BeBa - Beyond Balance

Hey, I have an idea. No idea if this is possible, but here a thought:

I don't mind too much wide being in general better, like tall is in Civ V, but I think it would be best if there were valid options with benefits and drawbacks, rather the one true build. So I propose that you gain a building quest only once you've built one in every single city you own, rather than randomly after you built at least one. This would allow building quests to be pretty powerful, but removes the randomness and requires some effort (rather than luck) in order to achieve the benefits, while also indirectly nerfing the wide strategy.
 
Hey, I have an idea. No idea if this is possible, but here a thought:

I don't mind too much wide being in general better, like tall is in Civ V, but I think it would be best if there were valid options with benefits and drawbacks, rather the one true build. So I propose that you gain a building quest only once you've built one in every single city you own, rather than randomly after you built at least one. This would allow building quests to be pretty powerful, but removes the randomness and requires some effort (rather than luck) in order to achieve the benefits, while also indirectly nerfing the wide strategy.

Hurts the strategic resource buildings too much. Many of them need their quest bonus to be even worth using.
 
Not only that, but that would also completely destroy the rest of what is left of "city specialization". You just don't need every building in every city, I don't see how forcing us to do so just for the building quest (and then selling off unwanted buildings afterwards...) would be a good way to balance tall and wide.

I think, building quest could be used to DIRECTLY benefit tall vs. wide though, just by offering decisions between strong bonuses that favor tall OR wide empires.
 
Agreed- make it unit class melee only. (Simpy Delete PROMOTION_FIERCE_LOYALTY FROM UNITCOMBAT_ARCHER, UNITCOMBAT_SIEGE, UNITCOMBAT_NAVALRANGED)

The following code should do it I think:
Spoiler :
DELETE UnitPromotions_UnitCombats
WHERE PromotionType = 'PROMOTION_FIERCE_LOYALTY' AND 'UnitCombatType' IN ('UNITCOMBAT_ARCHER', 'UNITCOMBAT_SIEGE', 'UNITCOMBAT_NAVALRANGED');
 
Hurts the strategic resource buildings too much. Many of them need their quest bonus to be even worth using.

So don't use them when going wide? You hardly need those buildings when going wide anyway.

Not only that, but that would also completely destroy the rest of what is left of "city specialization". You just don't need every building in every city, I don't see how forcing us to do so just for the building quest (and then selling off unwanted buildings afterwards...) would be a good way to balance tall and wide.

So you don't get quest rewards if you decide to overly specialize your cities. Seems like an actual cost-benefit trade-off, which is what I want to have when choosing between strategies. And will make you think twice about settling that snow city just because.
 
The previous comment about Tall Versus Wide brought up an interesting point. Quest bonuses could be re-worked to be choices between tall and wide. That said, any giant set of changes to quests, wonders, and end-game may be impossible to implement. I think this game is un-fixable.

There are so many problems with the end-game pacing of CIV BE AI, aliens, etc that it's going to take a mid-size R&D team, plus testers a few years to fix. There is a framework here that you guys can work with which is good, but I worry that you may be wasting your time on this game.

I'm into my 3rd game and have already entirely lost interest. CIV BE is definitely a trick pony. There is zero depth to factions, end-game, and horrible tech-pacing. This release is a 'Call to Power' class Flop, with zero replayability. I spent 6 months trying to mod CIV Call to Power into a playable state by: balancing the tech curve, implementing a happiness mechanic and changing government multipliers. But no matter what I did, the AI(s) were still dumb as bricks. Then I discovered Alpha Centauri...

I would just wait a year for CIV 6 or CIV BE - whatever. This game needs several new mechanics, that you can't code in to fix it's replay value. New Units, faction buildings, new diplomacy options. It's un-fixable.
 
The previous comment about Tall Versus Wide brought up an interesting point. Quest bonuses could be re-worked to be choices between tall and wide. Those concepts are definitely not supported by virtues.

I don't know, I spent 6 months trying to mod CIV Call to Power after it came out into a playable state with balance the tech curve, nerfed ICS and altered mechanics. Then I discovered Alpha Centauri, a 'good game'...

I feel like CIV BE is a Call to Power class FLOP. Nothing is balanced or compelling, there are so many problems with the end-game pacing, that it's going to take a mid-size R&D team plus testers to fix.

There is a framework here that you guys can work with which is good. Some really cool ideas that can be developed. This game is a good alpha, and if you guys can fix it, then it will be awesome.

