C2C - UEM - Ultimate-Earth-Map 100% MOD and SVN update compatible by Pit2015

[Thunderbrd]

I see it from another scenario:
On a fast gamespeed at 100% research, you're getting +100 per turn. Thus over 10 turns you have 1000 gold.
On a slow gamespeed at 100% research, if all are equal, you're still getting +100 per turn. Thus over the 100 turns that represent the same 10 turns on a faster gamespeed, you now have 10000 gold.

Both your and my scenarios equally apply thus it depends on whether the player is getting positive gold amounts easily or if tending towards negative gold amounts. At 100% research is probably the determining factor of balance. If gold tends to be so balanced that most players will be at around 0 gold at 100% research, then no modification to gamespeed gold is probably good. But if its off either way, it can be a useful tool to diminish the over time impact of an imbalance from that point.

 

[Toffer90]

I see it from another scenario:
On a fast gamespeed at 100% research, you're getting +100 per turn. Thus over 10 turns you have 1000 gold.
On a slow gamespeed at 100% research, if all are equal, you're still getting +100 per turn. Thus over the 100 turns that represent the same 10 turns on a faster gamespeed, you now have 10000 gold.

Exactly how it should be, if a building costs 1000 gold to hurry on the faster gamespeed, it would cost 10000 gold on the slower gamespeed. (if 100 turns on slow represent 10 turns on fast)
Currently the slow gamespeed get less than 100 gold per turn because of the iGoldmodifier.

Both your and my scenarios equally apply thus it depends on whether the player is getting positive gold amounts easily or if tending towards negative gold amounts. At 100% research is probably the determining factor of balance. If gold tends to be so balanced that most players will be at around 0 gold at 100% research, then no modification to gamespeed gold is probably good. But if its off either way, it can be a useful tool to diminish the over time impact of an imbalance from that point.

the iGoldmodifer ensures that slower gamespeeds tends more towards negative gold per turn then what the faster gamespeeds does.

Again another oversimplified example but you just keep pounding don't you.

I was merely trying to give Pit a pointer in case he wanted to make some personal modifications, which lead me to reply to TB, I was neither talking to you or about you in any way.
It is not really oversimplified, It's fully possible to set up such a scenario, and see that the scenario plays out very differently on the slowest and fastest gamespeed directly because of the iGoldModifier.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Exactly how it should be, if a building costs 1000 gold to hurry on the faster gamespeed, it would cost 10000 gold on the slower gamespeed. (if 100 turns on slow represent 10 turns on fast)
Currently the slow gamespeed get less than 100 gold per turn because of the iGoldmodifier.

the iGoldmodifer ensures that slower gamespeeds tends more towards negative gold per turn than faster gamespeeds.

What it is supposed to be doing is not causing slower gamespeeds to trend towards negative gold per turn so much as trend towards less positive gold (or the inverse towards more positive when things are tending to be negative) so that the greater number of turns doesn't add up to a greater off balance total over the same amount of time that skews the impact of gold in gameplay.

IF you have a scenario where you are right about at 0+/- gold per round on any unmodified gamespeed while maintaining 0% gold on the slider, then you probably have the balance that suggests one should not be using the igoldmodifier on gamespeeds. But if it's trending too high, or too low (which would mean then that longer gamespeeds are suffering rather than benefiting from having more turns) then using the gamespeeds to cut down on the disparity over time is useful.

 

[Toffer90]

What it is supposed to be doing is not causing slower gamespeeds to trend towards negative gold per turn so much as trend towards less positive gold (or the inverse towards more positive when things are tending to be negative) so that the greater number of turns doesn't add up to a greater off balance total over the same amount of time that skews the impact of gold in gameplay.

IF you have a scenario where you are right about at 0+/- gold per round on any unmodified gamespeed while maintaining 0% gold on the slider, then you probably have the balance that suggests one should not be using the igoldmodifier on gamespeeds. But if it's trending too high, or too low (which would mean then that longer gamespeeds are suffering rather than benefiting from having more turns) then using the gamespeeds to cut down on the disparity over time is useful.

