Balance Factors

Started a new game on Epic/Monarch (300+ turns in, 5% of turns, not yet up to Hunters or Spiked Clubmen), and found that buildings and units are crazy cheap in early Prehistoric. For the first time in C2C I'm constantly running out of buildings to build. Double the price for buildings and wonders I think should be enough. Units might need tripling, or at least the cheapest ones (Stone Throwers) do.

Meanwhile, back in mid-game, it occurs to me (from having trouble with the pillaging of a few criminals) that unlimited buildable Guerrillas mean that no improvement is safe within 9-11 tiles of any border. Add in Street Gangs and Robbers (and Outlaws), who can not only pillage but can also escape afterwards, and there is no way your workers could keep up.

The AI can't do this - whenever they send crims to pillage, they always leave them on the pillaged tile. And I don't do it - they have enough trouble building their improvements without discouragement from me. But you know the AI will keep improving. Unlimited HN (Always Hostile) units are always a bad idea, but OP ones like Guerrillas, 2-move infantry with Commando, are doubly so.
 
Started a new game on Epic/Monarch (300+ turns in, 5% of turns, not yet up to Hunters or Spiked Clubmen), and found that buildings and units are crazy cheap in early Prehistoric. For the first time in C2C I'm constantly running out of buildings to build. Double the price for buildings and wonders I think should be enough. Units might need tripling, or at least the cheapest ones (Stone Throwers) do.
It isn't that they are cheap so much as it is that tech progress has been greatly slowed down, particularly if you aren't heavily angling your tech tree towards civic upgrades as quickly as possible.
 
Test game results feedback on early V40 releases, up to first few techs in the Renaissance era.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test Game set-up: Emperor difficulty, Long game speed, Complex Traits on, Tech Diffusion on, WFL off, Size Matters on. Map options: C2C_World, Standard size, Temperate climate, Medium Sea Level, Earthlike landform, Old World start, 150% Hills, 50% Peaks and +4 Rivers. Played against 6 AI opponents from an improved starting location (see below).

Set-up Cheat Alert: Used WorldBuilder to improve my starting location, due to poor starting locations and results in my previous 4 V39.x games. I generated the map with default 7 AI opponents, then deleted one AI's starting units from its very good starting location, deleted my original units from their original poor starting location, and re-added my original units at the AI's good starting location. I also added some key resources at my new starting location and nearby future city sites (horses, deer, copper and tin).

Code Base (Note: No mod-mods added to code base)
- Started on SVN 11056 from GIT-to-SVN Merge on October 15 (updating my previous download of the official V40 release (at V40.7) from "moddb.com" on October 13)
- Updated to SVN 11057 November 6 (turn 1030) due to repeated start-up crashes from probable corruption in my C2C run-time execution folder. Full C2C download to empty clean folder resolved problems.
- Updated to SVN 11072 November 29 at start of Renaissance era (turn 1209) and re-calculated to see latest calculated values and to possibly carry on testing through the end of Renaissance.

=============================================
Era Progress:
=============================================
(1) Completed Prehistoric Era (finished Sedentary Lifestyle) at turn 439 in 10477 BC. I think this is in the expected range, and much better than the turn counts from my previous V39 gameplay (turn 487 from one game ago, turn 468 from two ago, and turn 636 from three ago). I was slightly behind the 2 trailing AIs and further behind behind the rest. In this era, I averaged only 6% beaker benefit from Technical Diffusion (which I think means I am not far behind the AIs in technology). The first AI to reach this milestone was about 3000 years ahead of me.

(2) Completed Ancient Era (finished Classical Lifestyle) at turn 855 in 432 BC. I think this is in the expected range, and much better than the turn counts from my previous V39 gameplay (turn 1005 one game ago, turn 906 two ago, and abandoned before reaching three games ago). I was in second place on score, ahead of 4 AIs, and had wiped out 1 AI capturing 4 of their cities. In this era, I averaged 22% beaker benefit from Technical Diffusion (which I think means getting TD benefit from 1 or 2 AIs and providing TD benefit to 3 or 4).

(3) Completed Classical Era (finished Medieval Lifestyle) at turn 1069 in 756 AD. I think this is in the expected range. In comparison, I had abandoned all 3 previous games before this point due to poor results. I was still in second place on score, ahead of 4 AIs, and had captured 5 more cities from one AI (but do not have full control of their territories). In this era, I averaged 24% beaker benefit from Technical Diffusion (which I think means getting TD benefit from 1 or 2 AIs and providing TD benefit to 3 or 4).

