City Development

[Txurce]

a) You do have to give things up. If you go down the Honor tree, then Honor is pretty useless unless you are at war. So you are forced into a warmonger style to use the policies, and so you have to give up a peaceful playstyle, with for eg science boost from lots of DoFs.

What do you think you should have to give up? I don't really see what you have in mind here.

b) The one thing that does worry me a bit; I haven't tested spoils of war yet, but while gold from fighting is fine, I am a bit worried about culture from fighting. To me, culture should have to come from peaceful infrastructure development. You should not be able to get culture from fighting. Now, get gold from fighting, and use that to buy culture buildings? That's ok - but you still have to research the culture techs to unlock those buildings. Culture without the culture techs seems unwise.

c) It sounds like really the main issue is that you guys think Spoils of War is potentially too strong. But that's a balance issue, not a design issue. I can't comment, I haven't tested it yet.

a) When I play for a Science or Culture victory, I remain largely peaceful, and develop my civ in a way that leads toward a strong result in my chosen focus... but not both. When I take the warmonger route, and consequently choose Honor and Autocracy along with select other policies, I do not appreciably hurt my chances for a strong Culture or Science win. (This isn't saying it's just as good an approach - just good enough to win consistently at Emperor.)

The main reason for this is that expansion creates the population necessary for a high beaker rate, and gold allows me to buy the culture buildings I need to crank out culture. (In my experience so far, losing DoF's doesn't happen meaningfully until you don't need them anymore.) My feeling is that it should be hard for me to win a Science or especially a Cultural victory in 300 turns more or less, when playing a warmonger game built around Honor and Autocracy.

b) Your point about culture being derived from fighting is a philosophical one with which I agree, and which was argued over for quite a while soon after you focused on your doctorate (!). Thal tilted in favor of allowing all game approaches to avail themselves of significant sections of the SP tree, so as not to deprive any approach of the fun that comes with making use of SP's. I see the value in this, even though I argued against it.

c) SOW was definitely a major culprit, and Thal has nerfed both it and some of the cultural enhancement aspects of the Honor and Autocracy branches. I still haven't played a game with all of them in effect, and hope that they will address most of my concerns.

 

[Ahriman]

a) When I play for a Science or Culture victory, I remain largely peaceful, and develop my civ in a way that leads toward a strong result in my chosen focus... but not both. When I take the warmonger route, and consequently choose Honor and Autocracy along with select other policies, I do not appreciably hurt my chances for a strong Culture or Science win. (This isn't saying it's just as good an approach - just good enough to win consistently at Emperor.)

The main reason for this is that expansion creates the population necessary for a high beaker rate, and gold allows me to buy the culture buildings I need to crank out culture. (In my experience so far, losing DoF's doesn't happen meaningfully until you don't need them anymore.) My feeling is that it should be hard for me to win a Science or especially a Cultural victory in 300 turns more or less, when playing a warmonger game built around Honor and Autocracy.

I can't see any feasible and fair way that Honor tree should your scentific growth. Science win isn't really achievable as an "early" win, it requires a lot of science and production. I don't have any problems with warmongers ending up with a science win easily. If you keep everyone else weak and behind in tech, and then win with science, that's fine with me. I not think that a war-oriented game should be forced into a conquest victory, or should hurt chances of a science win. A science win is in part a "we've been playing for a long time, and I'm clearly ahead, so lets finish this with a victory condition" win. Grinding through every player's capital can be tedious.

I do have issues with warmonger culture though (in theory). This was discussed before I left too, and I made the same case, that culture should require culture techs and come from infrastructure and specialists (made available by that infrastructure) and great people (from those specialists). I don't see why every playstyle needs access to lots of policies.

 

[Txurce]

I can't see any feasible and fair way that Honor tree should your scentific growth. Science win isn't really achievable as an "early" win, it requires a lot of science and production. I don't have any problems with warmongers ending up with a science win easily. If you keep everyone else weak and behind in tech, and then win with science, that's fine with me. I not think that a war-oriented game should be forced into a conquest victory, or should hurt chances of a science win. A science win is in part a "we've been playing for a long time, and I'm clearly ahead, so lets finish this with a victory condition" win. Grinding through every player's capital can be tedious.

I do have issues with warmonger culture though (in theory). This was discussed before I left too, and I made the same case, that culture should require culture techs and come from infrastructure and specialists (made available by that infrastructure) and great people (from those specialists). I don't see why every playstyle needs access to lots of policies.

I agree in general. My problem with warmongering recently has been the sense that I could pretty easily win any way I wanted. Again, this may no longer be true.

