A core set of balance changes

Ahriman

Tyrant
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
13,266
Location
Washington, DC
The main problems in the game balance that I see are related to yields, maritime city states, ineffectiveness of small empires, over strength of puppets (relative to annexing), tech costs and slingshotting.

These changes are not designed to address Wonder imbalances. I think building imbalances mostly come from incentives that favor spam rather than concentrated cities.

1. Weaken puppets.
Option A
Block puppet AI from building military structures, forge, or defensive structures. They build only culture, happiness, gold, food/growth and science boosts. Puppets never construct buildings with strategic resource requirements.
Add a flat penalty (probably 30%) to the culture, science, hammer and gold output of puppet states. This makes them much less efficient, per unhappiness point, than regular cities.

Option B
Make puppets stay in permanent unrest unless they have a military unit stationed in the city.

2. Make great scientists produce a fixed number of beakers, that increases slightly with tech era. The effects of other great people doesn’t scale nearly so much.
Make research agreement costs increase by era proportionally to how beaker costs increase. Its lame that a cheap tech costs 250 gold in the early game, and an expensive tech costs a similar amount of gold in the late game.

3. Increase tech beaker costs by era for the later eras, with later eras increasing by more. Eg: industrial by 10%, modern by 20%, future by 30%.
Change the tech tree so that replaceable parts requires rifling, and Electronics requires Combustion (no mech-inf before tanks please).

4. Unit balancing.
i) Reduce the strength of the horseman and companion cavalry by 1, reduce their movement speed by 1.
ii) Increase the stats of the ironclad. It is pathetically weak.
iii) Nerf artillery somehow, they are far too strong. Either reduce ranged strength (probably the simplest) or reduce their range (but leave with indirect fire) or remove indirect fire (but keep 3 range).

5. Improve defensive structures. Defenses should be meaningful. At the moment, they aren't. This would also tend to reduce the problem where as soon as an AI loses its army, you can rapidly conquer all its cities.
Option A: Increase Strength of all defensive buildings by 50%

Option B: Remove maintenance cost from all defensive structures.

Option C: Have military base give +1 range to city bombardment.

6. Change maritime city states. Currently, cultural and military city states provide fixed bonus irregardless of empire size, but maritime give a bonus per city, and that bonus is large. It favors large empires and makes small cities grow very rapidly.

Option A: Make MCSs give +X% food in all cities. Eg X = 5%, increases 0.5% each era. (Double this if allied).

Option B: Make MCS give a flat X food, allocated across all your cities somehow. Eg X = 6 food, increases by era. (Double this if allied)

Option C: Make MCS give +X food across the largest Y cities (cycling back to the original cities if Y > number of cities). Eg X = 2, Y = 3, Y increases +1 per era. (Double this if allied.)

Option D: Make MCS give +X food per population point. Eg +0.15 food per population (double this if allied).

7. Rebalance cultural city states, so their effect is not destroyed so rapidly as you gain cities.
Rather than flat +X culture, have them give +X culture +Y/2 culture per city, where Y is the % increase in social policy cost from adding cities (30% on standard map size, 20% large, 15% huge).

8. Make it easier for cities to grow to larger sizes, so it is easier to have a large population with a few megacities, rather than just lots of medium sized cities.

Option A:
Reduce the amount of food needed to grow to larger city size at the higher end. Currently it takes roughly 4x as much cumulative food to reach population 14 as it does to reach population 7, this is too punitive.

Option B: Reduce the hospital storage bonus from 50% to 25%, and reduce hospital hammer and maintenance cost by half. Add an Aqueduct building at Engineering tech that has 25% food storage, and costs half as much as a hospital.

9. Rebalance strategic resources so that they are actually rare, and meaningfully binding. Cavalry and heavy infantry should feel elite, and not be the core of the army.

Option A
Make all horses produce only 2 copies, they are far too common. All other resources provide either 2 or 4.

Option B
Limit resources to 2 but have them increased slightly by tech. Eg: Steel (or Metallurgy?) increases iron by +2, economics increases horses by +2, railroad increases coal by +2, combustion increases oil by +2, nuclear fission increases uranium by +2.

9. Rebalanec improvement yields.
Some possibilities:

i) Make civil service apply only to farms on open terrain next to rivers/lakes. No more super hillfarms. Fertilizer boosts them as normal.

ii) Increase mine yields +1hammer at dynamite.
Make farm yield boosts also affect pastures, so that bonus resources are actually decent bonuses.
Maybe fishing boats +1 gold at refrigeration?

iii) Increase the yield of great person improvements with techs. Eg: Education increase Academy yield +2 science, Metallurgy increases Manufactory yield +2 hammers, Acoustics increases Landmark yield +2 culture, Banking increases customhouse yield +2 gold. These things scale really badly.

