Balance Factors

[raxo2222]

That's what I thought. Well, I'm not. I don't have another post-38.5 game to compare with, but roughly speaking, I'm still as far ahead of the calendar as in previous games/versions. Which is why I say the scaling doesn't work: because I agree it should be having an effect... it just doesn't.

And if it's keeping to the calendar we're talking about, it should be the tech leader who the calendar keeps pace with, don't you think? The Renaissance was the renaissance of the tech-leading Italian princedoms, not of (for example) sub-Saharan Africa, or Australia, which were still prehistoric.

Yeah, now how game is setup Emperor and higher handicap players will see AI outrunning them.
On other hand WFL and TD max power should be reduced by 50% - 75%
WFL/TD could hit full power if you are 70 techs behind - roughly one era worth of techs too.

Tech handicaps could be reduced to smaller steps.
iAIPerEraModifier could be reduced too.
That is this handicap variation could be flattened a bit too, just like generated map size variation was flattened.

Now player must be backwater nation for game to be fun - in reality even tech leaders can be hit hard by instability and inefficiency.
Also players are usually backwater nation on Emperor+

Oh that's right. The latest SVN makes my life even more unpleasant. You think I should be teching even slower, and I think Toffer made it so I can't build espionage as efficiently (after research, espionage is the area I'm most in danger of falling behind on).

Everyone is affected by tech costs in era infos.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Oh that's right. The latest SVN makes my life even more unpleasant. You think I should be teching even slower, and I think Toffer made it so I can't build espionage as efficiently (after research, espionage is the area I'm most in danger of falling behind on).

Lucky me that I don't get new SVNs all that often.

For the record, I have too much gold (300K, +2K/turn), and no problems with properties. So I would welcome balance tweaking in those areas (within reason...)

OK, so I'm confused. You're saying that you and the tech leader are both way ahead of the calendar as it is, but having everyone research slower is NOT an appropriate way to address that? Are you trying to say you want the calendar to be adjusted? Usually that's the fixed reference point around which the other details have to be adjusted. Not that it's the only one to consider mind you.

The goals of average turns to earn a tech are established by the game speed. This is what must be calibrated and then if the calendar is still off, then the calendar should be. Until then the calendar might be accurate but it's hard to say. But if you want to tech faster, then perhaps you want a faster game speed.

Outside of that, if you are teching too fast for the calendar, and it is increasingly becoming a bigger and bigger problem per era, then that is evidence that the tech costs aren't scaling in tune with the amounts they should increase by as eras pass.

What you've said means that the adjustment I made was needed.

What I'm trying to deduce is if those adjustments are nearly enough.

As you're further into your game than the game that made it clear this adjustment should be necessary, I was hoping to get a sense of comparison to before and after the adjustment in your current era. Since you're on a super long game speed, the granularity of it should make the change appear more severe in terms of turn costs to reach a tech so may give a better measurement.

On the original game I'm basing the measurements on, the changes appear to be about half of what perhaps they should have been so far but I'm reluctant to make them more severe until I know that for sure and see more data from a game in a later era.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Tech handicaps could be reduced to smaller steps.

Sure they could be but isn't this the core of what makes the harder handicaps harder? That said, imo, the tech adjustments should really be matching the scaling of the production ones pretty closely on most of the adjusting scaling factors. There's little reason for the production modifiers for AI to outpace the tech modifiers for the AI. That's just weird and a bit inappropriate I think.

 

[Yudishtira]

What you've said means that the adjustment I made was needed.

Yes I guess so, and if it slows the tech leaders more than me, my game experience might even benefit. I still find it daunting.

I think what will end up being needed is a dynamic adjustment mechanism, like TD and WFL. One that is sensitive to the game-state, noticing when the tech leader gets behind or ahead of schedule, and compensating (all players) accordingly.

ETA: I got through Medieval in 365 turns (I said 276 before but I was wrong). It seems logical to make adjustments that result in that becoming 1600. Logical, yes, but daunting - very daunting in fact - I'm sure you'll agree.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Yes I guess so, and if it slows the tech leaders more than me, my game experience might even benefit. I still find it daunting.

