1.17 released

[wanderm]

Very early wealth production: I remember, that this was being discussed here, and I think, this discussion should continue. Building wealth shouldn't be so commanding. Your economy shouldn't rely on it so heavily. Could this mechanism possibly be favoring rapid expansion playstyles, just like in Civ 3? Hopefully not. You might try to grab plenty of production sites that do nothing but build wealth to keep your research at 100%. Not an intelligent game mechanism, if that turns out to be true. I haven't played far enough to see proof of that, but I'm afraid that's what's happening.

I confess to being a recent convert from Civ 3, but on Monarch level I am grateful for building wealth.

(My settings are Raging Barbs and Aggressive AI, which makes for a somewhat more tactical experience. Just playing Sandbox won't hold my attention).

Because of my various problems with rapid expansion, I tend to disagree that 1.17 is out of balance here. Rapid expansion is not altogether ahistorical; I concede building just for wealth may be gamey, but many possessions of the real life Ancient Era were little more than that.

Of course if more experienced players suspect it is broken I will stand corrected.

 

[wanderm]

I confess to being a recent convert from Civ 3, but on Monarch level I am grateful for building wealth.

As an aside, I never played Vanilla Civ 3 (where rapid expansion was broken) but fiddled with Rhye's and population costs to favor a Middle Ages settler rush. The AI didn't like it, but it worked for me.

 

[Keinpferd]

I concede building just for wealth may be gamey, but many possessions of the real life Ancient Era were little more than that.

Gamey is the right word for that. Or call it one-dimensional. One of the most interesting parts of Civ is making difficult decisions, when both options have strong up and downsides. Mechanisms that take away these fateful decisions from you, are crap to be avoided. (You must chop woods to survive, woe if you don't.)

Nothing wrong with expansion, but Civ 4 at least introduced AIs pursuing a space race win with four cities or a cultural victory with six or nine cities. So, the pursuer of a routine domination victory is a bit threatened by these tiny not at all expanded empires, which adds "suspense" and a few more dimensions.

I'm not an experienced player, I forgot to say, I played Immortal on a scenario map with abundant food und commerce ressources, so that wasn't a real Immortal game.

Civ 3: was fun, but I only know the vanilla version with the "broken" rapid expansion.



I'm suffering, that I can't continue my little 1.17 game right now and provide more feedback, because the new version really got me hooked!

 

[redbaron784]

Just checked, it's doing that for any page at www.atomicgamer.com so I suspect they're having server troubles of some sort. Try again a bit later and in the meantime I'll try find somewhere to host a mirror, just in case.


EDIT: Atomic Gamer seems to be working again

Thanks! Downloading it now. Can't wait to try it out.

 

[Xyth]

Okay, I've been experimenting and I've managed to create different 'ranks' of wealth building that are unlocked at different techs:

• Property (Ancient): 25% production converted to wealth
• Currency (Classical): 50% production converted to wealth
• Finance (Medieval): 75% production converted to wealth
• Corporation (Renaissance): 100% production converted to wealth​

The idea is that you can still build some wealth early on when you need it, but not so much that it encourages rapid expansion with numerous small undeveloped cities able to cover their maintenance costs and still produce a profit. As the eras progress wealth building becomes more viable but by then there are many more limits on empire growth in play (inflation, enemy civs, etc) so it shouldn't be a problem.

I plan to do something similar with the Research, Culture and Espionage building options as well. I also experimented with attaching these ranks to buildings rather than technologies but that's a lot more complicated and the AI doesn't really understand it.

Let me know your thoughts on this.

 

[Xyth]

After some testing this is the scheme I'm going with for now (using the forum's nifty new table feature!):


[TABLE="head;width=600px"]Build %|Wealth|Research|Culture|Espionage
33%|Property|Writing|Aesthetics|Paper
50%|Guilds|Printing|Education|Photography
100%|Corporation|Sci. Method|Sociology|Radio
[/TABLE]


33% means it takes 3 hammers to produce 1 of the relevant commerce, 50% means it takes 2. I decided to go with 3 ranks instead since a '4 for 1' ratio felt useless and '3 for 2' (75%) felt a bit unintuitive. Each build option (except Espionage) thus become available in the Ancient or Classical era and becomes full strength sometime in the Renaissance. Espionage starts and ends a bit later as I did some reading and it's actually a lot more powerful than I thought.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Hm. I don't disagree, but I never got the hang of Espionage- I'm a casual player, really.

