3.9.3 impressions

[Kivin]

Doh.

See what fresh eyes can bring! Thanks. I completely missed that setting.



As much as I like this mod, and the work Thal has put in place for all those like me that come along later, the way settings are changed in so many different places is really frustrating. You can define something in one place and have it changed somewhere else because of X, and then because of Y that setting is changed again.
But maybe I'm just a bit off my game? Despite my misgivings, this mod has taught me a lot about who to do things with civ.

Thanks Thalassicus.

This brings up a point that I have wondered about: Is there a functional reason for having both the defines/updates broken down in to XML and SQL? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to use one, or the other?

I can imagine that the XML might be more limiting than freely writing SQL statements, which (to my mind) would be a good motivator for dis-including the XML.

Note: I'm not suggesting this as a change to the mod; it's just a curiosity.

 

[mystikx21]

Concur on Banuae, I liked the old effect more too.

Given that I know it required some lua code to activate to scan for hills worked by that city only, it's possible this is a mid-term position while that code is checked out?

 

[ExpiredReign]

@Kivin

It is much easier to make edits to a lot of different things using sql when they all share something in common.

Take this example:

Spoiler :

UPDATE Buildings SET UnlockedByBelief = 1, FaithCost = 1 * Cost
WHERE (FaithCost > 0 AND Cost > 0)
OR BuildingClass IN (
	'BUILDINGCLASS_LIBRARY'			,
	'BUILDINGCLASS_WORKSHOP'		,
	'BUILDINGCLASS_STABLE'			,
	'BUILDINGCLASS_WATERMILL'		,
	'BUILDINGCLASS_WINDMILL'		,
	'BUILDINGCLASS_FACTORY'			,
	'BUILDINGCLASS_CARAVANSARY'		,
	'BUILDINGCLASS_MARKET'			,
	'BUILDINGCLASS_BANK'			,
	'BUILDINGCLASS_STOCK_EXCHANGE'	,
	'BUILDINGCLASS_LIGHTHOUSE'		,
	'BUILDINGCLASS_HARBOR'			,
	'BUILDINGCLASS_SEAPORT'			
);

This code block sets the Cost & FaithCost at the same value for all the different BuildingClasses defined.
To do this with XML would be mind-numbingly painful and also likely to contain error, if just one class was incorrectly set. It also handles all Unique variants that exist, or are added later.

The situation I faced was when there is another code block that modifies the same set, or a subset, of things based on another circumstance.
It comes down to the ease of doing things and the way we group things together.

The Trade Office is the unique Dutch building so it is defined in the place ALL the leader stuff is defined. It is also a building and thus could be modified where ALL buildings matching a criteria are modified, and lastly since it is a Gold producing building, buildings that deal with the economy can be changed when that criteria is used.

If, like me, you don't look close enough there can be times when this layout bites you in the backside.

So could it ALL be done in XML? Sure. In sql? Why not! Could the whole mod be laid out differently? You betya. But it does have a logic to it and it is easy to maintain.
Keep in mind, before I joined this mod I had never made any mods greater than one page and only consisted of very small data edits. Thal's design has enabled me to feel very confident in working on ANY mod out there. If I can do it, it must be easy.

 

[mystikx21]

Expired, typically if I'm encountering a bug with a particular item, I will run a search for anything referring to it, or a building/unit class within the entire mod folder (notepad+ will do this at least). This allows me to find it a little more rapidly if there are mod inconsistencies by looking for anywhere it might be getting called and not just where I expected it to be.

In the particular instance though, I just remembered the code block from an earlier version and went to check and, sure enough, there it was.

I'm not entirely familiar with the sql commands, but is it possible to create new items there? It seems like that's something we've only done in xml in the mod. That would be a rather convincing reason to keep at least some xml adjustments around.

 

[ExpiredReign]

@mystikx21

Yeah I usually do a similar process. The situation gets a little more complex when we make changes that are a little less obvious. Also after staring at the same files for hours at a time, taking a break or having someone else look at it gets it done. Thanks again.

When it comes to creating new items with sql, sure you can do just about anything with sql.
Usually though the easiest thing to do when creating a new item is copy the xml code from the core files by Firaxis and change the specific tags as needed.

Basically the process is: if it just creating/modifying one item, use XML, if you are working with multiple items, sql is usually easier.

