UHV balance/feedback

[srpt]

I played the Satavahanas last night. fun game. (UHVs are: 2 shrines by 50bc, spread hinduism and buddhism x3 to SE Asia by 100ad, 12,000 culture by 50ad)

started at war with the Mauryans and flipped Bharuch and Ujjain as usual. the Pandyans took Vanchi so I thought it would be best to focus on the Mauryans and their 2 holy cities. I started teching for elephants, catapults and walls and built infrastructure.

the Mauryans became the Sungas and attacked Ujjain twice with elephants and catapults. the Sakas arrived but stayed peaceful after I gave them agriculture. Kalinka and the Pandyans were happily at war with each other almost the whole game til Kalinka collapsed.

I took both Varanasi and Bhodgaya right at the deadline, collapsing the Sungas, and started sending missionaries. there was no buddhism in my cities til I took the Sunga cities so I had to wait til then for the buddhist ones. the religion spreading was easy, took 2 trips and there were no pirates.

I had a great prophet ready but the Sungas/Mauryans had already built both shrines. I used him for a golden age. I got to about 6-7000 culture by 50ad, with artists (from my UB, Statue) in most cities. if you knew for sure that both shrines were built you could go for a great artist but otherwise you need the prophet, although you might be able to get both, artist first, then prophet.

I think I should switch the dates on the 2nd and 3rd goals.

 

[Wessel V1]

The culture goal is not too hard to achieve by 50BC I'd say. The early blitz against the Mauryans makes everything a lot easier though. It shouldn't be too hard to conquer a few cities with the initial stack. The missionary goal could be a bit earlier though, once the shrine goal is accomplished there is not much to do apart from conquering some more territories and spamming missionaries.

 

[Swarbs]

My bit on civ and UHV balance:

Ptolemy is now well balanced - you can get the UHVs provided you don't divert too much and play well.

Antigonids are very tough. They are weaker than the other two Diadochi and their UU is worse. They always seem to be crushed as AI, and as human if you can survive the attacks from the Seleucids then you will usually be crushed by the Roman conquerors.

Mauryan - 1st UHV is good. You have to focus on war and settlers to get all the land you need, whilst keeping piety up. But the last two UHVs are now very easy. I built 10 edicts by 175BC, and would have been a saint by 150BC. But I became the Sungas in 160BC, lost Buddhism and couldn't build any more edicts.

Personally, I would bring the Mauryan UHVs forward to build 10 edicts by 180BC and be a Buddhist saint by 160BC. That is very doable, with the number of cities in India, good production sites, and the ability to hire two priests per temple. I could easily have made it had I been more focused on the UHV and less focused on fighting the Satavahanas. And if the Mauryan UHVs are done by 160BC, then the Sungas can have their own set with no overlap.

Rome is also well balanced, although the 2nd Empire UHV is a bit pointless. By 100AD, if you're on track for the 3rd UHV, you have conquered pretty much every city which is a reasonable competitor to be the largest city in the world, so Rome wins it by default. Perhaps a better goal for Rome would be to have the largest population, or to have reached a certain population size by 100AD? That would force you to consider settling more than the bare minimum of cities, and make for a really impressive empire.

Judah - Judah struggles now as a result of the stronger Roman conquerors. Most of the Judah games I've started recently start with all Diadochi dead and Rome all around me. Which makes it near impossible to play, as Legions eat Maccabees for breakfast. Rome may need a bit of a nerf in the east, perhaps in terms of the size or frequency of the conquerors?

 

[Swarbs]

Celts don't need so long for their 3rd UHV imo. With their UP and a focus on culture research and buildings, I was top in culture by 115BC, same turn I completed the 2nd UHV. Which means the remaining turns would just be a tedious process of clicking through 100 turns with no chance of anyone catching me thanks to the UP and an average culture per city of 5-6.

50AD is also quite ahistorical, given the Celts were largely conquered by 50BC. Tho' obviously that's in a none CW world when the Celts don't conquer Rome first

Suggest the date either be changed to 50BC, or perhaps the goal should be to be the most culturally advanced civ by 50AD?

 

[Swarbs]

I had a great prophet ready but the Sungas/Mauryans had already built both shrines. I used him for a golden age. I got to about 6-7000 culture by 50ad, with artists (from my UB, Statue) in most cities. if you knew for sure that both shrines were built you could go for a great artist but otherwise you need the prophet, although you might be able to get both, artist first, then prophet.

Do the Satavahanas not have the time to tech to Borobudur? That way you can just go for priests and use them for culture pops anyway.

On a similar subject, is there any viable way for Saba to get their culture goal? They don't seem to be able to do anything more than build / capture 4-5 cities and can't tech far enough for many culture buildings / GAs. Doesn't seem feasible for them to average around 15 culture / turn over the course of their entire existence in order to meet the 3,000 target, whilst also getting enough gold.

 

[srpt]

these are all good points. I will make some changes for the next version. thanks for the feedback. I haven't had much time in the last few days but I will have some this weekend.

 

[2phunkey4u]

Culture goal for Saba is doable, even trivial.

