If anarchy doesn't need to scale linearly then no game system needs to scale linearly....
Changing the cost of a building or the stat of a building doesn't change the balance between gamespeeds, but if we only change cost or stats of a building in one gamespeed relative to another that certainly change our ability to maintain an overall good balance independently of gamespeed option.
That's true, perhaps it would be better to only reduce hammer by 75% and the commerce yield by 100%, pure beakers, epsionage, culture and gold produced by buildings would then be unaffected and using the commerce sliders wouldn't make a difference as there''s no commerce to distribute during the transition. That seems like the practical solution to me.
Not an entirely bad idea to be able to throw gold on the transition process.... Teaching the AI to use it wouldn't be too hard, but figuring out a meaningful and reasonable cost for it may be harder...
Not to simply argue here but I completely disagree with that. The need for anarchy is to cause a reluctance to shift civics and make other choices as quickly as it may become beneficial to. This way you cannot just hop from whatever is best in one round to whatever is best the next. It is also an additional game mechanic that we can give or take modifiers to on buildings and traits to give those buildings and traits a sense of meaning. If you take the system away, you have nothing to represent a more polished politician's benefit, for example. It gives us a way to model certain 'legal process' benefits, and in the case of the education system, it's providing a way to model how more intelligent people are harder to govern in some ways. The purpose of 'extended' anarchy? I'm not sure what you mean by extended exactly in this case. Perhaps I've answered to this, perhaps not. Regardless, I don't feel it has a thing to do with player 'style' but it does help us give value to certain buildings and traits in a poignant manner. If anarchy isn't fun for you and you hate going through it, GREAT! Make that your goal in play to avoid it then rather than complaining that it exists. It's supposed to be a penalty that sucks and it does its job as that.
It already is, and for that reason. Most upkeep is also not impacting you when on anarchy so you CAN use it to save a dying economy for a bit, particularly if you have some merchants just trained that need some time to get to their destinations...
Let me try to explain, although I know how you are going to feel about the answer... the goal is to keep the actual progression pretty equivalent to the progression on the game calendar so that the calendar is valid for all speeds. It probably needs some skewing and adjusting by speed already due to the few things I've mentioned above, but generally speaking, if the ratio of speed is 1:10, and you take 100 turns to get through an age on the faster speed, then it should take 1000 turns to reach the same points on the slower one. When that's actually happening, you have achieved a balance that is quite difficult to achieve but is certainly a goal, which means that all things are scaling just right to produce generally similar results between gamespeeds. This makes it much easier on many other layers of design.
We'd just want to make sure that all upkeep costs are also similarly reduced. Or maybe not... that might make it more penalizing in a way which would make it a bit more like the real world when things are not working smoothly in government. The original argument for the change is to represent things more realistically anyhow. (That and fun of course.)
Did I say remove Anarchy??? Or did I even say there was no need???
No, but perhaps I misunderstood you as saying we only needed it to support a particular playstyle? Again, I wasn't directing everything I said at you specifically, just launching off of what you said as a talking point.
).
How is that not working?
There should be a way to do it but I'm still looking for how it's supposed to be worded in the xml coding and where to put it, as in what XML file it needs to be added to.
What's the difference between this and the previous request exactly? I mean numerically it is different but outbreak is based on disease level so basically that's the same thing except on a one to one basis isn't it? Maybe we're talking terms differently?
No it wouldn't? That has never been the reason for different game speeds for me, and I expect most people. Game speed determines how granular the game experience is *in general*, and how long you play the same game for, unit speed being fixed is an artifact how how it is implemented. When making the game Firaxis had no choice but to keep unit movement the same, it is just a by product of the engine design not supporting fractional moves, not the purpose. To illustrate further: if this game *did* have fractional movement, do you think Firaxis would not have added different game speeds? The answer is obviously that they would have, if only because some people want to play a game that only takes a day, others want to play the same game for weeks.
I don't understand this, you only spend <5% of the game in either anarchy or golden age don't you? What do you mean by no time to do stuff?The recent changes made to anarchy and golden age have had a significant impact on the game. Epic was enjoyable now not so. There is no time to do stuff it is all rush rush rush.
hmm... I'd like to see a save from the round before the wonder is built where this becomes the result. I don't have any knowledge of this happening in any games I've seen but it's not something I've researched into before either. It's good you identify that it's on buildings that don't have prereqs so there's really no reason they shouldn't get the building. Didn't know there was a problem there - when discussed previously I must've really been breezing through trying to catch up on things.
No you are right the benefit is half the malus.
The problem with game speed in vanilla BtS is that everything is scaled so there is next to no difference in playing differing game speeds. In C2C it was the case that you could actually get some time to play with the units before they need to be upgraded on slower speeds. Long anarchy times help in that. It also adds strategy to the game. As to the idea that there is nothing you can do during an anarchy, don't you have units to move and wars to fight?
I built the wonder 25 turns ago and cities still don't have it
I think he's saying that reducing the base GA length has made it a rush to get to techs that enable civics changes much more stressful because if you miss out on the civics change while you're in a GA, you are now saddled with potentially a bit more anarchy than we're previously used to. I'm not sure I agree that's a BAD thing though. It requires a bit more precision in planning and I'm not sure why that's a bad thing. Do people play games to avoid challenges these days or are we just complaining that we are used to those challenges being easier and don't like it because we're not succeeding at them now? I think if it's POSSIBLE to succeed at them, it's all the better that it's tougher. A mountain isn't worth climbing if it's easy to climb.
Um, that's not a problem, that's a goal. The difference should be how fast the game progresses for the player and that's it. Thus the player is choosing how much time to invest into the game, not anything about how it unfolds.
I don't think that's changed really. Unit movement is always going to be more granular on a longer gamespeed and you'll always get a little more time to play with them on a longer gamespeed, as well as having more corners to shave due to granularity of the time resolution.
No. The separation of Civic changes for a long has meant that this was not possible. You may be lucky to get two changes in that way. I changed my play so that I don't bother changing Civics until I get a GA not teh other way round.
Sure but it's when you built it that will be what I would need to see processing through the code.I built the wonder 25 turns ago and cities still don't have it
Yeah, I do that too and was going to suggest it. I see you meant something else but that was my initial impression of your meaning.
It is not the movement of the units it is the number of turns you have to build an army and go to war.
How are they different? The way game speeds work didn't change between BtS and C2C with regard to units. C2C added *way* slower game speeds, but they are just taking the vanilla ones to extreme.
Yeah it is really important to be vigilant against mistaking how you feel about changes as a player to how you should consider them as a designer.
