os79
Deity
You basically want all LHs to be smart enough to be a challenge during wartime, right?
A New Dawn Bug Reports and Feedback
- Thread starter 45°38'N-13°47'E
- Start date
- Status
You basically want all LHs to be smart enough to be a challenge during wartime, right?
buck beach
Prince
I think it would be very cool to required a land unit to be in a city that has a barracks, garrison or stable (where applicable) to be able to upgrade. Similarly, a shipyard or Naval facility for vessels. It would put emphasis on building some of these buildings for this purpose say for example a city on an island or different Continent.
Seems to make sense as opposed to pay the price and "bam" new and improved units up and ready to kick butt in a far away location.
Buck
Seems to make sense as opposed to pay the price and "bam" new and improved units up and ready to kick butt in a far away location.
Buck
Afforess
The White Wizard
Complicates the game: ✔
AI will not understand it: ✔
Requires SDK changes to code: ✔
Waste of time: ✔
Those are my thoughts.
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
Here's23...so far. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11784586&postcount=172 http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11974973&postcount=264 http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12003863&postcount=337 all in same thread.
Problem is his ideas and then work on them was spread all over in various threads. Then ls612 and him had some difference of opinions and ls612 built his own set of Traits and made it an Option in game setup. And then T-brd did another slightly different one so that C2C has 3 or 4 Options for changing how traits for leaders work. And this was all the way back in v 23 and 24 of C2C. A lot longer than I thought.
I'll link ls612's thread too. When I find it again.
JosEPh
For Afforess,
Additional link for ls612 Leader trait system thread. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=489291
I may eventually find sgtslick's proposals for AND but I fear they are scattered in multiple thread way back in 2012.
JosEPh
buck beach
Prince
Complicates the game: ✔
AI will not understand it: ✔
Requires SDK changes to code: ✔
Waste of time: ✔
Those are my thoughts.
Oh well
Arkatakor
King
Yes - at the very least more so than is currently the case. As it stands now, more than half of them are not only unchallenging, but downright inept at war (as described here) which is a serious flaw in the game.
Here are the trait changes I use for AND2. Its nothing significant, just what i consider balance changes. I posted it awhile ago, somehwhere.. The .rar includes a CIV4LeaderHeadInfos.xml just because I shifted around who had which traits a little bit, so there was more of an even spread, like more scientific, more deceiver, and less aggressive (off top of my head). The actual trait changes:
Aggressive - +15% great generals (bonus)
Expansive - +3 health (instead of 2)
Industrious - +35% to wonder production (down from +50%)
Creative - 4
per city (up from 2)
Protective - +5% great generals (bonus), gets free trench1 for gun units but doesn't get drill1 for hi-tech units.
Imperialistic - 85% great generals (down from 100%)
Seafaring - +1 health
Deceiver - +3
per city (up from +2)
Scientific - +8% science (down from 10%)
Humanitarian - +2 health (up from 1), -35% civic upkeep (down from -20)
Thinking about it now I think organized should get a slight buff, such as a capital city production or commerce bonus of like +5 or 10%.
Overall these aren't significant changes imo, generally just modest balance adjustments.
Aggressive - +15% great generals (bonus)
Expansive - +3 health (instead of 2)
Industrious - +35% to wonder production (down from +50%)
Creative - 4
per city (up from 2)Protective - +5% great generals (bonus), gets free trench1 for gun units but doesn't get drill1 for hi-tech units.
Imperialistic - 85% great generals (down from 100%)
Seafaring - +1 health
Deceiver - +3
per city (up from +2)Scientific - +8% science (down from 10%)
Humanitarian - +2 health (up from 1), -35% civic upkeep (down from -20)
Thinking about it now I think organized should get a slight buff, such as a capital city production or commerce bonus of like +5 or 10%.
Overall these aren't significant changes imo, generally just modest balance adjustments.
Oh and I should mention, in c2c thunderbrd added a bunch of new trait tags that can be used, here are some of them with some descriptions, pretty sure there are more too.
In C2C, I adjusted the traits and included some of the new tags - I had planned on additional changes (which includes a tiered trait system, where every trait has 2-3 upgraded versions of themselves, which you can upgrade when your civ has reached certain culture benchmarks), but never found the time (the architecture to do this is currently in the game however). I haven't given up entirely on doing it though.
In C2C, I adjusted the traits and included some of the new tags - I had planned on additional changes (which includes a tiered trait system, where every trait has 2-3 upgraded versions of themselves, which you can upgrade when your civ has reached certain culture benchmarks), but never found the time (the architecture to do this is currently in the game however). I haven't given up entirely on doing it though.