Making quests to be wide vs "tall" (which should just be called "small" in my opinion in civ5 and civBE) could be done by providing 1 option that gives a bonus in every instance of the building and an option that gives a more powerful bonus to a limited number of cities (for example only the cap).

But I'd preffer some initial work on stronger health penalities and possible national wonders rather than a quest based system.
 
So you don't get quest rewards if you decide to overly specialize your cities. Seems like an actual cost-benefit trade-off, which is what I want to have when choosing between strategies. And will make you think twice about settling that snow city just because.
Yeah, sure. But why "disable" quests for wide empires when you could just re-balance the quest rewards to favor tall empires a bit more? I really dislike the idea of removing features for the sake of balance. I'd rather say add more choices that favor play-styles that are currently underperforming. I'll quote myself from another thread (yeah, I'm that cocky):

Also, more choices that are specifically tailored to be more useful for specific types of empires. "+2 Health and 100% cost increase or 20% cost decrease + maintenance free."; "+5 Gold per Building, but Building limited to 5 cities or +1 Gold"; "+5 Hammers, but building costs 1 titanium or +1 Food", etc.

And of course obvious things like "% Growth in your first 4 cities", etc. - Such a system could easily be used to push all sorts of empires without the need of nerfing other empires, just my giving access to strong tradeoffs.
 
Yeah, sure. But why "disable" quests for wide empires when you could just re-balance the quest rewards to favor tall empires a bit more? I really dislike the idea of removing features for the sake of balance. I'd rather say add more choices that favor play-styles that are currently underperforming. I'll quote myself from another thread (yeah, I'm that cocky):

And of course obvious things like "% Growth in your first 4 cities", etc. - Such a system could easily be used to push all sorts of empires without the need of nerfing other empires, just my giving access to strong tradeoffs.

Well, it's not disabling these quests, just making it harder to get and removing the random factor. Honestly, even with this mod, going wide it's still pretty easy to build most buildings in most cities. To get the quests, you'd just need to prioritize certain buildings ahead of your usual queue. Right now all you need to do to get trader route immunity from aliens is build a single ultrasonic fence and wait for a random amount of time. One game you get it instantly, another game it doesn't happen for 40 turns. Either way, it's a no-brainer that you want to build one ultrasonic fence somewhere whenever you get the tech, it requires little effort for a huge benefit. It seems way too random and way too strong. However, if you had to build a fence in every single city you own, you have a choice -- you can either prioritize the tech and build a few while your empire is still young and has few cities (and stop expanding for a while) to get this bonus early, or you wait until your empire is at full swing, invest a bit more production in it and risk your trade routes in the mean time. That seems like something I'd actually think about, rather than do by default, and it's still available even if you go wide but hinders your expansion a bit or forces you to spend some energy to insta-buy some fences.

I mean, some quests and buildings might need to be rebalanced a bit to follow this theme, but unless you invent some completely new national wonders to give tall a boost, I see no other way to boost it. Giving a bonus only to the first N cities seems to me a bit too forced a solution, there needs to be something systematically beneficial to going tall rather than some arbitrary quests like those.
 
A largely quality of life change that a friend did to his files and I quickly followed suit, is making it so that terrascaping can only be done on Snow and Tundra tiles; The other tiles are typically not somewhere you'd want to terrascape because of the 6 energy cost of the change, and it stops your automated workers (Which yes, is bad play for absolute minmaxing, but a massive quality of life improvement on wide empire games) from trying to terrascape the entire freaking world until your gold flatlines at 0 a turn. They'll still terrascape snow and tundra, but those tiles are typically so low value otherwise it's not nearly as annoying, and since they're not trying to do it in the ENTIRE EMPIRE you can just take workers over there and manually build something else, if that's your preference.

To be honest, I'd prefer to just remove terrascape from the automated workers AI as an option and just do it manually, but I imagine that would cripple the AI; This way, they get as much benefit from terrascaping as you do.

To those interested in doing likewise, open your civ: BE folder, Assets>Gameplay>XML>Terrain>CivBEImprovements.xml in any text editor, and edit... let's get some tags in here.