Spoiler :

build a city in Oman - Zoroastrianism spreads to it - build Fire Temple - run GA - done

 

[Swarbs]

Culture goal for Saba is doable, even trivial.

Spoiler :

build a city in Oman - Zoroastrianism spreads to it - build Fire Temple - run GA - done

I founded a city in Oman, but no Zoroastrianism in it yet. Fingers crossed you are right!

Has anyone completed the 2nd UHV for Yamato yet? Getting Paper in just 200 years seems impossible, given you have to go through Mathematics and Bureaucracy to get there.

 

[srpt]

My bit on civ and UHV balance:

Ptolemy is now well balanced - you can get the UHVs provided you don't divert too much and play well.

Antigonids are very tough. They are weaker than the other two Diadochi and their UU is worse. They always seem to be crushed as AI, and as human if you can survive the attacks from the Seleucids then you will usually be crushed by the Roman conquerors.

Mauryan - 1st UHV is good. You have to focus on war and settlers to get all the land you need, whilst keeping piety up. But the last two UHVs are now very easy. I built 10 edicts by 175BC, and would have been a saint by 150BC. But I became the Sungas in 160BC, lost Buddhism and couldn't build any more edicts.

Personally, I would bring the Mauryan UHVs forward to build 10 edicts by 180BC and be a Buddhist saint by 160BC. That is very doable, with the number of cities in India, good production sites, and the ability to hire two priests per temple. I could easily have made it had I been more focused on the UHV and less focused on fighting the Satavahanas. And if the Mauryan UHVs are done by 160BC, then the Sungas can have their own set with no overlap.

Rome is also well balanced, although the 2nd Empire UHV is a bit pointless. By 100AD, if you're on track for the 3rd UHV, you have conquered pretty much every city which is a reasonable competitor to be the largest city in the world, so Rome wins it by default. Perhaps a better goal for Rome would be to have the largest population, or to have reached a certain population size by 100AD? That would force you to consider settling more than the bare minimum of cities, and make for a really impressive empire.

Judah - Judah struggles now as a result of the stronger Roman conquerors. Most of the Judah games I've started recently start with all Diadochi dead and Rome all around me. Which makes it near impossible to play, as Legions eat Maccabees for breakfast. Rome may need a bit of a nerf in the east, perhaps in terms of the size or frequency of the conquerors?

Mauryans - I went over the code but couldn't find how the human player would convert to the Sungas. do you have a save?

Judah - I need to look at them again. I'm not really happy with their goals and I'd like to find a way to help them with bad starts like that. the ideal starting situation for them is to be in the middle of an established war and be able to take advantage. I was going to give them a UP that increased city defense with fewer cities. +100% with 1 city, + 50% with 2 etc or something like that.

Rome - I think the city size goal can stay. there will be games where it is hard, depending on whats happening in India and China. I moved it to 50AD so the Han will be more likely to provide competition.

 

[Swarbs]

Mauryans - I went over the code but couldn't find how the human player would convert to the Sungas. do you have a save?

I think it's somehow stability related. Not sure how I triggered it before, but I've played around a bit and stability appears to have something to do with it. Three saves attached, all from the same game.

In save 1 (without a number), I abandoned two cities to barbs. They are about to capture them, which caused me to collapse to core and became the Sungas
In save 2, I didn't abandon the cities, killed the barbs and am still the Mauryans
Save 3 is the turn after the collapse, where I'm the Sunga Empire with no chance to build Edicts, and Punjab is no longer core. In another couple of turns I lose State Religion and am no longer Buddhist.

So it seems to be stability related, but doesn't need that much of a stability drop - in my original game I was unstable but not bad enough to collapse and didn't lose any cities.

Rome - I think the city size goal can stay. there will be games where it is hard, depending on whats happening in India and China. I moved it to 50AD so the Han will be more likely to provide competition.

I still think Rome will always beat any other cities, simply down to how much food it has and how long it's there for. But 50AD may make it a bit harder to achieve.

 

[srpt]

for some reason I thought I addressed the Mauryan/Sunga issue, but perhaps I didn't because I can't find mention of it. I will look into it again.

as for the Roman city size goal, there should be competitors in India and China. I added the in the free improvements for Luoyang and Patna that they get when Egypt is human.

 

[Crossphazer]

srpt: is there any civ starts you'd like loaded from a certain start date to test balance? (i.e. load Kushans from 320 BC, etc) I could load up starts with doing other things (notably, studying) and post saves + screens

 

[DC123456789]

Goguryeo, 320 BC Start, Monarch, Revision 88 (or so):

Overall, an easy and surprisingly fun game. The first UHV goal is good in concept but trivial; nobody in East Asia ever bothers converting to Buddhism, and it's really only a matter of getting a Pilgrim to the Buddhist holy city, which is easy by galley. The second UHV goal is also pretty easy. You spawn with Goguryeo, and Sabi in Silla is easily taken with your starting troops. Gojoseon normally collapses before you spawn, and the cities in Buyeo are usually weakened by barbarians and are thus easy to get. The Han collapses by 200 AD and the Jin don't flip Yan, so that can be taken pretty easily (you have a lot of time to build a decent army). For the last 2 provinces, I invaded Japan, as they declared war on me on spawn. It was really far too easy, as Asadal and, to a lesser extent, Sabi and Ji/Beijing, have good production. I think they definitely need a larger spawning stack. The last goal, highest culture, is easy for the reason that all your competitors normally collapse before it checks. The Pandyans and Satavahanas will often collapse in the 3rd or 4th centuries AD, while the Kushans took until about 400 AD to collapse in my game (they should collapse much sooner, being weakened by Sassanids that are presently too weak). I recommend that this date be changed to 400 AD, as the game started to become somewhat irrelevant by then.

