Balance Factors

[Thunderbrd]

Ah so tech leader is meant to reach Ancient era in 6000 BC?

I'm happy with that happening anywhere between 12 and 6k BC, yes. And it's the leader that defines the cutting edge of discovery, if that's what you're looking to define, yes. As that is how history is taught, right? We track things by when they first took place in RL. Sumeria was the first (well researched) city building civilization and their cities go back as far as 6k BC. More recent discoveries have been dating earlier sedentary cities emerging even before that in India and some other sites and it may have been as early as 12k BC now. So if we make Sed Life hit at 12k I won't be unhappy with that. As for the way the calendar progresses, it's not necessarily when the increments need to start changing. It would be just fine to leave that to take place at 6k BC.

Also what problems with tech tree?
Graphical issues in prehistoric era?
Eras being too easy to beeline trough?
Or some structural issue?

Just posted my observation in the tech thread.

 

[raxo2222]

I'm happy with that happening anywhere between 12 and 6k BC, yes. And it's the leader that defines the cutting edge of discovery, if that's what you're looking to define, yes. As that is how history is taught, right? We track things by when they first took place in RL. Sumeria was the first (well researched) city building civilization and their cities go back as far as 6k BC. More recent discoveries have been dating earlier sedentary cities emerging even before that in India and some other sites and it may have been as early as 12k BC now. So if we make Sed Life hit at 12k I won't be unhappy with that. As for the way the calendar progresses, it's not necessarily when the increments need to start changing. It would be just fine to leave that to take place at 6k BC.


Just posted my observation in the tech thread.

Hmm calendar slows down at 10000 BC - this is only mid era time scale change.
Also time scale changes are almost exactly where eras are meant to start.

 

[Thunderbrd]

10k BC would be just fine for that then since it is splitting the difference from the Sumeria dating of 6k and other arguments for 12k.

 

[Yudishtira]

Hmm calendar slows down at 10000 BC - this is only mid era time scale change.
Also time scale changes are almost exactly where eras are meant to start.

I don't get it. I just experienced a timescale change at turn 4000 on Eons (25% of turns), and that's exactly mid-era.

 

[raxo2222]

I don't get it. I just experienced a timescale change at turn 4000 on Eons (25% of turns), and that's exactly mid-era.

Its that because eras aren't in sync yet.
You or other tech leader should reach Medieval era somewhere close to 4000th turn on Eons when timescale change happens.

Those timescale changes should happen roughly when tech leader reaches new era - and on Emperor+ its most likely AI.

That is if tech leader hold constant tech rate (or at least average for era), then they should reach new era close to timescale change.
For Blitz its around turn per tech, Normal - 2 turns/tech,..... Eons - 16 turns/tech, Eternity - 20 turns/tech.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Let's discuss this further in the balance thread but I suspect there's a bug on one of your scaling settings somehow. The recent adjustments to tech costs are not related to anything in the prehistoric so it would have to be something else there. We'll have to take a look at all the scaling factors and options that relate to it that you are employing. Such as, are you on upscaled tech costs or not? Upscaled building and unit costs? That sort of thing. But the first question really is: how many turns is it taking to earn a tech?

Super early in the game, the yields you are getting from the first plots can also be a factor - if you're getting tons of Commerce and very little Production then this CAN happen naturally.

Snail, Noble, Huge. Single Plot City Start, No Traits (no negatives & no positives).

Starting position had no resources shown at Gathering, not even later when I got to the tech that reveals stone. Probably has fish and spices or drugs . Oh, no caves either.