Code:
                <Row>
			<ImprovementType>IMPROVEMENT_TERRASCAPE</ImprovementType>
			<TerrainType>TERRAIN_GRASS</TerrainType>
		</Row>
		<Row>
			<ImprovementType>IMPROVEMENT_TERRASCAPE</ImprovementType>
			<TerrainType>TERRAIN_PLAINS</TerrainType>
		</Row>
		<Row>
			<ImprovementType>IMPROVEMENT_TERRASCAPE</ImprovementType>
			<TerrainType>TERRAIN_DESERT</TerrainType>
		</Row>
Into

Code:
		<!--Row>
			<ImprovementType>IMPROVEMENT_TERRASCAPE</ImprovementType>
			<TerrainType>TERRAIN_GRASS</TerrainType>
		</Row>
		<Row>
			<ImprovementType>IMPROVEMENT_TERRASCAPE</ImprovementType>
			<TerrainType>TERRAIN_PLAINS</TerrainType>
		</Row>
		<Row>
			<ImprovementType>IMPROVEMENT_TERRASCAPE</ImprovementType>
			<TerrainType>TERRAIN_DESERT</TerrainType>
		</Row-->

You're just adding a "!--" at the first Row, and a -- to the end of the last "/Row" to comment out the 3 lines of code that allow terrascaping on those 3 terrains. I'm sure this is easily incorporated into a mod, but I haven't the foggiest how to go about making it into one and tend to just use adjustments to things like mapsize and other minor things on a personal editing basis, instead.

Though on that note, if someone can find the file to edit "Massive" mapsize to be yet more, well... massive, I'd love to have that information. I found CivBEWorlds in Gameinfo, but while i can edit the gridheight and width of sizes tiny through large as a fix, for some reason Massive isn't listed, only Tiny, Duel, Small, Standard, and Large, and as I'm not actually a programmer I've held off editing it since having different options listed means I might not even be at the right file, and editing the original game files means I'm hesitant to do things that might break it.
 
Hey, I have an idea. No idea if this is possible, but here a thought:

I don't mind too much wide being in general better, like tall is in Civ V, but I think it would be best if there were valid options with benefits and drawbacks, rather the one true build. So I propose that you gain a building quest only once you've built one in every single city you own, rather than randomly after you built at least one. This would allow building quests to be pretty powerful, but removes the randomness and requires some effort (rather than luck) in order to achieve the benefits, while also indirectly nerfing the wide strategy.

It's a really interesting idea, but as others have said, it is a little bit rigid and cuts off a whole interesting area of the game to those who don't follow a particular playstyle.
I'll throw out a compromise idea, which is that the current 5% chance per turn that a quest will fire (or so I gather) could be altered to take into account the percentage of cities with that building. E.g. chance is 10% x (# of that building / # of cities). So tall empires will reap the benefits of building quests significantly sooner. Doubt it would be possible to mod though.
 
Another idea about balancing trade routes, once again I'm not sure how easy it would be to implement:

Instead of straight up nerfing the number of possible trade routes, how about changing the trade route slots to count not only outgoing connections, but also incoming ones?

This way you can't send all your trade routes to a single city, making a new city instantly the top producer of the empire -- you'd only be able to send it two trade routes to boost it a bit. Overall, it'd be the same nerf to the number of possible trade routes overall, but also disallow focus-firing new cities to quickly catch them up with the rest of the empire, which makes the investment of making a new city pay off a bit later.

Frankly, doing this IN ADDITION to nerfing the number of possible trade routes per city might not be too big a nerf to the trade system. Make it so a city can either feed or be fed only one trade route, unless it's a capital which gets two slots...

It would also give Polystralia's special ability some new depth -- now you'd be able to feed the capital four trade routes rather than just two, giving it a strong boost in wonder-building.

You'd need to do something about international trade routes, though, because with just these changes you'd be able to send double the amount compared to internal trader routes... I have a few thoughts on those:

1. Make it so only the capital can send international trade routes, making you choose between feeding it production or making lots of money and sceince

2. Simply make international routes take up two slots at once, or nerf them by 50%.

Either way, incoming international trade routes shouldn't take up a slot, because that seems gimmicky. Though maybe it would be an interesting idea to limit the number of possible incoming trader routes separately, making you compete for trade routes with different factions.

Thoughts?
 
Thank you so much for picking up the Communitas tradition! I had a huge bunch of fun with this mod, both by playing and by discussing it.