On balance:
There definitely need to be more barbarians coming from the Mongolian Steppe past 200 AD- I saw maybe 5 or 6 between 200 and 500, far too little. Balance was surprisingly good overall, with the exception of the overpowered Kushans (and consequent underpowered Sassanids) and the persistent problem of underpowered Romans. I've observed that their main problem is instability. Thus, in addition to my core suggestion earlier:

A proposal for changing up expansion stability a bit about cores:

Right now if you don't control your entire core your expansion penalty is automatically set to -4. This doesn't really make sense if you only don't control a tiny 1 pop city. So, I propose that if you control over 75% but less than 100% of the population of the cities in your core, you get a -1 malus to your expansion stability on top of the normal core vs. non-core population. If you control between 30% and 75% you get -2. If you control between 0% and 30% you get a -4 malus and if you lose your entire core your expansion penalty is set to -4 or even -5. This, in my opinion makes more sense than the flat rate of -4 no matter how much you don't control.

...I also recommend that the -1 stability per unhappy/unhealthy be severely nerfed, perhaps to -1 stability per 5 unhappy/unhealthy cities, as they will already be punished by the overall level, and the present system is presently far too punishing in these instances. Finally, cities in one's core should never be able to declare independence, as they are not far-off, weakly-controlled cities that the independence mechanic is supposed to act on.

 

[srpt]

happiness has no effect on stability for the AI. I realized a while ago that it was killing them so I exempted them.

I pushed back Goguryeo's conquest and culture goals each by 100 years and added some later Manchurian barbs.

it shouldn't be possible for core cities to secede

 

[Crossphazer]

it shouldn't be possible for core cities to secede

I'll keep an eye out for that in my games to verify that claim.

 

[srpt]

my current Gupta and Sassanids games are both fun and challenging. the Guptas were seeming not that hard but now the Hephthalites have shown up and control Sindh and Gandhara so my work is cut out for me. in the Sassanid game the Kushans are a good challenge. I would have to say that if they and the Romans came for me at once I would be dead. perhaps such a circumstance is what is hurting them? in the Gupta game (rolled from 220AD) the Kushans collapsed around 350AD and the Sassanids control 9 cities (from Arbela to Qandahar) and are in 4th place.

 

[Crossphazer]

my current Gupta and Sassanids games are both fun and challenging. the Guptas were seeming not that hard but now the Hephthalites have shown up and control Sindh and Gandhara so my work is cut out for me. in the Sassanid game the Kushans are a good challenge. I would have to say that if they and the Romans came for me at once I would be dead. perhaps such a circumstance is what is hurting them?

In my experience, it's not so much the Romans overpowering the Sassanids as it is the Romans getting lucky, nabbing Seleukeia from them with a legion or two when the Persians aren't looking, which obviously hurts their stability tremendously. I don't think the Sassanid capital has walls last time I checked. This is probably why the Romans can grab it with relative ease if they can get close enough with a small army.

 

[srpt]

I don't mind giving the Sassanids free walls. I think both the Romans and Byzantines get them in Constantinople.

perhaps the Kushans should not start with Marksmanship. Their UU could also change to normal strength but cheaper and keep the treats-all-terrain-as-normal.

 

[DC123456789]

my current Gupta and Sassanids games are both fun and challenging. the Guptas were seeming not that hard but now the Hephthalites have shown up and control Sindh and Gandhara so my work is cut out for me. in the Sassanid game the Kushans are a good challenge. I would have to say that if they and the Romans came for me at once I would be dead. perhaps such a circumstance is what is hurting them? in the Gupta game (rolled from 220AD) the Kushans collapsed around 350AD and the Sassanids control 9 cities (from Arbela to Qandahar) and are in 4th place.

In 320 BC starts, it's definitely not the Romans hurting them- the Romans themselves have trouble staying alive in the face of the Celtics and Dacians back in Europe. Also, I think my core suggestion would definitely help them, as they loose Medialanum and/or Aqueliuia quite frequently, which really knocks down their stability.

 

[Crossphazer]

The Roman Problem could always be solved by distributing every X turns a given number of legionaries in their core (or Rome itself), until a certain cut-off date (50 AD, or 100 AD, or 150 AD). That way one can be somewhat sure that Italy itself will be correctly defended, with some surplus to clean up whatever's left of the map.


srpt, I don't think the Kushan UU is the biggest problem. It's more likely the marksmen that slow the Persians down. Oh and armored cavalry should always have an edge over horse archers, until the Huns come around, because the Huns, unlike previous nomadic horse archers, have significantly longer bows which increase penetration power.