3.13 BtS patch feature/fix discussion

[Roland Johansen]

By the way: it is quite clear that Firaxis is reading the bug reports and balance issues in the bug report forum. We can really communicate with Firaxis and influence the balance of the next patch (after 3.13 which is probably all but finished) by using good arguments. I really like that. I would encourage anyone who thinks some large balance issue or gameplay issue is still hurting the game to write a good post about it in the bug reports section of this forum. It is the way to be heard by Firaxis.

 

[warpstorm]

I would encourage anyone who thinks some large balance issue or gameplay issue is still hurting the game to write a good post about it in the bug reports section of this forum. It is the way to be heard by Firaxis.

To emphasize this, a good post is not whining or berating. Rather it should be clear, rational, and informative.

 

[Roland Johansen]

To emphasize this, a good post is not whining or berating. Rather it should be clear, rational, and informative.

I agree. The only way that you can hope to convince someone that you have a valid point is by being clear, rational and informative. Don't expect a Firaxian to read a post full of whining or berating. They shouldn't have to search for the valid point somewhere between massive amounts of whining and berating.

edit: by the way, what is the Snack Food Capital of the World?

 

[ainwood]

I agree. The only way that you can hope to convince someone that you have a valid point is by being clear, rational and informative. Don't expect a Firaxian to read a post full of whining or berating. They shouldn't have to search for the valid point somewhere between massive amounts of whining and berating.

...Which is why the previous thread was closed, and why this one will be remain open, and be kept focused and constructive.

edit: by the way, what is the Snack Food Capital of the World?

A question to ask via PM?

 

[Nick Danger]

Moderator Action: If you want to talk about features, fixes, or changes in the next patch, here's the thread to do it.

Ok, here's 2 suggestions...

First suggestion: Countries A, B, and C. C has open borders with B. C attacks A, going through and attacking from B territory.

Currently, B takes no diplomatic hit/etc. towards A. It seems unrealistic that B can allow C to use its territory to attack A without B being held in some way accountable.

B should be attackable by A without A declaring war (and without A taking the penalties for declaring on B) - for technically B declared on A when B allowed C to use B's territory to attack A.

This would be a big change in how wars are prosecuted. No longer could countries march blithely through a number of intermediary countries to make attacks.

One way to reduce this big change is...

Second suggestion: there should be 2 different 'open border' treaties.

The first is a low-level treaty that allows passage to non-military only (great people, missionaries, workers, etc.).

The second would be a higher level treaty, on par with a defense pact treaty, that would allow military units passage. This second treaty would incur the penalties/responsibilities mentioned in my first point - a country that allows passage of military units that are used to attack a third country makes the 'allowing passage' country accountable.

This change could be handled by adding an 'alliance' type of option.

Real life isn't always a good yardstick, but in this case I argue it is - consider what would happen if Canada marched troops into the USA, then used them to attack Mexico. This sort of 'open borders' are only possible with alliances such as NATO, or a similar type of treaty.

Ron Paul for President!!

*thumbs up*

 

[Sureshot]

can't you just demand they cut off trade with the one you're at war with? AIs ask me to do that all the time, and if i don't, i get a diplomatic hit

 

[Roland Johansen]

Ok, here's 2 suggestions...

First suggestion: Countries A, B, and C. C has open borders with B. C attacks A, going through and attacking from B territory.

Currently, B takes no diplomatic hit/etc. towards A. It seems unrealistic that B can allow C to use its territory to attack A without B being held in some way accountable.

B should be attackable by A without A declaring war (and without A taking the penalties for declaring on B) - for technically B declared on A when B allowed C to use B's territory to attack A.

This would be a big change in how wars are prosecuted. No longer could countries march blithely through a number of intermediary countries to make attacks.

One way to reduce this big change is...

Second suggestion: there should be 2 different 'open border' treaties.

The first is a low-level treaty that allows passage to non-military only (great people, missionaries, workers, etc.).

The second would be a higher level treaty, on par with a defense pact treaty, that would allow military units passage. This second treaty would incur the penalties/responsibilities mentioned in my first point - a country that allows passage of military units that are used to attack a third country makes the 'allowing passage' country accountable.

This change could be handled by adding an 'alliance' type of option.

Real life isn't always a good yardstick, but in this case I argue it is - consider what would happen if Canada marched troops into the USA, then used them to attack Mexico. This sort of 'open borders' are only possible with alliances such as NATO, or a similar type of treaty.

