GEM Stage 1: Terrain

[Txurce]

@Txurce
What if we have territorial distribution with more of a random factor, half and half? Limited territorial resources are a vital part of making strategic units a small elite part of combined arms forces. I think the base game gives everyone too many resources.

Something like that would work for me. I like having to make contingency plans a certain fraction of the time - it doesn't have to be all of the time. The base game does give too many resources, although I don't find it militarily unbalancing so much as financially beneficial. They become trade opportunities - an aspect of the game which has been improved, as the AI won't automatically buy strategics.

Capturing cities in the ancient era is too exploitable against AIs. If that's possible, I'd like to change it. If Archery is too important for early city defense we could reduce it by making walls or basic city defense better. It should be spread around multiple avenues of defense instead of concentrated in one area.

Your view may well be affected by not having played much, but walls are already very strong, and the AI often uses massive, sustained attacks. Walls are actually more important than archery, but archery is often critical... and I'm missing what this has to do with buffing Archery by adding Camps to it.

If certain pantheon beliefs like Messenger of the Gods are too ICS-friendly, the best solution is to fix those beliefs, not change unrelated parts of the game. Please keep in mind the +1 on villages goes together with -1 per population in cities. Overall research is somewhat lower. Late villages bother me because it makes improvement selection too simplistic... we only have one choice for most types of terrain! I do not like gold poor early games, either. It's one of the things I strongly disagree with in G&K. It limits gameplay too much. I prefer going in the other direction with more gold in the early game to increase our options.

I think this could be argued both ways, meaning you could alternately fix the VEM version of Villages and "not change unrelated parts of the game." I do understand both the upside and personal preferences behind the mod approach. I'm pointing out that it affects a lot of the game, from its evolutionary feel, to science and ICS, to the size of early armies, and rush buying in general. Again, each of these arguable problems could be addressed individually... or the mod approach to Villages could. It's a big example of the "what's our base" question, which is why I used it .

 

[Thalassicus]

It goes back to our discussion about luckiness in games. You like high-luck games (like dice), while I like low-luck (chess). Both are fun game genres so I'm not saying one is right or wrong, just that I lean to the low-luck side of things, so that's the direction I move Civ in.

In vanilla and vanilla-expansion most of our early gold depends on luck: discovering citystates, ruins, unimproved rivers, coastlines. I prefer gold from sources we control: villages, improved rivers, mutual open borders (the last part will have to change because of embassies...). This is why my answer to "what's our base" is to have more gold available from low-luck sources in the early game, and less from lucky sources.

It also applies to the discussion about resources. You like lucky randomness (0-200% of the strategics we need per territory) while I like less luck (100% per territory). It's reasonable to compromise and go with 50-150% per territory.

Camps were okay on archery in vanilla, so if archery is more important in G&K, it means something else changed. You mentioned it's important for city defense, which means city defense is more vital in the early game, which leads to my conclusion rushes are too easy. If walls and archers are strong but rushes are still possible, how would you suggest preventing rushes? Increase base city hitpoints or strength?

 

[mitsho]

It also applies to the discussion about resources. You like lucky randomness (0-200% of the strategics we need per territory) while I like less luck (100% per territory). It's reasonable to compromise and go with 50-150% per territory.

I do agree that's the best solution (which I btw also had in the first post). Additionally, there's already quite a bit of luck in VEM. The strategic ressource can for example spawn in the area of a city state and you don't want to conquer it (for whatever reason), it can spawn very remote if the area designed for you is huge, it can spawn on a one tile island just off the coast (need embarking) it can spawn on a peninsula behind a city state or a mountain range. It can just be in a bad situation. In addition with the 50-150% solution, I think that's enough luck.

Camps were okay on archery in vanilla, so if archery is more important in G&K, it means something else changed. You mentioned it's important for city defense, which means city defense is more vital in the early game, which leads to my conclusion rushes are too easy. If walls and archers are strong but rushes are still possible, how would you suggest preventing rushes? Increase base city hitpoints or strength?

It's difficult to determine, and there are more ways for defense available than archers and walls, you can go take the Oligarchy policy or you might chose a belief that helps you... Maybe give the palace more hitpoints (not strength)

Copper plating of warships in the age of sail (late 18th century) made their speed increase considerably and gave them the ability to endure long voyages without aquatic wood borers eating their hulls. It was a game changer compared to the bare wooden hull vessels of earlier eras.

Cool, didn't know that. Always good to learn something new. I still stand by my idea that it should help all units, it's way less situational and thus better for gameplay.

Anything can change. I posted the change list early to get feedback like this. Please keep in mind I haven't had much time to play the game recently... I got somewhat burned out, so your feedback is very important for this.

@mitsho
The order you posted seems logical. Don't forget the Barbarians component! I think I'll do that after the Armies one.

Well, take your time I also forgot the City States in that list I believe. What do you think of doing that list twice, but less focused? First go-through for basic adaption and second for deeper balance, bugs and other ideas?

I'm not sure, which is why I didn't list it. I want everyone to prioritize coastlines equally with river cities, and both higher than dry landlocked cities. Is this how you settle right now? If not, more Atolls might be enough to increase coastline importance.

