Diseases

[Toffer90]

I have to agree with TB. I think that most of the hate against diseases and is just a matter of OCD. Those who think or diseases are really really bad, please consider playing a game where you ignore it completely. Your cities will grow slower indeed, but on the same time you have less effort to deal with crime. And slower growing cities is not something that will make you lose the game.

I never build health care units for this reason only as battle medics.
I also never build the graveyard or mausoleum either too expensive. Still my 4 biggest cities skyrockets to 60-70 population in the late classical era while the biggest AI city in the world is around 30-40 population. (deity diff.)

Disease is too easy to control in my opinion and has too little bad effects; but they still need to be spread more out.

 

[Faustmouse]

I never build health care units for this reason only as battle medics.
I also never build the graveyard or mausoleum either too expensive. Still my 4 biggest cities skyrockets to 60-70 population in the late classical era while the biggest AI city in the world is around 30-40 population. (deity diff.)

Disease is too easy to control in my opinion and has too little bad effects; but they still need to be spread more out.

And I 100% agree with everything you said

 

[JosEPh_II]

So T-Brd, Toffer, Faustmouse, and all in this group have never had a city shut down, using the SVN version, when y'alls cities hit pop 6? Not even once? Hmmm.........we must play an entirely different C2C.

And you all have never had Any citizens from ignoring Disease? Ever? Again we surely Must be playing entirely different Mods with the same name, C2C.

From the sound of it Why don't you who Mod set ALL diseases at level 1 since they are of No game importance at all. Just a minor annoyance that players "fuss" over. Go for it! Let's see how that turns out for the Mod's ability to attract and keep players.

This is only a tiny Modmod with a total of 7 D/L's so I don't think it will threaten the way you all want Disease to be in the Mod after all, now will it.

JosEPh

 

[Faustmouse]

Geeez why are you always so offended?

We all agree on Diseases need to be spread out a bit more. The only thing we say is that it is not absolutely ultra necessary that you always have Crime and Diseases below zero. You won't lose the game if you have some crimes and/or diseases at some point. Of course we get from diseases as well, but citizens normally play a minor role in the total output of a city. It makes you a bit weaker if you have some citizens, but it's not that you go from 100% to 0% if they all are mad; maybe down to 50 or 75%. Nothing too serious.

 

[Thunderbrd]

An argument of unhappiness from diseases is irrelevant to my position that most of what you've done is great with the exception of the -1 unhealth that results from a common cold being set at 1. The Common Cold doesn't bring on unhappiness and even if it did, it wouldn't affect your capital until long after the beginning of the game unless civics have changed to allow capitals to be unhapy at that stage.

Nor does it have anything to do with size 6 or whatever... that's the pest issue for the most part. There again I think you've made improvements.

Again, my only argument is that the negative half of the scale doesn't seem to mean much if you take away the common cold from starting at one. And another -1 unhealth doesn't hinder the first city at all until you're able to start to overcome the growth barriers anyhow, at which point I don't feel an extra unhealth is too demanding to overcome. I don't mind the few more rounds it forces us to stay at 1 pop at all.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

No, I have never had a city shut down due to disease. I have had one revolt because of it though.

I have not tried this mod yet. I was hoping that it would lead towards a complete modularisation of the disease system so that it could be made optional

 

[JosEPh_II]

Geeez why are you always so offended?

We all agree on Diseases need to be spread out a bit more. The only thing we say is that it is not absolutely ultra necessary that you always have Crime and Diseases below zero. You won't lose the game if you have some crimes and/or diseases at some point. Of course we get from diseases as well, but citizens normally play a minor role in the total output of a city. It makes you a bit weaker if you have some citizens, but it's not that you go from 100% to 0% if they all are mad; maybe down to 50 or 75%. Nothing too serious.

I have to learn Not to post early morning before coffee after a bad nights restless sleep from bad sinus.

And I do get demonstrative and ermm....explosively defensive when I'm "cranky". So I apologize to you all. Maybe I just misread what you all were saying? But it sure read like is "nothing" in the game you can overlook it completely. If that is not what you all said then again sorry for taking it that way.

JosEPh

 

[Arakhor]

I'm all in favour of more modules and I'd support axing the negative scale too, because it's meaningless so far.