Early techs were taking 11-15 turns (first two columns) Alpha buildings taking 15 turns with first wonder taking 34. Techs then staid the same but buildings went up in cost

 

[Thunderbrd]

Early techs were taking 11-15 turns (first two columns) Alpha buildings taking 15 turns with first wonder taking 34. Techs then staid the same but buildings went up in cost

Techs are going up in costs too but it's not as visible. This is normal for the first 1/4 of the prehistoric actually. The plots you are working... what kind of production values are you getting out of them? I find it is a little painful if you can't get a 3 or 4 production plot to start with or if you try to go for high food first. If you're getting high commerce and low production it can really hurt, particularly if you aren't making sure to go after the production creating buildings first and foremost. Each point of production you can earn will improve this situation further and further in the beginning. I've tried to balance this out by making buildings a little cheaper in the first era but the problem is that we'd need to divide the prehistoric up to make this more adjustable without it screwing up balance after halfway through the prehistoric. There's some other approaches that can be taken as well but it seems if any of them are used then it makes things too easy to get on top of buildings eventually. Once you have the Stone Tools Workshop things start getting much more manageable in terms of building costs.

Just to ensure this is somewhat like what I'm now used to experiencing, can you take a screenshot of your city screen?

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

With one plot city starts you only get the city production until you can get access to the first ring. This is the first city. Everything looks good with buildings at 11 and tech at 14. I think my problem may have been that goody hut giving and the one after it too.

 

[raxo2222]

With one plot city starts you only get the city production until you can get access to the first ring. This is the first city. Everything looks good with buildings at 11 and tech at 14. I think my problem may have been that goody hut giving and the one after it too.View attachment 514862 View attachment 514863

I noticed you play with revolutions being on.
You are on Noble - most likely you are most advanced civ here.
Heath bar can be disabled in game options (where graphics and other settings are).

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I am only at Cooking and usually I don't start to get ahead of the AI on techs until later.

Why would I want to disable the health bar?

 

[raxo2222]

I am only at Cooking and usually I don't start to get ahead of the AI on techs until later.

Why would I want to disable the health bar?

Until later so when you are successfully getting subdued animals and place myths I guess.

As for heath bar, I never saw it in other screenshots.

 

[Toffer90]

Would anyone object to me making this change for hunter units?

<iInstanceCostModifier>75</iInstanceCostModifier> for all the hunter unitclasses. No national limit.
The master hunter unit line can still use the national unit limit; since they can't be trained there is no need to add the tag I suggested to them.

It means that each hunter owned by a player increase the hammer cost of them by 75% for that player.
National limits are rigid and no fun, while that hammer cost increase creates a natural limit, which I like more.

I think 10%, 25% and 50% would be better for process conversion rate.

Then it should rather be:
30 - 40 - 50

As 10% is practically nothing in early game where cities hardly have more than 20 hammer in base yield.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Would anyone object to me making this change for hunter units?
It means that each hunter owned by a player increase the hammer cost of them by 75% for that player.
National limits are rigid and no fun, while that hammer cost increase creates a natural limit, which I like more.
Then it should rather be:
30 - 40 - 50

As 10% is practically nothing in early game where cities hardly have more than 20 hammer in base yield.

I do not like the idea.So yes I object.
I like national limits and think they are fun! I may prefer a scaling system based on number of cities or number or animal resources or similar.

Currently I expect my surviving hunters get up to 400exp by the time I get to about Iron Working.

I would have no problem with you making that change if the Unlimited National Units was on.

 

[Toffer90]

I do not like the idea.So yes I object.
I like national limits and think they are fun! I may prefer a scaling system based on number of cities or number or animal resources or similar.

Currently I expect my surviving hunters get up to 400exp by the time I get to about Iron Working.

If you, and everyone else, had more hunters it might be harder to accumulate that much exp for any one of them as they will thin out the animals so much that each one will not get to fight as many animals.

The AI would be much more competitive in hunting animals if they could spew out 30 hunters, very few human players would bother having that many hunter units and manually move them.
The increase in hammer cost would probably demotivate the human player before the AI, and the AI do have a decent discount on their hammer cost depending on the difficulty played.

@JosEPh_II : looks like DH is the new "mr. No-No".

