Linkman226
#anarchy
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,493
Pardon my ignorance but what is the current Persian UP?
Current (SVN) development discussion thread
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
SheaferDaDawg
Intelligent Canine
+2 Stability upon city conquest, but the stability rewrite will be changing it, as it would no longer be applicable.
Linkman226
#anarchy
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,493
And can anyone give me a brief synopsis of how the new stability mechanic is slated to work?
SheaferDaDawg
Intelligent Canine
1 check every 3 turns. No continual buildup of positive or negative score.
That's the gist of it, although there are no periodic checks, only for important events (discovering a tech, acquiring/losing a city, changing civics and so on).
You could summarize the new stability mechanic in the following points:
- no periodic checks anymore
- no aggregation of stability score or related data (anarchy turns, razed cities, economic data)
- separation of the stability concept into stability score (evaluated on the fly on each check) and stability level, i.e. collapsing to solid (changed based on the outcome of your stability check)
- a negative stability score after the check leads to a crisis. Effects of the crisis depend on your worst stability category (expansion, economy, domestic, foreign, military) and your stability level. Crises on low levels equal the familiar collapse, but there will be other different effects like secession, collapse to core or anarchy
Daedwartin
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,785
they get annoying when i spend 5 minutes going through them every time i start a game, unless im playing from start.
EDIT: tried most recent SVN...much less annoying.
SheaferDaDawg
Intelligent Canine
Daed, you know that the current svn has collapses disabled, right?
Also found it a bit annoying that they pop up during the autoplay. Is there any way that can be disabled - it would be a right pain in the neck to start a Dutch game, for example, and have to click through 80 odd turns of stability events rather than just leaving it to run.
giant49er
Warlord
.
NerfCothons
Warlord
I know it is not your current focus but I have been continuing to tinker with the civics and wanted to share some thoughts.
#Labor
Assuming a buff of some kind to Agrarianism as you've mentioned before, the labor tree seems to be in very good shape. Both in theory and in my limited practice Industrialism/Capitalism in their newest forms pose a balanced and interesting choice for players entering the industrial age. The choice is between a +10% yield buff, a bonus to an improvement built to get that yield, and a unique way to get stuff built. I would suggest that +1 commerce to villages be re-added to prevent Capitalism's improvement bonus from being unusable in places more recently settled (such as the new world) without buffing the final form in developed areas.
However, Public Welfare, which is incredibly powerful as there is enough food on the map to yield a lot of specialists, becomes available very soon after the player is presented with this decision, so soon in fact that I believe it makes the above decision less salient. Historically as well, the 19th century seems too early for a Public Welfare option to be available. I Assume this is not a stand in for socialism because it is not called socialism and is not in the economy tree. I am taking this civic to be a belief that regardless of whether individuals or the state own property, the law is constructed to ensure that everyone has access to the totality of what society deems to be fundamental public goods. Everyone is entitled to a quality public education, kindergarten through university, so the state will pay for it (hence the unlimited specialists, the specialist beakers, and the university bonus). Everyone is entitled to quality public health care so the state will pay for it (hence the hospital bonus). Governments just weren't making these kinds of promises in the 19th century, let alone delivering. Therefore I would move the civic to something like radio or mass media more in line with the time in history when we did see political discourse move in this direction. This would also have the effect of preserving the interesting Capitalism/Industrialism dichotomy for longer.
I would also change the nature of the hospital/university bonuses. I don't believe a focus on public welfare increases the speed at which a health care system and education system are implemented, which is represented by a build speed increase similar to how central planning increases the speed of industrialization represented by the factory and coal plant build speed increases. Instead I would expect a focus on public welfare to improve everyone's access to such systems. Therefore I would suggest +1 health to hospitals and +1 happiness to universities.
#Economy
Similar to Public Welfare's double production bonuses, I believe your stated goal for Environmentalism is to provide happiness and health to counteract the new corporation system. To that end I would suggest changing the double production bonus to +1 happiness for both recycling centers and hydro plants.
#Labor
Assuming a buff of some kind to Agrarianism as you've mentioned before, the labor tree seems to be in very good shape. Both in theory and in my limited practice Industrialism/Capitalism in their newest forms pose a balanced and interesting choice for players entering the industrial age. The choice is between a +10% yield buff, a bonus to an improvement built to get that yield, and a unique way to get stuff built. I would suggest that +1 commerce to villages be re-added to prevent Capitalism's improvement bonus from being unusable in places more recently settled (such as the new world) without buffing the final form in developed areas.