Sure, and slower gamespeeds trends naturally towards more expenses regardless of the iGoldModifer.
You build far more units through an era on slower gamespeeds than faster ones because more units dies and because you cannot afford to have a small standing army because it takes too long time to build an army after you get invaded.
This means that you both pay more in unit upkeep, because you have a bigger standing army, and that you have less buildings on slower gamespeeds, because you are using more turns on building units.
Bigger standing armies means more units to upgrade as well.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Sure, and slower gamespeeds trends naturally towards more expenses regardless of the iGoldModifer.
You build far more units through an era on slower gamespeeds than faster ones because more units dies and because you cannot afford to have a small standing army because it takes too long time to build an army after you get invaded.
This means that you both pay more in unit upkeep, because you have a bigger standing army, and that you have less buildings on slower gamespeeds, because you are using more turns on building units.
Bigger standing armies means more units to upgrade as well.

And upgrades cost an adjusted amount more by the gamespeed as well so... you make good points.

 

[JosEPh_II]

At 100% research is probably the determining factor of balance. If gold tends to be so balanced that most players will be at around 0 gold at 100% research, then no modification to gamespeed gold is probably good. But if its off either way, it can be a useful tool to diminish the over time impact of an imbalance from that point.

50 to 70% is the targeted range, not 100%.

And one of the Main goals for the balancing is to reduce the number of units in the game just the same as your re-evaluation of Unit Cost. And to get players weaned off having 100% Research slider all the time.

Each GS, Map Size, # of AI, and Handicap requires a different balance because of How each of these settings affects overall game play. IF we only had 1 GS/Map size/Handicap/and set # of AI None of this would be a issue. But we provide a multitude of combinations. And every Combination will have a median setting that is dictated by the Game Set Up Options we also provide. When I set a balance it is with a very basic Game Set Up set of Options. All the Options that can throw things off are usually not chosen. This is why I constantly refer to a Base game. And the Base C2C game does Not include the Rev components Nor the Combat Mod components nor the Corporation components. Each of these 3 will skew the base game. Sometimes to the point of being unmanageable in regards to balance.

And then we have Leaders and the Set of Leader traits and multiple Options there as well.

Theory is all well and good, it is needed as a basis to build upon. But the Theories put forth are tested by Game play experience, not just proposed modeling. Not all Theories become workable game Mechanics. If and when the actual time in game play is put forth by the Theorists versus the game play time by the tester then a balance can be achieved. But when the Theorists keep changing the playing field by more untested additions without investing Time into their Theories, then the tester will start to discount the theories as untenable to balanced game play. The sheer amount of time invested in game play mandates this. And I put forth that neither of you or Pit have invested as much time in game as is needed to start declaring that this needs done or not done.

 

[Pit2015]

I see it from another scenario:
On a fast gamespeed at 100% research, you're getting +100 per turn. Thus over 10 turns you have 1000 gold.
On a slow gamespeed at 100% research, if all are equal, you're still getting +100 per turn. Thus over the 100 turns that represent the same 10 turns on a faster gamespeed, you now have 10000 gold.

Both your and my scenarios equally apply thus it depends on whether the player is getting positive gold amounts easily or if tending towards negative gold amounts. At 100% research is probably the determining factor of balance. If gold tends to be so balanced that most players will be at around 0 gold at 100% research, then no modification to gamespeed gold is probably good. But if its off either way, it can be a useful tool to diminish the over time impact of an imbalance from that point.

Remember that you need mutch longer to create more gold/income on slower gamespeeds, so on slower gamespeeds you get less gold in the same time. Still totally silly to pay on a gigantic map 96 gold maintenance with eternity gamespeed for a city only 13 plots away. With normal gamespeed you may pay 50 gold maintenance, still to mutch, should be arround 5 gold maintenance. I cant create 5 gold in early game as income on gigantic+eternity AI and player will go conquer sometime, so AI will go bankrupt on gigantic maps when they capture just one city.

You can load my savegame some postings before this, look it up then you see the problem and only way is to never conquer a city with these settings before you reach turn 1000 - 2000 maybe. Load the save and look into it with your normal settings, maybe turn one time then you get the correct calculation of the income.

 

[Pit2015]

50 to 70% is the targeted range, not 100%.