 

[Thalassicus]

The Ballista's vanilla combat strength is 4 (same as the Catapult), which was doubled to 8. The edit affects all units of the siege combat class:

UPDATE Units
SET Combat = ROUND(Combat * 2,-1)
WHERE CombatClass = 'UNITCOMBAT_SIEGE';

Library
Cost: 70
Maintenance: 2
Science: 150%

University
Cost: 200 (290%)
Maintenance: 6 (300%)
Science: cumulative 225% (150%)
Cost-benefit: 52%

Market
Cost: 120
Maintenance: 0
Gold: 125%

Bank
Cost: 250 (210%)
Maintenance: 0
Gold: cumulative 150% (120%)
Cost-benefit: 57%

The benefit increase is less, but the cost increase is less too, so the overall cost-benefit improvement is about the same.

Windmill and workshop % bonuses were lowered, but there's the 2 to consider. It gets rid of the threshold situation workshops used to encounter, where cities under a certain base production always operated workshops at a loss. The bonus for workshops is higher than 15% and varies from:

2 city = 230%
20 city = 126%

The free culture building in 4 cities is most powerful if used post-Philosophy to get four free temples. It's difficult to differentiate the policy trees much with the limited tools available.

I'm unable to improve the information reported about citystate bonuses without c++ access, because the notifications are called from that part of the code.

It seems to be that it would be better if the Honor path made you fight better, and if you followed it to the end, your army would be rather impressive and any opponent would be hard pressed to give you a good fight, but you would have accomplished that at the expense of making the other areas of your game lacking.

I agree with this general principle, but the tactical AI is so horrible that any significant combat bonuses trivialize the game.

culture should have to come from peaceful infrastructure development.

Spoils of War fills the same role as Representation and Liberty, each of which improve policy rate in a way other than infrastructure. There could be something like... each occupied city has no effect on policy costs... which would be just about identical to Representation. Reducing costs is equivalent to increasing income since rate = income/cost, and an income increase fits better in this case.

Something to point out is infrastructure improves the SoW bonus. The SoW culture is distributed to cities similar to citystate culture/food and Aztec culture, so it's improved when we invest in Opera Houses. Many operas were written about wartime stories after all.

Peaceful/warmonger balance is always a tricky thing to achieve. I did buff peaceful games a lot though. The Tradition and Liberty trees have improved greatly since Civ 5's release, I added DoF research, and improved the power of National Wonders, among other things. I also nerfed the combat bonuses in the Honor tree (particularly the 50% experience gain bonus). Something else on my todo list is to give rewards for mutual open borders, similar to DoF research.

 

[Questdog]

Something else on my todo list is to give rewards for mutual open borders, similar to DoF research.

You can buff that all you want, but I still can't ever bring myself to let a foreign army just roam around my country.....

I always wished there was a way to allow civilian units and maybe scouts to be unimpeded, but it never felt right to let armies come and go as they pleased (unless you are allies in a war). In Civ4, this was possible, but I think only with a mod....

 

[Ahriman]

The Ballista's vanilla combat strength is 4 (same as the Catapult), which was doubled to 8

I coulda sworn in the version I was running (beta 19?) that it had melee strength 2. Warriors and pikemen attacking the ballistae were getting 10:1 damage ratios.

The benefit increase is less, but the cost increase is less too, so the overall cost-benefit improvement is about the same.

I disagree.
The university gives +50%. That synergizes with scientist specialists, the academy, lots of other things. Your method is understating the benefit.
More to the point, benefit:cost ratio is not sufficient. Absolute bonuses matter. That's why tech is valuable, because it allows larger bonuses. If you took the university and halved its build cost, maintenance cost, effect, and specialist slot (if you could) it would not be as useful as a building. If you took the market and doubled its cost and doubled its effect, it would be better.

Windmill and workshop % bonuses were lowered, but there's the 2 to consider.

I didn't notice the 2 hammers in the version I had, I must have missed seeing it. That's non-trivial. Fair enough.

The free culture building in 4 cities is most powerful if used post-Philosophy to get four free temples

I don't think this is very feasible given its current location.
Its in the tradition tree, which is about small, focused empires - which are also those that gain policies the fastest in the early game. But this tree is not designed well for early game policy picks. With a small empire and culture you will accumulate policies very fast. So you take , but what then? Oligarchy is not useful in the early game. Legalism isn't great early game except that it lets you get a landmark, which brings policies faster. And then landed elite and monarchy *require* aristocracy. A policy which is best when delayed shouldn't be required for the other policies.

Spoils of War fills the same role as Representation and Liberty, each of which improve policy rate in a way other than infrastructure.

