Food, and how to eat it!

[Funak]

The last few versions have seen a rework of the science system, and despite my massive complaints it is probably here to stay.

Anyways from what I've noticed in my games and from what I've picked up civs with foodbased UAs and UIs (and I suppose UBs) are doing a lot worse now than they were before. To just avoid having to rebalance everything I would just suggest slightly lowering the food required to grow a city on every level by maybe 5% or something along those lines, just to slightly increase the value of food.

Thoughts?

 

[Atlas627]

The last few versions have seen a rework of the science system, and despite my massive complaints it is probably here to stay.

Anyways from what I've noticed in my games and from what I've picked up civs with foodbased UAs and UIs (and I suppose UBs) are doing a lot worse now than they were before. To just avoid having to rebalance everything I would just suggest slightly lowering the food required to grow a city on every level by maybe 5% or something along those lines, just to slightly increase the value of food.

Thoughts?

Dunno. Growth isn't auto-science anymore, so is the problem solvable by making them grow faster or do they actually need replacement yields once they get there?

 

[Funak]

Dunno. Growth isn't auto-science anymore, so is the problem solvable by making them grow faster or do they actually need replacement yields once they get there?

Bigger cities still work more tiles, and can work more specialists, I think it's worth a try anyways.

 

[Atlas627]

Bigger cities still work more tiles, and can work more specialists, I think it's worth a try anyways.

Well this would make everyone else grow faster too, including growth strats and even non-growth strats.

Could try it, but if we are willing to try to balance them individually that would be best.

 

[Gazebo]

The last few versions have seen a rework of the science system, and despite my massive complaints it is probably here to stay.

Anyways from what I've noticed in my games and from what I've picked up civs with foodbased UAs and UIs (and I suppose UBs) are doing a lot worse now than they were before. To just avoid having to rebalance everything I would just suggest slightly lowering the food required to grow a city on every level by maybe 5% or something along those lines, just to slightly increase the value of food.

Thoughts?

Easier to buff growth civs than modify the entire game. Also, China/India are doing really well in AI games, so might be observation bias.

G

 

[Atlas627]

Easier to buff growth civs than modify the entire game. Also, China/India are doing really well in AI games, so might be observation bias.

G

On the other hand, growing is still powerful when you don't know what you're doing. Specializing and coordinating more complicated bonuses is not the AI's strong suit.

On an additional wacky third hand, the AI might be better at evaluating science/growth opportunity costs right now while the players still do similar habits from before the science rework. Maybe growth civs ARE fine

 

[Funak]

Easier to buff growth civs than modify the entire game. Also, China/India are doing really well in AI games, so might be observation bias.

You've raised the cost multiple times haven't you? Would lowering it really be that much more difficult?

Might be observation bias, but I've gotten around to testing a few of them, aztecs, inca, china, inda, netherlands. They all feel significantly weaker, which I'm really not sure is a good thing considering they were fairly balanced before the change.

 

[Gazebo]

On the other hand, growing is still powerful when you don't know what you're doing. Specializing and coordinating more complicated bonuses is not the AI's strong suit.

On an additional wacky third hand, the AI might be better at evaluating science/growth opportunity costs right now while the players still do similar habits from before the science rework. Maybe growth civs ARE fine

You've raised the cost multiple times haven't you? Would lowering it really be that much more difficult?

Might be observation bias, but I've gotten around to testing a few of them, aztecs, inca, china, inda, netherlands. They all feel significantly weaker, which I'm really not sure is a good thing considering they were fairly balanced before the change.

The AI's actually really good at maximizing growth. It's their favorite thing (it has taken me forever to get them to do other things ASIDE from growing, which is what gets tough).

More pop wouldn't solve anything, and the current food buffs in the game are balanced around the current city growth rates.

G

 

[Funak]

More pop wouldn't solve anything, and the current food buffs in the game are balanced around the current city growth rates.

Sure, but the current city growth rates are based around getting science and production and culture and gold from city-growth, I don't necessarily see how something that was 'balanced' at a completely different time in a completely different situation would still be balanced at this point.

 

[Atlas627]

More pop wouldn't solve anything, and the current food buffs in the game are balanced around the current city growth rates.

G

Old population, and thus growth, had an inherent passive science attached to it. New population, and thus growth, does not. That is automatically a different balance.

Now I agree that just changing growth rates isn't going to help here, but clearly it is not just as balanced as it was before.

 

[Gazebo]

Old population, and thus growth, had an inherent passive science attached to it. New population, and thus growth, does not. That is automatically a different balance.

Now I agree that just changing growth rates isn't going to help here, but clearly it is not just as balanced as it was before.

Current # of citizens at certain thresholds in the game. Go too high and unhappiness gets out of whack.

G

 

[Atlas627]

Current # of citizens at certain thresholds in the game. Go too high and unhappiness gets out of whack.

G

Of course. I'm not saying you should change it. I'm saying that the balance is not the same.

 

[Gazebo]

Of course. I'm not saying you should change it. I'm saying that the balance is not the same.

Of course, but I've spent a lot of time getting the growth rates in a good spot. Easier to fix the problem civs, if any, than to overturn the literal apple cart.

G

 

[Atlas627]

Of course, but I've spent a lot of time getting the growth rates in a good spot. Easier to fix the problem civs, if any, than to overturn the literal apple cart.

G

Right, which is what I said too. Glad we agree

And it'll be awhile before we figure out what those are. We would need to refine the science rework first.

Btw, not a fan of the Wonder rework. I don't like how universal it is. It essentially removes all wonders from the tech tree. I think the "Opener & Finisher wonders not on the tech tree" idea was much better.

 

[Gazebo]

Right, which is what I said too. Glad we agree

And it'll be awhile before we figure out what those are. We would need to refine the science rework first.

Btw, not a fan of the Wonder rework. I don't like how universal it is. It essentially removes all wonders from the tech tree. I think the "Opener & Finisher wonders not on the tech tree" idea was much better.

Eh, I think it offers rewards to players that balance between rushing science and rushing policies. Rewards planning ahead quite well. I think we'll all get used to it.

I think most civs are in a really good spot right now. None stick out as horribly UP right now, and - aside from the Venice changes and the Brazil stuff - I don't see any major changes, just some smaller balance.

G

 

[tu_79]

I've tried a couple of games with incas, and never could exploit terrace farms. Sometimes, it was all plain. Others, it was hilly, but covered by jungle. Can't say if it's better building terraces or just leaving the jungles (herbalist makes jungles and forests too good). By the time I can produce a terrace or two, I could have built the University and Workshops instead. If adjacent terraces add +1 food to themselves, then, in an ideal situation, it could give tonnes of food and some production. But I am not sure I want to chop those jungles and lose beakers and gold for more apples. Specially now that it's less important.
The slinger is good only after upgrading (useless against cities) although it gets experience easily. Their ability seems fine: easier to explore with the warrior on hills, better mobility. A slinger over a mountain is funny.

Incas were bestknown for their agriculture, their urbanism, their building techniques and advanced surgery. A rather peaceful, decent and happy people. Their unique improvement seems right for them. But it's a difficult choice to clear a jungle that covers 3/4 of my territory (trees are so good now).

 

[Drakul]

Growth should be slowed down because like this you get in few turns cities that can work on multiple specialists and grow every 4-5 turns a citizen. This is just overpowered... Too many microbuildings that give good and carry over food.