Getting Started

+2:science: for fish and whales with a University or Research Lab, perhaps? Maybe +1 with a Uni and another +1-2 with a Lab.

It's fitting, but it does little to improve water tiles without resources. Wasn't that the goal?
Featureless ocean tiles should, at their non-Wonder best, give at least as much yield as a plains or grassland TP. Colossus would push them into "optimal" territory.
Grassland TPs are 2 food and gold.
We could start with 1 food 2 gold on water, with an extra +1 food from Lighthouse, and then something nice from Colossus. Or you could start it at 1 of each, and give the second gold at a certain tech level.

These feel like good numbers. Unimproved water tiles could still be worked if you were desperate for gold and didn't have enough trading posts up. Lighthouse water suddenly become as viable as many other hexes, so in some cases it may be more feasible than building a large number of trading posts. Finally, a Colossus actually makes water tiles optimal. In other words, it actually does something.

As an interesting side note, I actually managed to get good use out of Colossus by building it on a coastal city with 5 Lake hexes in it's workable area. Because lake hexes have better yield than oceans (and Colossus does not discriminate), Colossus actually made that lake very valuable. Obviously, this is not typical, and Colossus shouldn't require a lake to be effective. It amused me though, because the Colossus model was actually placed on the Lake-side of my city rather than the coast.
 
To further expand the topic of "why are metropoli (so is this the correct plural in english? Good to know :D) usually on coasts", I'll go a bit out of "gameplay" topic, so feel free to skip this wall of text while I make a little example:

Between AD 1650 and AD 1700, the world saw the birth of the very first, true metropolis: It was called Edo, the modern Tokyo. Around that age, Edo reached 1 million people, which was an incredible number if you consider that in the meanwhile London had around 500,000 and Paris 300,000.
London and Paris numbers aren't really mindblowing if you think at what you call a "metropolis" today, aren't 'em? And yet, they already weren't self sufficent for food and were importers, of course, but half a million people can still be rather easily fed without intensive farming on land, the surrounding farming cities can be enough. And we are at the doors of the industrial revolution already.
Those, and many more, were built on water because in ancient times, water WAS the best source of food: no fertilizers and no pesticides to discover to maximize production, water was "fertile land" all year long, not just half of it. However, as time goes by, and fishing towns become large cities, agriculture discovers new ways of increasing production, while fishing is really more or less the same now as it was centuries ago. Yeah, we now have ships able to fish in the arctic seas without fear of sinking, but the methods used are just quite like the same, and so neither their "productivity" has gone through the roof as agriculture - and population - did.

Another big point is transportation: cities as Paris and London, demographically speaking, could have had a much higher population back then, even with the higher mortality rate: fact is, without modern transportation vehicles and infrastructures there wasn't any efficient way to ship huge cargoes of foodstuff between longer distances, without fail and in big quantities: once they came to be, food surplus from other areas specialized - as the industrial revolution taught us - in farming let 'em grow in population accordingly, reaching today's skyrocketing numbers.

USA is a good example of transportation relevance: the biggest cities on the east coast were - of course - the first to be settled for a mere geographic reason. While the central area of the continent was being explored, and slowly settled and turned into productive land, they were the political and industrial hub of the nation, but still dependant on shipments from the old world, both of food and machinery. And, while those shipments were consistent, there weren't infrastructures to efficiently transport sizeable quantities of food much further inland.
Once North America was finally completely settled, they already were population heavy cities, and since they were cutting ties with Europe, as such the inland area was dedicated to be the source of their food, as fishing definitely wasn't a main source. Slavery itself was in no small part a "natural" historical consequence of the need of setting up a massive farming output for a populous area somewhat suddenly forced to be self sufficient in a rather underdeveloped land (indipendence or not, there was an ocean between the two continents, shippings could only fulfill up to a certain requirement, especially with the means we had back then). Naturally, to grow food in large quantities, you need a lot of land, not a lot of people, and as such those areas are much less populated.
This demographic map of the USA still today speaks for itself:






