Current (SVN) development discussion thread

[iOnlySignIn]

^ Emperor/Epic 3000 BC. I play on this setting in 90% of my games, as you know.

In fact, I'm not complaining about how AI England, Mongolia, and Spain are weak in my games. It's just that Russia is always ridiculously strong and close to Domination if I don't actively try to hinder them.

I suggest we load Prussia games. As you see in my screenshot, the situation of the world is unlikely to change much in the next 75 years, but Prussia starts are actually significantly faster to load than American ones in my experience, since the later turns get exponentially slower.

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Right.

What I am trying to change here is the paradigm for the Monarch/Normal setting.
I have voiced my displeasure at the many variables that cause stagnant gameplay
on those settings; a few of which are confirmed by you (Mega-Spain) and civ_king (England).
I understand that will affect your gameplay, of course, so I think it's only reasonable
to work out a compromise, that of course, Leoreth can agree on too.
And maybe try to find an equalizing factor across all the settings if possible.

My foremost issue with Mega-Spain right now though, is how close it is to UHV sometimes.
It'll be just like the old Babylon issue where the AI wins the game before you get a chance to lift a finger.

[iOnlySignIn]

Spain is never big on 3000 BC in my games. It is sometimes big in the few 600 AD games I played.

I think I can explain why Spain gets conquerors less often on Epic than on Normal:

On Epic, teching is a lot slower but units move at the same speed as on Normal. This means that whichever civ who techs to Optics first has the best chance at getting Conquerors, since it has all the time in the world to explore. That's why in my games Conquerors are very eclectic in their nationality.

On Normal, teching is faster. Everyone gets to Optics at roughly the same time (exaggerating here of course), so Spain has the advantage due to its UP giving it faster ships. This is why in your games Mega-Spain (due to Conquistadors) is a regular occurrence.

As for Mongolia & England, it's a harder question. These two have almost completely opposite styles, so why would they thrive in your games but wither in mine?

My guess is that the Mongolian UU, a 3 move unit, is just like the Spanish UP - its faster movement speed is a significant bonus on Normal, but not on Epic.

And, most importantly, a Mega-Mongol helps England (and Spain) indirectly. Say the Mongols are uber-strong and ties up all the continental powers, so Russia, Germany and Byzantium are busy with the Mongols and have slower tech; therefore Vikings, France are too busy taking advantage of Russia/Germany/Byzantium, or are fighting the Mongols themselves, to have time to bully Spain/England.

Mega-Mongols also slow down the tech rate of the entire Old World, giving England a much better chance at tech lead.

And needless to say, no Mega-Mongols == Mega-Russia. You pretty much have to choose at least one between the two.

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Those seem like very acute reasons.

Yes, high speed units are typically favored on a Normal speed.
If you read some of the topics in the Civ4 BtS Strategy & Tips subforum,
quite often, the expert players seem to seize windows of opportunities
with stacks of Horse Archers/Curassiers/Cavalry, which are critical
on higher difficulties, as I understand it.

Not to mention that Keshiks ignore terrain penalties.

I would have to agree that tied up Vikings attacking either Russia or Mongols is
a big contributor for a weaker Russia and a stronger England in my games.
I think as for France though, since the turns are often more compact and the civs spawn sooner, in comparison,
it gets boxed in at a faster pace, preventing it from getting too strong.

The issue is though, that Mega-Mongols prevents a realistic China as well.
I think something could be done though. Perhaps more Ottoman conflict with Russia would solve the issue.

[Fresol]

Originally Posted by iOnlySignIn

Spain is never big on 3000 BC in my games. It is sometimes big in the few 600 AD games I played.

I think I can explain why Spain gets conquerors less often on Epic than on Normal:

On Epic, teching is a lot slower but units move at the same speed as on Normal. This means that whichever civ who techs to Optics first has the best chance at getting Conquerors, since it has all the time in the world to explore. That's why in my games Conquerors are very eclectic in their nationality.

On Normal, teching is faster. Everyone gets to Optics at roughly the same time (exaggerating here of course), so Spain has the advantage due to its UP giving it faster ships. This is why in your games Mega-Spain (due to Conquistadors) is a regular occurrence.

As for Mongolia & England, it's a harder question. These two have almost completely opposite styles, so why would they thrive in your games but wither in mine?

My guess is that the Mongolian UU, a 3 move unit, is just like the Spanish UP - its faster movement speed is a significant bonus on Normal, but not on Epic.