(4) Completed Medieval Era (finished Renaissance Lifestyle) at turn 1208 in 756 AD. I think this is in the expected range. In comparison, I had abandoned all 3 previous games before this point. I was still in second place on score, ahead of 4 AIs, and had captured 5 more cities from one AI. In this era, I averaged 18% beaker benefit from Technical Diffusion (which I think means getting TD benefit from 1 AI and providing TD benefit to the other 5).

(5) Started Renaissance Era (first few techs only). Am undecided whether to continue (not sure if my code base for the earlier eras is too out-of-date to generate meaningful results.


General Notes on Era progress and "beaker sources"
(1) Finally realized from spreadsheet totals that I did not get any Free Techs up to the start of Classical Era. Normally I expect to get about 1 per era (meaning finishing the Prehistoric era 3 to 4 turns earlier, the Ancient era 6 to 8 turns earlier, and the Classical era (and all later eras) 9 to 12 turns earlier. I have to pay more attention to this (and Science Builds) in future games.

(2) I also analyzed the impact of different "beaker sources". This analysis is quite technical (along with being unproven and vague). I suggest only reading if interested in this topic (see full text in zipped attachment directory below). Here's a teaser on my gameplay results to date:
(a) Gold (based on the slider Gold allocation to beakers) is the most important factor, providing 53% of of my technology progress. This is probably due to new gold-generating buildings, beaker-boosting Civics and Traits, etc.). It increased noticeably by era, from 38% of all beakers in the Prehistoric Era to 44% in Ancient Era, 52% in Classical Era and 55% in Medieval era.
(b) Technical Diffusion is second, providing 23% of of my technology progress (with TD on but WFL off). It generally increases across the earlier eras, and decreases as the player catches up in technology, from 7% of all beakers in the Prehistoric Era to 25% in Ancient Era, 27% in Classical Era, and then decreases to 22% in Medieval Era (due I think to getting less behind the leading AIs in technology, and possibly ahead of the several of the 4 trailing AIs in technology).
(c) Infrastructure (beaker-generating buildings, beaker-boosting Civics and Traits, etc.) is a close third, providing 22% of of my technology progress. It decreased noticeably by era (at least so far in my gameplay), from 55% of all beakers in the Prehistoric Era to 30% in the Ancient Era, 21% in the Classical Era, and 20% in the Medieval Era.
(d) "Free/Bonus" beakers (Free Techs plus beaker bonuses minus penalties) is a distant fourth, providing 1.7% of my technology progress. This should be much higher (say 2% to 5%) and is due to me spending too much time recording instead of strategizing in the early eras. It did climb to 3.1% in the Medieval era.
(d) "Science Builds" (from building Science pseudo-buildings for a number of turns) is a distant fifth, providing 0.3% of my technology progress. This should be higher (say 1% to 3%), and is due to me spending too much time recording instead of strategizing. It did climb to 1.2% in the first few Renaissance techs.

================================================================================================
Directory of files in the zipped forum attachment:
================================================================================================
- Open the attached ZIP file to extract the text, spreadsheet and game save files
- Text file "Game19010A C2C Forum Posting Text.txt" contains the text posted above
- Text file "Test1910C C2C Detailed Set-up.txt" contains my detailed game set-up and BUG option settings
- Text file "Game19010A C2C Measurement Results Summary.txt" contains the text posted above, plus my full analysis on "Beaker Sources".
- LibreOffice spreadsheet "Test1910 Tech Tree Learning Log.ods" contains all my Tech-level data recording and calculations to date. It is a monstrous spreadsheet, and still evolving.
- Multiple C2C save files (at game startup, era transitions, and game end). Each save file name specifies the current era number, turn number, calendar date, event description, and SVN level (for example, "Game1910A_Save01X_Turn#0429_010789_BC_V40@SVN11056_InPrehistoricEraStartedSedentaryLifestyle"
- LibreOffice spreadsheets named "Test1910C SVN.Step*.*.ods" can be used to convert the latest C2C "Techinfos.xml" values into spreadsheet format, for merging into a new empty "Learning Log".
 

Attachments

  • Game1910A Zipped Forum Attachment.7z
    5.7 MB · Views: 153
(b) Technical Diffusion is second, providing 23% of of my technology progress (with TD on but WFL off). It generally increases across the earlier eras, and decreases as the player catches up in technology, from 7% of all beakers in the Prehistoric Era to 25% in Ancient Era, 27% in Classical Era, and then decreases to 22% in Medieval Era (due I think to getting less behind the leading AIs in technology, and possibly ahead of the several of the 4 trailing AIs in technology).