Now, how could Tokyo - the only seeming exception - reach that (still relatively) huge population back then? Well, just think at what was the common diet in japan since just a few decades ago (and, to an extent, still today): rice. Fish was for the elites in Edo, most people lived on eating mostly rice and only rice for centuries, much different from what happened in Europe where even if wheat was the main source of food for the common people, they still had a lot of other agricultural products. Why?
Edo didn't born naturally as most metropoli, it was built over a small town just to be the new political capital, as a way for the newborn leadership of the finally unified Japan after the Sengoku period to centralize the power, weakening any potential threat from feudal lords forcing 'em out of "their" land, and imposing on them a huge expenditure to transfer their courts to the new "forced" capital. As such, Edo grew exponentially in a very short period, and to sustain such population agriculture nation-wide was further heavily specialized - almost to the point of leaving no space for anything else - on a food product easy to grow in large quantities even on a relatively limited amount of land. Literally half of Japan was dedicated as being the "food production line" for just one city!
If they could get by with fishing, they wouldn't have needed such extreme measures, wouldn't they? ;)




Going back to game talking (phew! :lol:), about food specifically, now, what's the problem with CIV at somewhat representing this reality? That it has self-sustaining cities, instead of a general, empire-wide pool for food as it has for strategic resources, gold, science and culture (gold, science and culture are produced locally just as food, but they apply on empire wide features). As such, the city producing more food will be the most populous one aswell, the opposite of what often happens irl, while the gold producing city might see most of its gold income spent on another one. There's no way to really reproduce that complex behaviour unless you completely change how the game works, so we have two choices :

- through indirect changes of the game's balance, we make it so coastal cities are always able to grow the same - if not more - than inland ones, so that once an empire is fully developed its demographics may look a little more like real world demographics. Two issues though in this approach imho: 1) it all happens magically, those cities don't grow more because of how you actually played the game, better representing reality and a "food chain mechanic", they just end up, coincidentally, looking a bit more like it, no gameplay enhancements at emulating history... so... why bother, what's to gain? and 2) de facto, you overpower - from vanilla - a component of the game for the sake of a "reality" which still the game is unable to represent clearly... with all the potential balance issues this might bring to someone's tastes.

- reason with a logic suited for a simplified, alternative version of reality where settlements are exclusively self sufficient. It's not real here, but it's real in this gameworld. If that's so, logic would dictate that yeah, those cities should be smaller, as water shouldn't be as good as farm lands. Good counter argument would be: "ok, but if that's not to be compared too strictly to reality for gameplay balance, why not just pretend water in this gameworld IS as good as farms?". At which I would reply, yeah, I can take it, and be happy seeing my coastal capital able to skyrocket in population as it probably would in real even if it now happens only because the seas are more productive, but on the other hand I'll also see that scientific frontier outpost in Greenland do almost the same. And that, I can't swallow ;)

Now, if sometimes "weaker" coastal cities were a gameplay issue, then there would be no point in discussing this, it's a game, gameplay has the priority over reality. But I don't see a gameplay issue with coastal cities: even if they are "weaker" (something I'm not really prone to say wholeheartedly as I find in my style of playing they usually are quite efficient for me), they don't hurt anything. At worst, you just know that your coastal city will be less productive than your inland one, so you'll base your production queues accordingly, as your opponents AIs do. And coastal cities already often make for some of the best wealth specialized cities, now that TPs aren't so imperative, which isn't "weaker" in my book, just different.
Rather, it seems to me that the reasons encouraging this possible "boost" to water is either for realism sake (on which I already far too much extensively explained why I think it would actually do the opposite) or for a reasoning I don't understand: "land produces so much, as such, for balance, water should too". Well, land produces so much, mountains don't. Why don't boost mountains? Even in reality, they are a source of income, just think how much money from tourism the Alps bring to the surrounding countries... but reasoning like this, it would be an endless boosting of each and every feature, and then back at further boosting the first ones because now they suddenly seem "unrealistically" underpowered compared to the new ones.

The boost to improvements and resources made by this mod was to balance a gameplay issue: underwhelming improvements brought many players to spam trading posts instead of more varied improvements, detracting from the game fun. It was needed. With boosted improvements, now water looks a bit weaker than before on comparison... but even if it is, the gameplay doesn't suffer from it, I believe.

Just my... well... two billions thousands cents, I guess :crazyeye:
 
Lukeloh just pointed out a fantastic thing about Harbors in the Balance - Improvements thread that drastically changes their usefulness:

Thal, registered to thank you for your great work. Been using all your mods for the last week (after a few runs on vanilla) and the experience has definitely improved.

Been happy to lurk but note that you're planning on buffing Harbors. Agree that they are pretty lacking during the era which you get them but they really shine once you get Railroads (and when that happens I think they are actually too cheap).

