DAE feel like VP is broken?

[cozye]

I feel as if an effort to make the CPU competitive has resulted in a broken format. This is mainly in regards to the expansion of civs and their relative populations, and how those stats interact with all other production statistics.

I've been playing this mod for years. I think it's a great thing. But now I find it impossible to snowball and impossible to keep up. Like why does Morocco have twice my population, exports, and 100 happiness? This mod used to be shaped in a way that playing tall was a viable strategy. Why has that gone out the window?

To draw an example from reality, the population of a country doesn't correspond to its output, especially of science. Take a look at the US vs India. If this were a game of civ, India would outperform the US by any metric, just by merit of being 1.5billion people.

It seems like population has become the master metric, and all other's have been reduced to slaves. I just can't compete. Even if I put out 10+ cities by the renaissance era, I'm still outperformed by a ratio of 2:1. Why did you make the CPU so land hungry? Do they literally spam settlers all game long? What's up?

 

[civplayer33]

India, if the real world were a civ game, would be several techs and a lot of infrastructural buildings behind the US, so it wouldn't be implausible that the US outperform India with a far lower population.

Also, in my current game my population is significantly lower than that of some of the top civs and yet I'm doing quite well. As far as population per city is concerned, I was able to outperform the AI up until about the Renaissance Era (I did grab Hanging Gardens, though), but after that the AI just gets too many bonuses, I guess. Still, larger population does not equal more points or progress toward victory.

So maybe it's your strategy that needs to change?

 

[cozye]

and broken in the sense that it's evolved beyond recognition of what it was a couple of years ago

India, if the real world were a civ game, would be several techs and a lot of infrastructural buildings behind the US, so it wouldn't be implausible that the US outperform India with a far lower population.

That's my point though. And, even if I make an effort to grab vast swaths of territory, the CPU still outperforms me in this regard at a ratio of 2:1. I can't stop them. At a certain point a top civ or two will snowball and just leave me in the dust. And I don't really feel like managing 30 cities by the industrial era just to stay competitive.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I don't feel it's broken and population isn't really all that important after certain point. After about 15+ in a city, it's diminishing results for all but a few civilizations - excluding the capital where the more, the merrier. In fact, most people I saw argue Food (the way to gain pop) turns bad later on. 20 cities in renaissance isn't all that much, really. If that quantity was impossible or hard to achieve, war victory would be impossible to achieve as you need around 45 cities on a standard map to get to the capitals, unless most are coastal I guess. I can't say much without knowing how you play, though. Maybe you're making mistakes. What's the difficulty you play on? Try lowering it if you can't handle it.

and broken in the sense that it's evolved beyond recognition of what it was a couple of years ago


That's my point though. And, even if I make an effort to grab vast swaths of territory, the CPU still outperforms me in this regard at a ratio of 2:1. I can't stop them. At a certain point a top civ or two will snowball and just leave me in the dust. And I don't really feel like managing 30 cities by the industrial era just to stay competitive.

You're paying too much attention to statistics, only look at tech/policy of AI's you know by clicking on their icon, or on Friendly/Hostile/Neutral/Guarded/Afraid in the diplomatic window. That's the important parts. I really hope you don't look at the statistic tree with that GDP, manufactured goods thing and actually take conclusions out of that because that is a waste of time. I maybe misunderstood you because I'm shocked anyone would do this. It's obvious an empire with more cities will, on average, have higher total Production, especially a civ like Morocco with it's unique improvement Kasbah as well as the UA. They have more cities, probably took Authority or Progress (6 or 2 Prod per city, respectively), maybe even Fealty for another +3. They have more citizens in each city, food cost for a citizen grows so they'll work more tiles, and more tiles = more production because tiles tend to have it, etc.

 

[vyyt]

Have you tried lowering the difficulty and/or playing a slightly more crowded map?

I think the biggest difference from the past is that AI simply plays better. If I am not mistaken, the AI growth bonuses have been removed completely.

Also, huge population does not necessarily mean shooting ahead in science, culture, etc. I cannot comment on playing very tall, I always accidentally end up having 843 cities and conquering half of the world

 

[chicorbeef]

Playing tall is still viable...

Also, demographics is not the only important measure, as I think you know. Playing with less cities gives less Culture/Science/Tourism penalties. Sure another nation might have more raw Production/Gold, but they also have to spend more due to more cities/need for a larger army.