*thumbs up*

I do understand this criticism, but it is hard to balance your suggestion.
For instance, at present an open borders treaty has beneficial and detrimental effects. A positive effect of open borders is the foreign trade routes that you get with the cities of the other civilisation. The negative effect is that they can move through your territory and found cities on the other side of your culture barrier.
If you split this open borders treaty in a military and non-military version and the non-military version already gets the trade benefits, then very very few players will ever use the military version. The non-military version stops units and thereby effectively stops settlers because settlers without protection is very very risky. So you're removing an interesting choice from the game, the choice between better trade routes and settlers moving through your territory or worse trade routes and no settlers moving through your territory.

Maybe you could make two versions: one version where you are allowed limited military access of say 10 units which would be enough for peace time settling and thus could give the foreign trade routes and another treaty which would be more of a military alliance where you get limitless military access to each others territory. The first version would be a peace time treaty while the second one would be more like a military treaty. The second treaty could result in serious diplomatic modifiers from a third party when one of treaty partners would go to war with this third party.

By the way, normally you can only get an open borders treaty with someone when you have decent relations. So in your example, B and C like each other more than they like A. Whether A declares war on B for helping C is the choice of A. B apparently doesn't want to go to war with A, but likes C more and thus helps C a bit. Not that weird, maybe not perfect but not that bad.
Furthermore, the open borders treaty improves relations and thus the relations with civilisations with whom a civilisation doesn't have open borders are relatively worse. It isn't directly related to the war. Maybe that is missing and a further negative diplomacy modifier could be added once war breaks out and A would add a negative diplomacy modifier to anyone who has an open borders agreement with enemy C and start asking them to close borders with C. C would act the same towards anyone who has an open borders treaty with A.

 

[jkp1187]

As an aside, there are plenty of examples of "open borders" being provided by one nation in history to permit a third nation to attack a neighbor.

To name just a few....Egypt was, officially, a neutral nation for much of WW2, even though the UK had a large sovereign base are in the Suez Canal, and even fought the Germans at the El Alamein. North Vietnam had free reign to use eastern Cambodia as a staging and supply area into the South in the 1960s, even though Cambodia was not an active belligerent. In 2003, Kuwait and several Gulf states provided bases and permitted American and other troops to pass through their territory although they did not participate in the war. I'd also imagine that there were many, many more examples of belligerents transiting the territory of non-belligerents to get to the scene of the action in earlier centuries, when the concept of nation-states wasn't as strongly defined as it is today. (My instincts tell me that the 1864 war in Schleswig-Holstein might be one of them, although I'm not sure about that one.)

I'm not trying to justify the Open Borders mechanic -- certainly it is way too permissive to be "realistic" -- but I just want to point out that, historically, the idea of such transit rights are realistic.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Personally,I really think you need to have the ability to agree to one way open-boarder agreements (apart from making the other civ a vassal). It would also be great to create a limited version, where you may restrict movements through your territory to a specific path.

 

[hrochland]

AI now knows how to use Steal Tech and Incite Revolt

If spyes steal techs it should be added as option when game start settings. (allow or not)
Many players who like a peace play undertaken technology lead, they forfeit their game I think...

 

[Luckystrike77]

As an aside, there are plenty of examples of "open borders" being provided by one nation in history to permit a third nation to attack a neighbor.

To name just a few....Egypt was, officially, a neutral nation for much of WW2, even though the UK had a large sovereign base are in the Suez Canal, and even fought the Germans at the El Alamein. North Vietnam had free reign to use eastern Cambodia as a staging and supply area into the South in the 1960s, even though Cambodia was not an active belligerent. In 2003, Kuwait and several Gulf states provided bases and permitted American and other troops to pass through their territory although they did not participate in the war. I'd also imagine that there were many, many more examples of belligerents transiting the territory of non-belligerents to get to the scene of the action in earlier centuries, when the concept of nation-states wasn't as strongly defined as it is today. (My instincts tell me that the 1864 war in Schleswig-Holstein might be one of them, although I'm not sure about that one.)

I'm not trying to justify the Open Borders mechanic -- certainly it is way too permissive to be "realistic" -- but I just want to point out that, historically, the idea of such transit rights are realistic.

Don't forget the Swedes. They allowed german troops to transit during the Norwegian campaign in 1940.

 

[Minmaster]

all i ask from next patch:

get rid of espionage.

 

[Indiansmoke]

The changes are great...

Just 3 observasions

Customs House and Feitoria give +100% Foreign trade route income

Maybe Free market OP now?

Spies downgrade towns, hamlets, and villages instead of completely destroying them

Makes this option totaly useless

Can no longer make a colony on a continent with an existing colony. Liberate cities instead.