What is it wise to do with espionage points?

 

[BBQ man]

Xyth: I've lost both of my games in 1.17 to sudden quits; reloading from saved game it quits again. Playing as Anasazi and as Kongo to try out the new Civs. One quit around 1500, the other in 1650. Standard World map, raging barbarians, no tech brokering; one was at Prince one at Monarch. I'm on a Mac, system X. Usually I have trouble with maps above Large size-- they overload and quit when things get too busy. But never had this problem with Standard and have played at least the last 6 versions of HR extensively.

 

[Xyth]

Xyth: I've lost both of my games in 1.17 to sudden quits; reloading from saved game it quits again. Playing as Anasazi and as Kongo to try out the new Civs. One quit around 1500, the other in 1650. Standard World map, raging barbarians, no tech brokering; one was at Prince one at Monarch. I'm on a Mac, system X. Usually I have trouble with maps above Large size-- they overload and quit when things get too busy. But never had this problem with Standard and have played at least the last 6 versions of HR extensively.

Is there a crash report when this happens? If so, please post it here as an attachment. Post the saved games too if you still have them. Regular crashes at the same point is indicative of a broken/missing art define which are easy to fix once I find them.

 

[Eucalyptus]

After some testing this is the scheme I'm going with for now (using the forum's nifty new table feature!):


[TABLE="head;width=600px"]Build %|Wealth|Research|Culture|Espionage
33%|Property|Writing|Aesthetics|Paper
50%|Guilds|Printing|Education|Photography
100%|Corporation|Sci. Method|Sociology|Radio
[/TABLE]


33% means it takes 3 hammers to produce 1 of the relevant commerce, 50% means it takes 2. I decided to go with 3 ranks instead since a '4 for 1' ratio felt useless and '3 for 2' (75%) felt a bit unintuitive. Each build option (except Espionage) thus become available in the Ancient or Classical era and becomes full strength sometime in the Renaissance. Espionage starts and ends a bit later as I did some reading and it's actually a lot more powerful than I thought.

I have enjoyed the existing production-to-wealth conversion mechanism: Wow, I can now viably run what would have formerly been not a 10% or a 0% but a `-50%' science rate! I've also seen the AI doing this, so, whilst it's a strong strategy, it's not unbalanced.

Whilst I don't know whether proposed reduction in the exchange rates is in itself an improvement, the proportions and associated technologies seem very reasonable to me.

However, these are the usual Civ IV rounded-down integer calculations, yes? So, after Property, the 33% conversion implies the following hammer-to-gold amounts: 9 -> 3, {8,7,6} -> 2, {5,4,3} -> 1, {2,1} -> 0. For cities generating less than 12 hammers (often the case in the Ancient Era), that would pretty much kill off the strategy of converting production to wealth altogether for me. Not only are the returns meagre, but I would also feel obliged to micromanage every turn to ensure that my wealth-generating cities generated multiples of 3 hammers.

Alternative integer calculations such as rounding up don't really solve the problem: If the rates were {9,8,7} -> 3, {6,5,4} -> 2, {3,2,1} -> 1, I would still be micromanaging, and that would become even more irritating. High exchange rates, such as 3 to 1, are as always in Civ IV, the source of the integer arithmetic problems: 2 to 1 is somewhat less of a problem, but would still motivate micromanagement.

Am I right here?

 

[Xyth]

I have enjoyed the existing production-to-wealth conversion mechanism: Wow, I can now viably run what would have formerly been not a 10% or a 0% but a `-50%' science rate! I've also seen the AI doing this, so, whilst it's a strong strategy, it's not unbalanced.

The problem is that a small unimproved city can with no infrastructure can build wealth, cover it's maintenance costs and still make a profit for the empire. This allows (to a degree) the rapid expansion strategy that plagued Civ3: build many tiny and tightly packed cities that exist merely to build wealth to prop up your research and main centres.

However, these are the usual Civ IV rounded-down integer calculations, yes? So, after Property, the 33% conversion implies the following hammer-to-gold amounts: 9 -> 3, {8,7,6} -> 2, {5,4,3} -> 1, {2,1} -> 0.

Yes, that's how it would work.