Wait, this is interesting. I just dove into how TD works, and unless I missed something, in the current implementation you should only get ~5% boost unless there exists an AI at an era tier higher than you. Lemme dive into your beaker recordings...

Edit: Ok, two things. First, wow this is an impressive recording. I hope you had an automated tool to do most of this? Second, I'm going to assume your numbers are right, which means something somewhere in the TD implementation is most definitely behaving differently than I'd expect it to as written in the post here, so, awkward.
 
Last edited:
this is an impressive recording

Thank you for the feedback, Blazencall. I agree with "impressively large recording", but don't assume an "impressively accurate recording". No automated tool, just error-prone manual recording. One or more AIs were definitely an era ahead of me as I was reaching the end of the preceding era, but I don't believe they were a whole era ahead of me most of the time. Also, I split out 2 "blended" internal beaker sources and credited a proportional percentage of them to TD/WFL (only a negligible impact since I also gave the other major sources the same proportional bump).
 
manual recording.

:wow:

Well than, that's some dedication!

In the TechTree Learnin Logs, RecordingWorksheet page, I see there's a column for 'Slider Normal Beakers' next to 'Slider TD/WFL Beakers'. You said in the post that you were playing with WFL disabled, so for example, looking at the tech CAVE_DWELLING (line 12), it seems like you've 9 beakers from normal slider run at 100% tech (and according to column "I", none are from myths/static sources), while also getting 3 beakers from TD. That's a...different ratio that I would have expected, if I'm reading that right?

It could be a low-number type rounding error in this case, but scrolling down, TD does seem to be pretty consistently greater than 5%, typically around 10%. Well, if you were training in score, I guess that would be where that could have come from... But then, Community has a 30% TD rate (180 vs 60), and it's quite doubtful that you met an AI in the Classical era while you were still in the start of Ancient so... bah. Something is definitely weird :/
 
Thank you for the feedback, Blazencall. I agree with "impressively large recording", but don't assume an "impressively accurate recording". No automated tool, just error-prone manual recording. One or more AIs were definitely an era ahead of me as I was reaching the end of the preceding era, but I don't believe they were a whole era ahead of me most of the time. Also, I split out 2 "blended" internal beaker sources and credited a proportional percentage of them to TD/WFL (only a negligible impact since I also gave the other major sources the same proportional bump).
@SirJohnEh ,
Thank you again! I hope the rest of the Team looks over your report. They have always helped me in considering the ebb and flow of Civic interaction with game play. Which is my focus.

Questions for you; 1. How was the Civic interaction for you from Preh thru the Med. Eras? 2. Could you easily see the building block interactions that each one gave?
 
Hi Joseph. Sorry, am tied up today, but will clean up my spreadsheet and get back to you soon.
Oh no need to "clean up the spreadsheet".

I was basically asking your opinion ( how it felt to you) on the Civic progression and impressions during game play.
 
your opinion ( how it felt to you) on the Civic progression and impressions during game play

Over the first 4 eras, I had 43 "Civic-changing" opportunities or events (learned a tech that enables new civics, or did a multi-civic change during a Great Age to avoid anarchy turns) - changed one or more Civics 19 times). Fairly even over the first 3 eras at 11 to 13 opportunities or events, and dropped to 6 in Medieval era. I felt there were lots of opportunities to review new civics and make changes.

By the final turn, Civics choices (from the F3 Civics Advisor screen) were giving me approximate "all cities" boosts totaling about 29% for beaker generation and 25% for gold. Actual increases were spread over the game in 2% to 5% increments (larger increases for later techs).

Throughout the game, I deliberately chose Complex Traits that increase beakers and/or gold, to speed up technology progress. By the final turn, Traits had a much lower beaker impact (about 18%) versus Civics ( about 29%). This is a bit of a surprise to me - does it sound reasonable to you? Specifically, Scientific I and Minimalist I each give a 5% science boost, had dropped Financial I that in previous turns gave a 5% gold boost (which translates into about a 3% beaker boost), Glorious I has no negative beaker impact, Philosophical gives a 5% beaker boost and a 5% gold boost (which translates into about a 3% beaker boost). Hmmmmm - now I'm wondering if I should take Philosophical I first.

