Civ6++ 1.11

[ElGuapoCiv]

ElGuapoCiv submitted a new resource:

Civ6++ - Rebalancing district progression, min city distance, barbarian camps, spies, religious spam, scouts

Teaser:
District cost progression reduced: 25 --> 15, Min City distance: 4 --> 5, Barbarian camps reduced by 1/3, counter spying: 8 --> 40 turns increase, Religious units cost progression +50%, Scout combat: 10 --> 12.

In detail:
The cost of districts is tied to tech/culture and used to increase by 25 for each step causing problems with new cities later on. Thus I reduced that progression to 15 (Districts.xml). The min distance between cities is increased from 4 to 5 for less city spamming...

Read more about this resource...

 

[Real SciPio]

is this mod compatible with "AI+" and "8 ages of pace" mods?

 

[ElGuapoCiv]

is this mod compatible with "AI+" and "8 ages of pace" mods?

I have absolutely no idea about any compatibility. You will have to find that out yourself, sorry!
If said mods don't alter the same files, then you should be fine I think.

 

[Bigv32]

if you are increasing city distance by one you might want to change the range on district buildings. The problem with changing just a few parts of the game is you throw off the balance. Right now, production is so costly in the late game, you need the close cities/massive overlap to not take years to complete. I would say raise the district distance from 6 to 8 to account for the extra tile range on both sides of a city.

 

[ElGuapoCiv]

if you are increasing city distance by one you might want to change the range on district buildings. The problem with changing just a few parts of the game is you throw off the balance. Right now, production is so costly in the late game, you need the close cities/massive overlap to not take years to complete. I would say raise the district distance from 6 to 8 to account for the extra tile range on both sides of a city.

That's a pretty good argument and it was one of my concerns as well. In my recent game I paid attention to the effect. I still managed to make the adjacency bonus of the colosseum for instance work for 3 cities. Plus, the decreased district cost progression (25-->15) somewhat offsets the mentioned problem.

That being said, your point is obviously valid and I will look into it. It's only logical to increase the district range accordingly with 8 being the logical choice. I will try to find the setting and update it from 6 to 7 first to see if that's enough, next time I'm on my desktop computer. Once the setting is in the mod, you can easily change the number from 7 to 8.

PS:
Btw. the increase in min city distance from 4-->5 will lead to some open space without cities. Personally I prefer that over the crowded vanilla alternative. It makes cavalry units more useful and generally there's more space to manouvre. It will also force the a.i. to develop its cities better because it now won't spam the map with dozens of tiny cities that are neither productive nor well-defended.

 

[ElGuapoCiv]

ElGuapoCiv updated Civ6++ with a new update entry:

District regional range 6 --> 7

As proposed by @Bigv32 this minor update increases the range of regional district buildings like factories from 6 to 7 to accomodate the increased min city distance.

Read the rest of this update entry...

 

[gauldamon]

I suggest a change to the Distrings.xml file.
Replace DISTRICT_BATH with DISTRICT_ACROPOLIS.

The former is a Roman Aqueduct, with a default CostProgressionParam1 on 1000. I think changing this to 15 might be too much.
The latter is a Greek Theater Square, which seems to have been forgotten in the list.

Otherwise really good work. This mod made it easy for me to understand how the system works and how I can implement my own tweeks ;-)

 

[PupiWizard]

Japan Nerf?

 

[Bigv32]

Japan Nerf?

Probably just another unintended consequense. Will take some time to iron it out, but it is a start.

 

[PupiWizard]

Probably just another unintended consequense. Will take some time to iron it out, but it is a start.

Yeah, I think they made test to decide that city distance is best at 4 also allows for city to city border tension which I think its really neat. Also I tested it a bit and the barbarian nerf is really unecessary it kills the challenge early on and overall makes barbarians almost pointless. The rest of the changes seem fine to me though.

 

[Bigv32]

Yeah, I think they made test to decide that city distance is best at 4 also allows for city to city border tension which I think its really neat. Also I tested it a bit and the barbarian nerf is really unecessary it kills the challenge early on and overall makes barbarians almost pointless. The rest of the changes seem fine to me though.

Barbarian nerf would change the player experience, but it probably helps the AI more than the human.

 

[ElGuapoCiv]

ElGuapoCiv updated Civ6++ with a new update entry:

fixed acropolis/bath mixup

As @gauldamon noticed, the bath district should have been acropolis. I fixed that so now acropolis is 15 instead of 25 and bath remains 1000.

Read the rest of this update entry...

 

[ElGuapoCiv]

Yeah, I think they made test to decide that city distance is best at 4 also allows for city to city border tension which I think its really neat. Also I tested it a bit and the barbarian nerf is really unecessary it kills the challenge early on and overall makes barbarians almost pointless. The rest of the changes seem fine to me though.

These are the related barbarian camp settings:
<Row Name="BARBARIAN_CAMP_FIRST_TURN_PERCENT_OF_TARGET_TO_ADD" Value="33" />
<Row Name="BARBARIAN_CAMP_MAX_PER_MAJOR_CIV" Value="3" />
<Row Name="BARBARIAN_CAMP_MINIMUM_DISTANCE_ANOTHER_CAMP" Value="7" />
<Row Name="BARBARIAN_CAMP_MINIMUM_DISTANCE_CITY" Value="4" />
<Row Name="BARBARIAN_CAMP_ODDS_OF_NEW_CAMP_SPAWNING" Value="2" />

I went with reducing the max_per_major_civ from 3 to 2 because it seemed to be the most controllable value.
I think that there's a lot of potential in fiddling with the "first_turn" and "spawning" values instead though. Maybe lowering "first turn" from 33 to 25 (less barb camps initially) and "spawning" from 2% to 1% (less frequent spawns) would be a viable alternative.

