must be those Nazi rocket scientistsWhat is so essentially superior about American and German civilization that they have 25-30% bonuses to research?
must be those Nazi rocket scientistsWhat is so essentially superior about American and German civilization that they have 25-30% bonuses to research?
My intent was to emphasize this very thing so I'll take the fail on that one for communicating poorly. A rephrase might sound something like "You've been playing the mod for and been part of the tribe for years and therefore I don't think we're understanding each other". I promise I'm trying to be charitable.Thanks for the rather patronising comment consideringI've been playing this mod and posting on this forum for ~6 years now.
btw thanks in particular for Herr von Braun! Hey wait, I just had the thought that his example could make a case for caputring (and/or "encouraging to relocate") GPs in-game.must be those Nazi rocket scientists
Ignoring all of the hubub that came after this, do you intend to look at whether the modifiers might need to be adjusted to account for changes in resources/terrain/etc on the new map as part of your playtesting and adjusting UHVs?I still don't follow. You have not explained what your issue is or what the change should be. You have just described what tech modifiers are.
Nailed it.The issue is thatAmerica and the UK are granted permanent bonuses to vital game metrics which therefore means they're the world leaders in most games.
Because America did and not just because "More Total Commerce"? Assumption seems be something like Economic Success = Scientific Progress which you couldn't possibly mean. So it *almost looks like* Leoreth is actually turning the few number tweaks allowed by the 20 y/o game engine to kinda pretty sorta model all the innumerable and abstract factors that contributed to the rise and fall of powers over time.it's hard to see how no matter how good the Turkish economy is, America will outpace them at research
That's a simple No (to highlighted text) because it's not a script as you acknowledge elsewhere ("vital game metrics" - see above).This makes the game less interesting because it's pre-scripted which civs will be the strongest and most advanced in most games.
You're showing a pattern of exaggerating and/or not knowing what some words mean. You're hurting your own cause.For those playing in Asia, it guarantees Anglo supremacy
There's the rub right here. This is precisely what we are all painfully trying to explain a handful of numerical variables are not. Change "it implies" to "I interpret" and your whole puzzle might be solved.it implies that British and American advantages in history were some unique, god-granted modifier that they earned by virtue of their civilization, rather than a product of their environment, terrain, government and foreign policy.
Ok cool here's something we probably all agree on in principle and with all else being equal. But now I need your help sorting out something else: Until just now your main big point seemed be a disagreement with excessive historicity ("The Americans Always Beat the Ottomans To The Moon wtf"). Now I'm hearing the opposite?It encourages ahistorical gameplay that breaks immersion, like conquering London in 1890 as Japan.
This is good! Please reread and pay extra special attention to highlighted text.This doesn't make me feel like my strategy or mastery of gameplay has prevailed - it makes me feel like I've won because I figured out how to gank the fragile Civ 4 AI.
Yesssss I finally get to just drop the ol' #SkillIssue.Finally, it's bad game design because it's a permanent advantage that cannot be altered by good strategy.
Updated Plans for DoC 1.18Ignoring all of the hubub that came after this, do you intend to look at whether the modifiers might need to be adjusted to account for changes in resources/terrain/etc on the new map as part of your playtesting and adjusting UHVs?
you are being unpleasant. please be pleasant instead.Nailed it.
Because America did and not just because "More Total Commerce"? Assumption seems be something like Economic Success = Scientific Progress which you couldn't possibly mean. So it *almost looks like* Leoreth is actually turning the few number tweaks allowed by the 20 y/o game engine to kinda pretty sorta model all the innumerable and abstract factors that contributed to the rise and fall of powers over time.
That's a simple No (to highlighted text) because it's not a script as you acknowledge elsewhere ("vital game metrics" - see above).
You're showing a pattern of exaggerating and/or not knowing what some words mean. You're hurting your own cause.
There's the rub right here. This is precisely what we are all painfully trying to explain a handful of numerical variables are not. Change "it implies" to "I interpret" and your whole puzzle might be solved.
Ok cool here's something we probably all agree on in principle and with all else being equal. But now I need your help sorting out something else: Until just now your main big point seemed be a disagreement with excessive historicity ("The Americans Always Beat the Ottomans To The Moon wtf"). Now I'm hearing the opposite?
This is good! Please reread and pay extra special attention to highlighted text.
Yesssss I finally get to just drop the ol' #SkillIssue.
Thanks (I mean it). Inner voice was nagging me the entire time - "I can't quite see The Line but we might be crossing it" but the other inner voice had this track on replay:you are being unpleasant. please be pleasant instead.
The issue is that America and the UK are granted permanent bonuses to vital game metrics which therefore means they're the world leaders in most games.
This makes the game less interesting because it's pre-scripted which civs will be the strongest and most advanced in most games.
For those playing in Asia, it guarantees Anglo supremacy even if the Mongols are defeated and the colonists are repelled. For those playing Europe, it guarantees English supremacy even if Britain is brought to heel and denied its Indian riches.
Yes, that is the primary reason why I am playing through all the civilizations right now, and will continue to make adjustments once I get more player feedback.Ignoring all of the hubub that came after this, do you intend to look at whether the modifiers might need to be adjusted to account for changes in resources/terrain/etc on the new map as part of your playtesting and adjusting UHVs?
The problem that this modifieres (as far as I understand logic behind them) adres is different starting times and locations. Bascially if China got same rate as say America by the time USA spawns China would have already had Pentagon built. So later spawning civs have to get bonus and this bonus is larger for civs that start in locations with relatively poor starting locations that did in real history non the less got powerful. It's about achieving world states kind of like real history. There is so much other factors that change world state anyway that it never really goes exactly like real history, but without this it would basically be just ancient civs all the time (unless the collapse) thx for their early start advantage.In the industrial era, Spain's research cost is 80, America's is 75, Germany's is 70, Japan's is 110. What is so essentially superior about American and German civilization that they have 25-30% bonuses to research? Conversely, what is so essentially inferior about Japanese civilization that they have a 10% malus to research?
Maybe they adopt expensive public welfare civics in the 20th century and have to lower their research slider to pay for them?I'm not sure how all the modifiers under the hood work but on the latest version Britian hasn't been going as crazy as they use to.
I subscribe to this field. Modifiers are a necessity to balance a game where civilisations are by design unbalanced. This is not vanilla, some civs here enjoy hundreds of turns before others come to play, and we all know how valuable snowballing is. To the extent that it's definitely possible to beat America to space race with China, regardless of the modifiers, but that's just minmaxer me.Bascially if China got same rate as say America by the time USA spawns China would have already had Pentagon built. So later spawning civs have to get bonus and this bonus is larger for civs that start in locations with relatively poor starting locations that did in real history non the less got powerful.
Threads like this demonstrate a confusion. Yes there is a community around this mod, but the community does not own the mod or set the direction. This is Leoreth's baby. It's been his vision all these years.Thanks for the rather patronising comment considering I've been playing this mod and posting on this forum for ~6 years now.
You've identified the problem in your comment - "simply tools in a limited set" - so why is the idea of modernising those tools, as the game undergoes multiple changes, so outrageous?
Not to change the subject, but I think it would be a cool idea to be able to use espionage to recruit GPs settled in foreign cities (like how you can assassinate them now), if that were possible.I just had the thought that his example could make a case for caputring (and/or "encouraging to relocate") GPs in-game.
This definitely belongs in the suggestions & requests thread; this is a really cool idea.Not to change the subject, but I think it would be a cool idea to be able to use espionage to recruit GPs settled in foreign cities (like how you can assassinate them now), if that were possible.