Also, in BNW, 1 pop used to = 1 science and Libraries used to give Science per pop. That's gone in VP now. So pop is actually less important.

 

[cozye]

Have you tried lowering the difficulty and/or playing a slightly more crowded map?

I think the biggest difference from the past is that AI simply plays better. If I am not mistaken, the AI growth bonuses have been removed completely.

Also, huge population does not necessarily mean shooting ahead in science, culture, etc. I cannot comment on playing very tall, I always accidentally end up having 843 cities and conquering half of the world

Yeah I play on cheiftan. No doubt the AI is improved such that Gazebo should be on the payroll. I think the AI must always be looking to settle new land, all game.

 

[cozye]

Playing tall is still viable...

Also, demographics is not the only important measure, as I think you know. Playing with less cities gives less Culture/Science/Tourism penalties. Sure another nation might have more raw Production/Gold, but they also have to spend more due to more cities/need for a larger army.

Also, in BNW, 1 pop used to = 1 science and Libraries used to give Science per pop. That's gone in VP now. So pop is actually less important.

Any ideas on how Morocco ran away from me last game? They placed #1 in land, population, and culture. In early industrial period they had 29 policies while everyone else had 25 max. I just don't get it. And 100 surplus happiness? How?

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Any ideas on how Morocco ran away from me last game? They placed #1 in land, population, and culture. In early industrial period they had 29 policies while everyone else had 25 max. I just don't get it.

Kasbah has like 2 base Culture and you can put up to 6 near a city (total of 12) while their unique ability grants 1 of each yield, scaling, for every unique trade route partner, though the impact of the UA is minuscule in comparison to Kasbah. Policy choices also might've made an impact, as well as the religion choices? There's two founders that might've helped, one with Culture + Tourism to missionary spread whose name eludes me, the other Way of Transcendence with all yields on going to next era, scaling with number of following cities and era.
Followers-wise there's Veneration, Inspiration, Church, Padoga and potentially huge culture from Mosque, when it comes to enhancers - Mendicancy and IIRC Dio or some other thing. There's also reformation beliefs, like the Defender of the Faith which is the king of culture, or less impressive Crusader Spirit, or likely even less impressive Faith of the Masses. Also, some pantheons are just as influential, like God-King, maybe God of Open Sky. The answer might lie there. Some policy trees are better for culture, too.

At Chieftain I think the AI gets no bonuses whatsoever or they're really miniscule, so I think they just outplayed you. The bonus, if it exists, wouldn't give them anything like 4 free policies.
Land and population are obvious, they expand and the cities grow so they have pop, they snatch monopolies, they build Kasbahs, they rock them, culture goes on. Wonders might've made an impact too, if they've built a lot then they naturally ball by the power of yields and GP points. Some natural wonders also make an impact, though unless you've blown their empire size out of proportion the nat wonders are probably irrelevant.

I can only divine from frog's entrails and tea leaves so much, I'm afraid.

 

[Omen of Peace]

Post some saves or detailed screenshots if you want a deep analysis.

 

[Jakethedane]

and broken in the sense that it's evolved beyond recognition of what it was a couple of years ago


That's my point though. And, even if I make an effort to grab vast swaths of territory, the CPU still outperforms me in this regard at a ratio of 2:1. I can't stop them. At a certain point a top civ or two will snowball and just leave me in the dust. And I don't really feel like managing 30 cities by the industrial era just to stay competitive.

I just wish that there was a toggle for when you need to build a thousand things in a city, and you have 30 cities, and each turn is mostly just you selecting new construction projects that you've done for every other city... like don't you guys get the drill yet? Just let the city pick based on advisors or something. Its little things like this that make for an already VERY long lasting game become tedious at the later eras.

I love the idea of having huge patches of land in between me and the enemy and having to travel over uninhabited terrain to get to people. But you definitely have to forward settle if you want to cut the AI off and keep them from turning the whole map their color.

I would be interested in a mod that Limited the number of cities you could build based on the era of the furthest civ if anyone knows of such a thing!

 

[chicorbeef]

Any ideas on how Morocco ran away from me last game? They placed #1 in land, population, and culture. In early industrial period they had 29 policies while everyone else had 25 max. I just don't get it. And 100 surplus happiness? How?