Building a Harbor not only establishes a trade route to the capital city via water tiles (coast/ocean), but also adds an instant railroad connection. i.e. for 3 maintenance you get both the benefit of trade as well as 50% bonus production. Basically it's a free factory once you get Railroads, without requiring Coal.

I've been playing games where I mostly settle coastal tiles and only build road networks to inland cities. Come Railroads I get a huge manufacturing boost with no additional maintenance drawbacks. Even on Emperor/Immortal I find I can skip Factories for all but my military cities.

My concern is that buffing Harbors further will make them OP. They may be meh when we originally get them but the payback later is tremendous so I don't think they need a boost.

I suggest that instead of tweaking the Harbor improvement itself we make the Harbor tech a more interesting choice e.g. give an additional +1 movement to military naval units (i.e. triremes but no bonus for embarked units). But that's outside the scope of this mod. I think the Harbor improvement is strong as it is.

I would have never discovered this! It's not mentioned anywhere on the tooltips or in the civlopedia that I can find. It's not entirely intuitive either, as the description only states it counts for a trade bonus, not a production bonus. I'm going to include a change to the Harbor description in the "Unofficial Patch" mod so this is more clear ingame, and credit him, this definitely changes things in the Harbor's favor and I won't be buffing them. I'll include any water buffs on different buildings instead.
 
Woah, never realized this! Which also, btw, is also nicely implemented (apart from the blatantly missing description, eheh), since it represents your small fishing village harbor in the early eras, and then a commercial, productive harbor when the industrial revolution kicks in :)
I mostly avoided using 'em not just for their apparent scarse usefulness, but because I hated how they caused a "trade route broken" notice each time an enemy ship blockaded the city, making it switch from harbor to road/railroad route, so never really had the chance to notice.
Knowing this, I will be able to build my railroads in a more sensible way, actually as a primary means of transportation rather than a mindless web which needs to get everywhere just for a production bonus :goodjob:
 
hey guys i dont know if this idea was considered in your balances, but in this thread i proposed adding :commerce: to farms at certain techs to eliminate/reduce TP spam. based on the direction this thread is going i thought it may fit. thoughts?

edit: @Thalassicus - thank you for pointing me to that amazing guide, looks like i got some reading to do ;)
 
First I want to say thank you to Thalassicus for all his good work.

Are you going to modify the research agreements ?
I find them really strong and not logical, for me each a trading of 2 techs would make more sense (like in previous Civ but taking some turns and gold).

Could you make the workers able to growth forests ?
 
Thalassicus, have you ever thought about rebalancing units? The enormous power of horsemen/CC is well known by now. Actually, it's the only really OP unit I've heard of.

Thx again for your work. While there are other skilled modders here, you're the one I trust most! :thumbsup: I especially like how you seperate your mods into reasonable groups.
 
As far as harbors go, its important to note that while they may get a free railroad later, they often don't have the hammers of land cities to really use the 50% bonus.

But regardless, i can stand harbors as they are now, but I do feel the compass tech needs a little bit more. I still like the idea that the +1 embarked speed that astronomy has is moved back to compass.

Compass = +1 embarked movement
Astronomy = Ocean movement

Seems a nice steady progression for the ocean techs.
 
First: The readme of the Buildings and Wonders file loads Icons for me now.

Second: I want to report on a playthrough I did with the Modset.
I played France, Pangea, Emperor difficulty, Standard Speed.

Most interesting thing is propably this: I pulled a cultural Victory (without "cheating" with Culture pooling) by 1958 (turn 378) with 8 full cities (and later in game 4 puppeted ones). I got more than 800:culture/Turn
The Victory was not unconstested - Ghandi had just finished the Appollo Project and Japan held most of the continent with only my Capital remaining to his Victory.

I think this was only made possible by some of the changes here, namely:

  • The Liberty Policy giving city lvl 2 instead of 1,5 really helps early game.
  • The 100% instead of 50% happiness added to culture helps.
  • Most Importantly: The increase in :hammers: and :food: in several places helps cities different than the capital to flourish. In previous games they were always lacking behind a lot, with crappy size and hence production. Not this time. I managed to build one and only one Wonder in most of them (for the Freedom Policy). All in all I did not have many wonders. Ghandi and Persia got most of them, but I got some.
I would hence consider the cultural victory fine for medium size Empires. (e.g. this 8 cities one). Frances bonus sure helped, but not end-game.