And one of the Main goals for the balancing is to reduce the number of units in the game just the same as your re-evaluation of Unit Cost. And to get players weaned off having 100% Research slider all the time.

Each GS, Map Size, # of AI, and Handicap requires a different balance because of How each of these settings affects overall game play. IF we only had 1 GS/Map size/Handicap/and set # of AI None of this would be a issue. But we provide a multitude of combinations. And every Combination will have a median setting that is dictated by the Game Set Up Options we also provide. When I set a balance it is with a very basic Game Set Up set of Options. All the Options that can throw things off are usually not chosen. This is why I constantly refer to a Base game. And the Base C2C game does Not include the Rev components Nor the Combat Mod components nor the Corporation components. Each of these 3 will skew the base game. Sometimes to the point of being unmanageable in regards to balance.

And then we have Leaders and the Set of Leader traits and multiple Options there as well.

Theory is all well and good, it is needed as a basis to build upon. But the Theories put forth are tested by Game play experience, not just proposed modeling. Not all Theories become workable game Mechanics. If and when the actual time in game play is put forth by the Theorists versus the game play time by the tester then a balance can be achieved. But when the Theorists keep changing the playing field by more untested additions without investing Time into their Theories, then the tester will start to discount the theories as untenable to balanced game play. The sheer amount of time invested in game play mandates this. And I put forth that neither of you or Pit have invested as much time in game as is needed to start declaring that this needs done or not done.

Joseph, you just have to accept that it dont works your way and dont talk crap swampfox, i play more turns in one game then you in 6 month in 10 games. Worked before your changes now it will never work, at least on gigantic and eternity not, so make it work for that. Scenario works fine because you can select your gamespeed and difficulty lvl as you wish. But mod should work for all gamspeeds and map sizes. Load the savegame i provided here, then see yourself.

How will one that gets 5 gold income pay 96 gold city maintenance??? Also it will make the AI bankrupt, its a fact also if you dont like it.

 

[Thunderbrd]

50 to 70% is the targeted range, not 100%.

And one of the Main goals for the balancing is to reduce the number of units in the game just the same as your re-evaluation of Unit Cost. And to get players weaned off having 100% Research slider all the time.

Each GS, Map Size, # of AI, and Handicap requires a different balance because of How each of these settings affects overall game play. IF we only had 1 GS/Map size/Handicap/and set # of AI None of this would be a issue. But we provide a multitude of combinations. And every Combination will have a median setting that is dictated by the Game Set Up Options we also provide. When I set a balance it is with a very basic Game Set Up set of Options. All the Options that can throw things off are usually not chosen. This is why I constantly refer to a Base game. And the Base C2C game does Not include the Rev components Nor the Combat Mod components nor the Corporation components. Each of these 3 will skew the base game. Sometimes to the point of being unmanageable in regards to balance.

And then we have Leaders and the Set of Leader traits and multiple Options there as well.

Theory is all well and good, it is needed as a basis to build upon. But the Theories put forth are tested by Game play experience, not just proposed modeling. Not all Theories become workable game Mechanics. If and when the actual time in game play is put forth by the Theorists versus the game play time by the tester then a balance can be achieved. But when the Theorists keep changing the playing field by more untested additions without investing Time into their Theories, then the tester will start to discount the theories as untenable to balanced game play. The sheer amount of time invested in game play mandates this. And I put forth that neither of you or Pit have invested as much time in game as is needed to start declaring that this needs done or not done.

I'm not issuing challenge Just discussing a viewpoint. I realize that the balance pivot is a little different than what I proposed to consider... I was giving a proposal just so I could draw a reference point for discussion. I hope you've understood the point I've made and take it into consideration in your final analysis, as well as the points others have made. But that's all they are really... just points being made to adopt into consideration rather than to cast aside as if there's no rationale in it. I'm getting the feeling you're taking it more to be the latter and I find that kind of frustrating. No point made here is an attempt to strong arm your change of opinion.

 

[JosEPh_II]

I'm not issuing challenge Just discussing a viewpoint.

Clearly understood and why I stated the range.

i play more turns in one game then you in 6 month in 10 games.

And you are full of it too.

