Current v1.13 Development Discussion

[youtien]

Subforums will be near the top of the main page -- it's the box below "Display Options." The specific subforum is "Gameplay Guides."

1) What's the rationale for settling Lanzhou first, instead of just directly setting Luoyang? What benefit does it give, to settle the lesser city first?

2) Do you send a warrior to escort each worker unit from Babylon back to China, or do you send them out on their own?

1)3 hills and culture - you catch pig and hill on southwest easily, and later your Great Wall extends longer.

2)No. let workers walk across India, they can draw map from Persia to China too, so we can trade with west soon.

 

[ezzlar]

I got Rifling in 1100AD with your build. Poor mongols!

This was with the pantheon method.

 

[youtien]

I got Rifling in 1100AD with your build. Poor mongols!

This was with the pantheon method.

And poor Seljuks too.

In the old days, I usually found Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Islam and Protestantism all by myself. These days you'll suffer religious disunity penalty, but liberalism solves the problem.

 

[youtien]

Congo contest:

You can build city on marsh, jungle, tundra, ice. So what can we achieve? Siberia?

 

[ezzlar]

It is far between Self Suffiency -> Guilds -> Free market. But also Agrianism -> Capitalism.

Would be nice with some in between.

Edit: How about Mercantilism is -1 trade route per city instead. They did some trading after all, export that is. Then maybe modify the other parameters.

 

[Shadow Warlord]

It is far between Self Suffiency -> Guilds -> Free market. But also Agrianism -> Capitalism.

Would be nice with some in between.

Edit: How about Mercantilism is -1 trade route per city instead. They did some trading after all, export that is. Then maybe modify the other parameters.

Yeah, i would say the only change needed to Mercantilism is so that it doesn't slow down research so much. Otherwise your economy does great if you combine it with Absolutism and have a few holy cities/shrines in the capital.

Mercantilism hurts small civs for research, but large colonial civs like England and Spain aren't penalized as much by the lack of foreign trade routes.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Mercantilism hurts small civs for research, but large colonial civs like England and Spain aren't penalized as much by the lack of foreign trade routes.

That's actually working as it should I think, the whole point of Mercantilism is that it was used by globe spanning colonial empires because they could be more self sufficient than smaller countries. Imo it should work similar to Nationhood or State Property in Vanilla, being pretty useless for one city civs but growing ever more powerful the bigger you are. Per city bonuses or some maintenance reduction would be the best methods to achieve this I think.

 

[youtien]

Sometimes Congo UHV couldn't be achieved. I got only 12.57% in a regent/normal game. 15% seems a bit too much, maybe because Protestantism wasn't founded.

 

[Xfactor]

i agree with youtien, tried congo in the past days , first uhv is really really hard to achieve becouse protestantism isnt founded and somehow with 5 cities , 2 of which were 11pop , other were like 5 i couldnt manage to reach 5% which is absurd.. Protestantism wasnt founded in that game. I tried then with WB just to see how much pop i needed to make it , put 2 cities on 140 pop and 1 on 100+ as i racall and bearly made 15% Before you could do it with 3 decently big cities or 4 mediocre which is normal.

This again has to do with the techrate of eu civs, protestantism not being found in 1600s + ?

For the second goal i also had struggles becouse every EU civ didnt have any spare gold , i remember selling slaves for 10-40 just so i get close. I opened WB again to see whats happening and to my surprise Aztec alive in 1750s some Eu civ cant remember got like 2 inca cities, but the inca were still alive, Dutch settled a few colonies and Portugal just started colonising Brasil ... in 1750 ? NA had like 1-2 English colonies on the usual bad spots way up in Canada. Again i feel like this is tech rate problem - late astronomy, no colonies , no slave trade ...

 

[youtien]

i agree with youtien, tried congo in the past days , first uhv is really really hard to achieve becouse protestantism isnt founded and somehow with 5 cities , 2 of which were 11pop , other were like 5 i couldnt manage to reach 5% which is absurd.. Protestantism wasnt founded in that game. I tried then with WB just to see how much pop i needed to make it , put 2 cities on 140 pop and 1 on 100+ as i racall and bearly made 15% Before you could do it with 3 decently big cities or 4 mediocre which is normal.

This again has to do with the techrate of eu civs, protestantism not being found in 1600s + ?