Why?

 

[Luckystrike77]

The changes are great...

Just 3 observasions

Customs House and Feitoria give +100% Foreign trade route income

Maybe Free market OP now?

Spies downgrade towns, hamlets, and villages instead of completely destroying them

Makes this option totaly useless

Can no longer make a colony on a continent with an existing colony. Liberate cities instead.

Why?

Agree, my first thougts as well. But I can understand that spy and towns thing. It takes a hell of a long time to build up a new town.....

 

[onedreamer]

The changes are great...

Just 3 observasions

Customs House and Feitoria give +100% Foreign trade route income

Maybe Free market OP now?

I play mostly Pangaea or single continent maps, where Customs House is completely useless. Continents and such maps are too easy and boring. I think Firaxis should work to improve AI in naval warfare and especially pirating, this way Customs House wouldn't be as strong.

Spies downgrade towns, hamlets, and villages instead of completely destroying them

Makes this option totaly useless

It makes more sense actually, since pillaging works the same.

Can no longer make a colony on a continent with an existing colony. Liberate cities instead.

Why?

Probably to avoid creating too many meaningless civs.

 

[Roland Johansen]

The changes are great...

Just 3 observasions

Customs House and Feitoria give +100% Foreign trade route income

Maybe Free market OP now?

A +100% bonus doesn't mean that the value of these trade routes is doubled. There are many bonuses to trade routes and this is just one of them.

For instance:
basic trade route value: 1.5
City size +45%
connected to capital +25%
harbor +50%
oversees trade route: +100%
foreign trade route: +150%


and then finally another +100% from the custom house for this foreign oversees trade route. So the custom house alone adds only 1.5 commerce.

Not every trade route is a foreign oversees trade route, so the bonus is limited to a section of your cities. If you have 4 trade routes per city and 20 cities, then you have to have enough civilisations with open borders agreements to get 4*20=80 foreign cities so that you can get 4 foreign trade routes in every city. Each foreign city can only have a foreign trade route with one of your cities.

So the custom house can be a nice building in cities with a big basic trade route value and many foreign oversees trade routes. But it is far from overpowered and it alone won't overpower the free market civic.

 

[Pikkis]

and then finally another +100% from the custom house for this foreign oversees trade route.

I'm interested in this. The changelog says that it gives +100% foreign trade route income (yield). So does this mean just the old bonus doubled, as you assumed or does it mean that Customs House and Feitoria now give yield bonus for non-overseas trade routes too?

Btw, post #300 at last!

 

[Vittra]

I'd like to be able to cancel a city's production again. (Or change it to null, whatever you prefer to call it.)

I always play marathon, and it's quite annoying when I have multiple large cities and have to build workers or something and kill them every time one gets finished because I don't have anything I need to build and don't have wealth/research yet.

Although Final Frontier is kind of nice having multiple planets to build buildings on, so I never had that problem in that mod.

 

[eric_]

I'd like to be able to cancel a city's production again. (Or change it to null, whatever you prefer to call it.)

Yeah, I hate scrolling up and down the list of options thinking, "there's just nothing I need to build."

In a lot of those cases I'll end up building barracks everywhere and just crank out units until it starts hurting my bottom line, and then it's time for war .

 

[Roland Johansen]

I'm interested in this. The changelog says that it gives +100% foreign trade route income (yield). So does this mean just the old bonus doubled, as you assumed or does it mean that Customs House and Feitoria now give yield bonus for non-overseas trade routes too?

Btw, post #300 at last!

Changelogs often contain short sentences to describe a fix and thus they tend to be a bit vague or maybe even incorrect when taken literally. It's hard to describe hundreds of hours of work in several sentences.

I have an explanation why it is called foreign trade route income in the changelog.

The entry that governs the custom house trade route bonus in xml is named:
<iForeignTradeRouteModifier>50</iForeignTradeRouteModifier>

This is true for BTS 1.00, 1.02 and 1.03. Note that the naming of the xml entry doesn't mention the oversees part of the trade route. Still, the bonus only works for oversees foreign trade routes. I guess they chose a shorter name, iForeignOverseesTradeRouteModifier would have been a more correct name for the modifier. But in coding this the name isn't that important, just the effect of the modifier is important. They could have named the modifier iClownsWithRedNoses and it could still have the same effect. But that might have been a bit too confusing for the programmers.

However, when quickly writing a changelog, you could easily forget about the oversees part of the trade route because of the naming of the modifier.

I guess, it is this modifier which was increased to 100. Of course, I can't be sure.