So? Neither of these are in a military tree, they are in builder trees. And the effects aren't huge, and can never outweigh those of actual culture infrastructure.

Something to point out is infrastructure improves the SoW bonus. The SoW culture is distributed to cities

That's an interesting point, but most culture buildings aren't multipliers.

Many operas were written about wartime stories after all.

This represents a too-narrow view of culture and social policies IMO. As I have posted before, in my view policies really represents institutions, and civil society, and social advancement. You don't get that from warfare. War destroys that kind of culture.

Peaceful/warmonger balance is always a tricky thing to achieve. I did buff peaceful games a lot though.

Agreed. Its not necessarily that warfare is too strong, it may even be too weak. The problem I have is that it should not be providing culture. I agree with Txurce that this is something that you should have to give up for pursuing a militaristic path and a militaristic policy tree.

Something else on my todo list is to give rewards for mutual open borders, similar to DoF research.

I don't think you should do this, since the AI is willing to easily give away open borders to basically anyone.

Anyway, I need to do more testing. Overall I really like what you have done with policies, except that:
a) I dislike the training effect from Oligarchy. Experience shouldn't come from peaceful policies. If you want more experience with peaceful policies, then build the military infrastructure from military techs
b) I dislike culture production from garrisoned units from Honor. It makes little realistic sense (quartering soldiers in cities doesn't build up civil society - except protest movements) and again it is providing culture from a military tree.

 

[Txurce]

1. But this tree is not designed well for early game policy picks... A policy which is best when delayed shouldn't be required for the other policies.

2. I don't think you should do this, since the AI is willing to easily give away open borders to basically anyone.

3. Overall I really like what you have done with policies, except that:
a) I dislike the training effect from Oligarchy. Experience shouldn't come from peaceful policies. If you want more experience with peaceful policies, then build the military infrastructure from military techs
b) I dislike culture production from garrisoned units from Honor. It makes little realistic sense (quartering soldiers in cities doesn't build up civil society - except protest movements) and again it is providing culture from a military tree.

1. Agreed that the policy is not in a good place for it to be saved, although I'm not sure how weak it is just providing monuments. It would be stronger if monument cost hadn't been cut.

2. Wouldn't the AI being loose about OB agreements benefit it in this case?

3. Agreed, in particular with these examples, since I share your interpretation of culture in Civ.

 

[Txurce]

Something else on my todo list is to give rewards for mutual open borders, similar to DoF research.

Could you expand on this?

The ideal benefit would add to the the positive diplomatic modifiers' snowball effect.

 

[Busdriver]

Right now, I avoid open borders unless I am warmongering and want to scout out an enemies land. This is because, in my experience, if I am playing as a builder with a small military, open borders increases the likelihood of war. The AI seems to be programmed in a way that its knowledge of military power is based to some extent on what it sees. I may be completely wrong here, but based on my experiences this is what I have always assumed. For this reason I would not mind seeing an open border bonus of some kind, whether diplomatic or something like trade routes (assuming of course that it is still well balanced). I am a huge fan of how the DoFs now have an actual benefit, as before the science bonus was added to them, I tended to avoid them simply because they seemed to mostly add new ways to anger the other civs.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I do confess that it would be nice if open borders gave other benefits-like say improved income from trade routes or resource trades etc.

Aussie.

 

[Sporhund]

I do confess that it would be nice if open borders gave other benefits-like say improved income from trade routes or resource trades etc.

Aussie.

Mutual open borders could give a gold income kinda in the same way as DoF gives science. Hopefully the AI keep their willingness to have open border deals, so it won't be too much of a player advantage.

 

[Ahriman]

2. Wouldn't the AI being loose about OB agreements benefit it in this case?

Sure, but my point is that a benefit that goes to basically everyone just feels kinda lame. Its also a further punishment for isolated civs that don't have contact with many others, which is already a big penalty because they now don't get a resource advantage thanks to the rerigged resource placement, and they have no-one to DoF with.

The ideal benefit would add to the the positive diplomatic modifiers' snowball effect

This I could live with though. No actual benefit to yields or anything, just a diplomatic bonus, that encourages the human to trade open borders for open borders, to to just sell it for gold.
What I disliked was the idea of a gold or science or similar benefit.

DoFs are a big deal. They are hard to get, you only have a few at a time, violating them has big consequences, you have to pick who you sign with carefully, so its ok for them to have a sizeable impact on economy. Open borders aren't like that. They're easy to get, you have have them with everyone, violating them has no long-term consequences, there is basically no reason not to have them with anyone you have contacted.