For cities generating less than 12 hammers (often the case in the Ancient Era), that would pretty much kill off the strategy of converting production to wealth altogether for me. Not only are the returns meagre, but I would also feel obliged to micromanage every turn to ensure that my wealth-generating cities generated multiples of 3 hammers.

It's not meant to be a viable strategy to be honest. If a short term no-investment option like wealth building is more rewarding than building the infrastructure for longer term returns then I consider that to be broken. I want wealth building to be available early because there needs to be something to switch to those times when you need a short term boost or you're waiting for something you need to unlock. Wasting hammers on unneeded units or wonders isn't fun.

That all said, ranks of 50%, 75% and 100% might be a compromise worth trying.

 

[BBQ man]

Is there a crash report when this happens? If so, please post it here as an attachment. Post the saved games too if you still have them. Regular crashes at the same point is indicative of a broken/missing art define which are easy to fix once I find them.

I've attached a problem report for the Kongo game; played about 20 more turns this time before crashes resumed. Thanks for help.

 

[Xyth]

I've attached a problem report for the Kongo game; played about 20 more turns this time before crashes resumed. Thanks for help.

When I first played your save game I got a crash after about 4 turns. The crash report from that seems to indicate a problem with a texture. I then tried again to see if it was repeatable but I was able to play into the 1700s without issue.

The crash log you sent me is audio related and that particular problem seems to exist in unmodified BTS as well. I suspect it's just coincidence in this case though and the texture crash is the real problem. Not an easy one to track down unfortunately but I'll see what I can do.

 

[Eucalyptus]

The problem is that a small unimproved city can with no infrastructure can build wealth, cover it's maintenance costs and still make a profit for the empire. This allows (to a degree) the rapid expansion strategy that plagued Civ3: build many tiny and tightly packed cities that exist merely to build wealth to prop up your research and main centres.

It's not meant to be a viable strategy to be honest. If a short term no-investment option like wealth building is more rewarding than building the infrastructure for longer term returns then I consider that to be broken. I want wealth building to be available early because there needs to be something to switch to those times when you need a short term boost or you're waiting for something you need to unlock. Wasting hammers on unneeded units or wonders isn't fun.

I think that we agree here! Check: Is city-spamming actually possible as of HR1.17? Aren't maintenance costs crippling enough to stop it? Has anyone demonstrated it? I've not tried city-spamming, but instead used an `opposite' approach --- build wealth on larger cities (perhaps captured during expansion!) after their basic infrastructure is installed, to support a larger empire. That doesn't feel like an exploit.

That all said, ranks of 50%, 75% and 100% might be a compromise worth trying.

I don't object to the proportions (and I like the 33%, 50%, 100% levels), only the results of the rounding in the integer arithmetic. Alternative: Let the conversion only apply to complete multiples so that the overflow isn't lost. I mean the following:

3 for 1:

• 9 -> 3 + 0
• 8 -> 2 + 2
• 7 -> 2 + 1
• 6 -> 2 + 0
• 5 -> 1 + 2
• 4 -> 1 + 1
• 3 -> 1 + 0
• 2 -> 0 + 2
• 1 -> 0 + 1

This would deal with both the micromanagement and the unfairness of rounding down. Is it practically codeable?

 

[Xyth]

I've not tried city-spamming, but instead used an `opposite' approach --- build wealth on larger cities (perhaps captured during expansion!) after their basic infrastructure is installed, to support a larger empire. That doesn't feel like an exploit.

Yeah that's a perfectly reasonable use for it. At 100% it can support larger empires than I'd like in the early eras though.

I don't object to the proportions (and I like the 33%, 50%, 100% levels), only the results of the rounding in the integer arithmetic. Alternative: Let the conversion only apply to complete multiples so that the overflow isn't lost. I mean the following:

This would deal with both the micromanagement and the unfairness of rounding down. Is it practically codeable?

It's not possible to change the calculation but I might be able to grant the commerce lost to rounding separately. The AI wouldn't understand this but I don't think that would matter much. A more pressing concern is performance - if I have to check every city every turn to see if they're build a commerce then that's not worth it. Hopefully can find a way to attach it to the calculation directly.

 

[Xyth]

Just realized I misunderstood your suggestion when I read it last night. I presume you're wanting those leftover hammers to be carried over and used in next turn's calculation? Unfortunately with commerce building there's no accumulating pool of hammers that they could be added to so it's just not possible and it gets even more complicated when you have to factor in a city potentially changing production from one turn to the next.