 

[Pit2015]

Load the savegame provided some postings above and look it up swampfox. Then you better understand what i am talking about. Will help you in your analysis and planing.

Really look it up, then you see this stuff has to be map size based or you have to find another way to increase cost and balance gold, otherwise the AI will be bankrupt allways. With my settings i can only take 2 citys so i own 3 (In first 800 to 1000 turns) and if they are far away i pay -5 gold for the 13 plots away and -20 for another thats more far away, i cant or can only hardly paying 3 conquered citys. I want to go now and take the sioux, but i cant pay this city i think so i have to destroy it to secure north america.

Also when i build some more stuff now with 2 citys with my changes to the mod i have to reduce my tech slider already to 50-70% to get no - gold after about 300 turns.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Here's your game back. I pulled your butt out of the fire for you.

1. We designed C2C so that you can not have more than 1 city Before Tribalism without incurring a Very Harsh penalty. Yet you conquer and try to keep the Iroquois city of Mohawk Before you have even researched Hard Hammer Tech much less Herbalism, Shelter building, Weaving, or several other 2nd X column techs. Tribalism is still in the far future!
2. You beelined Tracking and left your self with no support buildings to have and keep any size force. By skipping the techs I posted you left out of your city build que many early gold producing bldgs.
3. You had way too many units out an about to support at this stage of the game on Eternity much less on Nightmare, What the Heck were you thinking! That your invincible and the game has to be bent to your illogical way of game play?
4. Your Leader Traits add another 30% to the Distance Maint modifier that you failed to consider when you went rampaging across the upper midwest to take out a rival.
5. All starting Civics in almost all categories incur a Distance and Number maint. penalties. Yet you ignore them completely then cry your maint is "too mutch". Baloney you failed to take any of this into account at all.
6. You mislead the other posters here with your erroneous calculations because you failed to mention how early in your game it was. And that your Leader added to them. And that the AI would struggle and fail. No the AI is programmed to know that early expansion is a NoNo.
7. By taking and selling all the buildings in Mohawk After I let you go bankrupt and into Strike, then selling off the extra units you had out, and finally abandoning the now empty city of Mohawk I have you at a 70% research rate making 3 gold/turn. If I had done this immediately you would still have a +690 Gold treasury.
8. I also have you into a Golden Age And placed your capital city citizen on a tile that has 2 gold, 1 food and 5 hammers.
9. I left your game on the 9624 SVN build and did not Re-calc to get it to a newer svn version. We have made more improvements and changes since the 9624 build.

Pit you rushed too early and got caught with your pants down and your shame exposed. In my book you are a poor Deity player. Your "superiority" is a sham and you caused your own problem period. Not the game, but you thru lack of attention to details.

 

[Pit2015]

No, then you have to forbit early invasion to the AI, will still not work later in game for the player and the AI on gigantic+eternity maps because when they conquer another civ they will go bankrupt. Mod is designed with neanderthals, so you can conquer with that, then you have to remove them, and you dont want to. As i told you -5 gold for a mostly empty city about 15 plots away from is very hard, it will add up as you need buildings that cost maintenance. But not -96 gold maintenance for a mostly empty city 2% map distance away.

2. No i dont skipped tech, you need longer in eternity to research more techs, not like in your games where you get every turn a tech.

Also mowahk has 3 wonders, so a good gold income and i still make -gold for only maintenance, not cost in units. So units dont cost anything. (I dont have to many units in my savegame, no cost for units, so dont talk crap)

Still same problem, your settings will make the AI bankrupt, also in later game. I mislead no one, i always provide a savegame and said clearly thats it in the first 300 turns. You can talk crap but you cant make 96 gold in first 1000 turns on gigantic+eternity. Thats a fact, you just cant.

Keep it your way i go with my changes you will see it will not work your way. So if you want to ristrict the player from conquering in the first 1000 turns its ok, but a non poor player may conquer when he can manage to get neanderthal culture wonder before the AI what is pretty hard becaus eAI is very fast in this scenario.

My changes will not drive the AI bankrupt, try a longer game with my scenario and see how it plays out but never build or conquer a city more then 2 plots away from your own... and make the AI not to conquer. Othwerwise you are bankrupt.