 

[Questdog]

Open borders aren't like that. They're easy to get, you have have them with everyone, violating them has no long-term consequences, there is basically no reason not to have them with anyone you have contacted.

Up until Optics, keeping your borders closed can sometimes keep the AI from available land. (And sometimes, even after, until Astronomy).

 

[Ahriman]

I find this is rarely the case. In the early game, your culture just doesn't cover that many tiles, and most maps don't have much in the way of chokepoints, and your first few cities probably aren't there anyway. And most AIs aren't spamming cities like crazy.

I find that this argument makes a lot of sense in Civ4, it makes little sense in Civ5.

 

[Stalker0]

Right now, I avoid open borders unless I am warmongering and want to scout out an enemies land. This is because, in my experience, if I am playing as a builder with a small military, open borders increases the likelihood of war.

I've also wondered about this. I've had several games where I never open my borders all game, and most of the time the AI leaves me alone.

 

[Txurce]

Sure, but my point is that a benefit that goes to basically everyone just feels kinda lame. Its also a further punishment for isolated civs that don't have contact with many others, which is already a big penalty because they now don't get a resource advantage thanks to the rerigged resource placement, and they have no-one to DoF with.

DoFs are a big deal. They are hard to get, you only have a few at a time, violating them has big consequences, you have to pick who you sign with carefully, so its ok for them to have a sizeable impact on economy. Open borders aren't like that. They're easy to get, you have have them with everyone, violating them has no long-term consequences, there is basically no reason not to have them with anyone you have contacted.

All true. That's why I suggested a diplomatic influence modifier instead.

 

[Questdog]

I find this is rarely the case. In the early game, your culture just doesn't cover that many tiles, and most maps don't have much in the way of chokepoints, and your first few cities probably aren't there anyway. And most AIs aren't spamming cities like crazy.

I find that this argument makes a lot of sense in Civ4, it makes little sense in Civ5.

I usually play Perfect World maps and sometimes (not always) there is the opportunity to block the AI. You can often plan it out so that you only have to buy one or two tiles to accomplish this. You don't have to worry about the sea tiles until, after Optics is hitting the board and by that time you can often afford to purchase the tile or two it takes to block the coastal avenues.

The AI in Civ 5 certainly is not as expansionist as in Civ 4 (at least in the early game), but it will often go to considerable lengths to build a city in a prime location (next to resources) without regard to the location of the rest of its empire or the proximity of yours.

One of the things I miss from Civ 4 (among many) is that resources would only be available to the empire at large once connected to your capital by a trade route. This, plus the increased costs of having a city distant from the capital, made planting a city on resources that were halfway across the continent unwise.

P.S. By the way, why do we have to get a completely new game with every iteration of Civ? Why can't they ever BUILD upon what they made and give us a BETTER game, rather than just a different one.....

 

[Ahriman]

That's why I suggested a diplomatic influence modifier instead.

Which is why I support your suggestion

 

[Ahriman]

One of the things I miss from Civ 4 (among many) is that resources would only be available to the empire at large once connected to your capital by a trade route.

I don't miss that at all. It was not-fun busywork.

P.S. By the way, why do we have to get a completely new game with every iteration of Civ? Why can't they ever BUILD upon what they made and give us a BETTER game, rather than just a different one.....

Civ was long overdue for a major overhaul. There had been very little change from Civ2->3 and 3->4.
I really like the vast majority of the design decisions they made. The main weaknesses were the diplomacy engine and the tactical AI - and the fact that it really seems to be a giant PITA to mod. But I'm very glad that we got a lot more than Civ 4.5. There weren't really any obvious minor incremental improvements that could have been made to Civ4. The biggest problems with Civ4 (really boring warfare) were pretty much inherent to the design.

I am finding Civ 5 with Thal's mod to be massively superior to vanilla Civ4.

 

[Questdog]

I am finding Civ 5 with Thal's mod to be massively superior to vanilla Civ4.

Connecting the resources was NOT just busy-work, it helped shape the dynamics of the game. And to me, every new version dumbs down the empire-management aspects in the name of anti-micromanagement. But if players are so upset with having to worry about the details of their vast empires, then they shouldn't play Civ, and they sure shouldn't keep trying to turn my favorite game into a turn-based Starcraft......

I love the hexes, I love getting rid of the stupid stacks of units, but there is not much in the management areas that makes me feel like I'm getting a better game. Social Policies is a better way than the old method, I must say though.

Maybe I am in the minority, but the main thing about playing Civ to me is not whether I can beat the computer or not and making sure everything is mathematically balanced, but to have fun conquering the world and moving through history in what feels like a realistic fashion. And being an O.C., I LIKE micromanaging to a certain extent.