Current v1.13 Development Discussion

[Leoreth]

Btw whatever was wrong with the old civics screen? The new one adds nothing, and in fact it maks the game worse because the left and right edges are cut off.

What was wrong with it is that it used space inefficiently. Especially the narrow columns used to display effects made everything hard to read, especially for effects that aren't easily described.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

What was wrong with it is that it used space inefficiently. Especially the narrow columns used to display effects made everything hard to read, especially for effects that aren't easily described.

And cutting off 1/5th of the screen on lower resolutions is efficient?

 

[Ani Taneen]

Absolutely not. For that we have England and the Netherlands. There's enough civs already, in fact too many I would argue.

South Africa and Australia fill in gaps in the map. The Idea being that their presence brings additional actions to regions which normally don't see any. Specifically if A civ collapses, it makes no sense that their colonial areas wouldn't try to become separate states.

We are not proposing on adding the Swiss because Europe needs just more real estate problems. We are proposing both a historic and realistic scenario.

 

[Ani Taneen]

Was the overexertion calculations changed? I ask because as the mongols, I find myself struggling to keep the modifier above -10 (-20 before those courthouses are built).

And I will admit: I cheat and give myself two more settlers, because I like being able to build up that core area.

 

[DarkLunaPhantom]

South Africa and Australia fill in gaps in the map. The Idea being that their presence brings additional actions to regions which normally don't see any. Specifically if A civ collapses, it makes no sense that their colonial areas wouldn't try to become separate states.

We are not proposing on adding the Swiss because Europe needs just more real estate problems. We are proposing both a historic and realistic scenario.

Leoreth said that new civs will have to wait until civs are disassociated from player slots.

 

[Eric Cartmenez]

One needs to keep the periphery population low, because your core cities are to small to support those peripheral ones, while playing as Japan (thanks Leoreth for their nerf) I had to starve all my Chinese and Thai cities to 3-5 population in order not to collapse.

I would also appreciate some help with Mongols - not able to conquer China without S/L cheating, not event talking about the territory goal.

 

[Leoreth]

Maybe the Mongols are just weak right now, the AI seems to struggle as well.

And cutting off 1/5th of the screen on lower resolutions is efficient?

That's probably because no one has played on these resolutions yet, so it's not adapted for them. What are you using?

 

[Eric Cartmenez]

Mongols deserve some nerf in future, the other problem than overexpansion is that China can grow far too strong for them, like in my recent unsuccesful try, Chinese got stacks of doom of Knights/Musketmen/Bombards, also one more often losses battles with 80-85% win probability - is this just mine experience?, and the unhapiness from religious disunity also affects their gameplay

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, not sure which change caused China to be so strong again. The balance there has always been very binary.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

That's probably because no one has played on these resolutions yet, so it's not adapted for them. What are you using?

The lowest one. On the lowest and second lowest the civics screen is cut off at the edges, and in all the other resolutions either the second ring tiles are cut off in the city screen or all the text is ant sized.

 

[cudfather]

Is that, like, 800x600? :O

 

[sercer88]

... often losses battles with 80-85% win probability - is this just mine experience?

In my experience - even playing with sometimes playing with the option "new random seed generated" - sometimes you really do get "bad RNG luck"

But it seems to be more than just bad luck. I have yet to do extensive study/research into this theory of mine, but I really question the veracity of the battle outcome predictor.
Without the BUG mod even with just the % chance to win for your unit, or with all the options enabled with the BUG mod sometimes the displayed odds or chances are just totally off from actual outcomes.

Again, since I haven't documented any of my findings yet, you can't really take what I'm saying but sometimes (for example) on a battle which I'm told I have a 67% chance of winning, I will lose 10-15 battles in a row (saving, reloading from before the battle, etc.) Of course, in the interest of time I never really follow up on that particular battle and see if I continue to lose battle after battle as long as I just win 1...