Apart from this, I noticed that the AI was always busy pumping units into my lands and even managed to capture one of my cities - and was not far from victory. This may be due to the AI changes - it may also be due to the Emperor difficulty
 
As far as the reason why coastal development, at least in ancient times, was that it was far FAR cheaper to transport anything bulky via sea than land. I read an estimate that it was cheaper to ship from end to end of the Mediterranean than it was to move it 50 miles overland during the peak of the Roman empire. The same would've applied to navigable rivers.

This is not the place to implement this change but I had an idea, that perhaps tiles not next to a potential trade route (coast/river/road) get half gold/production. Note, next to so a road would cover the 6 tiles surrounding it, ditto with coast while river would only affect the 2 tiles adjacent. Would certainly make rivers/coast as desirable as they have been historically. The problem is how to balance what would almost certainly break early game balance. Anyone unfortunate enough to get a landlocked, non-river start, would be screwed.
 
Gonna try something in a tester mod...

Would this work to provide the free policy with the founding of your civ (as has been discussed previously)?
Code:
<GameData>
    <technologies>
        <update>
            <Type>TECH_AGRICULTURE</Type>
            <freepolicies>1</freepolicies>
        </update>
    </technologies>
  
</GameData>

I'm an utter code noob and don't want to do something too wild to start.

If this is correct syntax then I can proceed with increasing culture yields and perhaps even upping the utopia req to six full policies.
 
Thalassicus, have you ever thought about rebalancing units? The enormous power of horsemen/CC is well known by now. Actually, it's the only really OP unit I've heard of.

I agree with a horsemen retuning. If nothing else, the Spearman bonus vs horses needs to be improved. +7 doesn't help too much against a unit that's already beating you by 5, especially since the +7 is not affected by other modifiers while the +5 is.
I also like SevenSpirit's mod, which makes Horsemen 10 strength, I think. There are some other changes in his mod I don't think I'd enjoy as much though, and I have too much trouble with the mod browser to justify trying it.
That's one change I'd love to see in the Balance mods though.
 
Thanks for these mods! The unofficial patch especially gives me hope for the future of the game- if they don't officially fix stupid UI things and make important information easily accessable, I know someone will. Thanks for the optimism! :goodjob:
 
--big awesome wot--

I agree with most everything you said, but there IS a way to represent the specializations of the coastal regions.

Considering the scale, the "middle of the country" is not the city - it's the farm improvement off int he middle of your territory. Cities are not citys so much as the "center of the region utilizing a population across the board.

The ONLY real 'people in the city' are specialists. As they work in buildings, everyone else works on tiles (out in the country.)


If you want to emphasize urbanization, the easiest way to represent this is to have specialists A) mean something B) become more and more common (and numerous) as the game ages on, and C) by increasing food supplies for situations in which large urban areas are necessary.

To represent coastal populations, the sea needs to make food, LOTS of food. In land-locked cities, even a farm-heavy city is just the industrial center of what is, effectively a agricultural area (Ohio cities, Texas Cities, Minneapolis or Chicago.)

If specialists represent urban populations (which if you thought about it like being on a tile, mean every specialist in a city +1 works on tile, for each other citizen working additional tiles.

The problem is simple - country folk are more efficient. A citizen working a tile with an improvement brings home more bacon than does any amount of specialists.

If this were altered, through policies, technology, or through buildings, so that specialists could compete and perhaps OUT-PRODUCE individual tiles, urbanization would become more obvious.

For coastal cities, i think this simply means having buildings bring in lots and lots of food from coastal tiles. Coastal cities should be the largest in the world. All that food then would go towards enhanced specialists which would then represent the urban productivity.
 
Spoiler :
To further expand the topic of "why are metropoli (so is this the correct plural in english? Good to know :D) usually on coasts", I'll go a bit out of "gameplay" topic, so feel free to skip this wall of text while I make a little example:

Between AD 1650 and AD 1700, the world saw the birth of the very first, true metropolis: It was called Edo, the modern Tokyo. Around that age, Edo reached 1 million people, which was an incredible number if you consider that in the meanwhile London had around 500,000 and Paris 300,000.
London and Paris numbers aren't really mindblowing if you think at what you call a "metropolis" today, aren't 'em? And yet, they already weren't self sufficent for food and were importers, of course, but half a million people can still be rather easily fed without intensive farming on land, the surrounding farming cities can be enough. And we are at the doors of the industrial revolution already.
Those, and many more, were built on water because in ancient times, water WAS the best source of food: no fertilizers and no pesticides to discover to maximize production, water was "fertile land" all year long, not just half of it. However, as time goes by, and fishing towns become large cities, agriculture discovers new ways of increasing production, while fishing is really more or less the same now as it was centuries ago. Yeah, we now have ships able to fish in the arctic seas without fear of sinking, but the methods used are just quite like the same, and so neither their "productivity" has gone through the roof as agriculture - and population - did.