And, most importantly, a Mega-Mongol helps England (and Spain) indirectly. Say the Mongols are uber-strong and ties up all the continental powers, so Russia, Germany and Byzantium are busy with the Mongols and have slower tech; therefore Vikings, France are too busy taking advantage of Russia/Germany/Byzantium, or are fighting the Mongols themselves, to have time to bully Spain/England.

Mega-Mongols also slow down the tech rate of the entire Old World, giving England a much better chance at tech lead.

And needless to say, no Mega-Mongols == Mega-Russia. You pretty much have to choose at least one between the two.

Spain usually is the first to Optics, and then they tech Gunpowder->Astronomy. Usually they don't do anything with their caravels, and conquerors usually come with conquistadors and bombards. So if other civs can get caravels before Spain send out galleons, you'll have a lower chance of seeing Spanish conquerors, especially in slower game speed.

[Fresol]

A Prussian start, 3000 BC M/N:

Spoiler:

All civs are technologically backwards.

Another one:

Spoiler:

There seems to be no conquerors. Mongolia took the whole of Russia and Persia, only to collapse after an immediate Russia respawn in ~1420 AD. China collapsed and respawned.

Mongolia right before collapse:

Spoiler:

As you can see, under this setting AI Mongolia is not pathetic in a lot of ways. Russia on the other hand can be rather weak. I suspect they didn't even have longbowmen when the Mongols invaded.

Maybe you can all share some of your starts here.

[strijder20]

I'll boot up a Prussian start and load it here too.

My issue with civilizations being too strong/weak, actually, is the Ottomans. In Vanilla RFC, they are monsters, but here? They usually don't even get out of Anatolia...
In my latest game their size at 1980 was Chersonessos (Krim city), Istanbul, Ankara, a city in the Kaukasus + Bagdat. Not that impressive.
EDIT: Well, after checking their size in previously posted games here, it seems to be just my bad luck. Fresol has both a large and a two city Ottomans, while iOnlySignIn seems to have a moderate Ottoman empire.

[Fresol]

Originally Posted by strijder20

I'll boot up a Prussian start and load it here too.

My issue with civilizations being too strong/weak, actually, is the Ottomans. In Vanilla RFC, they are monsters, but here? They usually don't even get out of Anatolia...
In my latest game their size at 1980 was Chersonessos (Krim city), Istanbul, Ankara, a city in the Kaukasus + Bagdat. Not that impressive.

They are more likely to grow huge in 600 AD starts. I've seen one which took Egypt, the Arabian peninsula, Mesopotamia, Balkans and half of the Maghreb.

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

^I've occasionally run into a weak Ottoman Empire. It usually weighs on how the Byzantines are doing. Also, increasingly, I have noticed a lack of Constantinople as well.

I think buffing the Ottomans might actually be the key to achieving some balance here;
if we can make them stronger and have a higher inclination to fight Russia (as historical), we can curb some of the mega-Russia
that's been harrowing iOnlySignIn, and then we can nerf Mongols appropriately so that they collapse, since they are only a preliminary check against Russia.

Although I'm certain Vikings will want to join in on the Slavic dogpile either way.

[strijder20]

Spoiler:

I don't know what to say of this. Obviously a strong Russia (with Kaliningrad, bound to be) , a super-teching England - despite the obvious and hideous gap where a city should be in middle-Britain - , Amazing vikings - Yes, that is the Norman kingdom of Sicily you are seeing there, and Milan is added as icing on the cake -, OCC HRE, Turks are managing decently despite no Istanbul and Byzantium is impressing me.

Spoiler:

Uber-Spain is nowhere to be seen. They got neither one of the conquerors (England had the Inca ones, the Aztecs got lucky or actually fought off the conquerors).

[Fresol]

How did the Mongols fare? Did they conquer many cities before collapse?

[strijder20]

8: Northern China and their core. They even failed at conquering Independent China... *sigh*

[Fresol]

They don't often conquer China now, but just flipping the a few cities in Northern China should be enough to collapse China. Sometimes they fail completely, when other civs have Guilds or Engineering or Civil Service early.

Really, if you are playing Mongolia, seeing Muskets/Pikemen/Heavy Swordsmen/Longbowmen garrisoned in 60% defense cities is depressing.

I think Keshiks should be auto-promoted with City Raider I.

