China

[tu_79]

Hit the stop growth button?
I mean, why do we have the information, how much unhappiness will be generated with the next citizen?

Why should I stop growth when everything seems OK?

EDIT. Please, take a time and play current China.

 

[CrazyG]

I consider the WLTKD and bonus food a mostly insignificant secondary effect. The star of China's UA is the extra culture. You could substantially increase the bonuses to WLTKD or the bonus food if the culture wasn't so powerful.

 

[pineappledan]

The food and culture are integral to it feeling like China tho. China is the most populous nation in the world, and has been for most of its multi-millienia history. I can't imagine what you would replace the kit with while retaining an historical flavor, so I think this entire debate about what the yields should be is a non-starter.

 

[tu_79]

The food and culture are integral to it feeling like China tho. China is the most populous nation in the world, and has been for most of its multi-millienia history. I can't imagine what you would replace the kit with while retaining an historical flavor, so I think this entire debate about what the yields should be is a non-starter.

You guys don't get it. Please, play it with current bonuses. Then we can talk.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Why should I stop growth when everything seems OK?

First: Gaining extra food not necessarily leads to huge growth. Gaining food for free enables my citizens to stop working on farms and be specialists or work on tiles with strong other yields.

Second: Everything seems OK = happiness > 5
Before I get hit by significant penalties, I have a buffer of 15 happiness. 25 till I have a real problem.
Tresholds are saved and are immune to negative effects like technological advantage. If I stop growth while having - 5 happiness, only things from outside can decrease my happiness (war, luxuries gone, pillaged tiles,...)

Third: Do you think the same about india? In indias case, you not even have the culture, but only food. Even worse than food, only growth. If you stop the growth in indian cities, you lose half of your UA. While the pure food from chinas UA atleast allow more citizens working on hammer/gold tiles to improve the infrastructure, india is kinda without a UA.

 

[tu_79]

First: Gaining extra food not necessarily leads to huge growth. Gaining food for free enables my citizens to stop working on farms and be specialists or work on tiles with strong other yields.

True. But I'm in the expansion phase, in early game, when a bit of unhappiness is not usually a problem. Then I settle. Then I get 1 extra food per settled city and 5 turns of extra growth. This is +8 food in my capital, +7 food in the 2nd city, you know it. I could try to not work on any food tile, but happiness is not that bad, so why should I? Even if you try to avoid growth, I wonder if you could do it without hitting the stop growth button.

Second: Everything seems OK = happiness > 5
Before I get hit by significant penalties, I have a buffer of 15 happiness. 25 till I have a real problem.
Tresholds are saved and are immune to negative effects like technological advantage. If I stop growth while having - 5 happiness, only things from outside can decrease my happiness (war, luxuries gone, pillaged tiles,...)

I'm talking Ancient and perhaps Classical. During the expansion phase for a Progress start, being at -8 happiness is not terrible. Usually.

Third: Do you think the same about india? In indias case, you not even have the culture, but only food. Even worse than food, only growth. If you stop the growth in indian cities, you lose half of your UA. While the pure food from chinas UA atleast allow more citizens working on hammer/gold tiles to improve the infrastructure, india is kinda without a UA.

India does not lose food and culture on new era. If unhappiness begins being a problem, you can divert your production towards other yields before your cities grow too much. It could be a bit lackluster since you cannot benefit from your unique the whole game, but you can avoid dipping into unhappiness. With China it is a big surprise. You suddenly face huge distress (I hit -23) and will expend the following 30 turns trying to undo your growth.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

You guys don't get it. Please, play it with current bonuses. Then we can talk.

I would try it, but in the current version I lose 100% of my UA yields, and such amount sucks without any compensation.
And in the previous version, the early game happiness was too harsh. Maybe I will try them in next version. But in most cases I prefer India.

 

[CrazyG]

I would try it, but in the current version I lose 100% of my UA yields, and such amount sucks without any compensation.
And in the previous version, the early game happiness was too harsh. Maybe I will try them in next version. But in most cases I prefer India.

Can we make a rule that you don't get to keep whining if you won't even play the civ?

 

[Gokudo01]

Question : is it a bad idea to add incremental distress reduction to the UA ? -2% each era.

I don't like the -50% solution because it allow china to keep the culture. And the culture snowball too much by itself.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Can we make a rule that you don't get to keep whining if you won't even play the civ?

Did I missed something? Why do you tell that me? Iam fine with the already confirmed 50% solution.
And I think its nothing wrong in denying to play a beta version of a civ in a beta version of the mod.

 

[pineappledan]

This disagreement doesn’t make any sense to me either. Everyone agrees that the current build isn’t playable and a change has already been confirmed. Tu suggests the entire yield mix of The UA has to be redone. When people say that’s going too far he cites the current, uncontroversially broken China build as evidence and says that if we don’t play broken-China then we will never understand.

