Current v1.13 Development Discussion

[soul-breathing]

First off, I agree with the point that conferring a purpose to Environmentalism is a good side effect of this change. Of course I also don't want to make it the only viable choice.

Unhealth was added to corporation in the current amounts because health was too easy to manage before. So if it turns out that it is unmanageable in the current setup I will reduce it again.

Another option would be to add another health building somewhere in the tech tree.

Also, unlike unhappiness unhealth has a tendency to balance out itself without player interference. By that I mean, with unhappiness you need to control your city size or waste maintenance on unhappy citizens. Unhealthy cities stop growing on their own.

I still think it's not a rigorous decision to cut 6 health points from resources, you know for Ancient Civs like Egypt, Babylon and Maya, 1 or 2 less health points will make the UHV impossible. For Medieval European Civs, 2~4 less health points will make it very hard to get out of plague. In a word, almost all things from 3000BC to Modern Era need to rebalance after this change.

 

[srpt]

just want to say these changes look great. I agree health is nearly meaniningless as is and any attempt to fix that is cool. I also agree it seems like you guys are complaining before you have played any games with this new restriction. why does no one take this as a challenge?

 

[Tigranes]

just want to say these changes look great. I agree health is nearly meaniningless as is and any attempt to fix that is cool. I also agree it seems like you guys are complaining before you have played any games with this new restriction. why does no one take this as a challenge?

Challenge is fine. Problem with abundance of health is acknowledged. But solution offered is unsatisfactory on the face value.

Leoreth himself plays his mod less than you play your mod. Over the period of years modders develop a mindset different from users. Who do people going to feel about any implementation is as important as end result of the fix. A simple truth which somehow annoys modders when they are told about it.

Those who play Civ 4 for years have very intimate and simple understanding of resources: they present trade value by themselves, buildings are there just to enhance their effect. Leoreth has broken this important paradigm and expects us to enjoy it.
But there are many other ways to work around the same problem without changing the very basics of the game so drastically.

1. Balance health by removing effects from buildings not resources. The end result will be the same, with a brief exception for the time it takes to build a Granary (which comes free later on). Much more elegant than making Wheat useless without Granary.

2. Overcrowding was greater problem because of lack of sanitation in many civilizations. Simply make every citizen to generate 2 or 1.5 . Much more realistic and uniform than treating resources differently. Yeah I forgot about Bananas being more important that Rice now

3. Base health ("from civilization and difficulty level") can be modified by anothe variable "for era". Each era brings different base level of . Elegant, simple, and realistic.

Etc and Etc.

What we never lack here are ideas. If we compare mods with movies SoI can be compared to a good mini series which enjoyed popularity during the polishing season and then people just moved on. DoC and in lesser extent CW are more analogues to good but endless interactive shows with many seasons and new plot being actively discussed and developed as we see our favorite heroes such as Aztecs and Mongols to adapt to new realities. People are so active with this mod not simply because it is good or unique, but because you guys keep talking to us and keep working on these projects.

Finally it is time to say few words about the very concept of in BTS. is not a simple disease. Malnutrition is also ! Pick Babylon. With wheat and without wheat. Without Wheat every plot produces some amount of food. But what food? Not every food has the same nutritional value and favorable "energy spent to produce food/energy derived from food" ratio. Rice, Corn and Wheat happened to be simply more effective food types than others. Less effective foods result in malnutrition of Babylonian citizens. Now after many years of struggle with building a worker, flipping Shush, farming Wheat and building road Babylon finally has it's first resource! Tiles still produce same amount of food but that on the Marble tile means that Babylonians now planting there Wheat instead of, say, pumpkins, and Wheat just happens to be more effective nutritional source than pumpkins! Because of that the end result in Babylon city screen is a better nutrition of citizens which results in population growth. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE! Please don't brake this logic.

 

[citis]

I think you exagerate. More unhealthiness cause problem to player, but it also causes problems to your rivals as well. Try to play a Babylon game. You won't win the 2nd UHV with 9 pop. But you will win with 8 pop.

Moreover, you can reach 8 pop earlier, thus the Babylonian game has in fact become BETTER, not worse! Trying one game I even managed to found a second city and still win the 2nd UHV! (I lost the 1st though due to a couple of turns).

