Development thread for 1.5

[Force44]

I ambivalent whether or not that this form is more ideal.

It proposes to let the agent that deals out penalties join a couple of turns later than the agent that deals out bonuses.

While it is certainly elegant (the external agents interfere less in gameplay in this example than in the original original proposal), you receive bonuses to stability because you receive penalties to stability, not the other way around.

 

[AbsintheRed]

It proposes to let the agent that deals out penalties join a couple of turns later than the agent that deals out bonuses.

While it is certainly elegant (the external agents interfere less in gameplay in this example than in the original original proposal), you receive bonuses to stability because you receive penalties to stability, not the other way around.

Wait.. what?
I have no idea exactly what you are talking about here
Not even sure about your conclusion. You say both versions are equally good, or prefer the second one ezzlar mentioned?

 

[Ogi123]

Any thoughts about units rooster? One thing that I remember is that there is really long space between knight(S13) and cuirassier(S20). Perhaps some heavy cavalry unit between them, about S16/17?
While we are on heavy cavalry I know that intention was to portrait mythological dominance of such units, but this leads to almost pure knight + siege armies since there isn't any historical limitations in game. So there are two ways to solve this:
1). Sengoku mod method - heavy cav is 2 units per city limited + 2 free units, this can be further modded by some civics, feudalism for example.
2). Gameplay before realism, heavy cav decreased in strength, made cheaper. More vanilla civ4 method. Example knight reduced in strength to 10, hammer cost to 100, loses city attack penalty. Overall this method necessitates overhaul of all other units so...

 

[Force44]

Originally Posted by Force44 View Post
It proposes to let the agent that deals out penalties join a couple of turns later than the agent that deals out bonuses.

While it is certainly elegant (the external agents interfere less in gameplay in this example than in the original original proposal), you receive bonuses to stability because you receive penalties to stability, not the other way around.

Wait.. what?
I have no idea exactly what you are talking about here
Not even sure about your conclusion. You say both versions are equally good, or prefer the second one ezzlar mentioned?

Usually I have a pretty clear verdict on what elegant/good gameplay is.

The minimum amount of variables to achieve the maximum amount of possibilities.

So usually I vehemently oppose superfluous elements.

Ezzlar proposes to let the unstabilitycounter (the first agent) start a couple of turns later than the stabilitycounter (the second agent).

This solves the problem of rapid initial accumulation of instability without the introduction of new elements, which is excellent design.

However...

...for the first couple of turns it also introduces a stabilitycounter (the second agent agent, introduced to balance the first agent) that has no purpose (there are no final couple of turns where there is a instabilitycounter but no stabilitycounter), which is terrible design. (it introduces all kind of possabilities for exploits)
For that reason I initially tought your solution plain better.

...but then again, ...it is so elegant,
...zero new variables yet the problem is solved.​

 

[Force44]

Any thoughts about units rooster? One thing that I remember is that there is really long space between knight(S13) and cuirassier(S20). Perhaps some heavy cavalry unit between them, about S16/17?
While we are on heavy cavalry I know that intention was to portrait mythological dominance of such units, but this leads to almost pure knight + siege armies since there isn't any historical limitations in game. So there are two ways to solve this:
1). Sengoku mod method - heavy cav is 2 units per city limited + 2 free units, this can be further modded by some civics, feudalism for example.
2). Gameplay before realism, heavy cav decreased in strength, made cheaper. More vanilla civ4 method. Example knight reduced in strength to 10, hammer cost to 100, loses city attack penalty. Overall this method necessitates overhaul of all other units so...

I understand what you are saying. The quality of heavy cavalry takes away the choices to make a different army.

Personally I see this as a charm of the mod and it is countered somewhat by the excessive cost of heavy cavalry.

When you start building mass siege, you actually don't need heavy cavalry anymore though . Heavy infantry will do just fine against the occasionally tough solo defender and everything else can be stack of doomed to death.

(I think it is really nice how this change of tactics that took place during the (late) middle ages is represented in the mod (and when looking at it this way even the big gap in the heavy cavalryline makes some sense))

Still it is true, like you stated, some compositions of armies, very viable for a player in RFCE, would have been impossible in 'real' history.

