C2C Balance Thread

Gawd I hope not! This is restrictions again. And I disagree with restricting how players play.



And why would you even infer I'd do something like that? I put what I have available as the TWs Promos, with Police as the 1st. :mad: I don't use TW as frontline city defense ever.

I get the feeling that several of you think I'm a total imbecile? :shake: Did you even read all the #634 post or just focused on the "See Tbrd's post" part? :(

This is so very frustrating and if I wasn't a n old Missouri Mule I'd have quit trying a loonnggg time ago. :/

JosEPh

How is city specialization an exploit? Even the AI knows how to do it, so I figure it should be a strategy, like it was in ROM.
 
My TWs had the 1st Police promo -5/-2 plus Combat str 10% and 20%vs melee
It looked as if you'd put some of your promos into Combat I and Shock I.

Gawd I hope not! This is restrictions again. And I disagree with restricting how players play.
This has been an issue ever since Warlords introduced the Great General. It suddenly became possible to get a highly trained military out the gate by making sure you only ever put your GGs in one city. If its a problem, its one that's inherited by every step down the line from Warlords, leading to C2C.

Honestly, I've never said I thought you were an imbecile, nor have I attempted to imply it. But trying to build troops from all cities is just ineffective. It leads to generating little more than fodder. This is not a C2C issue but one that's been with us for a long time.

I have a few systems in my combat mod that will seek to address that somewhat and will support your playstyle a bit, though I don't think one could ever fully address the rift between the two methods without making all cities give xp to the troops they build equal to the city that gives the best bonus overall. But lets not pretend there's no drawback to the supercity method either - you produce troops a lot slower and must spend a lot of preparatory time and production before you build a real military force. Sometimes, quantity over quality does work better, especially in a pinch.

One coming change will be ongoing training for units in cities that creates gradual xp gain for units present in the city, the least promoted getting the most benefit, every city being able to get these as the benefits will come from basic training buildings. This will initially be an option that can be accessed from the Infinite XP gameoption. If everyone likes it enough I might make it part of the core.

Another, also a game option, will be a Strength in Numbers system. This option will have other units in the attacking stack adding a lot of support strength to the primary fighter. There's a few ways your style would benefit from this. First, a fodder troop with lesser promos can be used as the front line fighter - enhanced greatly by its stronger local allies it still fights quite well but is no loss if it dies, making a mass of such weaker front fighters supported by a few strong units quite a valuable option in a fight. Second, it supports a quantity style approach to troops since even strong units, if not fully supported, can be overwhelmed by a larger, individually weaker force.

A third system will be some Surround and Destroy promo lines that can make even great numbers of minimally promoted units extremely capable of offering a lot of S&D support.

A fourth system, not technically part of the combat mod but unlocked by what the combat mod will allow us to do, was presented a little while back when we were discussing Martial Arts. THIS system promised to offer a very large benefit (at least during the melee fighting era) to those who decide to spread out their military building among quite a few cities. It does so by making it a severe penalty to over-rely on any one Martial Arts style and any one city can only grant one Martial Arts style to the units it builds.

In short, I've recognized the problem in the rift between those playstyles for a while now (as I said... since Warlords) and I AM actively doing what I can to try and address it. In the meantime, I do the best I can do as a player under the rules of the game I'm playing and wonder why anyone would knowingly hobble themselves.

However, I see what you're trying to do is speak for the more inexperienced player and I've always liked what you have to say for that reason.
 
I have to ask this, Then why even bother with Crime in the game?

Apparently from y' all's perspective it just adds more Gold to your bottom line and isn't really an enhancement to the mod. Hydro's gonna be disappointed to hear this.

JosEPh

Well yes, Crime boils down to money, but that's the way its suppose to be. We had complains that there was too much :gold:, :health: and :). Crime, depending upon how you play give you those factors. If you spend more money on it then you will not have :health: and :) problems. However if you spend less money you will have more money but :mad: and :yuck:. However either way its a drain on money either from you building anti-crime or them taking it through crimes. Note that other buildings can counter :mad: and :yuck: too just like in vanilla. So if you want your crime to run wild you could (though its not recommended).
 
