China

[tu_79]

The only way I could possibly lose that game is if the civs on the other continent put a lot of effort into attacking me, which they don't seem inclined to do.

Your high score will turn people against you. I've seen it.
By G tests, China AI is consistently among the first, but it does not win more often than others.

 

[amateurgamer88]

Your high score will turn people against you. I've seen it.
By G tests, China AI is consistently among the first, but it does not win more often than others.

Can you elaborate more on this? How does the China AI, despite being first in score, not win more often? I know that score isn't a good representation but China has a really good kit overall that helps them snowball early. From what I've seen, the AI that snowballs early are usually much more dangerous unless they are attacked by all the other AIs (though this is true for all AIs). By consistently snowball every game regardless if they are isolated from the other civs or not, shouldn't their odds of winning be higher (excluding human players of course)?

 

[CrazyG]

Can you elaborate more on this? How does the China AI, despite being first in score, not win more often? I know that score isn't a good representation but China has a really good kit overall that helps them snowball early. From what I've seen, the AI that snowballs early are usually much more dangerous unless they are attacked by all the other AIs (though this is true for all AIs). By consistently snowball every game regardless if they are isolated from the other civs or not, shouldn't their odds of winning be higher (excluding human players of course)?

China suffers from weak late game and nothing that directly boosts a win condition. So someone like Korea can sit comfortably in 5th place all game, and still win by science before China can formalize her victory.

Korea is a good counter-example: he isn't the score leader very often, but his path to victory is very fast compared to other civs. In order for someone other than Korea to win, they will need to be ahead of him before his final bonuses kick in.

 

[amateurgamer88]

China suffers from weak late game and nothing that directly boosts a win condition. So someone like Korea can sit comfortably in 5th place all game, and still win by science before China can formalize her victory.

Korea is a good counter-example: he isn't the score leader very often, but his path to victory is very fast compared to other civs. In order for someone other than Korea to win, they will need to be ahead of him before his final bonuses kick in.

I can understand that China has a weak late game but doesn't the snowball of China also hinder certain VC? For instance, she will get lots of culture leading up to the late game so a CV would be tougher. In addition, that early snowball makes defeating her in a Domination Victory also difficult if she has a strong military and, given that she can lead in techs, her army/navy will be tough. I can see how SV and Diplo Victory doesn't care as much unless you have a civ like Korea.

However, I rarely see Korea do well in my games. Maybe Korea AI just have the bad luck of bordering warmonger civs in my games. I guess it does matter on lots of things but China consistently leading the way is certainly unique in my games. I rarely see other civs have such a commanding lead in practically all my games China is in. The only game I saw China wrecked was Mongolia when 4/5 CS were annexed in rapid succession with those yields giving Mongolia a huge military advantage.

 

[tu_79]

Jack of all trades, master of none.

 

[pineappledan]

So G is planning on changing China to from for settling, conquering, or producing a great work. G said this was why:

The problem with China isn't the value of the decrease at era change, it's the power of that extra culture in the ancient and classical eras. You can blunt it slightly, but even at 100% decrease China was eclipsing other civs handily.

G

So the problem isn’t the , it is having 11 at turn 1, and 22 in your first expansion at turn ~40. So the trigger on settle is the culprit, not the yields themselves.

So how about this?
Mandate of Heaven
11 and a WLTED in all cities every time you gain 8 population in a city, Conquer a city, or produce a great work. Bonus halves on era change. +10% during WLTEDs.

Benefits:

• Removes instant on turn 1
• harder to time growths than it is to time city placements, so people have less ability to "game" their mandate of heaven into boom/bust eras.
• Gives constant carrot for growing large cities (free yields on 16, 24, etc)
• Preserve the , because it’s weird that China wouldn’t get any culture boosts, factoring multiple gold synergies instead.

Note: I picked 8 because 8 is lucky in Chinese culture, but it could be another number instead. This gives another lever to balance this boost on if we want more/fewer triggers

 

[BiteInTheMark]

So G is planning on changing China to from for settling, conquering, or producing a great work. G said this was why:

So the problem isn’t the , it is having 11 at turn 1, and 22 in your first expansion at turn ~40. So the trigger on settle is the culprit, not the yields themselves.

So how about this?
Mandate of Heaven
11 and a WLTED in all cities every time you gain 8 population in a city, Conquer a city, or produce a great work. Bonus halves on era change. +10% during WLTEDs.

Benefits:

• Removes instant on turn 1
• Gives constant carrot for growing large cities (free yields on 16, 24, etc)
• Preserve the , because it’s weird that China wouldn’t get any culture boosts, factoring multiple gold synergies instead.

Note: I picked 8 because 8 is lucky in Chinese culture, but it could be another number instead. This gives another lever to balance this boost on if we want more/fewer triggers

Interesting, but a overpowered. Instead of gaining 1 time a boost by founding a city, a growth orientated player would be able to trigger it 4 times by 32 citizen cities. 4 times more often triggering that yield boost and WLTKD seems absurd to me.

How would be this: Gaining a city or a great work grants......

• 2 different, random yields /////) in each city.
• 1 random local yield // and 1 random global yield //
• / following / following / and repeating

How much reduction per era is necessary has to be tested.

 

[Legen]

Interesting, but a overpowered. Instead of gaining 1 time a boost by founding a city, a growth orientated player would be able to trigger it 4 times by 32 citizen cities. 4 times more often triggering that yield boost and WLTKD seems absurd to me.