 

[JosEPh_II]

I never build health care units for this reason only as battle medics.
I also never build the graveyard or mausoleum either too expensive. Still my 4 biggest cities skyrockets to 60-70 population in the late classical era while the biggest AI city in the world is around 30-40 population. (deity diff.)

Disease is too easy to control in my opinion and has too little bad effects; but they still need to be spread more out.

You are still using Eternity game speed for this to happen. It would never happen on Epic. If you can get a pop 30 city late Classical on Epic I would Love to see how you did it and I'm an avowed Expansionist (T-brd has seen a glimpse of it in the Pbem games).

If any of you that play Eternity and then say the game is too easy, please stop playing that Game speed and play Epic or Marathon. You tactics in slow mo Eternity will not work on these. And your observations and summations are all skewed by about 10,000 turns. Your balance on Eternity/Eon destroys the balance for the almost all the rest of the game speeds. Yet you persist on trying to balance and influence game play by using the most out of balance one of all, really unbelievably bad. Can't you see the hypocrisy of doing this? It just confounds me that smart Deity players would grant themselves such an obvious and overwhelming advantage that Eternity and Eon (and really snail too) gives on any difficulty level.

If you do your testing only on Eternity after awhile I have to start lowering my expectations of the effectiveness of what you propose. And I become very skeptical.

Just sayin' and telling it like it really is.

JosEPh

 

[Toffer90]

You are still using Eternity game speed for this to happen. It would never happen on Epic. If you can get a pop 30 city late Classical on Epic I would Love to see how you did it and I'm an avowed Expansionist (T-brd has seen a glimpse of it in the Pbem games).

If any of you that play Eternity and then say the game is too easy, please stop playing that Game speed and play Epic or Marathon. You tactics in slow mo Eternity will not work on these. And your observations and summations are all skewed by about 10,000 turns. Your balance on Eternity/Eon destroys the balance for the almost all the rest of the game speeds. Yet you persist on trying to balance and influence game play by using the most out of balance one of all, really unbelievably bad. Can't you see the hypocrisy of doing this? It just confounds me that smart Deity players would grant themselves such an obvious and overwhelming advantage that Eternity and Eon (and really snail too) gives on any difficulty level.

If you do your testing only on Eternity after awhile I have to start lowering my expectations of the effectiveness of what you propose. And I become very skeptical.

Just sayin' and telling it like it really is.

JosEPh

I do testing on marathon as well; and I usually experience the exact same game on both game-speeds.

 

[JosEPh_II]

I do testing on marathon as well; and I usually experience the exact same game on both game-speeds.

Really? How can that possibly be? You have so much more time to build up everything on the slower speeds that Any problems are easily overcome just by having more turns to deal with it. If the pace is faster from a faster speed that is not the case. I just have a very hard time that you experience "the exact same game on both game-speeds." it just flies in the face of reason. Hence my skepticism. :/

JosEPh

 

[Toffer90]

Really? How can that possibly be? You have so much more time to build up everything on the slower speeds that Any problems are easily overcome just by having more turns to deal with it. If the pace is faster from a faster speed that is not the case. I just have a very hard time that you experience "the exact same game on both game-speeds." it just flies in the face of reason. Hence my skepticism. :/

JosEPh

You got me, I know there is a shift in balance from game speeds, I just don't share your opinion on it being so extreme. The longer the game speed the more units you need because you can't build them fast when needed, and you are likely to loose more units than on shorter game speeds due to more conflicts. But I stand on what I said, cities growing too fast is a problem on all game speeds. And the extreme example I brought up was hugely influenced by me getting the pyramid long before it's free building (irrigation channels) became available to anyone; and I had a lot of river tiles.

Due to said problematic balance shift I've, In my civic modmod, made a standardized game-speed setting that scales everything by the same percentage and there is absolutely no change in balance from game-speeds other than you can move units longer before they go obsolete. So you can relax your skepticism when I do testing of this modmod. Actually with this game speed setting, you should be able to build more buildings on faster game speeds due to having to build more units on the longer game speeds.

 

[Bastian-Bux]

Would it be possible to adjust growth rates along the real world growth rates?

76,000 BP only 1,000 to 10,000 humans survived the toba event

15,000 BP at the brink of the neolithic revolution 6-8 million humans where filling the earth... and that was the max earth could support at that time.