 

[Ogi123]

Siege and collateral damage are terrible mechanics, unfortunately since they are basis of all combat strategies in civ4 they can not be eliminated. Otherwise it will be impossible to kill those SoD.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Actually I did think about introducing a cap for Knights. Maybe some other units as well.
I'm not sure about it though. Also, this is something for much later.
I already have more than enough plans not only for 1.5, but also for 1.6

 

[Ogi123]

Perhaps as for 1.5 only introduce that new heavy cavalry unit - Heavy horseman, Heavy lancer or something else. Available at professional armies/flintlock S16/170hammers?
Knights are for too long lasting. You could move Polish and Austrian curiasier UU here.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Perhaps as for 1.5 only introduce that new heavy cavalry unit - Heavy horseman, Heavy lancer or something else. Available at professional armies/flintlock S16/170hammers?
Knights are for too long lasting. You could move Polish and Austrian curiasier UU here.

I agree that some of the unit upgrade lines could use some improvements.
Actually, also the unit roster itself.
This is not something that will be changed too soon.
Too closely tied to the tech tree, which could use some updates itself.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Well, the plague updates are up.
I'm far from being perfectly statisfied with a couple aspects of it.
I tried to test many things connected to it, but it's hard to find the balance for all those changes.
So let's hear as much feedback on it as possible, I'm sure many things have to be adjusted further.

 

[Baron03]

I agree that some of the unit upgrade lines could use some improvements.
Actually, also the unit roster itself.
This is not something that will be changed too soon.
Too closely tied to the tech tree, which could use some updates itself.

I remember having old idea about adding extra units. Found it:

Spoiler :

Add extra units:
1. Foot knight - ten strength (can upgrade from man-at-arms?) requires civil service tech, iron, and obsolete by Arabic knowledge. +15% versus heavy cavalry and +10% city attack and defense. (Costs less than regular knight ie "mounted knight," but more than a maceman). Rename knight to mounted knight? Foot knight is replaced by Musketman. Also requires feudal monarchy? Or some other feudal civic?
1.1 or ten strength without any bonuses.
2. A man-at-arms unit: six strength, +10% vs polearms, and +10% city attack and defense. Requires Catholicism as state religion to prevent other civs from making it. (They cost food). +1 support cost?
2.1 Or seven/eight strength and no bonus at all. Available at a later technology and costs more.
3. Maybe a halberdier/Poleaxman, a mix between a mace man and pikeman? Strength of eight or nine, +25% versus polearms and +75% versus heavy cavalry. Requires Plate armor and civil service tech. Replaced by Musketman.
3.1 or it could be a later unit with different bonuses.
4. I still think that the current knight should be a national unit, or possibly given a +1 unit upkeep cost.

I would imagine all requiring Catholicism, or at least not running paganism or having Islam as a state religion.

Maybe add a fluff technology or two for enabling the man at arms and/or other units. Although I would like a later technology to increase its base strength by 1. A New Dawn uses this for archers and other units. For example: "Heraldry" as an offshoot of "chain mail" that requires Feudalism. Costs 2188 beakers. And "Plate Armor" or "civil service" gives the man at arms unit +1 base strength.

-Chemistry could give arquebusiers +1 base strength (from 7 to 8). I understand that their advantage is being cheap, but they're pretty weak until Musketman.

The main issue is how fast units become obsolete. For example the current longswordman unit is quickly replaced by the mace man (who wields a flail) very quickly. Similar experience with the crossbow upgrading into the Arbalest.

For new units creating the proper balance will be difficult (hammer costs, technology availability, precise bonuses+strengths, and how fast they become obsolete). So it may not be worth the time and effort to include them into the mod.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I remember having old idea about adding extra units. Found it:

Spoiler :

Add extra units:
1. Foot knight - ten strength (can upgrade from man-at-arms?) requires civil service tech, iron, and obsolete by Arabic knowledge. +15% versus heavy cavalry and +10% city attack and defense. (Costs less than regular knight ie "mounted knight," but more than a maceman). Rename knight to mounted knight? Foot knight is replaced by Musketman. Also requires feudal monarchy? Or some other feudal civic?
1.1 or ten strength without any bonuses.
2. A man-at-arms unit: six strength, +10% vs polearms, and +10% city attack and defense. Requires Catholicism as state religion to prevent other civs from making it. (They cost food). +1 support cost?
2.1 Or seven/eight strength and no bonus at all. Available at a later technology and costs more.
3. Maybe a halberdier/Poleaxman, a mix between a mace man and pikeman? Strength of eight or nine, +25% versus polearms and +75% versus heavy cavalry. Requires Plate armor and civil service tech. Replaced by Musketman.
3.1 or it could be a later unit with different bonuses.
4. I still think that the current knight should be a national unit, or possibly given a +1 unit upkeep cost.