If that's the issue, it could trigger only at 8 pop, not at multiples of 8. That makes it only one trigger. It doesn't have the carrot that pineappledan wanted, but solves it.

Another option is to dissociate the triggers, making them provide different proportions of food and culture yields between themselves. For instance:

Mandate of Heaven
3and a WLTED in all cities every time you gain a city, and 1 when you produce a great work. Bonus halves on era change. +10% during WLTEDs.

 

[pineappledan]

Lots of ways you could modify it.

• You could change it to a 1-time boost. On growth, but then you have a weird incentive to capture cities with <X pop so you get a double trigger, or razing to below a certain pop level and rebuilding.
• You could increase/decrease the -requirement to 10, same as the Authority free unit.
• You could increase degradation to whatever, up to 100% lost on era change. If you did that though, I think adding 1 free on era change would be nice, so you don't start from completely 0

I don't like the idea of random yields. Too variable. You could essentially have a really good start with 2 global , or a terrible start with 2 global . People would hate the randomness and potential for re-rolling.

 

[Stalker0]

Interesting, but a overpowered. Instead of gaining 1 time a boost by founding a city, a growth orientated player would be able to trigger it 4 times by 32 citizen cities.

We do have to consider yield depreciation though. 1 extra culture at turn 1 is much stronger than even 3 by turn 100. So while this would generate larger overall yields, they would occur late enough that I don’t think it would be a problem necessarily.

I really like the idea. It both decreases chinas early game power, provides a player incentive for their growth, and is pretty simple to understand and use.

 

[Stalker0]

Ok one possible flaw in PADs idea, could you do weird sheniangians where you grow to 8, starve to 7, grow to 8, etc etc to generate a big pool of culture?

 

[Gazebo]

Nothing says ‘fun’ like watching a city grow to 8 for a point of culture.

G

 

[pineappledan]

Ok one possible flaw in PADs idea, could you do weird sheniangians where you grow to 8, starve to 7, grow to 8, etc etc to generate a big pool of culture?

That's relatively easy to fix via making it the first time you hit that pop level in the city. That would also prevent shenanigans with razing/regrowing conquered cities

Nothing says ‘fun’ like watching a city grow to 8 for a point of culture.

And Food.

 

[CrazyG]

Removing the culture is the right call. China's design is overshadowed by having absurd early game culture. She was good at literally everything, with a ton of OP combinations with pantheons or stupid build orders.

I'd give the paper maker more culture. 1 culture per 4 citizens would be cool. You use the UA to grow and the UB rewards you for it. I don't think gold is very thematic to the imperial examination.

 

[chicorbeef]

I don't like the idea of random yields. Too variable. You could essentially have a really good start with 2 global , or a terrible start with 2 global . People would hate the randomness and potential for re-rolling.

Bite never mentioned ...and he said you can't have 2 of the same yield. Please at least get the idea right if you're gonna criticize it.

The idea has solid potential actually, though I can see why the RNG might not be well-liked.

 

[amateurgamer88]

Is it possible to have different yields for different eras? Maybe / for Ancient Era and / for Classical Era and etc. I do like the idea of different eras bringing different bonuses while the decay is 75% upon entering a new era. Of course, there will be debate of what yields for different era but I like a bit more dynamics through the eras.

 

[pineappledan]

How would be this: Gaining a city or a great work grants......

• 2 different, random yields /////) in each city.
• 1 random local yield // and 1 random global yield //
• / following / following / and repeating

How much reduction per era is necessary has to be tested.

The idea has solid potential actually, though I can see why the RNG might not be well-liked.

Is it possible to have different yields for different eras? Maybe / for Ancient Era and / for Classical Era and etc. I do like the idea of different eras bringing different bonuses while the decay is 75% upon entering a new era. Of course, there will be debate of what yields for different era but I like a bit more dynamics through the eras.

The worst issue seems to be the constant flow of turn 1 yields. Changing the yield doesn't solve that problem, but it could make it less noticeable.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

The worst issue seems to be the constant flow of turn 1 yields. Changing the yield doesn't solve that problem, but it could make it less noticeable.

Gazebo is mentioning the high amount of culture in the early game is the problem:

The problem with China isn't the value of the decrease at era change, it's the power of that extra culture in the ancient and classical eras.

If you settle your capital and another city in ancient era and push fast to classical, then settle another 4, you are at +5/ in each city for a long time, effectivly getting +30 on top of your normal culture while everyone else is maybe getting 15. If the yields are cycling after each gain, the total amount of yields is the same, but atleast only +2 in each city, which is acceptable. +2 would be also strong, but atleast you have also and , which are not that hard to gain as and in that state of the game.

 

[Stalker0]

Nothing says ‘fun’ like watching a city grow to 8 for a point of culture.

G

The production from the well/water mill, conscripts from honor, science from public schools....we use bumps per pop all the time, this one seems reasonable to me.

 

[pineappledan]

The production from the well/water mill, conscripts from honor, science from public schools....we use bumps per pop all the time, this one seems reasonable to me.

India's UA is all about population scaling too, and % growth modifiers/pressure is even more subtle than discrete yields across the empire. He just bein' sassy because talk is cheap. Changing the yields the UA gives is easier than changing how it distributes them, and my idea requires new code, rather than a trivial change to existing code. I know I can get pretty salty when people demand I change something in my mods, and those people usually do me the courtesy of actually trying my stuff out before complaining.