Current (SVN) development discussion thread

There is no such disinclination, except for China. There was a little bug in that system (the AI was told to only accept a tech if someone else than China knew it, but it only took civs it had contact with into account, which often meant it thought the tech was unique to China when in fact India etc. knew it), but that's fixed now. And even then I was able to keep a realistic tech lead as China with Great Wall in 400 AD and the cathedral goal before 800 AD (Monarch).

Really? Because I've been experiencing many civs not willing to trade with me as other civs, such as England or France. And was it on Normal speed?

I agree, in most of my games I decide that GP are too useful to me to use Agrarianism. But it should have an economic downside, maybe reduced trade routes or trade yield?

-1 Commerce per coastal route sounds good.

Good point, although no one forces you to go all out on your neighbours right from the start ;)

It's not possible to finish the UHV unless you start right away.
Spain spams cities all over Iberia and England is a runaway AI
if nobody does anything about them early on.
 
Really? Because I've been experiencing many civs not willing to trade with me as other civs, such as England or France. And was it on Normal speed?
Yes, normal. What are you referring to exactly? That AI techs are red with explanations like "we fear you are becoming too advanced", "we just don't like you enough" or "we don't want to trade this technology away just yet" is normal BtS behavior and something I haven't touched at all. If one of your techs is red and they say "we fear you are becoming too advanced" it's my China change.

-1 Commerce per coastal route sounds good.
Civics only allow percentage changes, but I'll look into it.

It's not possible to finish the UHV unless you start right away.
Spain spams cities all over Iberia and England is a runaway AI
if nobody does anything about them early on.
I would ignore England. And not care about the Spanish city placement.
 
I don't want to sound rude, but it's easy to make claims based on vague statements. Sometimes it's better to cut the knot.

:eek:

You've always made an impression of a person with whom one can have a logical discussion. I am not sure what do you call vague? I made no claims, just a few logical points. My plain and simple statement was that there has to be a way to nerf India instead of almost blasphemous start with 3 civs. Every single "dawn of civilization" map has those 4 civs. Planet Earth cannot start its history without India present.

No need to collapse anybody -- in the given approximation Bronze Age India can continue into Iron Age, just like Ashoka's India becomes Shivaji's India after lot's of years.

It is your mod and you may decide to have a game without India at all :D I am not going to continue with this.
 
I was referring to your argument that it would be easy to figure out a solution that doesn't involve postponing their spawn. I don't deny that, it's just easy to say when you're not the one who actually has to figure it out.

The current situation works for me.
 
Well after heartlessly ignoring my changes on religion (just being silly there XD) I was wondering if you are planning to make any changes to religion? Someone posted an idea for unique buildings based on religion, and that itself seems to make far more sense then changes to the temples and such themselves.
 
Thor Macklin, to the extent that you weren't just being silly but serious; most of the posts on this forum is people pitching in ideas and other thoughts about how the game maybe can be changed, and the vast majority of those is never implemented. Some ideas aren't viable, some ideas are maybe unbalanced, and other ideas Leoreth doesn't approve of, or doesn't want to follow, for a lot of other reasons. Other ones he likes, but forgets about again, or just doesn't get around to do something about :D In any case... that's how it goes, and it's the same for everybody. If all of us were to take offense - in any degree - everytime our idea didn't get implemented, the forum would be pretty dead quite fast :)
 
Taking note that I WAS joking and that I DO know he has an extensive amount of work to do I was merely curious as to his ideas on any changes to religion in the game period. Be it auto-spawning or the spreading mechanics.

But still, Kudos to leoreth on all the amazing work he has done on this modmod!
 
I agree, in most of my games I decide that GP are too useful to me to use Agrarianism. But it should have an economic downside, maybe reduced trade routes or trade yield?

I feel like giving a commerce penalty to a civic that gives a commerce bonus makes the decision too easy. Just a simple "is X bigger than Y" sort of deal. TBH, I'm not sure that the bonuses for Agrarianism are so big that they really require a particularly harsh penalty in addition to slower-growing cottages. If it's OP without the GPP penalty, couldn't you increase its upkeep to Medium or something? None of the other Society civics have penalties other than the opportunity cost of not having a different one. I think the main problem with getting rid of the GPP penalty is that Urbanization wouldn't really be competitive; perhaps some sort of happiness/health/food bonus there would be appropriate. It's kind of strange that a civic called Urbanization doesn't help you increase your city size, and in fact actively encourages you to decrease it by building Workshops.
 