 

[Ahriman]

3.13 impressions:

Belief balance is off. The founder beliefs generally feel weak as compared to many follower beliefs - and founder beliefs should be the most important.
eg Feed the world is crazy strong: +6 food per city? I'd cut from +3 per building to +2.
And there it doesn't feel like there is a coherent design between what fits in which category.

I would suggest that beliefs need another full balance pass.
Pantheon: some of these beliefs are too strong, with significant empire wide effects (eg +2 culture for every plantation is much stronger than +1 culture +1 faith for just incense and wine). Overall I think pantheon beliefs should be scaled back: they should be mostly about giving you a nice terrain-specific or playstyle-specific bonus that helps your early game, they shouldn't be outclassing proper religious beliefs. Culture in particular is supposed to be fairly rare in BNW, but it's easy to get masses of culture through pantheon belief.

Founder: these should be the most powerful beliefs, to reward you for founding a religion.
They should all give rewards for spreading the religion, either by number of cities or number of followers or something similar.

Follower: these should be the core beliefs, which include numerous opportunities for spending faith.

Enhancer: these should either help you to expand your religion (eg missionary/prophet bonuses, higher spread rate/range) or give benefits for a widely spread belief (eg military bonus for near that city).

Reformation:
This should have some of the niche powerful beliefs that reward you for a religious playstyle, like bonuses to city states following your religion, tourism from faith buildings, purchasing buildings with faith, etc. Ideally most of these should be about converting religion into something that helps support a particular victory style.

* * *
I don't know why missionary costs were increased to 300 (that seems too high in the early game, its too hard to get your first missionary out and start spreading your religion), or why the per era costs were reduced (with piety beliefs 160 faith for a faith building or inquisitor is too cheap in the mid-late game, and this undermines the vanilla game design of making religion primarily an early-midgame mechanic which stops mattering as much in the modern era and is replaced by espionage and ideologies and tourism and the world congress).

Policies still have serious issues. Too many junk policies. Exploration still feels too narrow and too late to matter. Aesthetics just doesn't look very helpful. Patronage and Wealth and Rationalism are extremely uneven (some great policies, some weak).

It feels like tourism victories are too hard, as culture incomes are significantly increased relative to vanilla but tourism is not. Aesthetics still doesn't really help - it gives too much culture and not enough tourism. I think great works need a boost.
Something I'd like someone to confirm: is it the case that getting great artists/writers/musicians from GPPs increases the GPP cost of getting scientists/engineers/merchants? Or are they separate?

The Communitas mapscript is extremely coastal. Nearly every city in the game is coastal. This has implications for naval power and the coastal boosting policies, but it also really alters warfare, in that there aren't really enough large land masses for wars to be happening: not enough conflicted borders, not enough room for armies. At standard size, there are too many small islands and long thin continents, and not enough continental landmass

There are balance issues with all the free stuff in the early game (extra techs and units). It feels like these have been added haphazardly, for flavor purposes, without thinking about balance issues. An early military unit is an extremely powerful resource.

With Carthage, I don't think the Cothon is a problem, but starting with a free tech and a trireme is a problem.

Overall the <ranged ship at sailing> seems too powerful too (it can go head to head with <the melee ship at optics> and way outclasses archers, composite archers, and catapults).
I'd also slightly weaken the early barbarian ships, which come early and often and heal every turn.

 

[skodkim]

I agree that early missionaries are way too expensive in 3.13. Are they not the same as a Great Prophet?

Seems to me there are good pantheon beliefs etc. (may need balancing though but we'll get a new round at some point I guess)but enhancer beliefs seem really boring to me. Maybe that's just me but in all my civ games I have yet to see religion spread automatically before I use a missionary (of course with the new missionary costs I won't get that many...). May be because I generally Place cities 6 tiles apart.

Don't really agree with "all the free stuff in the early game" being a problem. I find it fun!

\Skodkim

 

[Ahriman]

Don't really agree with "all the free stuff in the early game" being a problem. I find it fun!

I'm not saying that no civ should have a free starting unit. I do think that is an interesting way of making some civs different. But I think it needs to be thought about more thoroughly, to make sure that it is only on civs with otherwise weaker UU/UAs.

Another thing would be to have them start with that unit *instead* of the warrior, not in addition to the warrior.

 

[Tomice]

Nice post, Ahriman.

I haven't regained enough insight into game details after my long break, so I won't comment single beliefs yet. But I do agree that missionaries seem too expensive. I had some serious trouble spreading my religion, too, and it takes well into midgame to get all my cities converted, let alone spreading faith to other nations.