10. Rebalance the luxury goods, so that dyes, sugar, silk, spices, furs aren't inferior.
Add a weaver building (at what tech??) that gives +2 gold to dyes, silk, furs, like the +3 the mint gives for gold and silver.
At +1 gold with currency tech to the tile yield of sugar and spices.

11. Social policy rebalancing.
Increase collective rule bonus from 50% to 75% (or maybe just size 2?).
Increase trade unions to 25% cost reduction.
Humanism gives +2 happy with university, not +1. Or gives +1 with university, +1 with public school.
[Universal suffrage is also weak, but might be ok with the boost to walls).
[Fascism is weak, but will be fixed by strategic resource rarity reduction.]
[Puppet nerfs boost Police state.]

12. Make large empires more difficult to handle by increasing their unhappiness from # cities.
Eg:
Option A
Marginal unhappiness for the Nth city = X + N/K. Eg: X = 1.5, K = 9, scaled by map size.

Option B
Marginal unhappiness for the Nth city = X - (X-Y)*N^(-Z). Eg X (Max unhappiness) = 6, Y (Min unhappiness) = 2, Z = 0.2.

13. Various AI changes.
a) Reducing AI willingness to pay for excess luxuries, strategic resources, and cities.
b) Improving combat AI to be more careful about exposing its troops to enemy fire (especially flat terrain and tiles exposed to ranged fire), and to keep a reserve guard, and to heal units better, and to target embarked units with ranged fire.
c) Increase AI willingness to spend gold pursuing city state alliances, including out-bidding the human player.

These don’t solve all the problems, but they’re cleaner than totally rewriting the whole economy system. Any other changes (like changing core tile yields) will tend to require the entire economy system to be changed.
 
Regarding 1), I'd be happy if you could actually tell your puppets what their emphasis should be, something like the emphasis for each city in the city management screen, but oh well, that might be too good for a puppet I guess, though general emphasis + output penalty shouldn't be game breaking.
 
Great suggestions. I especially like #s 1,2,5,10,and 11.

Addresses a lot of the current imbalances within the framework of the game as it currently exists. I think a lot of the suggesions floating around out there are either ways to make Civ 5 more like Civ 4 (which it shouldn't be) or they are too drastic and completely change the game mechanics in some fundamental way.

(edited for grammar)
 
I've just made a mod that addresses many of those, you can check the mod pack forums :) It's far from complete, as I'm atm busy playing the game with the mod heh.
 
Regarding #7:

Are you taking hospitals into account? By the time you're having size 15 capitals (with the core cities not far behind), you ought to be at about the point where you can beeline and bulb Biology.

Hospitals in Civ V are like Granaries in Civ IV. They cut the amount of food needed to grow the city in half. This tends to increase growth rate dramatically. Medical Labs do the same when the cities reach about 20-ish size.
 
I like the list, that fixes most of the issues I've thought of.

My own additions (beyond general AI improvement of course) would be:
-Lessen unit maintenance slightly. I don't mind trying to force a more tactical game, but the cost of units is just crushing compared to what the AI can field.
-Noncombat unit maintenance should be even lower or say 1 free one per city.
-Not have maintenance affected in 2s, it should be per unit.
-Boost natural wonder happiness. There is no incentive to find these. At all.
 
One adjustment for city defenses would be a social policy or modern era building that remove the half-strength on ranged attacks penalty. Would make cities far more dangerous, as currently once you get longsword strength units most cities only do 1 damage per attack due to this reduction.
 
I like the list, that fixes most of the issues I've thought of.

My own additions (beyond general AI improvement of course) would be:
-Lessen unit maintenance slightly. I don't mind trying to force a more tactical game, but the cost of units is just crushing compared to what the AI can field.
-Noncombat unit maintenance should be even lower or say 1 free one per city.
-Not have maintenance affected in 2s, it should be per unit.
-Boost natural wonder happiness. There is no incentive to find these. At all.

My mod does lower unit maintenance as well :) Hower, I'm not exactly sure by how much, I edited the xml file which doesn't really give a whole lot of information on the formula for maintenance.
 
I think we need to split any potential changes into two piles before anything:
- Fixes. Stuff like certain aspects of the game being broken. For example, slingshotting, puppets, buying and upgrading costs.
- Balances. Stuff that we find are too strong and need a finer tweaking. For example, horsemen dominating, France ruling the game, production levels (very controversial).


There's a lot of grey area between the two. I think of fixes as the things that nearly everyone's going to agree that there needs to be a change, and balances the things that there'd be a lot of arguments over, or maybe the game hasn't matured enough yet.
 
Yes, pretty much everyone is working on fixes right now, as that is the top priority. There is an economic fix as well that is quite good.
 
Ahriman, I like the list, nice work. I am curious as to what direction Firaxis will take regarding the patch changes and additions. It is my hope that they achieved their goal of getting a release out for the casual gamer, they can now focus on making the game more challenging.
 
