Thanks for the inspiring post Marshall. I was going to suggest you taking a break between your last game and the next! I usually experience a period of burn out that lasts a couple of days but looks like you haven't got it which is good...
I usually do as well, but social obligations are going to force me to take a break for a couple of days starting tomorrow, so I didn't want to waste any time starting anew.
I'm trying out your modified large map settings. Straight away it is obvious to me that those settings are perfect for this mod, and I will be using them from now on.
I modded it to be just 2 or 3 points wider this game. It may make no noticeable difference.
In V10 which I am testing now, I have reduced the unit cost as well and see how that goes. Just to reiterate, the city range attacks are unaffected by this mod, both human and AI they remain on default. Perhaps I should look into that? Another question is whether the AI should be given an across the board offensive attack both on home soil and foreign soil.....The problem for me is that this would hurt human domination players too much (considering that so much of the attack is being played out in enemy territory). The advantage is it simplifies the rules...The Shoshone would be basically impenetrable!
I think city ranged attacks should probably remain at their default level. I certainly can't imagine wanting them stronger, for either the player or the AI; but I think reducing their strength isn't necessary.
As for the AI offensive bonus, I think maybe it would be good to have it apply everywhere. The AI could really use the help with effectively counter-attacking the player's melee units that guard his artillery during sieges. Also, because the bonus only applies when the AI is attacking, it can be overcome. I remember when I first started playing vanilla CiV, I thought that what the AI needed was a flat 25% combat bonus across the board; for both offense and defense. but I like your 33% bonus just for AI attacks solution much more. The idea is to make the player actually lose units more often, which is far too easy to avoid without this change. For the AI to get +33% attack outside of it's own territory but not inside may be too much disparity. and any help the AI can receive counter-attacking my artillery and the units that guard them... I can't recall the AI ever really forcing me to abandon a siege. It's during these crucial moments that the AI's fate is ultimately decided: if it doesn't counter-attack, it will lose it's capitol.
Imagine The Shoshone with the Great Wall. don't even think about invading!
I'm not a domination player, but I think that good domination players will be fine; especially once they start gaining momentum. but to counter this I'm thinking about making domination victory a little less demanding. It is sort of excessive and unrealistic to have to control every single original capital. I play with 15 civs and I think that if a civ controlled 10 original capitols, they should be awarded the win. I never even consider going for the domination victory, because of the sheer amount of time (real hours, not game years) it would take compared to the other types. but if I had to control say... half of the original capitols, I might think differently. Also, with 15 civs, I've never seen the AI come close to a domination victory.
The science-per-era adjustments really start to matter when the average era of all players hits industrial. Then the science-per-era starts kicking in for all the AI's whether they have reached the industrial or not. The first industrial adjustment from memory I think is 110%. I don't think I should make it a bonus dependent on each AI's arrival at the industrial, because this unbalances tall-verses-wide I think.
I must admit that I do like the idea of a very few civs being quite far behind in tech. It's historical and, more importantly, variety amongst civs is always more immersive for gameplay. If I'm playing as a colonial power, I can choose to invade a far-away, over-seas civ without a massive amount of units if they are far behind in tech. but this situation creates an interesting dilemma: I have the technical power to do it, but the diplomatic and happiness consequences may often make it very risky. Usually doing it will only pay off many decades or centuries later. Initially, it's almost always a bad investment. Also, the player may find himself in a situation where he's forced to protect low tech civs from aggressive high tech civs; another interesting dilemma, because the player's civ isn't being threatened directly. In the past, I've even thought of modding some civs to start having serious tech penalties once they reach a certain era (maybe the renaissance or industrial). but they could be compensated by having a tech bonus prior to that era. or some other kind of interesting bonus. It could be interesting, if balanced well.
If you do make changes, I think you have to exit the game, type a new value, save and reload the game. When I tried it, the game did pick up the new science value and I could see what was happening in infoaddict. If you are unsure, save your game at the critical point, type in an absurd number like 1000% or something, and you should see the AI's science rate escalate quickly in infoaddict. That is a good test. Just don't save.
I use to deal with the problems of vanilla immortal and deity by starting on emperor, but I'd keep increasing the AI bonuses as the game reached new eras. I remember always having to exit and load again.
The per-era-science that this mod used to get maxed out at something like 158% for the information era on deity but the buff was not clearly defined because it was mixed with the AI's production buffs. In V9 which you are playing now, I have separated out the science buff and it can be specifically targeted. Keep in mind that making adjustments in this game is known to be very frustrating to modders and testers (and even developers probably), because the game is so slow to load. So keep that in mind and play it cool.
Yes, I want to avoid the trap of perceiving balance based too much on the specifics of the game I'm playing at that very moment. For instance, my current game is likely to be far more difficult than my last just based upon the luck of my starting position. If I didn't take this into account, than it would seem as if some of the balance changes have gone too far. So far, I don't think they have... it's more about the extreme difference in these two starting positions.
By the way, I'm no where near having the tech to build range-3 units yet (and I'm not playing as England), so I'm looking forward to seeing your changes there. I think they will be perfect actually.
Also, I think I'm noticing a difference already with the smart AI merged. I haven't had any sea battles yet and I read that this is where the changes for smart AI are most noticed. another big change should be the AIs using their early great persons for great person tile improvements. This could make quite an AI tech rate improvement.
just an update: my war against Greece ended in a white peace and now we're best of friends; united by our distrust of The Mongols. It's funny because as I was fighting this war, I was watching a show on tv about the battle of Kaddish between the ancient Egyptians and the Hittites. Although Ramses's propaganda made it seem like an Egyptian victory, it was actually closer to a stalemate. Not long after the battle, the very first written alliance of the time was sign between the two former enemies to counter the rise of Assyria. The parallel to my game was nearly exact, lol.
.... I'd say we could be heading for a level drop but still try it at your normal level first.