I think what will end up being needed is a dynamic adjustment mechanism, like TD and WFL. One that is sensitive to the game-state, noticing when the tech leader gets behind or ahead of schedule, and compensating (all players) accordingly.

ETA: I got through Medieval in 365 turns (I said 276 before but I was wrong). It seems logical to make adjustments that result in that becoming 1600. Logical, yes, but daunting - very daunting in fact - I'm sure you'll agree.

Maybe. You're on the longest gamespeed so I'm not sure there's much cause there to complain about techs taking a long time to get. If it's daunting, that's kinda the point of the speed.

If your complaint is that you're behind, perhaps you're not used to the AI being as capable as it currently is. Again, that's kinda like complaining that we're doing things right. I am getting it from both sides on that matter right now - some saying the AI is doing worse than it was and others saying it's too hard - so I'm not sure what needs to happen there. Raxo has floated some possibilities that the tech modifiers for the AI alone are too severe by gamespeed. If they aren't matching the differences in construction then I would suspect he's probably right.

So far it IS looking like the adjustments I've made still aren't close to enough and I haven't done the math you have to know if you are correct about the target amount that it would take for your gamespeed to progress fully through that era but I assume there's cause to put it like that and that gives an idea as to how much faster you were to the intent.

I don't think I'm really trying to fit us to the calendar as much as I'm trying to get the turns to achieve a tech to be roughly the same average in all eras. If the calendar still needs adjusting after hitting that goal target then that's what will be needed at that point. Making an adaptive system to try to force the game to meet the calendar dates is completely against the spirit of having that measuring stick there in the first place.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Perhaps for comparison, so to speak, Yudishtira should start a new game on your favorite GS T-brd, Marathon. (I would suggest Long but then I would not want it "too fast" for him).

Then as he progresses thru it, On an Updated SVN of course, his problems would be more telling. Information given more relevant. As an older game played with updates still has certain aspects of the game preset to the version it was started with.

One more thing a game using the "shifting Difficult" setting and a lower start will also have a skewing effect on how the game progresses. Got a good running start by being on Monarch at the beginning of his game. Now that it's ramped up to deity it's bit tougher but still not as tough as if Deity had been the initial Difficulty setting. As we all know that differing Game set up Options can create a wide range of results.

My current set of games would be totally different by having set TD ON. I would not be 3 Eras behind in Tech in the Long Game and 2 eras behind in the Normal game. Both on Immortal, Long in Medieval Era and Normal in Ren Era. Both Games the tech leaders are in the Modern Era.

Now if I had turned on WFL as well, I suspect I would be neck and neck with the Tech leaders in both those games at their current stages.

And a screenshot of his game setup would be really helpful as well.

 

[Thunderbrd]

As an older game played with updates still has certain aspects of the game preset to the version it was started with.

That's exactly why I was asking if the test was a pure one, started from the beginning. I asked that not realizing he was in such a long gamespeed. Nothing wrong with that per se but it does skew whole game measurements, yes.

One more thing a game using the "shifting Difficult" setting and a lower start will also have a skewing effect on how the game progresses. Got a good running start by being on Monarch at the beginning of his game. Now that it's ramped up to deity it's bit tougher but still not as tough as if Deity had been the initial Difficulty setting. As we all know that differing Game set up Options can create a wide range of results.

Very true as well.

Now if I had turned on WFL as well, I suspect I would be neck and neck with the Tech leaders in both those games at their current stages.

Are you running empires that are that much smaller than those in the lead? I'm surprised - you're usually really good at being larger than your neighbors. Indeed, TD does help to keep the split between tech leaders and those behind them to a smaller range and WFL would certainly keep the larger nations from steamrolling if they are really pulling out ahead. Now that Whisperr is in the Mid-Renaissance, she's pulled far ahead on city and population count and if she WAS playing WFL, wouldn't change her tech progress but she wouldn't be pulling ahead on tech so fast and possibly even going back to falling behind as a result of being so far ahead in territorial conquest. TD IS helping to keep those behind her from falling TOO far behind and it probably did help her to keep from falling too far behind earlier in the game and thus gave her the opportunity to catch up and surpass.

Overall, however, the measures of current turns to tech are still dropping as her game progresses. We got it up to 3 rounds per tech on the last round of adjustments but it's back down to 2 rnds per tech. We'll see how it's going in the Modern - and part of it might be due to her map dominance as well.