"You had way too many units out an about to support at this stage of the game on Eternity much less on Nightmare, What the Heck were you thinking! That your invincible and the game has to be bent to your illogical way of game play?" Talk crap swampfox. Unit cost is 0 in my savegame, so i dont have to many units. All fine.

Ok i looked into the savegame you send me back, you only deleted the city mohawk and now the income is fine again, but that will not fix the problem that the AI and player will go bankrupt if they conquer a city in first 1000 turns on gigantic+eternity. Still the same problem as i told you, you have to make:

First:

MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE

Has to be made map size based on larger maps civs start more far away but the AI and the player may go conquer so the AI and player will go bankrup, restricting warfare is silly and the wrong way.

Second:

Set <iGoldModifier> to be the same in all gamespeeds. (gamespeedinfo.xml) Or for slower gamespeeds give a bonus not malus, because you need longer to create more gold income in slower games.

Heres a screenshot, you just deleted the conquered city, that can do everyone and still same problem, paying -96 gold maintenance in a game where you can do later maybe 30 gold income in 1000 turns sucks... so you can keep the player from conquering in early game then remove the neanderthals or fix this problem as i told you above or in another way. Just removing the conquered city will not help to fix your AI bankrupting mod settings.

Also you started the golden age to early, its giving you not +1 gold, just wasted... non poor players start the golden age when it gives you the most income.

And DONT TELL PLAYERS TO NOT CONQUER EARLY IN GAME WHEN THEY CAN GET NEANDERTHALS OR CAN MANAGE TO. But also if the player or the AI will conquer later in game, they will go bankrupt also, no one can pay these maintenance costs on gigantic maps.

And my superiority is very limited, i need alot of turns and units to sacrifice to conquer or destroy a civ in my range and i cant go to far because of the large and far distances...

 

[JosEPh_II]

No, then you have to forbit early invasion to the AI, will still not work later in game for the player and the AI on gigantic+eternity maps because when they conquer another civ they will go bankrupt. Mod is designed with neanderthals, so you can conquer with that, then you have to remove them, and you dont want to. As i told you -5 gold for a mostly empty city about 15 plots away from is very hard, it will add up as you need buildings that cost maintenance. But not -96 gold maintenance for a mostly empty city 2% map distance away.

2. No i dont skipped tech, you need longer in eternity to research more techs, not like in your games where you get every turn a tech.

Also mowahk has 3 wonders, so a good gold income and i still make -gold for only maintenance, not cost in units. So units dont cost anything. (I dont have to many units in my savegame, no cost for units, so dont talk crap)

Still same problem, your settings will make the AI bankrupt, also in later game. I mislead no one, i always provide a savegame and said clearly thats it in the first 300 turns. You can talk crap but you cant make 96 gold in first 1000 turns on gigantic+eternity. Thats a fact, you just cant.

Keep it your way i go with my changes you will see it will not work your way. So if you want to ristrict the player from conquering in the first 1000 turns its ok, but a non poor player may conquer when he can manage to get neanderthal culture wonder before the AI what is pretty hard becaus eAI is very fast in this scenario.

My changes will not drive the AI bankrupt, try a longer game with my scenario and see how it plays out but never build or conquer a city more then 2 plots away from your own... and make the AI not to conquer. Othwerwise you are bankrupt.

"You had way too many units out an about to support at this stage of the game on Eternity much less on Nightmare, What the Heck were you thinking! That your invincible and the game has to be bent to your illogical way of game play?" Talk crap swampfox. Unit cost is 0 in my savegame, so i dont have to many units. All fine.

Ok i looked into the savegame you send me back, you only deleted the city mohawk and now the income is fine again, but that will not fix the problem that the AI and player will go bankrupt if they conquer a city in first 1000 turns on gigantic+eternity. Still the same problem as i told you, you have to make:

First:

MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE

Has to be made map size based on larger maps civs start more far away but the AI and the player may go conquer so the AI and player will go bankrup, restricting warfare is silly and the wrong way.

Second:

Set <iGoldModifier> to be the same in all gamespeeds. (gamespeedinfo.xml) Or for slower gamespeeds give a bonus not malus, because you need longer to create more gold income in slower games.