 

[JosEPh_II]

With one plot city starts you only get the city production until you can get access to the first ring. This is the first city. Everything looks good with buildings at 11 and tech at 14. I think my problem may have been that goody hut giving and the one after it too.View attachment 514862 View attachment 514863

Looks like a normal start with 1 City Tile to me. I see nothing out of place.

Of course being that you are playing on Noble Difficulty then yes you will get ahead of the pack fairly quick on teching. And you using Snail, 12,000 turns, also makes you start better for teching. Why don't you jump down to Epic which is what Snail used to be to give a fair comparison? And why do you hang on to Rev? You like your games to be easier so you can build more? I can get that for being a builder player.

 

[JosEPh_II]

National limits are rigid and no fun

Who says so? National Limits add strategy.

 

[JosEPh_II]

If you, and everyone else, had more hunters it might be harder to accumulate that much exp for any one of them as they will thin out the animals so much that each one will not get to fight as many animals.

The AI would be much more competitive in hunting animals if they could spew out 30 hunters, very few human players would bother having that many hunter units and manually move them.
The increase in hammer cost would probably demotivate the human player before the AI, and the AI do have a decent discount on their hammer cost depending on the difficulty played.

@JosEPh_II : looks like DH is the new "mr. No-No".

My Hunters are Never just exclusively hunters of animals. They are also promoted for Barb/Neanderthal interaction. And I too do not care for this proposal. The AI has too many perks now as it is once you get past Monarch Difficulty. While playing Noble as an experienced C2C player is a cakewalk in the park. Noble is too easy, while Immortal is becoming the new Deity Plus.

 

[Yudishtira]

The AI would be much more competitive in hunting animals if they could spew out 30 hunters, very few human players would bother having that many hunter units and manually move them.

The 30th hunter would cost 1.75 ^ 29 times as much wouldn't it? That's around 11 million.

Or you mean try and get them dying roughly as fast as you train them? (You clearly don't when you talk about having to move them all).

 

[Thunderbrd]

With one plot city starts you only get the city production until you can get access to the first ring. This is the first city. Everything looks good with buildings at 11 and tech at 14. I think my problem may have been that goody hut giving and the one after it too.View attachment 514862 View attachment 514863

Yes, the lack of production out the gate also makes a big difference at the very beginning and goodies will tech you a lot faster than you can keep up with buildings, particularly at Noble level. Usually a large amount of building options saves up for a while before you start developing the production to catch up to them.

Would anyone object to me making this change for hunter units?
It means that each hunter owned by a player increase the hammer cost of them by 75% for that player.
National limits are rigid and no fun, while that hammer cost increase creates a natural limit, which I like more.
Then it should rather be:
30 - 40 - 50

As 10% is practically nothing in early game where cities hardly have more than 20 hammer in base yield.

I'd prefer not because I don't see why hunters should be limited. Never had any balance problems in a game without those limits. If you overhunt an area, the spawn rate itself becomes the limiter. On no national unit limits I have no issues here but economic application of this would hit those using the option equally. Training more hunters than you need is still wasteful in time and production since only so many can be in the field and still be effective.

 

[Toffer90]

The 30th hunter would cost 1.75 ^ 29 times as much wouldn't it? That's around 11 million.

I thinl hunter number 30 would cost 2275% more than the first one. I'm not sure though, will have to look at the formula in the code.

Who says so? National Limits add strategy.

I like national limits too, for cultural units and traders, but I don't like it for hunters as it hinders AI, and I see no good reasons for having it for them.

I'd prefer not because I don't see why hunters should be limited. Never had any balance problems in a game without those limits. If you overhunt an area, the spawn rate itself becomes the limiter. On no national unit limits I have no issues here but economic application of this would hit those using the option equally. Training more hunters than you need is still wasteful in time and production since only so many can be in the field and still be effective.

Ok, seems like everybody likes the national limit on hunters, I'll let the matter rest.