On Cargo -

Hydroponics - probably the weakest, maybe starting pop 3 would be more in line with the other choices.
Laboratory - the best pick for any tech rush strategy, is fine.
Raw Materials - Maybe a little weak, add 50 energy maybe.
Weapon Arsenal - Would love it to be a unity... combat rover instead of a soldier unit.
Machinery - good general purpose choice, is fine.

I like those suggestions a lot! I'm always taking the worker right now, but this would actually turn it into a choice.

Is it possible to make the trade depot give +1 trade route per 6 population? Makes it worthless for brand new cities, and it doesn't become really good until 12 pop. Also makes it a bit more viable to go tall as reaching 18 or 24 gives even more trade.

I'm very much in favor of such a solution regarding number of TR's.

EDIT:
You've basically nerfed the potential yields from internal trade to one sixth (half yield, only one TR), clearly altering the game beyond mere balance. You're completely countering the dev's intention to have a game where TR's are a core gameplay element. But I'll explain this in more detail in a later post, don't have the time now (no, I don't mean the post right below).

This is the only huge issue I've seen so far.
 
About TR yields:

What about this very simple rule:
When an internal TR is established, each trading partner gets 10% of the food and production the other city has.

This would accomplish the following things:
  • Reliable, relatively constant, easy-to-understand yields
  • No weird "zero-yield" TR's
  • Easy balance by changing the percent value
  • No difference in TR direction - less micromanagement
  • No overpowered yields created out of thin air
  • Small cities would profit more than larger ones

There is one issue this doesn't solve, though: Each city would always want to trade with the largest possible trading partner, so it would very often still be a connection to the capital (like it is common practice in vanilla already).
Then again, this would be no major problem: We already have to connect roads to our capital, so an internal TR would basically just be an upgrade.
Lore-wise it also makes sense: In the given sci-fi setting, the initial landig site would be the one where all the goodies from earth are available/installed (like advanced reactors, computers and equipment not easily buildable on a "virgin" world). It would be a natural hub, more important than any earth capital nowadays.
And: since the capital receives only 10% of the junior partners yields, we could probably never make the capital as overpowered as in vanilla. Also, if the capital isn't in a nice coastal spot, we would still need sub-hubs, like a large port city.
It might even be better for many players to have clear rules of thumb where to send their internal TR's.
 
Oh wow, that's a great idea. More trade routes for bigger cities, but I'd change the curve slightly instead of a flat every 6 pop because of how massive the increase in food required to increase population is for larger cities, Maybe 1 at 6, 12, 16, and 20? or 17 and 21. I don't really know if it's possible from a mod standpoint, though... well, a DLL mod could likely do it for sure but that's going a bit far.

As to the concept helping Tall though, I mean... with the current health system my "Wide" strategy capital and early cities aren't likely to be any smaller then your "Tall" ones, would need something more like national wonders to rebalance tall back into a 'thing' with the current health system. Or a health system change, of course. Honestly I expect an expansion in the future will return the 'golden age' or 'national wonder' concepts to this game, however, both of which could be used to return Tall to viability (golden age via an INCREDIBLY PAINFUL increasing cost per city), so I'm okay with this mod not making any sweeping changes regarding that. This game just doesn't seem to be about deciding wether to expand or not, but rather how to go about doing it. An early strategical choice that other strategy games and previous civ games have had, but with the reduced sponsor choice influence, not necessarily a compelling one. I don't hurt for the lack, at any rate.
 
I am overjoyed to see the level of discussion over the past few pages, and can safely say that we're already growing into a solid community. :) It's also fantastic to see some old faces from the Communitas forums.

Unfortunately, my second-year chemistry exam is this Friday so I don't have time to respond to them at this point. :( I promise to get back to work on this mod on the weekend, and the next update will primarily focus on seeding options and health (along with a possible rebalance of Trade Routes) but until then, please don't stop discussing, and please don't take my silence as any indicator of its quality!
 
Gonna copy paste a PM I've sent to a few people from this thread and various other places since albie said it's cool, but the short version is I made a modified version of this mod that doesn't nerf trade routes into a side mechanic from a major one.