I would ask for the amount of turns it's generally taking Yudishtira to earn a tech but I'm not sure where we established the turn to tech goals for the different game speeds so I'm not sure what we want it to be at for Eons. @Toffer90 do you have that info somewhere?

 

[Yudishtira]

I don't think I'm really trying to fit us to the calendar as much as I'm trying to get the turns to achieve a tech to be roughly the same average in all eras. If the calendar still needs adjusting after hitting that goal target then that's what will be needed at that point. Making an adaptive system to try to force the game to meet the calendar dates is completely against the spirit of having that measuring stick there in the first place.

Whatever you're trying to do, it will take an adaptive mechanism. I don't know why the (static) global adjustments have failed so completely, but they have, in marked contrast to TD and WFL which work spectacularly... too well in fact...

 

[Toffer90]

@Toffer90 do you have that info somewhere?

I've been using these goals for turns per tech:

1 ▬ Blitz
2 ▬ Normal
4 ▬ Long
6 ▬ Epic
8 ▬ Marathon
12 ▬ Snail
16 ▬ Eons
20 ▬ Eternity​

 

[JosEPh_II]

Are you running empires that are that much smaller than those in the lead?

In the early game Yes. In fact in the Long Game by mid Ancient era I was 5-6 cities behind all neighbors I had met on my continent. I had 5 cities to 2 of them having 11 and 1 at 10. And still now in Med Era I have only passed 2 AI for number of cities. Currently in 6th place there. But now I would not say much smaller at all as the avg # of cities per Empire is in the 27-28 city range. I have 25 or 26 now. Leader has lower 30's.

My research times are 3-4 turns and I'm trying to get any research production I can without putting cities on Lesser research (or whatever it's called in Med Era). And I have done that as well to get to a critical tech faster.

 

[raxo2222]

@Thunderbrd you probably missed my post showing how construction and research modifiers are set in handicaps.

Top left is how @Toffer90 set those.
Construction cost step is 8 and research cost step is 5.
That is construction modifiers don't match with tech modifiers - AI has relatively discounted building/unit cost arc.
So should be construction modifiers for AI be scaled down to be identical with tech modifiers?
This would slow down AI a bit.

Tech rate for Deity/Nightmare is relatively slower in new system.

 

[Thunderbrd]

@Thunderbrd you probably missed my post showing how construction and research modifiers are set in handicaps.

I didn't miss it. I just cant make heads or tails of it. I'm not trying to focus on handicaps right now anyhow. If you are saying that the construction vs research is out of balance between the two as the handicaps progress, then I'd advise to fix it. I believe I expressed an opinion that it would cause problems to have them out of alignment back when they were established.

@Toffer90: I don't recall your reasons for wanting to differ these scales of progression. Do you want to remind me what the logic for that is here so that I don't overlook your reasoning?

Thanks for the chart - it's supposed to be way more turns per tech for Epic than I thought. 6 is the goal when we're getting 2 rounds per tech on Renaissance suggests I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of how much more dramatic I need to scale the tech cost arc by era. I don't want to assume it's not because she's doing very well in her game, which she is, but that's a lot further out than I had expected - I thought Epic had a target of 4 rounds per tech and thought we were at least a little close. OK, that helps a lot thank you.

No wonder the calendar is completely out of whack!

So should be construction modifiers for AI be scaled down to be identical with tech modifiers?

I'm not sure it matters which side is adusted but the tech side seems the one that is easiest to bring into alignment with the others. But would this then make the difficulties MORE extreme? Because it's seeming like feedback is asking for the difficulty levels to smooth out a bit, so whichever way that is best accomplished while keeping the balance in tech to production costs ratios even, seems to me to be the way to go.

 

[raxo2222]

I didn't miss it. I just cant make heads or tails of it. I'm not trying to focus on handicaps right now anyhow. If you are saying that the construction vs research is out of balance between the two as the handicaps progress, then I'd advise to fix it. I believe I expressed an opinion that it would cause problems to have them out of alignment back when they were established.