 

[Leoreth]

Challenge is fine. Problem with abundance of health is acknowledged. But solution offered is unsatisfactory on the face value.

Thanks for your agreement. I think the rest of your points is mostly an outgrowth your personal preference for things that have nothing to do with game design.

Leoreth himself plays his mod less than you play your mod. Over the period of years modders develop a mindset different from users. Who do people going to feel about any implementation is as important as end result of the fix. A simple truth which somehow annoys modders when they are told about it.

I'm aware of this. You are leaving out the flip side of this phenomenon which is that players get attached to the status quo when it makes things more convenient.


Now for the "realism" argument. What do you think Babylonians grow on their farms when you don't build them on a wheat resource? Dirt? Where do you think the food on water tiles comes from when there isn't animated fish jumping out of it? I should probably remove all food from these tiles, or place grain and seafood everywhere for realism.

How about acknowledging my point about how these resources mainly exist to add extra food to a tile, especially in RFC?

Don't expect me to address your points when you dress up your personal preferences as "elegance" (I don't see why any of these would be more or less elegant than what we have now) or simply repeat the "it's better if infrastructure is useless" thing without addressing what I have said on the subject.

 

[Tigranes]

Don't expect me to address your points when you dress up your personal preferences as "elegance" (I don't see why any of these would be more or less elegant than what we have now) or simply repeat the "it's better if infrastructure is useless" thing without addressing what I have said on the subject.

Nothing personal, I simply point own on objective inconsistencies of your approach when you strip Wheat from being a resource, while Pigs still are. In the end sum calculations Wheat with health plus Granary without is equal Wheat without health plus Granary with.
But, objectively, without any personal preference, first solution treats resources equally and realistically, while nerfing the many effects of super powerful Granary. We are simply arguing about that brief period when city already has Wheat but still no Granary. This is really the essence of our disagreements and there is no need to dismiss the simple facts just because I happen to see them, and you hate being corrected.

 

[Tigranes]

I think you exagerate. More unhealthiness cause problem to player, but it also causes problems to your rivals as well. Try to play a Babylon game. You won't win the 2nd UHV with 9 pop. But you will win with 8 pop.

Moreover, you can reach 8 pop earlier, thus the Babylonian game has in fact become BETTER, not worse! Trying one game I even managed to found a second city and still win the 2nd UHV! (I lost the 1st though due to a couple of turns).

citis, I talk about process, game experience, not just final victory.

 

[Leoreth]

There is nothing objective about the claim that resources should be treated equally. You might prefer it that way, but there is no reason it should be that way. In fact, resources have been treated differently in DoC long before I made this change.

Really, the only inconsistency you are pointing out here is between the actual game and your personal mental model of the game.

 

[agentxorange]

Okay, to everybody complaining, there were often cities with 31+ health when they are at population 16 or something. Large empires have never had problems with health before and the tiles only really exist so the cities in the vicinity can grow. The only times you really have to build health buildings are with jungle civs or early game, which is still true.

Wouldn't it be interesting to make health a little more interesting and challenging to keep in line?

 

[Tigranes]

Okay, to everybody complaining,

Everybody is different and complaining about slightly different things. Don't oversimplify the situation. Same problem can have many different solutions, axing resources is not a panacea

 

[Leoreth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacy

 

[Tigranes]

In fact, resources have been treated differently in DoC long before I made this change.

For example? Cotton giving 1 happy face while silk is 2?

There is nothing objective about the claim that resources should be treated equally.

There is. Because we call them all food resources, in F11 screen, and to some extent in city screen. Otherwise we would not be calling them 'food resources" but tile's food bonuses, or features, like Oasis or Marsh.

 

[Leoreth]

For example? Cotton giving 1 happy face while silk is 2?

Yeah, also coffee, tea and tobacco. Several resources giving +1 of each with the building, and so on. We have happiness resources being strategic resources.

There is. Because we call them all food resources, in F11 screen, and to some extent in city screen. Otherwise we would not be calling them 'food resources" but tile's food bonuses, or features, like Oasis or Marsh.

That's semantics, not logic.

But I can play that game too: food resources suggest that they are on the map to provide food not health. Which is coincidentally what I was talking about early.