Any thoughts on improving the barbarian issue? I don't like the vanilla settings. They put too much emphasis on barb fighting in the beginning and basically force you to start with unit production. In the later game the frequent spawns are a nuisance that require a lot of micro.

PS: Like I wrote initially, the used values are very easy to change. I highly recommend everyone to adjust the settings to their own preference. I'd appreciate it if you report the experience with the existing/adjusted values. Thanks!

 

[ElGuapoCiv]

I'm contemplating a change in religious spread:
<Row Name="RELIGION_SPREAD_ADJACENT_CITY_DISTANCE" Value="10" />
<Row Name="RELIGION_SPREAD_ADJACENT_PER_TURN_PRESSURE" Value="1" />
<Row Name="RELIGION_SPREAD_HOLY_CITY_PRESSURE_MULTIPLIER" Value="4" />
<Row Name="RELIGION_SPREAD_HOLY_CITY_PRESSURE_PER_POP" Value="100" />
<Row Name="RELIGION_SPREAD_HOLY_SITE_PRESSURE_MULTIPLIER" Value="2" />

Basically with the increased cost of religious units, what about making religion more indirect by letting it spread a bit stronger and further instead of having to micro it via missionaries?
----------------------------------------

<Row Name="SCIENCE_PERCENTAGE_YIELD_PER_POP" Value="70" />

Fiddling with science, culture... per pop would contribute to a more worthwhile tall-play. Currently vanilla is catering completely towards wide-play.

Any feedback would be welcome!

 

[Lord Yanaek]

Plus, the decreased district cost progression (25-->15) somewhat offsets the mentioned problem.

Just FYI, the exact effect of the parameter haven't been confirmed directly by looking at the code (we don't have access to it yet), but it is extremely likely that this 25 is the reduction when you have less of a given district than the average of all players. By reducing the reduction, you actually increase the districts cost.

 

[ElGuapoCiv]

Just FYI, the exact effect of the parameter haven't been confirmed directly by looking at the code (we don't have access to it yet), but it is extremely likely that this 25 is the reduction when you have less of a given district than the average of all players. By reducing the reduction, you actually increase the districts cost.

I ran some tests and you're completely right, unfortunately! Both setups, duel map, Germany, Prince, build campus after 4 techs. With 15 it costs 92, with 50 it costs 87. The system is bogus anyways to tie the cost to the other players.
For now I'll revert the value back to the original 25 until I can figure out a better solution.
I'll experiment with a different cost progression method.

 

[ElGuapoCiv]

ElGuapoCiv updated Civ6++ with a new update entry:

District values back to vanilla

As @Lord Yanaek pointed out, the costprogression works exactly the other way around. Reverted back to vanilla for now.

Read the rest of this update entry...

 

[Lord Yanaek]

I ran some tests and you're completely right, unfortunately! Both setups, duel map, Germany, Prince, build campus after 4 techs. With 15 it costs 92, with 50 it costs 87. The system is bogus anyways to tie the cost to the other players.
For now I'll revert the value back to the original 25 until I can figure out a better solution.
I'll experiment with a different cost progression method.

You might want to look at that mod It changes the model to follow the Builders/Settlers model (cost only goes up with number of copies already built - so campus will increase only based on how many campuses you already have). That cost progression model also uses a more straightforward parameter (the parameter is the actual increase).

The default model is actually pretty complicated. You can look at the Strategy sub-forum (search for the formula thread) if you want the details, but basically it's based on your number of techs/civics (whichever is greater) but you have a 25% discount if you have less than the average of all players (as a sort of rubber band mechanism to help you not fall too badly behind). The idea is good. The fact that the only parameter we have access to is the discount rather than the base increase is bad.

As far as i know, the Acqueduct/Neighborhhod model also uses a parameter directly related to the increase, but we have even less information on that model than the default one so it would take trial and error to get something that feels good.

There is even mention in the dll of a 4th cost progression model that apparently isn't used by anything in the current game. Whether this is a functional model or a bogus one is totally unknown. I can try and find the name back if you are interested.

 

[ElGuapoCiv]

You might want to look at that mod It changes the model to follow the Builders/Settlers model (cost only goes up with number of copies already built - so campus will increase only based on how many campuses you already have). That cost progression model also uses a more straightforward parameter (the parameter is the actual increase).

Haha, that's what I'm testing right now. I figured that the only other model that makes sense is the "previous copies" one. I'm testing a flat out +20 increase per copy for the buildings that had a 25 increase in vanilla, the 1000 increase buildings I left untouched as before.
If you can find a better progression model, please inform me. I'm back at testing the current experiment.

 

[Lord Yanaek]

EDIT. Answered to a deleted post, sorry.

Can't help you with the XML syntax. If i was doing it directly with SQL i would try

update Districts
   set
    CostProgressionModel = 'COST_PROGRESSION_PREVIOUS_COPIES',
    CostProgressionParam1=20
  where DistrictType="DISTRICT_CAMPUS";

or

update Districts
   set
    CostProgressionModel = 'COST_PROGRESSION_PREVIOUS_COPIES',
    CostProgressionParam1=20
  where CostProgressionModel ="COST_PROGRESSION_NUM_UNDER_AVG_PLUS_TECH";

to change them all with a single statement

If you want to check your results are applied correctly, before testing in-game, it's often easier to just open the database. You can find a copy of the database under <your game folder>\Sid Meier's Civilization VI\cache\DebugGameplay.sqlite
This is not the working copy civilization uses (i think the real database is memory only) but your changes should appear there if your syntax was correct.