ElliotS
Warmonger
I mean I technically hit the information era this game. Sure it was only a single tech as I blitzed the final city, but details shmetails, right?
Deity Denmark Win on 2-15-17
- Thread starter ElliotS
- Start date
Playing standard speed i can say that the problem with scientific victory is that when you combine everything right - you get ~4-5 thousands science per turn. Together with great scientists you research a tech every 2-3 turns and you do not have any time to play with modern army or buildings. I just never buld this solar plants and other stuff like this, you just do not have enough time for it to pay out - you win before
tu_79
Deity
That's a concern I share. I see it this way:
1. War is more click intensive than peace. So every turn fighting requires more time.
2. Going for domination victory requires being constantly at war, thus pursuing such victory either,
2a. Finishes in a reasonable time, but in a very early turn.
2b. Finishes in the same turn as the other victories, but takes forever to get there.
Part of the problem was that some civs could theorically win without a single fight. Not having to spend time with your units makes the game progress really fast. The other side of the problem was that armies were huge, so any player engaging in war had a long chore ahead.
Ideally, any game should be able to finish before 10-12 hours, with a high chance of getting to the information era and beyond. The only way to achieve this, in my opinion, is to let combat be fast (fewer units) and expansion slow (having to wait some turns for next war) for one side, and forcing peaceful civs to fight more often for the other, so the difference in time spent for different victory conditions is not so big. This recent change (2-27 version) is a step in the right direction.
vyyt
Deity
Side note: I think the problem is that you cannot please everyone. For example my idea of fun is a game I can play for a month (not every day of course, but let's estimate 20 hours in total or even more) with big armies fighting long wars of attrition on a crowded huge map.
While I am looking forward to try out the newly introduced mechanics and agree that AI producing new units faster than you could kill them on higher difficulties was a problem, I definitely would not enjoy quick wars with few units.
tu_79
Deity
I was talking for a standard game. In greater maps you'll find longer games to please any war masochist.
vyyt
Deity
Yep, I know. I am just saying that there are war masochists, peaceful builders, people who are reaching nirvana when they can manually micromanage 50 cities and workers in information era and then there are people who get bored if they have to take care of more than 4 cities and rather put all cities and workers on autopilot. And to make it worse, there are all kinds of game/map settings which throw the balance off again. So it is hard to chose the right path, because there may not be one, there will always be someone complaining.
tu_79
Deity
Well, I agree. Here in my country everyone loves to drive by the middle lane thinking that their driving speed is in the mean. So if I'm more on the 'not micromanaging' camp side than the median, I should take my own advice and play in smaller maps. But I wonder, what's the real median here.
Can you help me understand how the Jelling Stone is balanced? 500 production and culture in every city each turn sounds pretty broken. Lets say I'm really bad at this game and I can only get 1/5 of what you get, I still get more production than a steam mill and more culture than a Skola.
Why even let yourself have happiness problems? Work very little food, avoid growth. The only thing you need citizens for is some science. I always end up having research in my queue because I build every relevant building and hit my supply cap without trying.
Why even let yourself have happiness problems? Work very little food, avoid growth. The only thing you need citizens for is some science. I always end up having research in my queue because I build every relevant building and hit my supply cap without trying.
peterw1987
Prince
- Joined
- May 8, 2014
- Messages
- 457
Copied my reply from another thread .
After analysing deeper, jelling stone seems broken. It is indeed too OP. At least it should be spread at
X point/(no of cities-1). The only downside is, you must settle on coastal tile, which limit your settle positioning a bit.
After analysing deeper, jelling stone seems broken. It is indeed too OP. At least it should be spread at
X point/(no of cities-1). The only downside is, you must settle on coastal tile, which limit your settle positioning a bit.
Jelling Stones will always seem OP if you assume constant, profitable war.
edit:
edit:
Jelling Stones do not require cities to be on the coast.
Last edited:
ElliotS
Warmonger
I've mentioned that it's the best building in the game bar none by a huge margin before. I'd rate the Acropolis (greece) a distant second for similar reasons.
However Denmark has a weak UA and a decent UU. Their UB is really their only strong point. It also makes them extremely feast-or-famine. When they win they look really good, but when they don't have a good person to war (or start losing a war/get ganged up on) they get crushed. Denmark can't do peaceful, and their UB amplifies the already snowbally nature of war, making them look extremely good when they're winning.
Denmark has very real weaknesses. Their UB and UU are on opposite sides of the Tech tree, which delays their timing on their UU (which has the main benefit of being early.)
They don't get any bonuses to faith, and they don't get any bonuses when not at war.
So the main point is that while they look insanely good when they're winning, and will happily trade unit for unit if no one else is better prey, if they're losing or isolated they're worthless.
They still might be OP, but you'd need larger data samples to decide that. (Because it's yields are so situational that the math is difficult to decide on what is average.)