Well yes, Crime boils down to money, but that's the way its suppose to be. We had complains that there was too much :gold:, :health: and :). Crime, depending upon how you play give you those factors. If you spend more money on it then you will not have :health: and :) problems. However if you spend less money you will have more money but :mad: and :yuck:. However either way its a drain on money either from you building anti-crime or them taking it through crimes. Note that other buildings can counter :mad: and :yuck: too just like in vanilla. So if you want your crime to run wild you could (though its not recommended).

I think that 4 crime per pop point is too much now that we have integrated more Crime buildings into the core building chains. Crime per pop point should be reduced to 3 now IMO, allowing more of a buffer for essential things like the Trade Posts and other crime buildings.
 
Leave it at 4 for now. Seems there are bigger fish to fry than this.

JosEPh
 
Leave it at 4 for now. Seems there are bigger fish to fry than this.

JosEPh

Now that some of the more major bugs have been addressed, I would like to come back to this. I think that now with Praetyre's changes integrating more Crime buildings into the core building chains that Crime should be reduced to 3 per pop point. It is a one-line change, and I would like to know what others think of this.
 
Affirmative, and also because the TW line now needs more XP to reach higher Policing Promotions.

Cheers
 
If you talking about crime levels from v25 leave it as it is because i ignored crime almost on entire game to industrial era i simply we have enought buildings that gives gold and happy to cover negative efects of crime.

Another reason it is simply unrealistic to have 0 crime level or give 4 for monarch 5 for emperor and 3 for noble
 
Of course you know what my vote is. :mischief:

JosEPh
 
If you talking about crime levels from v25 leave it as it is because i ignored crime almost on entire game to industrial era i simply we have enought buildings that gives gold and happy to cover negative efects of crime.

Another reason it is simply unrealistic to have 0 crime level or give 4 for monarch 5 for emperor and 3 for noble

Not for now, because it's not quite as trivial (still easy though), but I really like the idea of base crime being influenced by difficulty level. With so man health and happiness buildings the difference ithose from difficulty (which used to be a very major part of the extra difficulty) is yearly watered down. Adding differential crime by difficulty would help re establish a bit more differentiation. I don't think changing the crime per pop is entirely appropriate (not granular enough), but maybe a global crime modifier by difficult level?
 
@Koshling

I am for connect dificulty level with as many factors as possible (disease crime etc) because monarch-emperor difficulty is optimal to play but still to easy. If we connect crime, disease and others with diff. level the game will be more chalenging

I dont like above emperor difficulties because with multiple production AI spawn a lot of units. So lot that turns time are huge and numbers of units are so unrealistic...
 
I'm just waiting to see what Hydro's vote is, that matters quite a lot around here. :)

I would rather the Crime per pop be left the way I set it. No offense to JosEPh_II but he is never happy with any of the negative factors of the game, be it -:gold:, crime, etc. I got to go with my gut on this and so far in my testing crime has been hardly noticeable. Even with the new civic changes.

Honestly I think crime needs to be made harder, not easier. However since the disease is not all in yet I will hold off. Since if I push too far and then it will be too hard to balance both disease and crime.

In short I think there are more than enough ways to balance your crime. So much so that I think it may be too easy to balance. Sorry Joe but I strongly disagree with you on this one.
 
I have stopped playing C2C because of the crime factor. I also don't play with Advanced Economy because I don't like that which may be why I find crime a not fun part of C2C.
 
Have to say I have really enjoyed the challenge that crime presents in my latest game. Its another factor you have to take into account especially when your cities start to get large and stops the 'build everything ' approach. I would however like to see a more detailed screen or hover over that shows the positive and negative effects. Crime etc adds a whole new dimension in city management and therefore is a welcome addition to this remarkable mod.
 
I have stopped playing C2C because of the crime factor. I also don't play with Advanced Economy because I don't like that which may be why I find crime a not fun part of C2C.

I would rather the Crime per pop be left the way I set it. No offense to JosEPh_II but he is never happy with any of the negative factors of the game, be it -:gold:, crime, etc. I got to go with my gut on this and so far in my testing crime has been hardly noticeable. Even with the new civic changes.

