

I must reiterate right now that on Deity level, Babylon is still the best science civ and Siam still plays better as Culture.

What I want to stress in these posts is something I find inescapably missing from the vast majority of civs right now: In Civ IV, leader traits were utterly game changing. In Civ V, most leader traits are pretty nice in certain ways, but do not directly alter game course in a significant way.

Examples of game changing Civs in VEM as of now:
Arabia - Incredibly powerful economic civ. Rapid expansion onto luxury resources is a no brainer.
Germany - War early and often
China - Same as above
Babylon - Still the top science civ by a long shot. Pumping out GSes is THE strategy.
India - Go big or go home.

Examples of "good" Civs without game changing UAs:
Rome - Powerful warmongering given the right set of scenarios. Otherwise, ok production
Russia - Nice production boost, but not super
Persia - Nice boosts every so often, but UA doesnt particularly give direction
Egypt - Wonders are a bit easier
Greece - Easier to retain CSes

Examples of civs with meh UAs
England - Navies just don't matter til the AI "gets it"
America - Quantitative value of the extra sight costs dips into obsolescence by mid-game.
Spain - Dice rolling at best
Inca, Iroquois - What scales out to be minor move and cost savings


So, where do we try to balance things? Do we want to make every UA great, and game changing? Do we want to make each UA good but not great, for more general gameplay?

Civs are not designed to be game-changing with the UA alone. For example, America relies on a combination of the UT and UB for its focus on quick early expansion. I base balance decisions around King to Immortal difficulty. It'd actually be interesting to find out what difficulty level everyone plays the mod on... I'll start a poll.

I actually really hate the DoF requirement, mainly because as I have mentioned before, it stops the AI from using it as a backstabbing tool to lower your finances before a war. I'd prefer the incremental turn system with the actual RA signing process.

What alternative would you suggest for providing a tangible gameplay benefit for friendship?

I think RAs would be quite beneficial for peaceful civs, but I loathe that they're both a forced part of friendship now, and hold no investment cost. Their current iteration just removes too many points for choices.

Sneaks said:

I think RAs would be quite beneficial for peaceful civs, but I loathe that they're both a forced part of friendship now, and hold no investment cost. Their current iteration just removes too many points for choices.

Click to expand...

I agree. Perhaps just buff the science given by the RA per turn (is now 5% of the combined science of both players, am I correct?) and return to old RA signing, if possible.

Thalassicus said:

What alternative would you suggest for providing a tangible gameplay benefit for friendship?

Click to expand...

A small bonus to culture could work.

Thalassicus said:

What alternative would you suggest for providing a tangible gameplay benefit for friendship?

Click to expand...

Maybe improved relations with any friends / allies of CS's who are already friends / allies of the friendly Civ?

A bonus to culture could work as well, then you've got open borders for gold, RA for science, and DoF for culture.

Some goals:

• Automatic difficulty adjustment for tech pace (the further ahead we are, the harder things become).
• Peaceful leaders can research significantly faster than warlike leaders.
• Build it in to an existing mechanism (see "Type A" in the Variable Difficulty thread).

Where should we move these effects to?

Something else to point out is the reward of research agreements cannot be modified with our current tools, so if we add it back, that part will be exactly like vanilla.

Large concepts for interesting Diplomacy:

Dof = Alliance mindset

The CS Sharing
Every minor CS gives Friends level bonuses to allies of their major Ally.

Joint Military Ops
10% combat strength boost when in an Ally's territory.

DoF = Cooperative markets

Open Borders
Open borders during a DoF gives 10% of the trade income total of the two civs as a bonus income source.

Cultural Diffusion
X culture per turn during DoF

Thalassicus said:

Some goals:

• Automatic difficulty adjustment for tech pace (the further ahead we are, the harder things become).
• Peaceful leaders can research significantly faster than warlike leaders.

Where should we move these effects to? I'd like to build it in to an existing mechanism (see "Type A" in the Variable Difficulty thread).

Something else to point out is the reward of research agreements cannot be modified with our current tools, so if we add it back, that part will be exactly like vanilla.

Click to expand...

I get point A, but not point B. Warlike leaders shouldn't somehow be rewarded less tech because they conquer. There is a basic filter already in place in that warmongers have less trading partners to begin with through their actions.

I've started a new thread for the topic: Declarations of Friendship. This looks like it'll become a major discussion, so let's continue the conversation there.