Is he your neighbour or not? Early military action is always an option. Even later on, if you've been successful enough in your early wars and you have a large supply cap and a well promoted army and a good tech timing...well you attack them.

Otherwise, just focus on tech or culture. Culture might be difficult in this game but there shouldn't be anything stopping you from outteching him. Trade with civs ahead in tech/use internal routes, spy on him, pass Scholars in Residence, go Rationalism and purchase Scientists near the very end of the game, rush Labs, work Science process in the very late game...you might not have as many resources but you can be more efficient.

 

[Gazebo]

Clickbaity title aside, the AI being good enough to beat players at Chieftain is, IMO, the opposite of 'broken.' I dream of a civ in which AI handicaps aren't required at all for any level of difficulty.

G

 

[Kim Dong Un]

Yeah I play on cheiftan.

Bro... Cheiftan?

 

[Rekk]

Chieftain has no AI bonuses. The AI just knows how to play better than you at this point. That's good! You can learn to play better, but the AI can't.

 

[Gazebo]

Chieftain has no AI bonuses. The AI just knows how to play better than you at this point. That's good! You can learn to play better, but the AI can't.

Hey now...

 

[cozye]

Is he your neighbour or not? Early military action is always an option. Even later on, if you've been successful enough in your early wars and you have a large supply cap and a well promoted army and a good tech timing...well you attack them.

Otherwise, just focus on tech or culture. Culture might be difficult in this game but there shouldn't be anything stopping you from outteching him. Trade with civs ahead in tech/use internal routes, spy on him, pass Scholars in Residence, go Rationalism and purchase Scientists near the very end of the game, rush Labs, work Science process in the very late game...you might not have as many resources but you can be more efficient.

He's not my neighbor so I couldn't really stop him. I went honour and warred many barbarian tribes and then declared on Shaka Zulu. This pissed off Spain and Rome honestly was just mad at my existence. So I've been fighting a war on two fronts since medieval times.

Clickbaity title aside, the AI being good enough to beat players at Chieftain is, IMO, the opposite of 'broken.' I dream of a civ in which AI handicaps aren't required at all for any level of difficulty.

G

I guess man but I also like to snowball and crush them like the measly peasants they are. Not sure if demographics are part of vp or infoaddict but it HURTS my German heart to see my beautiful civilization consistently ranked mid-last in every conceivable metric aside from literacy, exports and approval rating. Did you tweak the civs themselves? Because I'm playing with a few JFD civs and wonder if that makes a difference or not.

 

[infidel88]

aggressive Progress/Authority (depending on starting civ) + Fealty + Imperialism always gets you to snowball and be ahead by at least an era around T200 on emperor or below. Excluding notable non-synergic exceptions (Venice to some extend, Austria, Ethiopia, Siam).

 

[vyyt]

Chieftain has no AI bonuses. The AI just knows how to play better than you at this point. That's good! You can learn to play better, but the AI can't.

I know I am (re-)opening the Pandora's box here, but maybe - just maybe - the AI could actually get some malus in the lowest 1-2 difficulties? You know, the AI smart as in CP/VP, not doing the annoyingly dumb things as in vanilla, but getting less science, culture, etc. than the player.

We get very little feedback from the lowest difficulties here and I personally have absolutely no idea how the game plays on Settler / Chieftain, but I think especially new players must be overwhelmed by all the new / changed features of VP. And also roleplaying players who just want to build their empire without competing much with the AIs might appreciate it.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

He's not my neighbor so I couldn't really stop him. I went honour and warred many barbarian tribes and then declared on Shaka Zulu. This pissed off Spain and Rome honestly was just mad at my existence. So I've been fighting a war on two fronts since medieval times.


I guess man but I also like to snowball and crush them like the measly peasants they are. Not sure if demographics are part of vp or infoaddict but it HURTS my German heart to see my beautiful civilization consistently ranked mid-last in every conceivable metric aside from literacy, exports and approval rating. Did you tweak the civs themselves? Because I'm playing with a few JFD civs and wonder if that makes a difference or not.

Wait a second, you went honour (Authority?) and you don't like expanding while considering 10 cities to be much? I frequently have 10+ by medieval, not by renaissance. There's nothing wrong about fighting on two fronts if you took Authority and have the advantage. This is the aggressive tree where you're meant to fight and weaken people by killing their troops, pillaging their lands and taking their cities. This tree needs expansion and war to be competitive.