This is like taking the wheels off a bike and telling us that we will never learn to ride a bike until we learn to ride a bike with no wheels. I’m good, thanks.

 

[tu_79]

This disagreement doesn’t make any sense to me either. Everyone agrees that the current build isn’t playable and a change has already been confirmed. Tu suggests the entire yield mix of The UA has to be redone. When people say that’s going too far he cites the current, uncontroversially broken China build as evidence and says that if we don’t play broken-China then we will never understand.

This is like taking the wheels off a bike and telling us that we will never learn to ride a bike until we learn to ride a bike with no wheels. I’m good, thanks.

If food is reduced by 50% it will be less harsh than current one, but still has some of the issue I'm pointing to. Players will gladly increase their population more than reasonable because everything is looking good.
Current one says food + culture, then 100% lost on transition. This can be just culture, then 50% lost on transition. Better than the current one, without the problems of false expectations.

Edit. If I was claiming acknowledge that is because I usually control happiness quite well, and I fell into the trap, then what about less experienced players? Even at half decay I foresee problems. You don't have to play it for having an opinion, but concede me at least that I'm talking from experience.

Edit 2. And please, I'd appreciate if you stop being so aggressive to me. You may not agree with my opinion, but there are more polite ways.

 

[Stalker0]

When people say that’s going too far he cites the current, uncontroversially broken China build as evidence and says that if we don’t play broken-China then we will never understand.

This is the part I have disagreement with, there is certainly controversy here. Now I'm all for playing China to confirm, but I also would argue that this is a happiness problem, not a China one. If the happiness system is so fragile that it can't support growth bonuses without crashing into unhappiness....than that's a flaw we need to address.

 

[CrazyG]

The entire point of a happiness system is to slow down your expansion. If you don't have happiness as a mechanic that hurts, China (also Carthage and Spain) are just horribly overpowered.

 

[Rekk]

This is the part I have disagreement with, there is certainly controversy here. Now I'm all for playing China to confirm, but I also would argue that this is a happiness problem, not a China one. If the happiness system is so fragile that it can't support growth bonuses without crashing into unhappiness....than that's a flaw we need to address.

To understand this post properly, you disagree that it is uncontroversial to say that a 100% reduction in UA bonus food breaks China?

 

[Stalker0]

To understand this post properly, you disagree that it is uncontroversial to say that a 100% reduction in UA bonus food breaks China?

I do disagree. For that statement to be true, you are saying that every person on this forum would agree that without the dynasty food bonus China receives, they would become horribly underpowered. I don't think the change is so extreme that everyone would universally agree its an over nerf.

 

[Rekk]

I do disagree. For that statement to be true, you are saying that every person on this forum would agree that without the dynasty food bonus China receives, they would become horribly underpowered. I don't think the change is so extreme that everyone would universally agree its an over nerf.

First, the overall presence or lack of the dynasty bonus isn't the problem; it's the sudden removal of it on era change and what that does to China's situation that is being debated. Second, uncontroversial and incontrovertible aren't the same words; it's uncontroversial when most people don't care enough to publically disagree, not when we have to get the approval of "every person on this forum". That's not even what the post you originally quoted was talking about.

It was just odd that you made the effort to remove the "everyone agrees" sentence, and the "redo the entire UA" sentence. You do realize that both tu79 and pineappledan agree that -100% is broken, but disagree on the magnitude, and the sentence you spent the effort to quote is just saying that playing on an old setting isn't required to understand the new setting?

I digress. Do I restate the issue? Tu_79 doesn't necessarily think that a growth bonus is the problem, but the removal of it on era change. Two things happen here. There is a large spike in distress (in addition to the spike in boredom) due to the sudden drop of food. In addition, there's also a large drop in the amount of food available to feed the populations. It's extremely easy for China, at -100%, to get unrecoverable happiness drops and starvation at era change, if the player commits the sin of using his UA to the fullest. To tell the player that it's their own fault if they play this way is liking telling Denmark that he shouldn't pillage too many tiles or Netherlands to not buy too many resources. There are negative consequences to Denmark and Netherlands doing these things, but they're not nearly as direct, immediate or detrimental as "your entire nation starves".

 

[Gazebo]

I think -50% is fine.

G

 

[tu_79]

Just chiming to say that I no longer have that huge happiness drop in dynastic change. It's much more bearable, but this time I was prevented and my cities were production focused, so it could be that.

 

[amateurgamer88]

Having played the new China, I feel like this was a very minor nerf, They are still very powerful and I almost don't notice the difference. How are people's games with China AI? They seem to just dominate no problem as before so, for me, it felt like no changes were made. That might just be me though.