Current (SVN) development discussion thread

[Leoreth]

Moderator Action: Please continue discussing the subject from here on, I consider the incident above to be dealt with.

All unnecessary nastiness aside, my opinion on the subject of handicaps and barbarians is as follows:

1) Barbarians are an important aspect of the challenge of the game, especially in earlier eras, and therefore it makes sense to have their strength scale with difficulty. I think their increased strength is more limiting than other penalties because they force you to be reactive instead of proactive.

2) On the other hand, the barbarians on Emperor seem to cause more trouble for the AI than their additional bonuses make up for, and this is counterintuitive because it can make Emperor easier for the human in that regard.

I think it's possible for most barbarian spawns to determine for which civilization they're intended, and only increase their numbers on Emperor if the human civilization is nearby. Which really sounds like it has all of the advantages and none of the downsides of increases barbarian activity.

 

[Swarbs]

I totally disagree.

What should be adjusted is the AI civs' ability to handle the increased barbarian activity depending on the human player's choice of difficulty setting.

How would you go about doing that, without also giving the AI an advantage over the human player? The only solution I can think of would be to have fewer barbs spawning in the AI location.

I think it's possible for most barbarian spawns to determine for which civilization they're intended, and only increase their numbers on Emperor if the human civilization is nearby. Which really sounds like it has all of the advantages and none of the downsides of increases barbarian activity.

I think AbsintheRed has done just that for Emperor level RFCE. He's set some of the barbs to spawn in certain areas only if that civ is controlled by a human. So that would mean horse archers only spawn in Transoxania if Persia is human controlled, for example. Certainly has some benefits, particularly as barbs aren't particularly challenging for a human player in this mod (definitely not compared to RFCE for example).

 

[Mr_Hobo]

Maybe increase the strength bonus against barbarians for the AI?

 

[Linkman226]

Unlimited missionaries that can enter foreign territory! Still rather weak, but very helpful for the UHV.

Kinda hard to proselytize when you collapse on turn ~25.

Maybe the Tibetans can get a UP that boosts stability with each successful conversion or with the number of cities they control practicing Buddhism. The power of enlightenment or some such.

 

[BenZL43]

Unless the effects are great, I think it'll barely noticeable; because afaik Tibet won't be very stable if it controls a great number of cities.

 

[srpt]

I think it's possible for most barbarian spawns to determine for which civilization they're intended, and only increase their numbers on Emperor if the human civilization is nearby. Which really sounds like it has all of the advantages and none of the downsides of increases barbarian activity.

RFCCW does this. all barb spawns are increased in number (not frequency) if the human player controls the relevant area.

 

[Linkman226]

Unless the effects are great, I think it'll barely noticeable; because afaik Tibet won't be very stable if it controls a great number of cities.

So the effects could be great.

 

[Leoreth]

RFCCW does this. all barb spawns are increased in number (not frequency) if the human player controls the relevant area.

As so often, you're already one step ahead of me

 

[blizzrd]

Maybe increase the strength bonus against barbarians for the AI?

That was my thought too.

 

[blizzrd]

2) On the other hand, the barbarians on Emperor seem to cause more trouble for the AI than their additional bonuses make up for, and this is counterintuitive because it can make Emperor easier for the human in that regard

Would it not be worth trying to tinker with said additional bonuses then, because we are all in agreement that the bonuses are currently not sufficient for the AI civs to handle Emperor barbarian activity?

I suggested this because I thought it would be a relatively simple component to adjust, rather than the overall barbarian spawn mechanism.

 

[Leoreth]

Most of these factors scale against the player too though, so that would upset the balance there too while I'm under the impression that this is fine how it is at the moment.

(With the exception of their unit production rate which I want to increase across all handicaps anyway. This actually might already take care of the problem so I'll hold off on any other changes before I've done that and observed the consequences.)

 

[blizzrd]

Most of these factors scale against the player too though, so that would upset the balance there too while I'm under the impression that this is fine how it is at the moment.

(With the exception of their unit production rate which I want to increase across all handicaps anyway. This actually might already take care of the problem so I'll hold off on any other changes before I've done that and observed the consequences.)

Sounds like a good course of action.

 

[strijder20]

Leoreth, I saw you mention somewhere that stability is now recalculated turn by turn.
Does that mean that stability hits from razing cities, liberating cities and gifting cities are gone?

 

[KeeperOT7Keys]

valencia is botch core of cordoba and spain it isn't good to loose your silver resource (and stability) on second turn or an early war against knights

 

[SheaferDaDawg]

valencia is botch core of cordoba and spain it isn't good to loose your silver resource (and stability) on second turn or an early war against knights

What exactly is this in reply to? If it is regarding rushing the moors as spain, you can and should.

 

[Leoreth]

Leoreth, I saw you mention somewhere that stability is now recalculated turn by turn.
Does that mean that stability hits from razing cities, liberating cities and gifting cities are gone?

It's not calculated every turn, only when certain events occur (losing/acquiring cities, discovering a tech, changing civics ...).

But yes, permanent stability effects are gone. The only thing affecting your stability is the state of your civilization at the moment the check is performed.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Some observations from the latest SVN on two different test games:

1) Moors. I was trying to pinpoint whatever gave them early Rifles
Moors are SUPER-stable. I occupied the British & Egyptian cores for awhile (and before I resigned from testing, the Arabian core) and just remained super-Solid.
However, my population wasn't that high (I had to keep whipping because Moorish production modifier is terrible) and my tech was suffering quite a bit.
France on the other hand, was truly BBB; it was colonizing everything and everything and remained completely stable, whilst remaining a tech leader.
I've never had this much trouble keeping up with an AI, although having a neighbor to steal techs from consistently is nice.
Cities were: 3 in Maghreb, 1 in Spain, 1 in Ireland, 1 in Scotland, 1 in Iceland, 2 in Egypt, Mecca.

2) China. East Asian civs have some seriously stability issues for reasons I can't exactly pinpoint.
In contrast to my Moorish game, where I actually gained more and more stability per conquest,
I collapsed after I conquered the Tamil capital and the only other core I occupied was the Indian one.

Stability in general is incredibly volatile. A civ can be Solid ATM, and the next turn they can collapse at the slightest breeze.
I've seen this happen to Persia & Greece in my China game, and in my Moorish game,
to Poland, Turks, HRE, Vikings and Greece (which had survived to the Renaissance) all had the same issue.
Also, I observed the Japanese manually settling Corea after it was razed by China/barbs.
However, the Mongols made peace with China early, and started invading Japanese-occupied Corea, taking all their mainland possessions.

Results seem to be inconsistent (I am playing on 3000BC however).
In my Moorish game, the Chinese had Rifles/Cavs at the late 1400s.
In another Moorish start, the Chinese were completely dead and occupied by Tibet.

 

[Lone Wolf]

2) On the other hand, the barbarians on Emperor seem to cause more trouble for the AI than their additional bonuses make up for, and this is counterintuitive because it can make Emperor easier for the human in that regard.

In original RFC and last time I checked in DoC, the AI received a malus against Barbarians on Monarch and a further malus (up to -25%, afaik) on Emperor. Is it still that way?

(If it is, that makes the AI even less capable of dealing with all these Native American Barbarian Muskets and Cuirassiers).

 

[Leoreth]

Can you upload your changes for the Handicap.xml? You seem to have experimented with this a lot so I'd like to have something for comparison.

 

[strijder20]

At what dates do techs get cheaper (as Japan)?