AND SVN Build Thread

[Afforess]

Revision 792

Add +10% hammers to Protectionism

It felt a bit weak otherwise.

 

[buck beach]

Yes. If we weren't, I would say something.

I got sidetracked after my computer crash and didn't finish here.

I do not wish to offend, I know you all work hard to improve this game, however, more is not better. Why do we need more and more buildings (Warhead factory really!). It's going down the C2C path and detracts instead of improving the game.

IMHO

Buck

 

[Afforess]

I got sidetracked after my computer crash and didn't finish here.

I do not wish to offend, I know you all work hard to improve this game, however, more is not better. Why do we need more and more buildings (Warhead factory really!). It's going down the C2C path and detracts instead of improving the game.

IMHO

Buck

Buck Beak, you won't offend anyone by asking questions. That is the whole point of having forums here. If we didn't encourage questions, what's the point of having a forum?

Vokarya is trying to address the late game nuclear proliferation (basically the AI's go nuke crazy, and the world is destroyed by nukes late game) by making nukes more challenging to build. There was a post explaining the building here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13383036&postcount=324

This isn't a case of "more is better", this is a targeted solution towards a specific problem.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I got sidetracked after my computer crash and didn't finish here.

I do not wish to offend, I know you all work hard to improve this game, however, more is not better. Why do we need more and more buildings (Warhead factory really!). It's going down the C2C path and detracts instead of improving the game.

IMHO

Buck

Warhead factory is my idea, so I'll answer here. Problem is that once you get to modern era everyone is able to build nukes. Everyone. This is not realistic and it causes massive nuclear exchanges which spoil modern and later eras. Hence, wf purpose is to limit chances to build nukes to major civs, without totally removing the possibility for medium-small civs. Look at what it does in civilopedia and you'll understand why warhead factory is there (provided you play up to modern era and you use nukes).

 

[buck beach]

Warhead factory is my idea, so I'll answer here. Problem is that once you get to modern era everyone is able to build nukes. Everyone. This is not realistic and it causes massive nuclear exchanges which spoil modern and later eras. Hence, wf purpose is to limit chances to build nukes to major civs, without totally removing the possibility for medium-small civs. Look at what it does in civilopedia and you'll understand why warhead factory is there (provided you play up to modern era and you use nukes).

I guess that makes sense. I personally avoid Nukes and Future in the game set up.

 

[buck beach]

Buck Beak, you won't offend anyone by asking questions. That is the whole point of having forums here. If we didn't encourage questions, what's the point of having a forum?

Vokarya is trying to address the late game nuclear proliferation (basically the AI's go nuke crazy, and the world is destroyed by nukes late game) by making nukes more challenging to build. There was a post explaining the building here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13383036&postcount=324

This isn't a case of "more is better", this is a targeted solution towards a specific problem.

As I said in reply to 45, it makes sense. Thanks for the reply back.

 

[os79]

Plus if you read thru Vokarky's posts here, you'll notice he's trying to slim down on weak technologies. Some are/will be cut out. Some are/will be improved into roughly two-tricks techs. I like that approach.

 

[Arakhor]

I always play with nuclear weapons disabled, personally. I've probably said this before, but with the Advanced Nukes options, you have two things to do with nuclear weapons. I'd say remove the Advanced option and simply make all nuclear weapons, buildings and so on either all available or not at all.

 

[Rezca]

I always play with nuclear weapons disabled, personally. I've probably said this before, but with the Advanced Nukes options, you have two things to do with nuclear weapons. I'd say remove the Advanced option and simply make all nuclear weapons, buildings and so on either all available or not at all.

That would make the Plague Bringers, immensely powerful Peacemakers, and the world changing Fusion Novas mandatory though.

Granted, I always play with Advanced Nukes enabled but not everyone will. ICBMs are bad enough, but what about a missile that in one firing can cover half the planet in fallout at the press of a button? Not everyone's gonna want to play with nukes enabled knowing that eventually a trigger happy AI's going to doom the planet and fire one of those

Which would boil down to either removing the unit itself, or keeping Advanced Nukes a separate togglable option. I'm personally voting for keeping it in and keeping the option separate, even if I do personally dislike the Peacemaker as a unit

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I always wonder why people who don't like an option, never play with it and usually don't know how that option is working, always want to get rid of options they don't use.

 

[Noyyau]

That's why it's an option in the first place.