Honestly I think crime needs to be made harder, not easier. However since the disease is not all in yet I will hold off. Since if I push too far and then it will be too hard to balance both disease and crime.

In short I think there are more than enough ways to balance your crime. So much so that I think it may be too easy to balance. Sorry Joe but I strongly disagree with you on this one.

I think that one of the main issues people have been having with C2C is that we've only been adding 'negative' features to it. There is no way Crime can benefit your civ in any way, manner, shape, or form, ditto with Pollution or Disease. That is why I'm planning on adding a purely positive feature to V27, something that people will enjoy more while still being a unique mechanic not found anywhere else in civ.
 
@Hydro,

Even though I didn't suggest this change I'll let you pin it on me. Why not, I get accused for almost everything else that I see problems with and speak up about.

Hey! Pssst...(Has to be a Critic in the woodpile or the Yes ppl get carried away.) ;)

JosEPh
 
@Hydro,

Even though I didn't suggest this change I'll let you pin it on me. Why not, I get accused for almost everything else that I see problems with and speak up about.

Hey! Pssst...(Has to be a Critic in the woodpile or the Yes ppl get carried away.) ;)

JosEPh

Correct, this was totally not my idea at all. ;)
 
I really like the idea of connecting crime/pop value to the difficulty level. I also think, as stated before, that we need to make a certain level of crime necessary to maintain without worse effects for the efforts to overcome it - measured by a new property entirely. But then... I do understand that we have a lot going on already so I guess I'm just looking for some discussion on that idea.

Otherwise, the problem with it now is that it feels like a tug of war - either you're handling it properly or you're not - a bit too black and white for what crime actually is. Making it harder to manage by increasing the crime per pop just makes it a tougher tug of war and something a player needs to focus on all the more rather than something that gives a reason to allow some crime.

Another way to address this that seems appropriate to me : make those crime units only trainable at certain levels of crime in the city (in other words, no thieves, rogues, bandits or assassins if you don't allow for enough crime present.)
 
I think that one of the main issues people have been having with C2C is that we've only been adding 'negative' features to it. There is no way Crime can benefit your civ in any way, manner, shape, or form, ditto with Pollution or Disease. That is why I'm planning on adding a purely positive feature to V27, something that people will enjoy more while still being a unique mechanic not found anywhere else in civ.

Like if you go into -Crime? Past 0 crime to the other side of crime you mean? Or do you have something else in mind?

@Hydro,

Even though I didn't suggest this change I'll let you pin it on me. Why not, I get accused for almost everything else that I see problems with and speak up about.

Hey! Pssst...(Has to be a Critic in the woodpile or the Yes ppl get carried away.) ;)

JosEPh

Sorry but i assumed from the ...

Of course you know what my vote is. :mischief:

JosEPh


... comment that you were agreeing with him.

I really like the idea of connecting crime/pop value to the difficulty level. I also think, as stated before, that we need to make a certain level of crime necessary to maintain without worse effects for the efforts to overcome it - measured by a new property entirely. But then... I do understand that we have a lot going on already so I guess I'm just looking for some discussion on that idea.

Otherwise, the problem with it now is that it feels like a tug of war - either you're handling it properly or you're not - a bit too black and white for what crime actually is. Making it harder to manage by increasing the crime per pop just makes it a tougher tug of war and something a player needs to focus on all the more rather than something that gives a reason to allow some crime.

Another way to address this that seems appropriate to me : make those crime units only trainable at certain levels of crime in the city (in other words, no thieves, rogues, bandits or assassins if you don't allow for enough crime present.)

I see nothing wrong with having crime increase or decrease its "potency" with difficulty settings. it make sense to me. How to code for this I have no idea though. But I support anyone who figures outs how.

EDIT: How about something like this ...

Settler = -2 Crime Per Pop
Chieftain = -1 Crime Per Pop
Warlord = 0 Crime Per Pop
Noble = +1 Crime Per Pop
Prince = +2 Crime Per Pop
Monarch = +3 Crime Per Pop
Emperor = +4 Crime Per Pop
Immortal = +5 Crime Per Pop
Deity = +6 Crime Per Pop
 
Back
Top Bottom