Another big point is transportation: cities as Paris and London, demographically speaking, could have had a much higher population back then, even with the higher mortality rate: fact is, without modern transportation vehicles and infrastructures there wasn't any efficient way to ship huge cargoes of foodstuff between longer distances, without fail and in big quantities: once they came to be, food surplus from other areas specialized - as the industrial revolution taught us - in farming let 'em grow in population accordingly, reaching today's skyrocketing numbers.

USA is a good example of transportation relevance: the biggest cities on the east coast were - of course - the first to be settled for a mere geographic reason. While the central area of the continent was being explored, and slowly settled and turned into productive land, they were the political and industrial hub of the nation, but still dependant on shipments from the old world, both of food and machinery. And, while those shipments were consistent, there weren't infrastructures to efficiently transport sizeable quantities of food much further inland.
Once North America was finally completely settled, they already were population heavy cities, and since they were cutting ties with Europe, as such the inland area was dedicated to be the source of their food, as fishing definitely wasn't a main source. Slavery itself was in no small part a "natural" historical consequence of the need of setting up a massive farming output for a populous area somewhat suddenly forced to be self sufficient in a rather underdeveloped land (indipendence or not, there was an ocean between the two continents, shippings could only fulfill up to a certain requirement, especially with the means we had back then). Naturally, to grow food in large quantities, you need a lot of land, not a lot of people, and as such those areas are much less populated.
This demographic map of the USA still today speaks for itself:






Now, how could Tokyo - the only seeming exception - reach that (still relatively) huge population back then? Well, just think at what was the common diet in japan since just a few decades ago (and, to an extent, still today): rice. Fish was for the elites in Edo, most people lived on eating mostly rice and only rice for centuries, much different from what happened in Europe where even if wheat was the main source of food for the common people, they still had a lot of other agricultural products. Why?
Edo didn't born naturally as most metropoli, it was built over a small town just to be the new political capital, as a way for the newborn leadership of the finally unified Japan after the Sengoku period to centralize the power, weakening any potential threat from feudal lords forcing 'em out of "their" land, and imposing on them a huge expenditure to transfer their courts to the new "forced" capital. As such, Edo grew exponentially in a very short period, and to sustain such population agriculture nation-wide was further heavily specialized - almost to the point of leaving no space for anything else - on a food product easy to grow in large quantities even on a relatively limited amount of land. Literally half of Japan was dedicated as being the "food production line" for just one city!
If they could get by with fishing, they wouldn't have needed such extreme measures, wouldn't they? ;)




Going back to game talking (phew! :lol:), about food specifically, now, what's the problem with CIV at somewhat representing this reality? That it has self-sustaining cities, instead of a general, empire-wide pool for food as it has for strategic resources, gold, science and culture (gold, science and culture are produced locally just as food, but they apply on empire wide features). As such, the city producing more food will be the most populous one aswell, the opposite of what often happens irl, while the gold producing city might see most of its gold income spent on another one. There's no way to really reproduce that complex behaviour unless you completely change how the game works, so we have two choices :

- through indirect changes of the game's balance, we make it so coastal cities are always able to grow the same - if not more - than inland ones, so that once an empire is fully developed its demographics may look a little more like real world demographics. Two issues though in this approach imho: 1) it all happens magically, those cities don't grow more because of how you actually played the game, better representing reality and a "food chain mechanic", they just end up, coincidentally, looking a bit more like it, no gameplay enhancements at emulating history... so... why bother, what's to gain? and 2) de facto, you overpower - from vanilla - a component of the game for the sake of a "reality" which still the game is unable to represent clearly... with all the potential balance issues this might bring to someone's tastes.