I'm not sure it matters which side is adusted but the tech side seems the one that is easiest to bring into alignment with the others. But would this then make the difficulties MORE extreme? Because it's seeming like feedback is asking for the difficulty levels to smooth out a bit, so whichever way that is best accomplished while keeping the balance in tech to production costs ratios even, seems to me to be the way to go.

I thought that spreadsheet was easy to understand....
Essentially: top is new values, bottom is old values, left are values in current system and right are values if they were in old system.

Adjusting techs to match with construction costs will make handicaps more extreme.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I'm still befuddled looking at it.

Adjusting techs to match with construction costs will make handicaps more extreme.

Then adjust construction costs to match with techs, though we are talking only about AI handicap adjustments here right? This won't make for a visible change to the player will it?

 

[raxo2222]

Then adjust construction costs to match with techs, though we are talking only about AI handicap adjustments here right? This won't make for a visible change to the player will it?

Yes, as only AIs are impacted by this.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Sidenote: I also have a normal Noble game going and in it I'm having an easy peasy time of it. As expected.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Because it's seeming like feedback is asking for the difficulty levels to smooth out a bit,

A lot of this is from the Shock of the AI jumping out ahead as it has done. Now is this a bad thing? Not really, but...it worries players obviously when they get the tables turned on them. I'm just waiting for one of the Super Power AI's to finally Invade in the Long game. My co-inhabitants on my continent while ahead and are a good match up are not my real threat. It's the 4 AI on other continent(s) that are the "worry". So extrapolating, that by the time I get gunpowder units, I could be facing Mechanized Infantry and Modern Tanks and Jet fighters/Bombers and still have rudimentary gun powder units to face them with. I just don't think I could produce enough units to overcome the Arms superiority.

Of course that would finally be "Payback" from all the years of doing it to the AI!

 

[Thunderbrd]

Yes, as only AIs are impacted by this.

OK... probably a good idea to do that then.

A lot of this is from the Shock of the AI jumping out ahead as it has done. Now is this a bad thing? Not really, but...it worries players obviously when they get the tables turned on them. I'm just waiting for one of the Super Power AI's to finally Invade in the Long game. My co-inhabitants on my continent while ahead and are a good match up are not my real threat. It's the 4 AI on other continent(s) that are the "worry". So extrapolating, that by the time I get gunpowder units, I could be facing Mechanized Infantry and Modern Tanks and Jet fighters/Bombers and still have rudimentary gun powder units to face them with. I just don't think I could produce enough units to overcome the Arms superiority.

Of course that would finally be "Payback" from all the years of doing it to the AI!

Yeah, I'm curious to see how your game finally pans out, if you do catch up and surpass or if they play the upper hand. Whisperr admits she's ahead of things because her neighbors keep doing things that make her go to war with them and as a result she's now about 30% ahead or more on city count to the nearest competitor.

Going by the target of 4 turns per tech on Long you don't seem too far off from it, but then again, the faster the gamespeed the less difference in turns per tech those adjustments will make. You said you were hitting at about 3 turns per tech on Renaissance right?

 

[JosEPh_II]

You said you were hitting at about 3 turns per tech on Renaissance right?

Not in the Long GS game, which is still in early Med Era. I have had several Med era Techs of late be done in 3 turns. But like I said I'm pushing every Science boosting button I can to do that.

My Ren Era game, that is on Blitz. And research right now is about 1 tech per turn with variance from time to time.The Khymer are in the Modern era now in that game. But only have about 25 cities to my 35 cities. I had a barbarian Motorcycle unit show up and invade one of my newest cities that only had a single rifleman unit guarding it. It captured the city. I had to take the 4 partisans it generated to root out the Barb motorcycle and then bring in more Rifle and guard dogs. That was kinda cool. Yet a bit shocking too. I expected it to just wander around the fringe picking off any stray unit(s) I had out with workers.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Not in the Long GS game, which is still in early Med Era. I have had several Med era Techs of late be done in 3 turns. But like I said I'm pushing every Science boosting button I can to do that.

Let me know what happens in the first portion of the Ren after you get Education in the later end of Med.

I had a barbarian Motorcycle unit show up and invade one of my newest cities that only had a single rifleman unit guarding it.

Sounds like something that would happen in an 80s movie! lol