I would imagine all requiring Catholicism, or at least not running paganism or having Islam as a state religion.

Maybe add a fluff technology or two for enabling the man at arms and/or other units. Although I would like a later technology to increase its base strength by 1. A New Dawn uses this for archers and other units. For example: "Heraldry" as an offshoot of "chain mail" that requires Feudalism. Costs 2188 beakers. And "Plate Armor" or "civil service" gives the man at arms unit +1 base strength.

-Chemistry could give arquebusiers +1 base strength (from 7 to 8). I understand that their advantage is being cheap, but they're pretty weak until Musketman.

The main issue is how fast units become obsolete. For example the current longswordman unit is quickly replaced by the mace man (who wields a flail) very quickly. Similar experience with the crossbow upgrading into the Arbalest.

For new units creating the proper balance will be difficult (hammer costs, technology availability, precise bonuses+strengths, and how fast they become obsolete). So it may not be worth the time and effort to include them into the mod.

Indeed
While units are not perfect, the current situation is certainly not too bad either.
So anything connected to this is rather low priority ATM.
Probably only smaller changes will make their way in the immediate future

 

[Swarbs]

Well, the plague updates are up.
I'm far from being perfectly statisfied with a couple aspects of it.
I tried to test many things connected to it, but it's hard to find the balance for all those changes.
So let's hear as much feedback on it as possible, I'm sure many things have to be adjusted further.

Plague of Justinian is now massively more devastating for Byzantium. It spreads to every city and kills almost every worker, as well as taking out almost any damaged unit.

It's definitely a massive improvement on the previous incarnation which just killed a unit in five or six cities at random.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Plague of Justinian is now massively more devastating for Byzantium.

Yeah, that's not intentional
Will be better after a couple balancing changes

It's definitely a massive improvement on the previous incarnation which just killed a unit in five or six cities at random.

Thanks.
The implementation is not yet perfect, but the direction of the changes are hopefully good for the majority of the players.

 

[Swarbs]

Yeah, that's not intentional
Will be better after a couple balancing changes



Thanks.
The implementation is not yet perfect, but the direction of the changes are hopefully good for the majority of the players.

Actually I think it works very well - you spend the first 15-20 turns getting established, fighting off the Slavs and Sassanids and improving your territory, then the plague comes along and knocks you right back to the start.

Imo that's the plague WAD - massive damage to the economy and slowing the player down a bit across the whole empire, not just taking out a few units and cities almost at random.

 

[AbsintheRed]

The part to spread to more cities is intentional, sure
Also most of the new rules (for spread, duration, population loss in the city) are way more thought out than in vanilla RFC. Previously RFCE used more or less the same plague mechanics as RFC, with some minor tweaks here and there.

But I don't want to make it way too devastating for Byzantium.
Didn't have time to test it out thoroughly.

EDIT: more thought out is a wrong expression there, I'm not that egoistic
I simply meant more complex, whih is probably needed for the plague mechanics in RFCE.

 

[DC123456789]

Does the plague still automatically kill the weakest unit in the city when it spreads there?

 

[AbsintheRed]

Does the plague still automatically kill the weakest unit in the city when it spreads there?

Actually it rarely killed the weakest unit.
In most cases the 2 weakest units in the city were preserved by default, as "defenders".
I have no idea why was it set up this way, as workers, settlers and other non-combat units would be the ones saved instead of actual military units which can defend the city.
So the 3rd weakest unit was the one killed in most cases.

EDIT: Ahh, you asked about spreading to a new city.
My answer was for processing plague in an already infected city.
Spreading to a new city did kill the weakest unit in most cases.

Anyway, unit kills are more rare now in both cases.
It's not automatic when spreading to a new city either.
From the changelog:

While plagues can still kill units after a couple turns, they won't kill healthy units instantly when spreading to a new city

 

[DC123456789]

Okay, that's good. That was by far the most annoying part of plagues.

 

[gilgames]

Plague is better than it was, thats a score for you
It works better imho, kill less units and more workers on the field. Spreads to cities, where it never did before and spreads to more city overall.
So it seems ok, in terms of it fulfill its duty. But due to plague i lost Tyros and Jerusalem by stability during plague. I was around -5 -10 when it happened. And thats no good nor seems realistic. Also the most hated mechanism is city secession anyway. I'm not working hard to lose it by any means.
ps: with Byzanc, arabs declares themselves again is also annoying beyond words. I kill them properly, they should've stayed dead for good
By then I was stable again. (~800ad) But the good old days past when you could upkeep the very solid status during the whole game.