[strijder20]

Originally Posted by Fresol

They don't often conquer China now, but just flipping the a few cities in Northern China should be enough to collapse China. Sometimes they fail completely, when other civs have Guilds or Engineering or Civil Service early.

Really, if you are playing Mongolia, seeing Muskets/Pikemen/Heavy Swordsmen/Longbowmen garrisoned in 60% defense cities is depressing.

I think Keshiks should be auto-promoted with City Raider I.

It doesn't take away that Mongolia can reach huge proportions sometimes, but yes, maybe they should be buffed short-term so they certainly conquer Russia + Arabia + China, and nerfed long-term so they certainly collapse by 1550 AD.

Did a second game:

Strong HRE this time, decent Russia, decent France, and finally, the thing I've wanted to see for a long time now, uber-Ottomans The best about Turkey is it's capital's name. Do you recognise which civilization founded it?

Spoiler:

In the east there is a very strong Mongolia, probably because they capped China and thus didn't collapse because of the usual China respawn. Japan is doing as usual (they don't do many extraordinary things, do they?) and Mughals and India are currently sharing India thanks to no British trade company.

Spoiler:

Yes, no British trade company. Look at this tech situation of a 1700 AD England. It's pathetic.

Spoiler:

There is a super-Spain in the Americas, and France has settled one of the crappiest areas in the game... again Why don't they settle Louisiana/Mid-west more often? The usual colonisers (England, Netherlands) are either dead or extremely backwards.

Spoiler:

... So the HRE decided to fill the vacuum.

Spoiler:

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Originally Posted by strijder20

It doesn't take away that Mongolia can reach huge proportions sometimes, but yes, maybe they should be buffed short-term so they certainly conquer Russia + Arabia + China, and nerfed long-term so they certainly collapse by 1550 AD.

This is EXACTLY what I'm advocating for. Huge Mongol sweep -> Huge Mongol collapse.

I'll run some tests in a couple hours; I have class soon in half an hour or so.

[Fresol]

Originally Posted by strijder20

It doesn't take away that Mongolia can reach huge proportions sometimes, but yes, maybe they should be buffed short-term so they certainly conquer Russia + Arabia + China, and nerfed long-term so they certainly collapse by 1550 AD.

Did a second game:

Strong HRE this time, decent Russia, decent France, and finally, the thing I've wanted to see for a long time now, uber-Ottomans The best about Turkey is it's capital's name. Do you recognise which civilization founded it?

Spoiler:

In the east there is a very strong Mongolia, probably because they capped China and thus didn't collapse because of the usual China respawn. Japan is doing as usual (they don't do many extraordinary things, do they?) and Mughals and India are currently sharing India thanks to no British trade company.

Spoiler:

Yes, no British trade company. Look at this tech situation of a 1700 AD England. It's pathetic.

Spoiler:

There is a super-Spain in the Americas, and France has settled one of the crappiest areas in the game... again Why don't they settle Louisiana/Mid-west more often? The usual colonisers (England, Netherlands) are either dead or extremely backwards.

Spoiler:

... So the HRE decided to fill the vacuum.

Spoiler:

Compare this with my second game. This is a really prosperous world.

[Leoreth]

Yeah, so what we gather here is that England, Spain and Mongolia all have their own threshold they need to overcome to become ultra-powerful.

For England it's Economics, if they get it early, they're a monster, if they don't, they remain pathetic. So I think it's better to boost their tech rate before they have Economics, but nerf their overall tech rate so they don't take off afterwards.

The Mongols should be penalized for a larger empire more.

Not sure about Spain.

[strijder20]

Originally Posted by Leoreth

Not sure about Spain.

Maybe a post-colonialism era, featuring the collapse-to-core mechanic, might help. Spain without it's colonies isn't that powerful anymore.

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Originally Posted by Leoreth

Yeah, so what we gather here is that England, Spain and Mongolia all have their own threshold they need to overcome to become ultra-powerful.

For England it's Economics, if they get it early, they're a monster, if they don't, they remain pathetic. So I think it's better to boost their tech rate before they have Economics, but nerf their overall tech rate so they don't take off afterwards.

The Mongols should be penalized for a larger empire more.

Not sure about Spain.

