Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
@Joseph_II just for interest do you play with the "Advance Economics" on? I just wonder because I have not tried it because of what it did to RoM-AND.
Exactly, JosEPh has in the past pointed out some big balance issues such as the excess Inflation on Epic which I fixed a while ago. I trust his assesment on this issue, especially after looking at his saves.
@Koshling: Oh, I did not know the finance screen worked that way, I guess I learn something every day. How will this new system work with the Corporations, that was as Hydro said why things moved away from maintainence las fall.
To begin with I never used this option coz i thought it was still broken from AND, but apparently its not. It allows for free trade agreements between civs, thats the only difference i've noticed.@Joseph_II just for interest do you play with the "Advance Economics" on? I just wonder because I have not tried it because of what it did to RoM-AND.
I think you've done a great thing at least to start, Koshling. But I'll reiterate, the main reason, I believe, for any excess gold right now is the 1gp/specialist benefit on Patrician, especially when combined with citizens earned from battle under the slavery civic. I strongly believe that limiting the patrician gold bonus to non-citizen, non-slave specialists would bring in a lot of balance in one fell swoop.
I think this issue could be approached much like you've approached the memory drain issues, by identifying the most drastic gold producing decisions and functions (and perhaps even costs) and bringing them more towards balance. For example, if we could simply make the gold per city benefit from religious shrines a decimalized number rather than being limited to integers, we could tone down the religious gold benefits that also contribute a lot to imbalances (particularly between the have and have-not nations).
Tested out your new maintenance koshling and it increased my costs by about -300 per turn (deity), not that much really, its about 5% on the tech slider on deity at this point in my game (around renaissance). I think you could beef it up even more. My only concern is that it could just lead to people simply avoiding certain buildings altogether, why not just increase general maintenance too.
In terms of increasing unit costs, I would be wary of doing this too much as the AI love to spam lots of crap units, although they do get a huge discount at higher levels.. so guess its not a big deal.
I think you've done a great thing at least to start, Koshling. But I'll reiterate, the main reason, I believe, for any excess gold right now is the 1gp/specialist benefit on Patrician, especially when combined with citizens earned from battle under the slavery civic. I strongly believe that limiting the patrician gold bonus to non-citizen, non-slave specialists would bring in a lot of balance in one fell swoop.
The effect on corporations should be precisely nothing.
Sorry, I phrased that badly, my point was that Corps increase maintainence by a percentage, and so now building Corporations could sink your economy and civ in the Modern Era. That was a problem a good while ago, especially with Realistic Corps, where the founding was random.
@Joseph_II just for interest do you play with the "Advance Economics" on? I just wonder because I have not tried it because of what it did to RoM-AND.
There were no dog units in BtS. Also, what they've done in other mods or previous versions of C2C is not really relevant to their current implementation in C2C, where they're an inferior version of javelineers (although faster and slightly cheaper if no iron or copper are available), while available several technologies later.I do disagree about there should only be 1 wardog per stack. Dogs since they were introduced to BtS have been used to wear down stacks so that when you counter attack the enemies stack it has had it's str. reduced. Dogs have only become more specialized since C2C. But overall have been used like seige weapons to inflict collateral damage.
Really? Want to say that to the modders who built them?Also, what they've done in other mods or previous versions of C2C is not really relevant to their current implementation in C2C,...
No, there's a balance issue with how the AI is using them. The units themselves are fine.Is there a balance issue with the dog units? With the introduction of Crime yes Now there is.
How could they be? They're weaker than the alternatives the AI has access to at that point.Since you think they are suboptimal units and the AI is spamming them this question comes to mind, Are these stacks of wardogs hard for you to overcome?
Well javelineers would closest to the dogs in their combat stats, but superior in anything except for movespeed.If the dogs were gone what would the AI be spamming? More low end units as it has done in the past and has a programming penchant for.
Even if the AI was producing stealth units, dog stacks would be a bad idea. Dogs gain no bonuses against stealth units, they simply detect them. They should be used to support stacks of proper combat units, not roaming in stacks of their own.The real problem is not the Dog stacks, but rather the sudden shift in AI behaviour in that the AI is Not producing Stealth units like they have been in previous versions