I do think that it might be more beneficial now to chose that tile as a city site which borders one sea tile less, if possible. Otherwise, there's not much difference?

I also am not sure wether camps make archery too important, they are not that good a tile improvement. They can stay with Trade though...

You got any opinion on Copper and the Mercantile Luxuries?

PS: Btw. just found out that beliefs do not extend to unique buildings, very annyoing. I took Ancestor Worship (+1 on shrines and it didn't give me a bonus culture on my Mayan pyramids... Maybe intended and technically written that way, but still frustrating (I normally don't reload, but here I did ). I know, that's off-topic here but it's so minor I otherwise would have forgotten. Also, how difficult is the different calendar programmed for the Maya? Because if they get an own calendar, I would like to add in also different ones for the Arabs, Indians and Chinese (?). Well, maybe later.

 

[Thalassicus]

What do you think of doing that list twice, but less focused? First go-through for basic adaption and second for deeper balance, bugs and other ideas?

I like iterative project development. It's why vem is version 200 million billion quazillion.

 

[mitsho]

sorry, didn't want to make you face the harsh reality. Let me edit that out again (For me, this is refreshing for getting away from the statistics and theory I'm doing right now )

 

[Thalassicus]

I was being serious, not sarcastic. I do like cyclical development. It's a lot easier than doing everything at once. The hyperbole was just to emphasize that your request is how I do things. GEM hasn't even been released yet and I've already made changes based on feedback in this thread.

Edit: Speaking of which I forgot to post the updated list.

• More citystates on mainland for Continents-Plus and Pangaea-Plus maps.
• Strategic resources distributed by player territory (but with more randomness than VEM).
• Coal, Oil, and Aluminum revealed earlier.
• More valuable Great Person improvements.
• Early resources balanced in yield value.
• 10% rough terrain defense bonus, 20% flat defense penalty. (waiting for Armies component)
• Villages on Trapping, renamed to Trade. (waiting for Cities component)
• Mine, lumbermill, and village tech bonuses spread out across a longer time.
• Terrain balance:
  • Rivers: +1 only when improved.
  • Coastlines: more atolls (isles).
  • Islands: more stone, atolls, and coal (but less than VEM).
  • Deserts: 2 basic move cost, +1 on freshwater tiles, +1 on freshwater resources, Oasis value depends on surrounding desert.
  • Snow: +2 on snow hills.
  • Floodplains remain under newly-founded cities.

 

[Txurce]

Camps were okay on archery in vanilla, so if archery is more important in G&K, it means something else changed. You mentioned it's important for city defense, which means city defense is more vital in the early game, which leads to my conclusion rushes are too easy. If walls and archers are strong but rushes are still possible, how would you suggest preventing rushes? Increase base city hitpoints or strength?

Nothing is too easy now. G&K has improved the AI's offensive abilities, and countered it with stronger walls. Many players believe starting with Archery when your neighbors are aggressive is a must. My point was simply that the game works as is, so Archery doesn't need the additional buff of having Trapping there as well.

I do not think villages contribute to ICS...

What about Villages and Camps both on trapping, renamed to trade?

I said research-giving Villages + Messengers of the Gods would contribute to ICS.

Villages and Camps on Trapping makes sense with regard to a separation from Archery.

As Txurce pointed out random resource distribution is fun for variety. Revealing resources earlier increases that randomness, and provides more complex city settlement decisions.

I don't follow the connection with early reveals increasing randomness. It does provide more complex city settlement questions - and takes away from late-game adjustments as a result, along with some decrease in immersiveness. But I see this as all about personal preference, so would only argue about the arguments!

It goes back to our discussion about luckiness in games. You prefer high-luck games (like dice), while I prefer low-luck (chess). Both are fun game genres so I'm not saying one is right or wrong, just that I lean to the low-luck side of things, so that's the direction I move Civ in.

I have hated high-luck games my entire life. I've said that they have nothing to do with my preferences several times in these conversations.

Having said that... Civ is a lot more like dice (defined as probability with a noticeable degree of randomness) than it is like chess. I see some of your preferences as attempts to diminish the irreducibly fuzzy complexity that is at the heart of Civ (starting with the civs themselves and their starting locations, no matter how much you balance). I see others as taking away strategy by providing (too many) options.

But my opinion is as rooted in personal preference as yours. There are no right answers here, which is why I brushed over personal dislikes such as early strategics reveals and focused on core approach: what is the base for GEM? It seems to be pretty much VEM, not G&K. As far as I can tell, at least now we're clear on that.

 

[Thalassicus]

I see some of your preferences as attempts to diminish the irreducibly fuzzy complexity that is at the heart of Civ (starting with the civs themselves and their starting locations, no matter how much you balance).

Could you explain this further? I'll try to explain my viewpoint. I think of this comparison:

• Can only build a mine on a hill.
• Can build a mine or village on a hill, and they provide different bonuses.
• Can build a mine or village on a hill, and they are identical.

I like B. My preference is based on my belief that challenging choices are complex, and complexity makes games fun. Option A is on the left side of my scale below, and C is on the right side, with B in the middle.