I do like the strong pantheon beliefs, however. It really gives your civ some extra identity in addition to it's UA. Like a strong heritage with a lot of flavour. It also changes the early game in a way that playing the same civ twice with a different pantheon belief might alter your settling patterns and deliver a welcome change in strategy.
I do agree that many founder beliefs pale in comparison, but I'd rather buff the boring ones here than to nerf those that are cool and impactful right now.

Maybe we could use a few more beliefs that change gameplay in a more exciting way? Like "Paladins: All horse units created in a believer city gain a combat bonus against cities with another religion". We'd suddenly have introduced crusades into the game AND changed unit roles, making horses viable for attacking cities. Just an example. I like gamechanging beliefs. For example, the one that makes payments to city states more effective is a cool one, because you do't have to spread religion to benefit from it, unlike with many other beliefs.



Regarding policies, there are still bad ones, I agree, but they are generally way better balanced than 2-3 months ago.

I'm quite sure those two groups of GP are completely seperate. Scientists and engineers interact regarding costs, scientist and artists not (AFAIK).


Regarding Carthage: It was a starting BIREME in my last game, which I'd consider even more useful. It helps defend your first cities, helps clear barb camps, helps immensely to explore, and the triremes that could/should counter it don't appear for quite some time.


And about the mapscript: I'll do some tests in an hour or so.

 

[Tomice]

Mapscript testing:

The issue truly seems bigger on standard sized maps, although the map characteristics stay very similar. You can easily tell it is a communitas map, no matter if it's standard or large, and no matter the sea level.

I'd strongly recommend anyone who feels like there are too many coastal cities to use the low setting. It adds 25% more land tiles according to this part of communitas.lua:

	local oSeaLevel = Map.GetCustomOption(4)
	if oSeaLevel == 4 then oSeaLevel = 1 + Map.Rand(3, "Communitas random sea level - Lua") end
	if oSeaLevel == 1 then
		print("Map Seas: Low")
		mglobal.landPercent			= mglobal.landPercent * 1.25
	elseif oSeaLevel == 3 then
		print("Map Seas: High")
		mglobal.landPercent			= mglobal.landPercent / 1.25
	else
		print("Map Seas: Normal")
	end

If you're still not satisfied, you might change the above value to 1.5 and see if it suffices. It should be no problem for Thal to add a "very low" setting.

Explanation:
1 - low
2 - normal
3 - high
4 - random

 

[Ahriman]

On triremes: honestly I forget which is which. The ranged one that just requires sailing is the problem. The melee one at optics is fine.

I'd strongly recommend anyone who feels like there are too many coastal cities to use the low setting.

I'll do this for my next game.

 

[Tomice]

The bireme is the earlier ranged one Carthage gets free.

 

[Ahriman]

Oh, one more thing: specialist yields are broken. They're better than tiles. 3 production from a mine vs 3 production and 3 GPPs from an engineer?
Also, with +50% gpp gardens, the National epic is the most pathetic national wonder in the game. I'd shift national epic to +50% and garden to +33%. Specialists should give yields of 2 +3gpps.

And ranged ships definitely don't need the city attack bonus (they can already get naval siege). Galleons are *nasty*. The defensive bonus vs ranged also seems unnecessary. What's that for? It means land units and cities really really can't touch them.

 

[mystikx21]

The ranged defence bonus is probably because otherwise you could just use a ranged naval fleet to kill other ships, encourages a bit of mixed forces. The city bonus bothers me a lot more than that they are harder to kill.

Definitely concur the 3 yield specialists are a problem, especially on the engineer. They should mostly be about supplementing yields and generating GPs.

 

[Ahriman]

The ranged defence bonus is probably because otherwise you could just use a ranged naval fleet to kill other ships, encourages a bit of mixed forces.

If you want to have that, then give the melee ships a bonus vs ships, or ranged attack ships a penalty vs ships, or just lower the strength stats on the ranged ships (their stats are pretty high). That way, there isn't the side effect of making range ships almost invulnerable to coastal ranged units or city ranged attacks.

Ships should be mobile, and able to flee, but shouldn't be able to massively out-shoot land-based ranged that are in the right place.