I don't think the Mongols should be penalized per se, as what an enforced collapse like what happens to Rome or Babylon should happen to them. After the rise of the Mongol Empire it disintegrated and fractured irreparably. Consider in the West, the remnants of the Horde there devolved into the Crimean Khanate, which was essentially an Ottoman client state that became obsolete around the 17th-18th centuries for not being able to keep up with musket technologies and warfare. After the rise of the Ming Dynasty, the Ming army repeatedly sacked Mongol territory, especially the capital of Karakorum, although they were never able to hold any territory past Inner Mongolia, nevertheless, despite a few setbacks like the Tumu Crisis, many assorted Mongol leaders submitted to the Ming or continued resisting; to which the Ming played out the age old tactic of playing the fractured Mongols against each other, like when Han manipulated Xiongnu affairs.

[King Coltrane]

so i decided to try out phoenicia just to see how they played... (and i know they arent up to DoC specs yet)

so some things are horribly wrong.

1) weird trade things/underwhelming UP/UB: so I have Kition (founded on copper on Crete), Carthage, and Carthago Nova, and Great Lighthouse. this should mean 3 trade routes per city! I have open borders with greece, egypt, and persia, so there are lots of choices for these routes. by my count, i should be earning 21 gold per turn from trade (based on the provided totals in the city screen) yet i'm losing 3 gpt! in the interior advisor screen, I am told that this cost is due to city maintenance costs of... 3gpt. and thats it! when i WB'd in glasssmiths to all 3 cities, my income (with 4 routes per city) rose to... -3 gpt! STILL! so it seems that not only does the UP kinda suck, but the UB does as well! I get that the commerce goes to science, but still. it feels like my trade routes are worthless, especially as city maintenance eats up almost half my profits.

2) useless UU: the bireme is sorta better than a galley, but absolutely worse than a trireme... against both galleys and triremes. and i'll only ever have to deal with triremes anyway, whether barb, roman, or greek. even if i have to face a galley, theres no reason not to use triremes. and since the Poeni are dependent on trade, ill have OB with everyone anyway, negating the other facet of the bireme.

3) UHV's: 1) control 5 cities: between levant, africa, spain, and need for dyes, easy enough. 2) control 4 dyes: this is actually pretty tough, since only 2 dyes are consistently easily available. its pretty common that egypts dye is free, but you will NEED to fight rome (or persia) for the last dye in the accessible world. and while this is good, its extremely hard right now, as ill get to. 3) biggest map: easy, but meh.

suggestions:

UP: trade routes generate gold instead of/in addition to commerce. im not sure which is better, but essentially carthage/phoenicia should be rich, not necessarily advanced. so i think gold over commerce should work for this.

UB: Why glasssmith? I dont think that phoenician glass was as big as the purple industry anyway, so why is this the UB? I think an interesting idea would be to have the UB as "Temple of Baal" which replaces the pagan temple and provides +1 trade routes. it would be available earlier (so it would actually be useful) and would be more in line with the theme of phoenicia (while still having essentially the same effect as the glasssmith)

UU: while i understand the desire to use a ship UU, i dont see it as that realistic. phoenician ships/crews werent THAT much better than greek counterparts, though there were marginally better. And while i think the current UU does capture this unimpressive distinction, i think there are more interesting units to use. I would not use an elephant replacement, because they didnt really make that big a difference/werent that unique to carthage. I wouldnt use Numid. merc's, because Rome used them just as effectively (maybe add this unit to the mercenary pool?) Instead i would use the "Sacred Band", a spearman replacement with +1 strength (5 total) and the amphibious promotion. seems useful, interesting, and accurate. OR a swordsman replacement (even if spearman graphics) without the city attack bonus, but +1 strength (so 7) and amphibious. The latter would probably be better, as it would sync up with carthaginian dates better (ie you'd have to research iron working) and it would give carthage a chance against Rome while not being overpowered or guaranteeing victory.

UHV's:
1) found 5 coastal medit. cities (rather than just control... i think this represents phoenician colonization better) by 100 BCE... seems reasonable
2) I like the dye UHV too... i say keep it as is. with the UU, UB, and UP changes, this should be more fun and feasible.
3) control the entire western med. by say... 300 AD. or Eliminate Rome.

(i think all these dates are sorta off... the phoenicians should spawn in 1000 bce, not 1200. they should really have to colonize by say, 300 BCE, and they should have to eliminate Rome/control the Med by 100 BCE. I know this makes them a very short play, but i think that would be exciting!)

what do you think of these proposed changes?