 

[Tigranes]

Yeah, also coffee, tea and tobacco. Several resources giving +1 of each with the building, and so on. We have happiness resources being strategic resources.


That's semantics, not logic.

But I can play that game too: food resources suggest that they are on the map to provide food not health. Which is coincidentally what I was talking about early.

I have already explained that malnutrition is also unhealthiness.

The real game you are playing called "because I said so", and anything we explain to you would be just waste of our times, once you decide to dig in your toes. I was sarcastic about cotton and silk, so that I could just demonstrate you are committing a logical fallacy, while talking about the one. 1 or 2 still makes them luxury resources, and is a difference in quantity not quality . Strategic nature of Ivory is is limited to Elephants only, so by and large it is still a luxury resource.

At the end of the day I am still not sure why you have opted taking health away from the Wheat and not from Granary, thus making it even more overpowered? Was it the first thing that came to your mind?

 

[citis]

I would say there is logic behind that change. Grains contribute to food and are the main resources of energy. The rest food resources contribute less in energy and more in health. I propose to make a famred animal tile give more food to represent this more accurately. Seeing some specialization in food resources is in fact a good thing.

As for the "unhealthiness is also manutrition", malnutrition and unhealthiness are different things. An unhealthy city can still develop if it works many food resources, while a healthy city may be starving, because of lack of them.

An other idea it came in my mind: How about replacing the lost helath bonus with food bonus? I don't speak about tile yield, but a food bonus available in all cities. This can make food resources strategically more relevant and it can simulate the distribution of food.

 

[need my speed]

How about doing something like Civilization III? I'm not suggesting to have a hard cap of six (or what have you) citizens in a city before Aqueducts (and twelve for Hospitals, as Civilization III had), but any extra citizen past X could add twice the amount of unhealthiness, for example, and Aqueducts would remove this, instead of providing additional health (thereby also removing a source of health)?

That's hitting two birds with one stone, if I correctly understand what you want to do.

 

[Leoreth]

The real game you are playing called "because I said so", and anything we explain to you would be just waste of our times, once you decide to dig in your toes.

You know what, forget it. I'm done talking to you.

I've made the right choice in not directly addressing you in the post I wrote yesterday.

You're obviously not interested in reasonable discussion. Otherwise you wouldn't pretend to speak for some unified front or try to paint me as stubborn. This is all the more frustrating because I go to great lengths addressing your arguments but instead of acknowledging my points you just repeat yourself and claim objectiveness and elegance for your opinion without substantiating this in the least.

You will probably want to use this as further evidence for my stubborness. Go ahead, you're welcome. I trust every observer of this thread to see through your childish posturing.

 

[Tigranes]

Unless I report bugs -- 90% of all my lengthy explanations are for the people who are as frustrated with some of your changes as I am. Mods do not exist without players. It is you who show clear sign of pouting here and not addressing even the most simple question: why take a health away from Wheat and not from Granary? Why? Because you know you have no case. I see myself as an ordinary user who's honestly trying to help things to make sense. I am here for the game, not for public's opinion. But for you -- your ego is obviously more important, as illustrated by your last post. You simply don't like to correct yourself no matter how small that step back could possibly be.

 

[Tigranes]

As for the "unhealthiness is also manutrition", malnutrition and unhealthiness are different things. An unhealthy city can still develop if it works many food resources, while a healthy city may be starving, because of lack of them.

How? Malnourished person is lacking in health directly, and indirectly -- has a lower immune system and resistance to common diseases. Unhealthiness is more inclusive term than simply being sick, can you acknowledge that?

 

[Shadow Warlord]

How about doing something like Civilization III? I'm not suggesting to have a hard cap of six (or what have you) citizens in a city before Aqueducts (and twelve for Hospitals, as Civilization III had), but any extra citizen past X could add twice the amount of unhealthiness, for example, and Aqueducts would remove this, instead of providing additional health (thereby also removing a source of health)?

That's hitting two birds with one stone, if I correctly understand what you want to do.

I remember in civ 3 where things like wheat, cows, etc were just basic food bonuses on the tiles rather than actual resources (of course, civ 3 represented health solely by population, with the consequence being global warming and polution. Otherwise you could grow cities as much as you wanted so long as you had enough happiness).