Statistics nerds: (I use that term endearingly because I am partly one myself!) please enlighten me: on a battle which I should have a 2/3 chance to win, how likely is it that I should go 0-for-10 or 0-for-15 before finally winning for the first time?
I mean, I know I can just calculate (1/3)^10 (or 15) to find out the % chance that it will occur. But is it reasonable to have such runs, or is it something to be irritated by?


I have noticed it working both ways though - to be fair. For example in my latest game as USA I was battling with my grenadiers and minutemen and only engaging in battles where I had >75% chance of winning and out of at least 15 battles maybe 20, I've only had to reload once or twice.
So maybe it all evens out, but I still think there's something fishy with the %'s

 

[MechatronicJazz]

I don't know if there's something off with the battle odds calculation, but I admit I notice a difference between this mod and AND2. Not a huge difference mind you, but I feel like I win at low odds and lose at high odds more often in DoC than in AND. There could be other factors affecting my perception though; game pace is much, much faster in Doc.

Also, I think that first strikes in both mods (maybe Civ4 in general) don't get accounted for properly in battle odd calculations so if the odds seem off when units have many first strike promotions, that might be the problem.

 

[sercer88]

I don't know if there's something off with the battle odds calculation, but I admit I notice a difference between this mod and AND2. Not a huge difference mind you, but I feel like I win at low odds and lose at high odds more often in DoC than in AND. There could be other factors affecting my perception though; game pace is much, much faster in Doc.

Also, I think that first strikes in both mods (maybe Civ4 in general) don't get accounted for properly in battle odd calculations so if the odds seem off when units have many first strike promotions, that might be the problem.

Speaking of first strikes - is a first strike just the first part of a battle - say a rifleman with 2 first strikes hits a cavalry with 2*20 hit points (or whatever the value is based off the relative strengths of the 2 units) - so now the rest of the battle is purely at the whim of the RNG? If so, then I'd say that first strikes are definitely NOT properly accounted for in the battle odds, and even not properly administered on the battle field.
In my experience, I mean

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Seriously though, what were you thinking??? I could have understood (not liked, but begrudgingly accepted) negative commerce for Towns, or for Watermills, but for both of them and two improvements more!? Forgive my bluntness, but are you insane? Has your account been hacked by Libertarians? Or is it some kind of tradition for you to pick one feature in each version you deem overpowered, and then nerf it until it's doing the player more harm than good? Because that's what happened with Agrarianism, then almost Watermills, and now Central Planning. And worst of all is the negative commerce for Workshops because it's so arbitray! All the other improvements at least always give commerce by themselves, but Workshops are only affected if they are next to rivers, which makes no sense! Why would a Gulag or closed city (which is probably what most Workshops represent in a planned economy) somehow be performing worse if it is riverside?

This is the last straw! I was already unhappy with several of your design choices, but I could overlook them because of all the good you did elsewhere, but this is where I draw the line!
I hereby announce a Grand Rebalance Modmod in order to correct your past, present and future mistakes!

Also stupid Babylon keeps ruining my Egypt games what with their constant stealing of the Sphinx or the Pyramids.

...

You are still invited to my birthday party next weekend though.

 

[Big Heb]

Seriously though, what were you thinking??? I could have understood (not liked, but begrudgingly accepted) negative commerce for Towns, or for Watermills, but for both of them and two improvements more!? Forgive my bluntness, but are you insane? Has your account been hacked by Libertarians?

I can guarantee I have not bought off or replaced Leoreth with a capitalist pod person, comrade...yet.

 

[Leoreth]

You are still invited to my birthday party next weekend though.

Is it in Siberia?

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Is it in Siberia?

Damn, you didn't fall for it!

 

[Hojsimpson]

Use WB and let 1000 units fight each other on differe t difficulty levels. You lose more units on higher difficulty levels

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Leoreth, do you honestly believe that a town has a worse economic performance in a planned economy than in a subsistence economy? Do you believe that windmills perform worse in a planned economy than in a subsistence economy? Because that is apparently the case according to the state of the mod.

Gah! I can't even start DoC anymore without immediately getting angry! It's like back when I had an iPad!