I'll vote him broken even if he had no UU or UA. Jelling Stones seem exponentially stronger than any other building. Seriously think about 15000 culture and production in a turn, there is no other mechanic that will even approach that amount.
I have never had anything close to famine as Denmark. You don't even have to go to war; barbarians kills alone can net enough stuff, your UB still grants +15% great people (why?) and culture if you don't get kills.
I'm trying a game right now on Diety. Got a bad start, not on the coast but I'm going to rush Jelling Stones anyways. Its been months since I played him but I remember getting really bored by mid game every time because I led in everything but tech
ElliotS
Warmonger
To be fair he's better on higher difficulties. I don't disagree with you on that the UB is stronger than anything else in the game by a lot, I'm just not convinced he's broken overall. I'm leaning towards it. I'd recommend removing the instant culture and great person points at least.
To be fair I imagine if I did well on Settler and then tried to claim Denmark OP people wouldn't take me that seriously.
I really think the production and culture mechanic needs the change. The reason why is its per city and per kill, which means it can multiply to an absurd degree. I do mean it when I say broken. I know some people throw this word around just to mean strong, but I mean broken. It breaks the game, its so incredibly strong that other aspects of the game become insignificant. Like what land you have, the jelling stones give so much production that in medieval I don't even pay attention to what cities work or do. I'll just settle somewhere because I can, invest the stone and starting spamming science buildings. Or how you instantly chose faith over culture on monuments, you realize that the jelling stones give so much culture that other sources don't matter. Honestly why even build baths or guilds? I guess I will since I have literally nothing to else to spend all this production on, but it feels wrong
In this game (on Deity) I'm already bored because I don't see how I can lose. I survived ancient era, I have 11 cities with Jelling Stones, I will get 110 production and culture per kill once I hit medieval. I guess if I really screw up my science and get really far behind?
tu_79
Deity
The mechanic isn't broken per se. It depends on fighting, for instance, so having fewer units to kill is a recent nerf. If you feel it's still too strong, yields can be lowered.
After playing Denmark again, I would suggest that the scaling with era be dropped. The size of armies and the number of cities already increase as eras move on so it naturally scales anyways. Right now the amount you can get from kills is growing almost exponentially with time, and its already pretty good when it starts in classical.
This stays exactly how it is during classical era, giving the vikings a time to shine. In medieval you are going to get half of what you get now, which based on game just now, it should still make it one of the best UBs of that time period. And it remains releveant in later eras too, on a 20 city empire you still get 100 culture and hammers per kill, you can kill enough for that to still be relevant in the mid to late game. By information era the 5 hammers might seem insignificant, but since its in every city and you can multiple kills a turn it still provides a solid boost, which is really what a classical era UB should be doing at that point.
PS- sorry for thread hijacking
This stays exactly how it is during classical era, giving the vikings a time to shine. In medieval you are going to get half of what you get now, which based on game just now, it should still make it one of the best UBs of that time period. And it remains releveant in later eras too, on a 20 city empire you still get 100 culture and hammers per kill, you can kill enough for that to still be relevant in the mid to late game. By information era the 5 hammers might seem insignificant, but since its in every city and you can multiple kills a turn it still provides a solid boost, which is really what a classical era UB should be doing at that point.
PS- sorry for thread hijacking
It'd be a big hurt - why wouldn't we just drop the value to 3 per kill (from 5). Otherwise we'd have to bump the value up to 10 or so to make it even worthwhile. Also, the code is universal, so it'd hurt the Odeon and Colosseum as well to do this.
G
ElliotS
Warmonger
I'd drop it to 3, but increase instant culture from 25 to 50 to compensate for the early game. (which wasn't the problem)
I think people get caught up in comparing old to new, and yes my new suggestion looks awful next the old. But I kept track of what I would be getting throughout a game, and without scaling it would be still be really strong. And I would support giving a compensating buff to offset it if needed. But if the code is universal and a pain to change, my idea certainly won't work. I think Rome and Greece and well done
I did consider suggesting the drop to 3, but these are my reasons for suggestion losing the scaling instead
-really hurts his classical era, which isn't even that great to begin with
-probably still hurts medieval as well, even though you do earn more it follows a much weaker classical era. I think 5/5 nonscaling overall beats 3/3 scaling till at least Renaissance
-doesn't really unbreak the late game. 9000 hammers and culture a turn is less than 15000 but it still doesn't seem balanced to me. The yields grow exponential-ish, you can cut it down by 40% and its slower to break, but it still breaks.
I don't hate the great person rate, as it makes Denmark somewhat interesting compared to other warmongers. The instant culture strikes me as unnecessary though. I'll also point out that the UA is extremely good when its relevant, its just very rare to need to embark frequently in combat zones.
Similar threads