Arkatakor
King
These modifications seems reasonable to me (minus the scientific adjustment - 2% is trivial imo, i'd just leave it at 10%). Perhaps protective could be adjusted to have 50% great general generation within own borders? I've been thinking long and hard how to boost this trait - I proposed archery range production boost years ago (which was adopted into the mod) though its still not enough imo. Maybe 25% extra espionage defense could boost it somewhat. Just brainstorming here.Here are the trait changes I use for AND2. Its nothing significant, just what i consider balance changes. I posted it awhile ago, somehwhere.. The .rar includes a CIV4LeaderHeadInfos.xml just because I shifted around who had which traits a little bit, so there was more of an even spread, like more scientific, more deceiver, and less aggressive (off top of my head). The actual trait changes:
Aggressive - +15% great generals (bonus)
Expansive - +3 health (instead of 2)
Industrious - +35% to wonder production (down from +50%)
Creative - 4
Protective - +5% great generals (bonus), gets free trench1 for gun units but doesn't get drill1 for hi-tech units.
Imperialistic - 85% great generals (down from 100%)
Seafaring - +1 health
Deceiver - +3
Scientific - +8% science (down from 10%)
Humanitarian - +2 health (up from 1), -35% civic upkeep (down from -20)
Thinking about it now I think organized should get a slight buff, such as a capital city production or commerce bonus of like +5 or 10%.
Overall these aren't significant changes imo, generally just modest balance adjustments.
Its not a matter of +100% great general too much, its about how strong is the trait compared and in relation to the other traits. Imperialistic is slightly stronger, hence a slight nerf. I didn't find the numbers.. I chose them.
So, how did you choose that "+100% - trait is too strong" and "+85% - normal"?
Intuitive?
Afforess
The White Wizard
I don't have any particular problems with the existing RAND traits. I don't really see a need to change them.
Der_Zorn_gottes
King
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 771
Here`s finally a save for the reporded overagressive AI behaviour. Unfortunately, I don`t have any left from the Egyptian campaign, where it was even more pronounced.
However, if you move the stack of three axmen SE, you end up next to Boston, defended by 4 archers on a hill, nearly impregnable.
Next turn, the AI will suicide 2 of them onto your stack, effectively giving away the city.
However, if you move the stack of three axmen SE, you end up next to Boston, defended by 4 archers on a hill, nearly impregnable.
Next turn, the AI will suicide 2 of them onto your stack, effectively giving away the city.
platyping
Sleeping Dragon
Most calculations are done in integers.
If a battle yields 2 GP points, a 100% trait will grant 4 points while a 85% trait will be effectively just a 50% trait, while a 15% trait is pretty much 0 boost. Unless, they are enhanced by other modifiers.
Afforess
The White Wizard
Awhile ago now, but yes I think so.
Der_Zorn_gottes
King
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 771
Still version 775.
It won`t let me build Copernicus, claiming there isnt a hill or peak. However, there are plenty (I could build observatory).
(Problem solved. Turned out, I was building it in another city
. Still misleaing tooltip)
On another note, is it intetional that cities of vassals count as domestic for connection purposes?
It won`t let me build Copernicus, claiming there isnt a hill or peak. However, there are plenty (I could build observatory).
(Problem solved. Turned out, I was building it in another city
. Still misleaing tooltip) On another note, is it intetional that cities of vassals count as domestic for connection purposes?
Attachments
<Nexus>
Traveler of the Multiverse
Yes, it is. For balance issues IIRC.
I'm playing C2C and using the flexible AI difficulty settings that I believe were developed over here first, so if this isn't the right place to direct my question let me know.
I think the flexible AI difficulty should be rebalanced to be based off the standard deviation from the highest ranking player rather than the mean. In a recent game of mine I had a several hundred point lead over the next largest AI, and this was on Deity for myself. I was also playing with barbarian civs, so I ended up with a couple of single city civs on another continent who were lagging behind in tech, which drove the avg score on the world way down. Those civs were having their difficulty lowered, which was good, but that second place AI had their difficulty increased, erasing any chance they may have had of catching up to me.
Also it would be nice if we could customize the # of turns for AI difficulty changes, as well as the # of standard deviations(in fractional increments) for a change to take place.
I think the flexible AI difficulty should be rebalanced to be based off the standard deviation from the highest ranking player rather than the mean. In a recent game of mine I had a several hundred point lead over the next largest AI, and this was on Deity for myself. I was also playing with barbarian civs, so I ended up with a couple of single city civs on another continent who were lagging behind in tech, which drove the avg score on the world way down. Those civs were having their difficulty lowered, which was good, but that second place AI had their difficulty increased, erasing any chance they may have had of catching up to me.
Also it would be nice if we could customize the # of turns for AI difficulty changes, as well as the # of standard deviations(in fractional increments) for a change to take place.
- Status