 

[EricB]

I haven't played the newest version, but only 3.12 so far. As far as missionary costs in 3.12, they seem about right to me. No more missionary spam and spreading a religion requires some effort. You can't just wipe out every other religion on the map.

I haven't used the newest beliefs yet either, but +6 food per city seems ridiculously strong and overpowering. Glad some effort is being made to fix the beliefs though.

 

[jwerano]

I haven't used the newest beliefs yet either, but +6 food per city seems ridiculously strong and overpowering. Glad some effort is being made to fix the beliefs though.

IMO a quarter of the beliefs are equally strong and many are clearly stronger. My civ is typically at the happiness cap til Industrial anyways so the extra food is of little benefit. +6 culture per temples for example gives you more culture in your city than a theatre and monument combined and lets you get several extra policies over the course of the game, which is far more powerful than +6 food. The +25% surplus food belief which is in base BNW is also better especially in coastal cities that can work multiple ocean food tiles when they want to grow quickly. Should we weaken all the top beliefs or make weaker ones stronger?

 

[mystikx21]

Should we weaken all the top beliefs or make weaker ones stronger?

- Both.

We added some of the potency to these top beliefs. It is trivial to move them back as we're not taking away something that is expected so much as balancing what's already there. Tithing in the mod used to be stronger at various points in GEM. It was already very good by default. God of the Sea had the same problem.

Some of these have reached ridiculously imbalancing points (particularly the building-related ones). +2 food was sufficient for shrines and temples to be valuable, especially in a wider empire. +4 food is paying for two specialists or two mines by itself, essentially in every city. +2 culture (or +3 on just temples) would probably be fine too. +6? Pastures and plantations can be pretty common improvements, they shouldn't need super-charged effects either.

Some of the weaker policies it isn't a matter of buffing them with ridiculous numbers to give them form. They're just plain boring effects.

 

[Ahriman]

No more missionary spam and spreading a religion requires some effort. You can't just wipe out every other religion on the map.

You get more missionary spam after the medieval era, you just can't spread a religion early. Even with vanilla costs it was always very hard to wipe out other religions on the map, if only because they would use great prophets to re-establish themselves.

- Both.
...
Some of the weaker policies it isn't a matter of buffing them with ridiculous numbers to give them form. They're just plain boring effects.

Once again, completely agree.
I'm worried people are going to think that I'm just mystikx's more annoying sock puppet.....

 

[mystikx21]

I'm worried people are going to think that I'm just mystikx's more annoying sock puppet.....

You have far more posts than I do. I think it goes the other way around. Also I would not have an annoying sock puppet. I'd do like a Tyrone Cowen and argue with myself.

So on beliefs, these are ones we buffed up. Some of them could probably be toned down as they are pantheons, in particular cultural ones and high amounts of raw food. I bolded the ones that seem off in numerical balance.
Fertility rites 25% growth from 10%
Plowshares: 25% growth from 15% (duplicated effect essentially?)
God of War: 4x faith from kills and no max distance effect.
Reliquary: 10x faith from GPs.
Peace Loving: 3 followers instead of 8 for happiness
Interfaith: 5x science/converts
Church Property: +1 gold/city
Initiation: 2x gold/ conversion
Just War/Defender merged to 40% both attack and defence from 20% each.
Zeal: 8x stronger missionary bonus.
Unity: 5x CS spread
Choral Music +6 on temples from +2
Religious Art +10 culture, +10 tourism Hermitage from +5
Liturgical Drama +4 on amphitheater from +1
Papal Primary: 2x CS influence
World Church: per 3 followers down from 5
Jesuit: also used on Library
Ancestor Worship: +2 /shrine from +1
Feed the World: +3 /temple/shrine from +1
Messenger of Gods +3 /route from +2
Craftsmen: +3 /city from +1
Goddess of Hunt +2 /camps from +1
God of Sea: +2 /workboats from +1
Oral Tradition: +2 /plantations from +1
Open Sky: +2 /pastures from +1

These were changed
Settlements: +1 faith villages from reduced plot cost.
Aurora: +1 culture/tundra from +1 faith
Pilgramage: +5 culture/foreign city from +2 faith /foreign city
Guruship: +4 science/city from +2 production
One with Nature: +1 all yields natural wonders from +4 faith

These were nerfed
Tithe: /5 followers instead of /4
Holy Order: Missionary Cost -25%, from 30%

I suspect the reason some of these seem off is they're based in part off the GEM cultural system, which had higher culture yields and costs.