At the end of the game, I was at Traits Leadership level 4 with 3 traits, while the leading AI (at about 1.6 times my score) had 7 traits (Spiritual I, Pacifist I, Aloof I, Usurper I, Prolific I, Medical I, Naturalist I, Honest I, Progressive I and Progressive II - none of which give significant beaker bonuses).

At the end of the game, I checked WorldBuilder. The score-leading AI was about 25 technologies ahead of me, but all the other AIs were behind me. The slider beaker allocation shows me getting "16548 beakers per turn, plus 4303 TD/WFL beakers". Only 1 AI already had this technology (and no other AI was advanced enough to even start learning this technology) , butd I was getting approximately a 25% boost from TD/WFL. Does this sound reasonable and normal to you?
 
Throughout the game, I deliberately chose Complex Traits that increase beakers and/or gold, to speed up technology progress. By the final turn, Traits had a much lower beaker impact (about 18%) versus Civics ( about 29%). This is a bit of a surprise to me - does it sound reasonable to you?
I would not know as in my Civic testing I don't use Complex Traits. I use the standard 3 traits (No Trait Options used at all) or the No Negative Trait Option for just 2 Traits. This keeps the intentional imbalance from Traits under control. Less skewing and less data to consider. More basic game play.
 
In my latest game, I've found that the developing leaders thing is pretty broken as well. Specifically with priests, you can curve out once you get Spiritual 1 + Philosophical 1 + the one civic giving 2 free priests per city. The amount of golden ages you get is truly absurd, and once you get out of caste and into state religion you never are not in a golden age. Sure, you lose other great people from only spawning great priests, but the constant golden age will allow you to pretty much dominate the game. I'd personally get rid of the golden age on prophet spawn, right now it's just too powerful and easy to hit. Maybe Golden age on religion founding instead?

Also, besides slaves, priests get the most bonuses from T1 developing traits to an unbalanced degree.
 
In my latest game, I've found that the developing leaders thing is pretty broken as well. Specifically with priests, you can curve out once you get Spiritual 1 + Philosophical 1 + the one civic giving 2 free priests per city. The amount of golden ages you get is truly absurd, and once you get out of caste and into state religion you never are not in a golden age. Sure, you lose other great people from only spawning great priests, but the constant golden age will allow you to pretty much dominate the game. I'd personally get rid of the golden age on prophet spawn, right now it's just too powerful and easy to hit. Maybe Golden age on religion founding instead?

Also, besides slaves, priests get the most bonuses from T1 developing traits to an unbalanced degree.
I'll take that into advisement. Have you tried to find other powerful combinations?
 
I've been looking, and the rest of the power combos aren't inherently powerful in themselves but in the context of the current state of the game. For instance, Caste System allowing infinite specialists of a certain type is neat, but because cash-whipping is so early in the game if you specialize in merchants with financial and negotiator you can curve out ahead of a dedicated engineer build just by using excess cash as hammers with extra commerce to boot. Maybe restrict cash-whipping until late renaissance civics? Though that doesn't really solve the excess gold issue.

Other imbalances I've found:
If you get an early neanderthal captive, you can immediately turn them into a 4:strength: tracker even before you've researched tracking. They're stronger than even hunters, and allow you to clean up your area no problem.

I would really like to see ROM:AND's movement limit mechanic here. Right now you can get a heavy tech advantage over the AI by hopping to different continents with your hunters, something the AI doesn't know to do. The movement limits restrict you to your own local area for the early game, which makes sense to me.

Not necessarily an imbalance, but the A.I doesn't seem to like workers. That, or they don't replace them when they get killed. I've seen civs in ancient era with completely undeveloped land from this.
 
I've been looking, and the rest of the power combos aren't inherently powerful in themselves but in the context of the current state of the game. For instance, Caste System allowing infinite specialists of a certain type is neat, but because cash-whipping is so early in the game if you specialize in merchants with financial and negotiator you can curve out ahead of a dedicated engineer build just by using excess cash as hammers with extra commerce to boot. Maybe restrict cash-whipping until late renaissance civics? Though that doesn't really solve the excess gold issue.
Yeah there's still excess gold issues all over the place past a point.

As far as the prophet/golden age thing, I don't want to remove the effect but I may make the golden ages from birth of a particular GP type limited to perhaps 20% of the normal amount of rounds you would have a golden age.