- reason with a logic suited for a simplified, alternative version of reality where settlements are exclusively self sufficient. It's not real here, but it's real in this gameworld. If that's so, logic would dictate that yeah, those cities should be smaller, as water shouldn't be as good as farm lands. Good counter argument would be: "ok, but if that's not to be compared too strictly to reality for gameplay balance, why not just pretend water in this gameworld IS as good as farms?". At which I would reply, yeah, I can take it, and be happy seeing my coastal capital able to skyrocket in population as it probably would in real even if it now happens only because the seas are more productive, but on the other hand I'll also see that scientific frontier outpost in Greenland do almost the same. And that, I can't swallow ;)

Now, if sometimes "weaker" coastal cities were a gameplay issue, then there would be no point in discussing this, it's a game, gameplay has the priority over reality. But I don't see a gameplay issue with coastal cities: even if they are "weaker" (something I'm not really prone to say wholeheartedly as I find in my style of playing they usually are quite efficient for me), they don't hurt anything. At worst, you just know that your coastal city will be less productive than your inland one, so you'll base your production queues accordingly, as your opponents AIs do. And coastal cities already often make for some of the best wealth specialized cities, now that TPs aren't so imperative, which isn't "weaker" in my book, just different.
Rather, it seems to me that the reasons encouraging this possible "boost" to water is either for realism sake (on which I already far too much extensively explained why I think it would actually do the opposite) or for a reasoning I don't understand: "land produces so much, as such, for balance, water should too". Well, land produces so much, mountains don't. Why don't boost mountains? Even in reality, they are a source of income, just think how much money from tourism the Alps bring to the surrounding countries... but reasoning like this, it would be an endless boosting of each and every feature, and then back at further boosting the first ones because now they suddenly seem "unrealistically" underpowered compared to the new ones.

The boost to improvements and resources made by this mod was to balance a gameplay issue: underwhelming improvements brought many players to spam trading posts instead of more varied improvements, detracting from the game fun. It was needed. With boosted improvements, now water looks a bit weaker than before on comparison... but even if it is, the gameplay doesn't suffer from it, I believe.

Just my... well... two billions thousands cents, I guess :crazyeye:
That was an interesting read! This makes me wonder whether it would be feasible, from a gameplay perspective, to modify the way food works in Civ games, to basically make it the way gold currently works. Gold is accrued in every city but you can spend it wherever you want. Why can’t we do the same for food? Let food be accrued in every city the way it is now, but allow the player to distribute the food to every city according to the player’s needs/wishes.

From a realism perspective, the ability to distribute food should come along with a tech in the later ages, as I imagine in real life during the earlier eras cities would get their food from the surrounding areas, but as technology progresses, this would no longer hold true, and food could be distributed to each city as the empire/government saw fit.

Right now we have our gold cities and our science cities, and the ability to distribute food would give rise to food cities, and really it might add a layer of (hopefully fun?) complexity to the game that a few people seem to want. For example, you could have a city that has really good production (lots of hills) but really low food and thus population is taking forever to climb and you would like to reach the optimal production levels of the city faster. You could distribute more food to this city, allow it to grow faster and thus allow to reach its maximum production capabilities sooner.

Anyway, just my thoughts, feel free to ignore :)
 
I agree with a horsemen retuning. If nothing else, the Spearman bonus vs horses needs to be improved. +7 doesn't help too much against a unit that's already beating you by 5, especially since the +7 is not affected by other modifiers while the +5 is.
I also like SevenSpirit's mod, which makes Horsemen 10 strength, I think. There are some other changes in his mod I don't think I'd enjoy as much though, and I have too much trouble with the mod browser to justify trying it.
That's one change I'd love to see in the Balance mods though.

Why is the +7 not affected by modifiers? I was under the assumption that the bonus over mounted units was +100% to whatever your aggregate combat strength is. So if your spearman has an 8 strength and a mounted unit engaged the spearman the +100% modifier would bring the total to 16. Is that not how it works?

As is the spearman requires 50 resources compared to 80 resources for the horseman and the spearman wins a 1v1 fight. I don't see how they are OP for any reason other than the AI is stupid.

IMO, The only thing that needs adjustment is city strength (small amount) and city bombardment damage (larger amount)
 
Unmodified in the sense that other modifiers still only affect the base value of 7.

For instance, adding 25% to a horseman makes it 15.
Adding 25% to a spearman who already has +100% against mounted has 15.75
Because the "12 vs 14" comparison involves a modified spearman strength and an unmodified horseman strength, the horseman scales better with modifiers and given enough of them (Great general + Discipline, for instance) the spearman will lose even with the same extra modifiers.
 
Are you going to modify the research agreements ?
I find them really strong and not logical, for me each a trading of 2 techs would make more sense (like in previous Civ but taking some turns and gold).

I wonder this aswell, they seem to be the roots of super-fast tech-progression even more so than the cheap costs of endgame techs in some of my games.
 
Top Bottom