 

[Arakhor]

I think Afforess wanted to make basic nuclear weapons mandatory, but I could be wrong. Either way, it seems a bit odd to want to have world-changing weapons of mass destruction and trigger-happy AIs, such that a new building is needed, but not want to have the even more powerful weapons enabled. I imagine that there are people who think that, but it still seems a little odd to me.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I think Afforess wanted to make basic nuclear weapons mandatory, but I could be wrong. Either way, it seems a bit odd to want to have world-changing weapons of mass destruction and trigger-happy AIs, such that a new building is needed, but not want to have the even more powerful weapons enabled. I imagine that there are people who think that, but it still seems a little odd to me.

Actually Warhead Factory and other changes I have in mind for nukes aren't in any way related to how powerful nukes are but how widespread they are. Problem is that too many civs are trigger-happy not that some weapons might be too powerful. Weapons being too powerful is just a matter of preferences; I personally don't like Peacemaker, YAM and even Novas hardly look useful; but if I remove them, someone wouldn't probably like it and that's the reason why they're optional.

 

[Rezca]

Peacemakers the biggest limiting factor is map size and "how many people are you at war with?"

They've got a massive blast radius, but because nukes can't target spaces occupied by forces belonging to an allied player, this requires you to either be at war with everyone or use smaller weapons. Their own destructive power reduces their usefulness!

 

[os79]

I always wonder why people who don't like an option, never play with it and usually don't know how that option is working, always want to get rid of options they don't use.

For me, ideal options are options that change gameplay. Units and buildings should be balanced into the game by default. Simpler to balance the modpack if all buildings and units are folded into the game and balanced in one fell swoop. Then other options will change the gameplay according to the player's preference.

For me, buildings and units should not be considered a separate gameplay unless they transform the larger strategy path (look at Great Commander.) Nukes were already inside the vanilla game. If you have more powerful nukes included, then following the spirit of other added content, balance them them. Unless you can explain how more nukes actually change strategy paths.

That's my opinion on how options should work.

 

[Afforess]

I always wonder why people who don't like an option, never play with it and usually don't know how that option is working, always want to get rid of options they don't use.

First off, people want the options to reflect the type of game they play. This is natural, and should not be surprising.

Second, options introduce cognitive overhead. More options make debugging harder, make coding new features harder, make maintenance harder, make setting up games harder, etc. There is a cost to every new option, and keeping old options. It's easy to handwave this cognitive overhead away, because pretty much everyone here is familiar with the options, and so they are no longer so daunting. New users will have a different experience, and this should be a consideration.

 

[Rezca]

First off, people want the options to reflect the type of game they play. This is natural, and should not be surprising.

Second, options introduce cognitive overhead. More options make debugging harder, make coding new features harder, make maintenance harder, make setting up games harder, etc. There is a cost to every new option, and keeping old options. It's easy to handwave this cognitive overhead away, because pretty much everyone here is familiar with the options, and so they are no longer so daunting. New users will have a different experience, and this should be a consideration.

I like trying new options every now and then, and come to either like or dislike them over time. I've had times when I hated Fixed Borders, other times when I looked to keep it on. I'm only just now starting to like Realistic Culture Spread, and I've since stopped using Guilds recently. It also really depends on what sort of game I'm planning on playing. I might even switch on some options I rarely use (or disable some options I generally leave on) for that purpose. There are some options I almost never ever touch though, but I see others liking and often using - so I never really speak up about any of them. What I dislike another may like, and what I like another may hate (See also, Revolutions )


I remember being *very* intimidated by Rise of Mankind when I first downloaded it oh so long ago, because there were aaaaall these options doing all sorts of things. I was also a bit excited because there were so many buttons to press! I love customization as well, so it was both intimidating and exciting for me. I do agree though that a sheer number of options can be a bit... Overwhelming for a new user, especially if they're coming from a mod (Or BTS) with few options in it. C2C just has way too many, even for me

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

rev793

• Fixed missing text in Info tab in Foreign Advisor Screen
• Redevelopment gives +25% culture
• Imperium gives -1 attitude from all civs

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

The 7 city limit at Chiefdom seems pointless. Why even have a limit at all? By the time a civ expands to 7 cities they will likely have a better civic anyway. I personally liked the 3 city limit. It has a better sense of realism and is a motivating factor to move to a more advanced civic.

 

[Afforess]

The 7 city limit at Chiefdom seems pointless. Why even have a limit at all? By the time a civ expands to 7 cities they will likely have a better civic anyway. I personally liked the 3 city limit. It has a better sense of realism and is a motivating factor to move to a more advanced civic.

7 City? It is still at 3 city last I checked.