250 BP at the start of the industrial revolution earth harboured 800 million humans.

Now let's not forget, that humans are prolific enough to grow much faster... but usually every 100-200 years we managed to overuse our ecologic system ... and face a large die off (plaque, wars...).

Maybe this might7could be mirrored in C2C as well?

 

[JosEPh_II]

Would it be possible to adjust growth rates along the real world growth rates?

76,000 BP only 1,000 to 10,000 humans survived the toba event

15,000 BP at the brink of the neolithic revolution 6-8 million humans where filling the earth... and that was the max earth could support at that time.

250 BP at the start of the industrial revolution earth harboured 800 million humans.

Now let's not forget, that humans are prolific enough to grow much faster... but usually every 100-200 years we managed to overuse our ecologic system ... and face a large die off (plaque, wars...).

Maybe this might7could be mirrored in C2C as well?

This question is well beyond my simple xml limited capabilities. Maybe it is possible but I would not know where to start to try to do so. Sorry.

JosEPh

 

[Bastian-Bux]

Hmm, one option would be, to differentiate between:

- basic/effective fertility
- food production
- food consumption
- basic/effective quality of life
- (risk of) disease
- plagues
- education

Most of those variables are already in, and interact with each other, but some are lumped up with each other in ... interessting way.

For example: the growth rates in game are basically directly dependent on the delta between food production and food consumption ... but that's a very problematic abbrevation.

In reality population growth is directly related to the delta between rate of birth, survival chance and rate of death. Food... just influences all three, but sometimes counterintuitive.

The first variable could be called "fertility", with a value between 0% and 6% per anno:

6% growth means each woman would have almost 9 kids in the 25 years of a typical generation... even at the height of population explosion this wasn't reached anywhere afaik.

Fertility is influenced by several factors, with education, food surplus, health and wealth of a society being the most important. And all three would LOWER fertility (but would lower other variables even more). Civics on the other hand could be used to influence the effect each of the factors has on fertility, but shouldn't directly influence fertility.

Second variable would be survival... and to make it easy, current health could be used. But health should be decoupled from food production.

Fertility - survival = effective growth.

Now... this would allow for a city to easily grow larger than food production allows... which would result in a famine (similar to how diseases work now). But a famine wouldn't just reduce population but rather weaken it first... increasing the effect of the famine... oh and famines usually produce unhappyness, revolt and war as well.

If a famine combines with a high disease risk ... you get plagues, which can easily reduce a population by 70-90%. On the other hand, surviving a plague could grant a building "resistance to plague x" which allows this city to withstand the same plague much better on the next occasion.

Trying to limit population growth could produce significant unhappyness without the proper civics.

 

[Faustmouse]

That a really cool concept actually!

 

[JosEPh_II]

You all make it a Modmod and go for it.

That's how Afforess got started with making AND. It was a Modmod for Rise of Mankind.

JosEPh

EDIT: a Whopping 7 D/Ls,

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

EDIT: a Whopping 7 D/Ls,

I haven't downloaded it, but that is because the current concept for diseases was almost a step to far from my vision for C2C. Also I have been away.

 

[Bastian-Bux]

You all make it a Modmod and go for it.

Sadly I already do have 3 very different projects going ... well actually it's 5 if I count the "minor" stuff as well. :/

 

[JosEPh_II]

I have to agree with TB. I think that most of the hate against diseases and is just a matter of OCD. Those who think or diseases are really really bad, please consider playing a game where you ignore it completely. Your cities will grow slower indeed, but on the same time you have less effort to deal with crime. And slower growing cities is not something that will make you lose the game.

Help me out here, what is OCD?

I hate Crime because of How it was implemented, not the actual property. Disease just followed suit. Both add extra and citizens. But crime was designed to rule the Mods gameplay, instead of being "just" another added irritant to keep watch over.

I could re arrange the Crime entry levels as a modmod, but then I'd be accused of watering it down.

And as for playing a game and completely ignoring , Disease, Crime; yeah well I don't think you will get too far before you become stagnant and then overran by the AI. I don't mind losing a fair game, but just lying down (like this suggestion would have you do) is game suicide. Go for it if that is your thing. It's definitely not mine.

JosEPh