Heres a screenshot, you just deleted the conquered city, that can do everyone and still same problem, paying -96 gold maintenance in a game where you can do later maybe 30 gold income in 1000 turns sucks... so you can keep the player from conquering in early game then remove the neanderthals or fix this problem as i told you above or in another way. Just removing the conquered city will not help to fix your AI bankrupting mod settings.

Also you started the golden age to early, its giving you not +1 gold, just wasted... non poor players start the golden age when it gives you the most income.

And DONT TELL PLAYERS TO NOT CONQUER EARLY IN GAME WHEN THEY CAN GET NEANDERTHALS OR CAN MANAGE TO. But also if the player or the AI will conquer later in game, they will go bankrupt also, no one can pay these maintenance costs on gigantic maps.

And my superiority is very limited, i need alot of turns and units to sacrifice to conquer or destroy a civ in my range and i cant go to far because of the large and far distances...

For the last time I'm telling you that we have Purposefully made Early Rushes like what you did to the Iroquois have very harsh penalties. It used to be Much Much worse. Do it and suffer the consequences. Which you did. So stop telling us How we Must Mod the Mod to suit your whim to Rush early, understand?

I've pointed out all the areas you purposefully overlooked in your vain attempt to Conquer the US map area Before you even have Hard Hammer Tech.

This conversation on this subject is over. Adapt your play to the conditions you decided to play under.

 

[Pit2015]

As i told you, also in later game the AI will go bankrupt when someone goes to conquer, not only in early rushes, by this mod setting, this needs to be map size based you will see it. And you still should not make more maintenance cost for slower gamespeeds, on slower gamespeeds you need longer to create more income so less maintainence cost are the right way. These are two facts where you can talk what you want, you have to change this to make the mod working with all gamespeeds and all map sizes. Again, also wehn you dont like it.

So standart player can go destroy citys early and maybe he can conquere one in 1000 turns one city... same on small maps? As i told you distances are more far between civs on gigantic maps, but you handle it as same if it is a small map, will never work.

And hopfully you understand now that this problem is not only for early rushes... will be the problem your AI goes bankrupt in later games. And dont talk crap again, i had hard hammer tech or is only one tech away.

Yep i keep you informed, you can change what you want or dont want, its up to you. Allways when i tell you there is a problem, you tell me nono. Then some weeks later you write here, gold has been changed you will like it.

Works fine with my changes to the mod now, so its ok for me, do what you like, i tell you more problems if i encounter some. Also if you loos your "Hörgerät" hearing aid.

Thats a fact and that stays a fact: "It doesn't make sense that you have more expenses per turn when you don't have more income per turn on longer gamespeeds."

 

[Toffer90]

And you still should not make more maintenance cost for slower gamespeeds, on slower gamespeeds you need longer to create more income so less maintainence cost are the right way.

City and unit maintenance cost is the same on all gamespeeds as it should be. This will never be changed.
But I guess you were actually talking about the expence modifier.... I'm not sure it would be right to make it lower on higher gamespeeds, ideally it should be equal for all gamespeeds.

 

[Pit2015]

Yep. 2 screenshots, before and after my changes and yep +90% on eternity sucks.

 

[Toffer90]

MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE

Has to be made map size based on larger maps civs start more far away but the AI and the player may go conquer so the AI and player will go bankrup, restricting warfare is silly and the wrong way.

I disagree, it is more than enough that map sizes have these two modifers:
iDistanceMaintenancePercent
iNumCitiesMaintenancePercent
Map sizes does not need a third mofifier to maintenance.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I'll side with Joseph in saying that you can early rush to destroy neighbors all you want but we're not wanting to make it anything but self destructive to try to do so AND keep the territory you conquer. It's too early in the game during the pre-tribalism prehistoric to be developing a larger empire - the governmental structure cannot manage it. This is, in part, one of the ways we can drive the game to a longer conclusion.

 

[Toffer90]

The AI won't do conquest if they cannot afford the maintenance of another city, they are aware of the cost of cities, if they have too little income they won't do conquest.

P.S.
I also side with Joe on that you are way too early in the game to even consider claiming a second city.