The main problems in the game balance that I see are related to yields, maritime city states, ineffectiveness of small empires, over strength of puppets (relative to annexing), tech costs and slingshotting.

These changes are not designed to address Wonder imbalances. I think building imbalances mostly come from incentives that favor spam rather than concentrated cities.

1. Block puppet AI from building military structures, forge, or defensive structures. They build only culture, happiness, gold boosts, and science boosts.
Add a flat penalty (probably 30%) to the culture, science, hammer and gold output of puppet states. This makes them much less efficient, per unhappiness point, than regular cities.
2. Make great scientists produce a fixed number of beakers, that increases slightly with tech era. The effects of other great people doesn’t scale nearly so much.
Make research agreement costs increase by era proportionally to how beaker costs increase. Its lame that a cheap tech costs 250 gold in the early game, and an expensive tech costs a similar amount of gold in the late game.
3. Increase tech beaker costs by era, with later eras increasing by more. Eg: medieval by 10%, renaissance by 20%, industrial by 30%, modern by 40%, future by 50%.
4. Reduce the strength of the horseman and companion cavalry by 2.
5. Increase the defensive improvement of all city defensive structures by ~25%. Maybe 50%? Defenses should be meaningful. At the moment, they aren't. This would also tend to reduce the problem where as soon as an AI loses its army, you can rapidly conquer all its cities.
6. Change maritime city states. Currently, cultural and military city states provide fixed bonus irregardless of empire size, but maritime give a bonus per city, and that bonus is large.
Make it a flat bonus somehow. One way to do this is to have it be a flat % bonus of food yield, that increases mildly by era. Eg 5% in ancient/classical, 6% in medieval, 7% in renaissance, 8% in industrial, 9% in modern, 10% in future. This way, a size 20 city gets a bigger boost than a size 4 city.
7. Reduce the amount of food needed to grow to population sizes over ~14. It should not be massively easier to have 2 size 10 cities than one size 15 city. This is a big penalty for small empires.
8. Make all horses produce only 2 copies, they are far too common. All other resources provide either 2 or 4. Alternatively, limit resources to 2 but have them increased slightly by tech. Resource constraints are not binding enough.
9. Make civil service apply only to farms on open terrain next to rivers/lakes. No more super hillfarms. Fertilizer boosts them as normal.
10. Increase mine yields +1hammer at dynamite. Increase trading post and plantation yields +1 gold at economics. Why are lumbermills the only things that get a yield increase? (And why are they so much better than mines?)
Make farm yield boosts also affect pastures, so that bonus resources are actually decent bonuses.
Maybe fishing boats +1 gold at refrigeration?
11. Increase the yield of great person improvements with techs. Eg: Education increase Academy yield, Steel increases Manufactory yield, Acoustics increases Landmark yield, Banking increases customhouse yield. These things scale really badly.

These don’t solve all the problems, but they’re cleaner than totally rewriting the whole economy system. Any other changes (like changing core tile yields) will tend to require the entire economy system to be changed.

I'd add in a re-thinking of how scaling for large empires, which are currently very heavily disfavored in the game. In my ideal balance you might be able to gain a bit with a larger empire, properly done, than with a smaller one. But it should be more effort to create and takes more work to maintain.

This is especially true for culture wins - the debate on the HoF thread is whether 1 or 2 cities is the best, and things clearly just get worse and worse for that victory condition as you scale up. In brief, an optimal city can produce about 300 culture/turn and normal other cities yield about 60. Costs rise by 30% per city, and it's much more work to unlock the multiplier buildings for the capital with a larger number of cities. You start losing with city 2.

Bring back the map-based number of buildings required for advanced buildings. e.g. 4 libraries at this map size, not # of libraries = # of cities. Lower the scaling of culture costs with size, from 30% to a sliding scale which roughly replicates the curve above.

For food limits per city it might be interesting to tie them to epoch, so that the limits and growth rise in later eras.
 
Re, #4.. I'd rather they gave mounted units a penalty to attacking cities (like tanks)

I'd add an increase in the output of specialists, they should be worth more than the respective tile improvements. (since the tile improvements can be spammed... not the Specialists)

#6 should definitely be achievable, but your % boost method wouldn't solve the problem of Maritime states. A simple version would be you get say X "Imperial" food.... that is divided evenly among your cities, with the Capital taking any remainder. Either that.... or have them give just pure Happiness.... this way Farms/Granaries are still important.



And the game heavily favors large empires as is....I think the science needs to have a similar (but not as strong) effect as the Social Policies... increasing cost for more cities (probably ~15% rather than 30% though)
 
In my ideal balance you might be able to gain a bit with a larger empire, properly done, than with a smaller one. But it should be more effort to create and takes more work to maintain.