 

[EgyptRaider]

I'm fairly new to the mods of Civ IV and the last weeks I've been searching for the ideal mod/modcombinations with nr.1 of the requirements Cultural Linked Starts when I found out that this mod had it I immeadiatly checked it out. And of all the mods I've tried this far this is the best, in pretty much every aspect. This mod seems, of all the mods, the most close to the original Civilization and it really just feels like an amazing free expansion pack.
The fact that it also seems to be a really active project just makes it even better.
I haven't been able to play just that much and I hope I get to that ASAP. Till now I've only been able to check the civilopedia out and wow... you did a tarrific job. (removing the Barbarian and Minor Nation is also a big + that shows how much you care for a organized feel.)
Only feature I hope for in the coming future would be some more civilopedia texts for the new leaders/civs etc. I've no clue how all the xml stuff works but if I could be of any help in this matter I'd be glad to learn it!

Anyway, amazing mod and I certainly gonna stick with this one. My ongoing perfect-mod hunt I had the last week found its end with your mod... amazing Keep up the good work!

 

[Eucalyptus]

Just realized I misunderstood your suggestion when I read it last night. I presume you're wanting those leftover hammers to be carried over and used in next turn's calculation? Unfortunately with commerce building there's no accumulating pool of hammers that they could be added to so it's just not possible and it gets even more complicated when you have to factor in a city potentially changing production from one turn to the next.

Er, no, you had it right the first time. I didn't intend a carry-over-until-the-next-turn, just a partial conversion for the present turn.

 

[Xyth]

I'm fairly new to the mods of Civ IV and the last weeks I've been searching for the ideal mod/modcombinations with nr.1 of the requirements Cultural Linked Starts when I found out that this mod had it I immeadiatly checked it out. And of all the mods I've tried this far this is the best, in pretty much every aspect. This mod seems, of all the mods, the most close to the original Civilization and it really just feels like an amazing free expansion pack.

Thanks for your kind words! Always great to know one's work is appreciated.

The fact that it also seems to be a really active project just makes it even better.

Civ5 was such a disappointment so I'll no doubt be working on HR till at least Civ6. Having active regulars and helpful feedback in these forums helps keep me motivated and inspired too.

I haven't been able to play just that much and I hope I get to that ASAP. Till now I've only been able to check the civilopedia out and wow... you did a tarrific job. (removing the Barbarian and Minor Nation is also a big + that shows how much you care for a organized feel.)

Yeah little things like that bugged me, nice to know they bothered others too hehe.

Only feature I hope for in the coming future would be some more civilopedia texts for the new leaders/civs etc. I've no clue how all the xml stuff works but if I could be of any help in this matter I'd be glad to learn it!

Unfortunately I don't have as much time as I'd like to write pedia texts, developing the rest of the mod consumes most of my modding time. If you feel inspired to write some of the missing entries, I'd gladly add them. No need to worry about the xml, you can just post or send it as text and I'll handle the formatting.

Anyway, amazing mod and I certainly gonna stick with this one. My ongoing perfect-mod hunt I had the last week found its end with your mod... amazing Keep up the good work!

Thanks for stopping by and I hope you enjoy your games as much as the civilopedia! If you have any issues or suggestions don't hesitate to let me know.

Er, no, you had it right the first time. I didn't intend a carry-over-until-the-next-turn, just a partial conversion for the present turn.

Isn't that effectively the same as rounding up though?

 

[Eucalyptus]

Isn't that effectively the same as rounding up though?

Perhaps I was not clear enough. When the conversion is n for 1, I presume that there is a calculation that runs something like:

gold := gold + floor[hammers/n], hammers := 0.

What I intended was:

gold := gold + floor[hammers/n], hammers := hammers - n * floor[hammers/n].

So, I didn't intend it as rounding up, just a mechanism to ensure that there is no wastage due to the side effect of the integer arithmetic. Otherwise, I would be micromanaging to ensure that my city produced a multiple of n hammers.


However, the result is still far in excess of the intention: At 3 for 1, 5 hammers yield 1 gold. I wish that there was a better way to implement this ...

I'm otherwise still busy trying to demonstrate to myself that wealth-production-supported city spamming really is possible in HR1.17.