It's kind of strange that a civic called Urbanization doesn't help you increase your city size, and in fact actively encourages you to decrease it by building Workshops.
I agree with this.
Also, I just got the SVN. Amazing work! New resources, music, units, civs, entire game concept changes, etc... This is one of the biggest leaps yet! You're a master.
I do have a couple small things to ask you to change. Please take out the Great Library on the 600 AD start. It was destroyed hundreds of years before that, plus the Arabs can't use it due to it being obsolete with Divine Rights anyways!
East of Patliputra, where the Banana is, you should move those bananas one tile up so a Dhaka would be a feasible place to build a city.
In south mexico, please add a mountain to the bottom left of that stone. It'd be strange for aztecs to make a city that can so easily let you cut through the Americas.
Also, someone posted about inflation 3000 start vs 600 start. I think that's a big problem. Inflation rates should be reset with collapses, if that doesn't happen already.
 
I want them to switch to using Spanish city names when they convert to Catholicism or become a European vassal anyway. Maybe they shouldn't settle outside of the traditional Aztec core as well until that point..
Yessssss =D
 
Right quick, thank you so much for the changes to Agrarianism, I'll take anything but GP hits ^_^

But an odd thing while starting a game as China, when I make my first settler, Zhongdu is automatically settled. Just seems really odd to me, and while I appreciate if it was intended for faster city setups, I actually prefer Zhongdu on the coast, as well as I wanted to settle the Eastern seaboard city first (I'm thinking Hongzhou or something like that). Save is attached, should pop on turn 40.
 

Attachments

  • AutoSave_Stone Age Turn 36.CivBeyondSwordSave
    87.2 KB · Views: 41
Well after heartlessly ignoring my changes on religion (just being silly there XD) I was wondering if you are planning to make any changes to religion? Someone posted an idea for unique buildings based on religion, and that itself seems to make far more sense then changes to the temples and such themselves.
I liked the religion specific building idea.

But in general I agree with Firaxis' decision to make all religions the same - I don't want to reward players for unrealistically chasing after certain religions because their bonuses are so useful. Also, it's hard to add such a diverse set of modifiers and then balance them out somewhere else.

Thor Macklin, to the extent that you weren't just being silly but serious; most of the posts on this forum is people pitching in ideas and other thoughts about how the game maybe can be changed, and the vast majority of those is never implemented. Some ideas aren't viable, some ideas are maybe unbalanced, and other ideas Leoreth doesn't approve of, or doesn't want to follow, for a lot of other reasons. Other ones he likes, but forgets about again, or just doesn't get around to do something about :D In any case... that's how it goes, and it's the same for everybody. If all of us were to take offense - in any degree - everytime our idea didn't get implemented, the forum would be pretty dead quite fast :)
That sums it up pretty well. Maybe I should put it at the beginning of the suggestions thread, if people read these posts ;)

I feel like giving a commerce penalty to a civic that gives a commerce bonus makes the decision too easy. Just a simple "is X bigger than Y" sort of deal. TBH, I'm not sure that the bonuses for Agrarianism are so big that they really require a particularly harsh penalty in addition to slower-growing cottages. If it's OP without the GPP penalty, couldn't you increase its upkeep to Medium or something?
Actually, I want there to be an opportunity cost to choose Agrarianism over Self-Sufficiency because in the original system there wasn't an early boost like Agrarianism's at all.


None of the other Society civics have penalties other than the opportunity cost of not having a different one. I think the main problem with getting rid of the GPP penalty is that Urbanization wouldn't really be competitive; perhaps some sort of happiness/health/food bonus there would be appropriate. It's kind of strange that a civic called Urbanization doesn't help you increase your city size, and in fact actively encourages you to decrease it by building Workshops.
Urbanization is lackluster, but I don't really know how to improve that. I don't want it to become the cookie cutter civic even in later eras which is what allowing larger city sizes would certainly accomplish.

I agree with this.
Also, I just got the SVN. Amazing work! New resources, music, units, civs, entire game concept changes, etc... This is one of the biggest leaps yet! You're a master.
Glad you like it :)

I do have a couple small things to ask you to change. Please take out the Great Library on the 600 AD start. It was destroyed hundreds of years before that, plus the Arabs can't use it due to it being obsolete with Divine Rights anyways!
Yeah, that's kind of the idea behind it expiring with Divine Right. So it doesn't matter whether it's there or not.