However, Public Welfare, which is incredibly powerful as there is enough food on the map to yield a lot of specialists, becomes available very soon after the player is presented with this decision, so soon in fact that I believe it makes the above decision less salient. Historically as well, the 19th century seems too early for a Public Welfare option to be available. I Assume this is not a stand in for socialism because it is not called socialism and is not in the economy tree. I am taking this civic to be a belief that regardless of whether individuals or the state own property, the law is constructed to ensure that everyone has access to the totality of what society deems to be fundamental public goods. Everyone is entitled to a quality public education, kindergarten through university, so the state will pay for it (hence the unlimited specialists, the specialist beakers, and the university bonus). Everyone is entitled to quality public health care so the state will pay for it (hence the hospital bonus). Governments just weren't making these kinds of promises in the 19th century, let alone delivering. Therefore I would move the civic to something like radio or mass media more in line with the time in history when we did see political discourse move in this direction. This would also have the effect of preserving the interesting Capitalism/Industrialism dichotomy for longer.
I would also change the nature of the hospital/university bonuses. I don't believe a focus on public welfare increases the speed at which a health care system and education system are implemented, which is represented by a build speed increase similar to how central planning increases the speed of industrialization represented by the factory and coal plant build speed increases. Instead I would expect a focus on public welfare to improve everyone's access to such systems. Therefore I would suggest +1 health to hospitals and +1 happiness to universities.
#Economy
Similar to Public Welfare's double production bonuses, I believe your stated goal for Environmentalism is to provide happiness and health to counteract the new corporation system. To that end I would suggest changing the double production bonus to +1 happiness for both recycling centers and hydro plants.
I know that, was just wondering if the pop ups will still be in the final revision, with collapses and all? It would be great if they could be removed from the autoplay turns, but kept in normal play.
Played several games.
Mercenaries is good for Indonesia and Mali, especially Mali, for I can purchase worker and settler, and conquer Moors at the same time.
Other civics... guilds is very good, still overrun mercantilism, because production >> commerce in early and mid era. Later, public welfare is too good, overpowered. Combined with central planning and representation... no reason to switch away.
Mercenaries is good for Indonesia and Mali, especially Mali, for I can purchase worker and settler, and conquer Moors at the same time.
Other civics... guilds is very good, still overrun mercantilism, because production >> commerce in early and mid era. Later, public welfare is too good, overpowered. Combined with central planning and representation... no reason to switch away.
mariglen
Chieftain
When the final release for the fix of stability .
iOnlySignIn
Prince$s
I ran some autoruns of 600 AD starts on the latest SVN (550) up to 1200 AD.
I think the new Stability/Crisis mechanism fits Europe but is messed up for Asia.
I see China, Korea, and Japan all stuck in severe/terminal crisis for most of the time (600 - 1200 AD).
China's crisis is Diplomatic, Japan's is Military, and Korea's is Economic. None of them lost a single city in this time period.
Meanwhile, all the Europeans except the Vikings and England are Solid or Stable.
I think the new Stability/Crisis mechanism fits Europe but is messed up for Asia.
I see China, Korea, and Japan all stuck in severe/terminal crisis for most of the time (600 - 1200 AD).
China's crisis is Diplomatic, Japan's is Military, and Korea's is Economic. None of them lost a single city in this time period.
Meanwhile, all the Europeans except the Vikings and England are Solid or Stable.
I agree with this observation. The Europeans are supposed to be okay until they start growing big by colonizing or winning continental wars. Asian civs had stability buffs before to balance their isolation, maybe I need to bring something like that back.
iOnlySignIn
Prince$s
^ Why not look for a more universal solution?
To start with, I don't think the number of foreign contacts or Open Border agreements should affect Diplomatic Stability at all. Foreign Trade already indirectly affects Stability by boosting your Economy. Letting it also influence Diplomatic Stability would be unbalanced and redundant.
In terms of Economic Stability, I don't think absolute growth/stagnation should be the determining factor. Instead it should be relative (as long as your economic growth is not negative). Say if a civ's economy output is stagnating (zero growth), but the whole rest of the world are at negative growth (Plague, Great Depression, etc.), then the civ with the zero growth should have a relatively good economic rating.
To start with, I don't think the number of foreign contacts or Open Border agreements should affect Diplomatic Stability at all. Foreign Trade already indirectly affects Stability by boosting your Economy. Letting it also influence Diplomatic Stability would be unbalanced and redundant.
In terms of Economic Stability, I don't think absolute growth/stagnation should be the determining factor. Instead it should be relative (as long as your economic growth is not negative). Say if a civ's economy output is stagnating (zero growth), but the whole rest of the world are at negative growth (Plague, Great Depression, etc.), then the civ with the zero growth should have a relatively good economic rating.