For the second goal i also had struggles becouse every EU civ didnt have any spare gold , i remember selling slaves for 10-40 just so i get close. I opened WB again to see whats happening and to my surprise Aztec alive in 1750s some Eu civ cant remember got like 2 inca cities, but the inca were still alive, Dutch settled a few colonies and Portugal just started colonising Brasil ... in 1750 ? NA had like 1-2 English colonies on the usual bad spots way up in Canada. Again i feel like this is tech rate problem - late astronomy, no colonies , no slave trade ...

It is harder in regent / viceroy because there are less impi and pombos. Of course you can enslave your own people, or you can conquer Aksum, which is hard and usually has some.But it is really annoying.

 

[Xfactor]

my point was that before i remember EU civs buying slaves for 100+ gold, the slaves werent a problem , the lack of gold from every EU civ was

 

[Leoreth]

New update:
- tech leader penalties / backwards tech bonuses apply to all civs again, but not in the ancient and classical eras and to a lesser degree in the medieval and renaissance eras
- incorporated Steb's city name suggestions in Canada and the Americas
- updated some hints
- fixed the timescale dropdown button in the statistics screen
- immigrants will not come to cities that do not produce excess food

I changed the tech leader penalty mechanic again. The penalty is now disabled during the ancient and classical era, and slowly ramps up through the medieval and renaissance eras until reaching the previous levels only during the industrial era and later. Also, a civ is not affected during the era it spawns in. The same also applies to the bonus for civs behind in tech.

The idea was that the mechanic should mostly prevent runaway civs late in the game. With these rules, the early game and most tech UHVs should not be negatively impacted anymore.

Please let me know if there are still negative effects of this mechanic.

 

[Eric Cartmenez]

Say guys, have you also experienced some weird trade AI behaviour lately?, I'm not sure exactly, but I guess it starts after reaching Industrial era, for example I got surplus coal or iron, I contact any civ and ask "What will you give me for this?", and they offer none, but want the coal/iron I offer + me paying gold per turn? ... I think I haven't seen this in earlier eras, where resource trade works well.

 

[Eric Cartmenez]

Leoreth, one suggestion for you, I love to play as French much, but can you consider changing French UHV 3 goal?, having 40% of Europe is fun to do, but settling North America for 40% goal is boring ... can we have the second part of this UHV changed for example 40% Europe, 20% North America + 2 cities in Caribbean/South America, 2-3 cities in Africa and 1-2 in Indochina?

Thank you very much for your work, looking forward for 1.13

 

[ezzlar]

It feels like about 80% of all the collapses happens when a civ capitulates.

And some civs can lose most of their important cities without collapsing.

 

[Vectors]

Say guys, have you also experienced some weird trade AI behaviour lately?, I'm not sure exactly, but I guess it starts after reaching Industrial era, for example I got surplus coal or iron, I contact any civ and ask "What will you give me for this?", and they offer none, but want the coal/iron I offer + me paying gold per turn? ... I think I haven't seen this in earlier eras, where resource trade works well.

I blame corporations which cause unhealthiness and unhappiness. The AI analyzes the resource you offered, compared the increased bad stuff with the increased good stuff and saw the former outweighed the latter.

 

[Leoreth]

I blame corporations which cause unhealthiness and unhappiness. The AI analyzes the resource you offered, compared the increased bad stuff with the increased good stuff and saw the former outweighed the latter.

I think so too, seems like the weights are off.

 

[Drag0wn]

The weights must be very, very off. This happened with my Chinese Vassal last night:

I wanted some grain resources from Hongwu to bolster my cereal corporation, and straight up asked him what he wanted:

I think to myself, it's strange he went for just money. but that's still really cheap. So I offered him one resource, asked him what he wanted, and this happened:

I mean, what? The cotton was worth -89 gold per turn?

 

[Leoreth]

Do you benefit from that one cotton in some way? Is it your last cotton, i.e. would you lose happiness, or some sort of corporation yield?

 

[Drag0wn]

Do you benefit from that one cotton in some way? Is it your last cotton, i.e. would you lose happiness, or some sort of corporation yield?

Neither. Since corporation yield makes out at 12 resources, and I had 3 dyes, 4 furs, 3 cottons, and at least 4 sheep (they don't show up on the trade screen because I don't have refrigeration as of that screenshot, but I control all of central asia and the middle east, so I have a lot of sheep), even if I traded away that one cotton I still had 14 textile resources at least. I had 3 spare cotton so no happiness loss if I traded 1.

The cotton meant literally nothing to me. Apparently it was worth -89 gold to Hongwu?

Also, did you see my post about Mongolia's core area and the issues with it?