East of Patliputra, where the Banana is, you should move those bananas one tile up so a Dhaka would be a feasible place to build a city.
I'm not sure what you mean. Dhaka is 1N of the banana east of Patliputra.

In south mexico, please add a mountain to the bottom left of that stone. It'd be strange for aztecs to make a city that can so easily let you cut through the Americas.
I think that would distort the shape of the continent too much.

Also, someone posted about inflation 3000 start vs 600 start. I think that's a big problem. Inflation rates should be reset with collapses, if that doesn't happen already.
I know, but it's hard to balance that so the inflation rate is appropriate at all times of the game.

But an odd thing while starting a game as China, when I make my first settler, Zhongdu is automatically settled. Just seems really odd to me, and while I appreciate if it was intended for faster city setups, I actually prefer Zhongdu on the coast, as well as I wanted to settle the Eastern seaboard city first (I'm thinking Hongzhou or something like that). Save is attached, should pop on turn 40.
That was only intended for the AI :mischief: Will be fixed.
 
Ahh, trying some trickery to make AI China not have it's horrible cities? Well it does it for at least 4 of them...I should know, I'd have to hop into WB every time I made a settler to remove the city and give me my settler back :lol: Still, a pretty cool idea all and all :goodjob:
 
Actually, I want there to be an opportunity cost to choose Agrarianism over Self-Sufficiency because in the original system there wasn't an early boost like Agrarianism's at all.

Urbanization is lackluster, but I don't really know how to improve that. I don't want it to become the cookie cutter civic even in later eras which is what allowing larger city sizes would certainly accomplish.

Would you not consider slower-growing cottages and increased upkeep to be an opportunity cost? If it's not enough of one, might I suggest something to slow down city growth? Is it possible for a civic to make city growth require some % more food?

As far as Urbanization, it should mainly allow cities to grow FASTER rather than LARGER. I was thinking something along the lines of a bonus food from certain buildings, perhaps the Market and Grocer. I mean, maybe 1 bonus health/happy as well, but I don't think increasing max city size by 1 somehow makes it the cookie-cutter choice over the modern options.
 
As far as Urbanization, it should mainly allow cities to grow FASTER rather than LARGER. I was thinking something along the lines of a bonus food from certain buildings, perhaps the Market and Grocer. I mean, maybe 1 bonus health/happy as well, but I don't think increasing max city size by 1 somehow makes it the cookie-cutter choice over the modern options.

Or a granary like effect...
 
Ahh, trying some trickery to make AI China not have it's horrible cities? Well it does it for at least 4 of them...I should know, I'd have to hop into WB every time I made a settler to remove the city and give me my settler back :lol: Still, a pretty cool idea all and all :goodjob:
Yeah, it helps them a lot with their general city planning if the corner cities at the coast are placed correctly. At least there are no more cities one tile from the coast (except Beijing).

Or a granary like effect...
That's a good idea, but not possible with the normal civic XML.
 
Yeah, it helps them a lot with their general city planning if the corner cities at the coast are placed correctly. At least there are no more cities one tile from the coast (except Beijing).


That's a good idea, but not possible with the normal civic XML.

A granary like effect is extremely appropriate, more people are moving to the city, but there needs to be people in the first place, the faster growth represents a population urbanising without overpowering it.
 
That's a good idea, but not possible with the normal civic XML.

Maybe ask the people at C2C, maybe they can help you out (they have some civics doing so).
 
Yeah, that's kind of the idea behind it expiring with Divine Right. So it doesn't matter whether it's there or not.
Yeah, but I'm just saying there isn't a reason for it to be there in the first place. It's just adding culture which I don't think Alexandria was producing at the time, plus it says it's there when it was burned down centuries before. There is a difference between destroyed wonders and obsolete ones.


I'm not sure what you mean. Dhaka is 1N of the banana east of Patliputra.

Dhaka is the capital of Bangladesh, which used to be East Pakistan. Dhaka produces a seafaring trade route in real life, while India also kind of wraps around Bangladesh (so having Dhaka one tile up doesn't make sense). When the Mughals and Indians break off, I always world edit it so the Mughals get Pakistan AND Dhaka, with islam and hinduism also seperating.
 
Top Bottom