Beta 7.2.4 Comments

[Txurce]

The more expensive you make units to buy, the more attractive you make (for example) military city state alliances. Do we risk getting back to the stage where investing gold in city states is a no-brainer?

When did it ever stop being a no-brainer? I think most of the adjustments have been efforts to balance the no-brainer among the three alternatives.

 

[Ahriman]

When did it ever stop being a no-brainer? I think most of the adjustments have been efforts to balance the no-brainer among the three alternatives.

I don't follow what you are saying here.

If three alternatives are all good choices, then none of them is a no-brainer.
If you make two alternatives less attractive, then you move towards the other being a no-brainer.

I don't have enough playtest experience here yet to draw conclusions, I'm just saying that increasing gold income (from OBs) and increasing gold purchase costs (of units and buildings) isn't a wash; it increases the ability to buy city state alliances, and we should keep in mind the relative value of these options during playtest.

For example, it seems like investing 500 in a city state is likely to be a far better choice than spending 500 to purchase a building, or 800 to purchase a unit.

 

[Txurce]

I don't follow what you are saying here.

If three alternatives are all good choices, then none of them is a no-brainer.
If you make two alternatives less attractive, then you move towards the other being a no-brainer.

I don't have enough playtest experience here yet to draw conclusions, I'm just saying that increasing gold income (from OBs) and increasing gold purchase costs (of units and buildings) isn't a wash; it increases the ability to buy city state alliances, and we should keep in mind the relative value of these options during playtest.

For example, it seems like investing 500 in a city state is likely to be a far better choice than spending 500 to purchase a building, or 800 to purchase a unit.

I meant that as a rule, investing 500g in specific CS in a no-brainer for me. Buffing the Militaristic ones puts them closer to the perceived value of Maritimes and Culturals.

 

[Thalassicus]

I actually do agree citystates are too easy to buy. I remember reading about a value somewhere that can alter citystate purchase costs effectively... but for the life of me I can't remember which thread it was in or the name of the variable.

Something else is it makes tiles easier to purchase. I feel the cost-benefit to tile purchasing is way off... few people ever consider it as a worthwhile expenditure of money, and they're right. There's no way to change that value directly though.

It also makes building maintenance easier to afford. This is an important one for me because maintenance is already so low there's not much wiggle room. Going from 1/turn to 2/turn on buildings is a huge change. Scaling income and expenses all up a bit gives more flexibility... haven't decided yet if I want to tweak building maintenance.

 

[Ahriman]

I meant that as a rule, investing 500g in specific CS in a no-brainer for me.

I don't think this is a good thing, and increasing the gold purchase costs of units and buildings will only make it worse.

Something else you're overlooking is it makes tiles easier to purchase.

I thought of that, I just agree with you that it isn't a problem.

 

[SlightlyMad]

I actually do agree citystates are too easy to buy. I remember reading about a value somewhere that can alter citystate purchase costs effectively... but for the life of me I can't remember which thread it was in or the name of the variable.

Gazebo experimented with these numbers quite a bit in CSD, and ran into some problems. Basically, you can't deviate very far at all from the vanilla ratio of cost/benefit for city-state bribery, or the AI simply won't ever use it and the player will have no competition for their favor.