I've given this to a couple people, it's the BeBa mod, but with the autoplant trade route intact, and the nerf to trade routes in general removed. So with the autoplant quest, your capital gets 3 (i left his bonus route for the capital in, because it makes the capital feel more... capitally.), and your other towns get two total instead of 3. The nerf by 50% to internal traderoutes is gone completely though.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ecg0kmx7g6ep05n/BeBa - Beyond Balance (v 1).zip?dl=0

Just replace your current beyond balance folder with that, and you'll be golden. If you'd rather make the edit yourself so you can do it with future versions since the community at large seems to prefer 1 route, or make a slightly different modification to mine, the changes I made are:

I opened the "BeBa - Beyond Balance (v 1)" folder, then the Core folder, then the Trade.SQL in "Notepad++", but any text editor should do. From there, I edited

Code:
-- QUEST REWARDS

UPDATE PlayerPerks_GeneralBuildingEffects
SET NumTradeRoutes = '0'
WHERE PlayerPerkType = 'PLAYERPERK_AUTOPLANTS_TRADE_ROUTE';

UPDATE PlayerPerks_BuildingYieldEffects
SET BuildingClassType = 'BUILDINGCLASS_AUTOPLANT', YieldType = 'YIELD_PRODUCTION', FlatYield = '1'
WHERE PlayerPerkType = 'PLAYERPERK_AUTOPLANTS_TRADE_ROUTE';

UPDATE PlayerPerks
SET Help = 'TXT_KEY_BEBA_PLAYERPERK_AUTOPLANTS'
WHERE Type = 'PLAYERPERK_AUTOPLANTS_TRADE_ROUTE';

To

Code:
-- QUEST REWARDS

--UPDATE PlayerPerks_GeneralBuildingEffects
--SET NumTradeRoutes = '0'
--WHERE PlayerPerkType = 'PLAYERPERK_AUTOPLANTS_TRADE_ROUTE';

--UPDATE PlayerPerks_BuildingYieldEffects
--SET BuildingClassType = 'BUILDINGCLASS_AUTOPLANT', YieldType = 'YIELD_PRODUCTION', FlatYield = '1'
--WHERE PlayerPerkType = 'PLAYERPERK_AUTOPLANTS_TRADE_ROUTE';

--UPDATE PlayerPerks
--SET Help = 'TXT_KEY_BEBA_PLAYERPERK_AUTOPLANTS'
--WHERE Type = 'PLAYERPERK_AUTOPLANTS_TRADE_ROUTE';

All this does is "comment out" the code, so that it doesn't actually run. I did the same for the portions ABOVE the quest changes, to revert the across-the-board nerf to trade routes in general and internal inparticular. That way if you want to revert it you just remove those "--" and its back! You can comment out the bit below the headquarters if you don't like the extra capital trade route (It seemed silly to me at first, but having a capital with an extra trade route makes it feel more capitally so i left it in). If you would rather 2 trade routes on the base trade depot and to leave the quest changes by the mod in, just comment out the three lines

Code:
UPDATE Buildings
SET NumTradeRoutes = '1'
WHERE Type = 'BUILDING_DEPOT';

and it'll revert to the usual 2. Or you can just change the 1 to a 2, but then the mod is wasting memory changing a 2 to a 2 in the game files, which is silly.

Hopefully once the mod is more "Complete" we'll have arrived at a solution everyone's happy with, or just have it be more modular so people can pick and choose, but in the mean time, here we go.

ALL credit for this mod definitely goes to albie, and Delnar for his AI contributions from the civ 5 mod. I honestly would be at a loss if I were to make this mod from scratch, as I usually make my changes via editing the files directly. His VERY well organized code is also to thank for the sole purpose this was easy enough I was willing to do it.

-Valatros

Oh, and the reason the file I uploaded is a folder already instead of a CivBEmod is because I have no bloody clue what program they're using to compress their files into a ".CivBEmod" that the game itself then uncompresses and never compresses again. I am SERIOUSLY not a modder, I'm like... a mod modder at best. Packaging it as a CivBEMod strikes me as an unnecessary step anyway >.>
 
As far as I can tell, you've only modified the one "Trade.sql" file. No need to upload the whole folder, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't. (Having multiple versions of the mod available for download at different places makes catching bugs all the more tricky).
 
I see a lot of talk about balancing trade and quest and stuff.
To me the most pressing problems should be trying to improve the AI
The main problem I have observed is that AI doe not understand that Me building a Mind Flower or Gate means they should attack and try to destroy the structure.
To me I am surprised that while the AI of the Civ games has been bad but releasing the game with an AI that has no idea about how not to lose.
The second major problem is that the AI makes one attack on your Civ when war is declared and then sit about having tea and biscuits while you build up an overwhelming force.
 
Back
Top Bottom