If you get an early neanderthal captive, you can immediately turn them into a 4:strength: tracker even before you've researched tracking. They're stronger than even hunters, and allow you to clean up your area no problem.
And you CAN get a hunter from a goody hut too. I'm not seeing imbalance as much as just a possible game experience similar to some others in this.

I would really like to see ROM:AND's movement limit mechanic here. Right now you can get a heavy tech advantage over the AI by hopping to different continents with your hunters, something the AI doesn't know to do. The movement limits restrict you to your own local area for the early game, which makes sense to me.
Lots have talked about that but me, I'd rage quit if my range was limited like this. Maybe someday as an option but there's some other ways I plan to implement some limits and I would like to see the AI figure out this is a good strategy too.

Workers... yeah, interesting about that.
 
I was thinking about a potential feature for realism/simulation, but I think it could double as a balance feature. It has bugged me recently, after thinking about it, that you can have limitless military units if you have the economy to support it. You can wage war for hundreds of years, and grow your population over that span simultaneously.

What if military units always cost food/population? You can't grow if you're sending your people off to war. During war, people die much faster than they can reproduce and mature, so populations should shrink from producing too many units. The problem with this is that the current method of producing units with food simply stalls growth; they never shrink.

This would force the player (and AI) to choose between internal growth (population) and external growth (conquering cities). Some units (namely robots) wouldn't need food, of course. But is this realistically doable? It just bothers me that wars have been shaped by the inability to replace troops with a limited population, but this has no effect in C2C.
 
I was thinking about a potential feature for realism/simulation, but I think it could double as a balance feature. It has bugged me recently, after thinking about it, that you can have limitless military units if you have the economy to support it. You can wage war for hundreds of years, and grow your population over that span simultaneously.

What if military units always cost food/population? You can't grow if you're sending your people off to war. During war, people die much faster than they can reproduce and mature, so populations should shrink from producing too many units. The problem with this is that the current method of producing units with food simply stalls growth; they never shrink.

This would force the player (and AI) to choose between internal growth (population) and external growth (conquering cities). Some units (namely robots) wouldn't need food, of course. But is this realistically doable? It just bothers me that wars have been shaped by the inability to replace troops with a limited population, but this has no effect in C2C.
I've always felt this way and wanted to do a food support system for units. Eventually it will happen and you have made a compelling argument for it.
 
As far as the prophet/golden age thing, I don't want to remove the effect but I may make the golden ages from birth of a particular GP type limited to perhaps 20% of the normal amount of rounds you would have a golden age.
Just and FYI, Unless they have been changed by someone else over the past 6 months or so, I had reduced GP length of time to 1/4 of what it in version 38/39. Where players could run in Golden Age continuously if playing with Divine Prophets that way on Game Speeds of 8,000 turns or longer. Much to DH's chagrin. But IF you still insist on playing a 12,000 to 20,000 turn game speeds with ot w/o DP On then your GAs will still be excessively long.

Blitz was set at 4 turns, Normal at 8, Long at 12, Epic @ 16, Marathon @20, Snail @ 24, Eon @ 28, and Eternity @ 32.

This may have been changed by another modder since I did this. IDK what has happened. But even still with DP On and the Longer GS you could still run in GA constantly. And this seemed to be extended somewhat by the Complex Traits that have influence how often Great People can appear.
 
Last edited:
Just and FYI, Unless they have been changed by someone else over the past 6 months or so, I had reduced GP length of time to 1/4 of what it in version 38/39. Where players could run in Golden Age continuously if playing with Divine Prophets that way on Game Speeds of 8,000 turns or longer. Much to DH's chagrin. But IF you still insist on playing a 12,000 to 20,000 turn game speeds with ot w/o DP On then your GAs will still be excessively long.

Blitz was set at 4 turns, Normal at 8, Long at 12, Epic @ 16, Marathon @20, Snail @ 24, Eon @ 28, and Eternity @ 32.

This may have been changed by another modder since I did this. IDK what has happened. But even still with DP On and the Longer GS you could still run in GA constantly. And this seemed to be extended somewhat by the Complex Traits that have influence how often Great People can appear.
I remember we did that... is this feedback from an SVN or v70?@vcrakev ?
 
I remember we did that... is this feedback from an SVN or v70?@vcrakev ?

I haven't played with Divine Prophets, but my base V40 playthrough had significantly shorter golden ages compared to V38 (I skipped V39). I haven't played at all today, so I still haven't updated to SVN (so this change was introduced as a part of the V40 realease, or an earlier SVN update).
 
Top Bottom