That makes sense. The game should not specifically have an optimal sized empire for victory conditions. 1 city, 2 cities or many cities should be equally achievable for cultural wins, as well as others. The difference should be in the amount effort required to maintain different sized empires.
 
I do not agree that an empire with many cities should just be better than an empire of less cities, while only being more difficult to maintain. Outputs should be comparable. The choice of whether to have a large or small empire shouldn't be made by how much you want to win.
 
Are you taking hospitals into account?
Hospitals come into play far too late to matter.

Your empire is mostly formed by that stage. The decisions about lots of spammed cities vs few big cities are already settled.

-Lessen unit maintenance slightly. I don't mind trying to force a more tactical game, but the cost of units is just crushing compared to what the AI can field.
-Noncombat unit maintenance should be even lower or say 1 free one per city.
Disagree. Unit maintenance is one of the few things that stops a huge army from being a dominant strategy. Giving free maintenance per city just favors expansion even more, and makes a concentrated empire harder.

- Fixes. Stuff like certain aspects of the game being broken. For example, slingshotting, puppets, buying and upgrading costs.
- Balances. Stuff that we find are too strong and need a finer tweaking. For example, horsemen dominating, France ruling the game, production levels (very controversial).
I think its pointless to try to separate these.
Whether things are broken is a balance issue.

Oh, and don't forget fixing build Wealth.
Not an important issue. Just never do it.

I'd add in a re-thinking of how scaling for large empires, which are currently very heavily disfavored in the game. In my ideal balance you might be able to gain a bit with a larger empire, properly done, than with a smaller one. But it should be more effort to create and takes more work to maintain.
This is implicit in the nerf for maritime city states, the nerf to puppets, and the reduced food need for large cities.

Bring back the map-based number of buildings required for advanced buildings. e.g. 4 libraries at this map size, not # of libraries = # of cities
Disagree. This is a good mechanic; national wonders reward a small empire, not over-expansion.
You say you want large empires to not be as dominating, but then propose changes that would favor larger empires.

ower the scaling of culture costs with size, from 30% to a sliding scale which roughly replicates the curve above.
Disagree. If you want a cultural win, you should be forced to stay small.

Re, #4.. I'd rather they gave mounted units a penalty to attacking cities (like tanks)
Doesn't fix the problem. The problem is that they are too dominating in destroying field armies. If you can destroy their field army, you can knock them out of the game. Nerfing horsemen vs cities won't stop you from doing this.

I'd add an increase in the output of specialists, they should be worth more than the respective tile improvements. (since the tile improvements can be spammed... not the Specialists)
I would prefer to increase the value of great people than to increase the yields from specialists. Its very easy to get the economy out of whack, given statue of liberty and the specialist SPs.

And the game heavily favors large empires as is....I think the science needs to have a similar (but not as strong) effect as the Social Policies... increasing cost for more cities (probably ~15% rather than 30% though)
I think you can do this by limiting puppets, and making happiness (not food) binding on the size of your core cities. Carrot, not stick.

That makes sense. The game should not specifically have an optimal sized empire for victory conditions. 1 city, 2 cities or many cities should be equally achievable for cultural wins, as well as others. The difference should be in the amount effort required to maintain different sized empires.
I disagree. Using a single city, or only 2 cities, should not be a good viable strategy. It should be a very niche strategy for achieving a cultural win. Otherwise, attacking my enemies and conquering their stuff doesn't really help me.

Its fine to make lots of small cities vs few big cities both decent strats.
But few small cities should not be ok. Having a few cities should only be decent if they are very large cities with lots of infrastructure, and lots of land.
Otherwise there are not enough rewards for expansion, and conquering someone else does not weaken them significantly.
 
I agree with everything except the growth of things other than lumber mills. Lumber mills growth bring them from a 3 yield tile to a 4 yield tile. Making them inline with most other improvements. Moment to a river makes it the common 5 yield that most tiles by rivers get.

The only tile that doesn't grow, and maybe should, are the mines. because they seem to be the only tile in the game that doesn't increase it's yield to 4 non-river, and 5 river. Mined non-river hill is always 3, riverside hill is always 4... However, I wonder if the farmed riverside hill is the reason for that. That shouldn't be removed, by the way.

Basically, every tile has a max output of of 4 non-river, and 5 river (due to the gold)... what improvements you choose are what dictate what the makeup of this yield is. I don't think this dynamic should change at all and if anything, I think Mines produce less than other tiles because raw production get's modified more and, in comparison to gold, you require less of it to utilize it's benefits.

But if anything should grow it should be the mines, as lumber mills allow them to match their 3 yield, but rather than 3 p, it's 1f 2p... after their growth, however, it's 1f 3p, making them overall better than mines... So if there's any argument for yields to increase, it's found right there. Personally, however, I'd go in the other direction and simply remove lumber mill growth.

Everything else is spot-on, though.
 
Top Bottom