I have hated high-luck games my entire life. I've said that they have nothing to do with my preferences several times in these conversations.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you said that. I did not intend to misrepresent your position and apologize.

There's a number of good tech paths to choose from with this start:

• Sailing - Pearls and triremes.
• Calendar - Stonehenge to get those great 3rd ring tiles.
• Animal H. - Sheep and horse-reveal.
• Archery - England focuses on archers.
• Masonry - Gems and marble (getting those will require tile purchasing, additional cities, or Stonehenge).

After those high priorities, Trade would unlock borders, roads, and the Colossus. The Wheel provides stables (sheep, possibly horses) and watermills. Bronze Working might be good for me if there's a citystate nearby to conquer with archers+spears. Optics will unlock a lighthouse, that island-ruin, and any other nearby islands.

My thoughts about tech openers are best explained by this post (above) I made in the Featured Game 4 pre-discussion. In that game we had 5 strong choices and 3 weaker choices for our tech path. I want this complexity in our opening game. The way you've phrased your feedback leads me to believe there's only one opener for close-proximity games in G&K (Archery/Walls). Is this the leading strategy, or have I misunderstood?

I don't follow the connection with early [resource] reveals increasing randomness.

Resources are random, so revealing resources adds randomness. Does that make sense?

 

[Stalker0]

Resources are random, so adding resources adds randomness. Does that make sense?

I agree with this only to a point, especially with strategic resources.

For example, having 15 aluminum vs 30 aluminum to me makes nearly no difference in my gameplay, so the randomness of generating the difference really isn't that random to me.

I would say that 4 is roughly the key value to me of a strategic resource. If I have 0-3 of a strategic resource, that can greatly impact my game decisions. It changes my military concerns, and can affect my building strategies (for aluminum and coal especially).

Past that point, while more can be useful, I can generally do the things I need to do with roughly 4 in a resource. So with that in mind, if random strategic generation provides resources in roughly this 4 range area, then yes I the randonmess could be a large impact.


I will also say I prefer the compromise model of 50%-150% in strategic randomness being tossed about. I have come to like having to quickly change my plans to account for a strategic resource weakness, it keeps the game fun and interesting. But I definately would like to see few resources overall, no more 30 aluminum!

 

[Stalker0]

Thal, when you mentioned the village and mine tech bonuses are getting spread out, can you be more specific?

Edit: Hehe I keep coming up with new things to say! As far as city taking, I find that in GEM cities are generally MUCH harder to take then they used to, and walls are very strong. There are many cities now that I simply can't take without catapults. Overall I like it.

One change this has caused is the defensive value of terrain for cities has improved. For example, early on a city surrounded by hills, swamps, or desert (in Thal's mod) is a nightmare to take, because the speed decreases give the city more time to mow through my forces. And mow through them they can, cities are very strong now!

 

[Thalassicus]

Those have just 1 tech boosting them in vanilla, and vem spreads it to 2 techs (rivers and non-rivers). It's not something I feel strongly about either way.

 

[Ahriman]

I would prefer to see coastal tile yields reverted to VEM; I find coastal cities too weak in G&K unless they're lucky enough to have a bunch of resources. If anything G&K made them worse, because they're now vulnerable to melee naval, so mostly they're worse than landlocked cities.

I'm agnostic on where trading posts should be.

I don't see a need for making resources more random; they're already quite random (especially for iron) in that the resource will be there, but it might be in a spot that is a terrible city site. Just because the resource is in the zone doesn't mean you'll be able to access it.
But I'm not wildly opposed to the idea. My main issue is still about overall levels of goods (ie so as to make strategic resource units rare/elite).
The only thing I'd do is shift more oil on-land; VEM's oil was offshore too much (though I didn't play the final versions just before G&K, so I don't know if that is still there).

I prefer the low-luck style in general, particularly if I'm playing a civ with a strategic-resource requiring UU.

The other OP changes (reverting to VEM) sound good.

 

[Txurce]

Could you explain this further? I'll try to explain my viewpoint. I think of this comparison:

• Can only build a mine on a hill.
• Can build a mine or village on a hill, and they provide different bonuses.
• Can build a mine or village on a hill, and they are identical.

I like B. My preference is based on my belief that challenging choices are complex, and complexity makes games fun. Option A is on the left side of my scale below, and C is on the right side, with B in the middle.

I'm on the same page with this example. Explaining what I meant further: Civ has many more moving parts than chess - way too many to ever fully balance it. And that is at the core of its appeal to me: a reasonably balanced game that provides irreducible complexity (which you might call luck) by, for example, the luck of the draw in what civs start where. That applies to variety with resource availability, and other areas as well. It makes every game less predictable... including some that are unbalanced to the point where I have to struggle to win, never mind kick ass. (That's why I don't mind OP civs: it's my choice as to whether to play with them, and I enjoy the challenge of playing against them.)

This doesn't mean GEM can't better balance parts of the game that are out of whack (GS spam, AI diplomacy in vanilla Civ5) or lacking in challenge (healing barbs, pillaging AI).

The way you've phrased your feedback leads me to believe there's only one opener for close-proximity games in G&K (Archery/Walls). Is this the leading strategy, or have I misunderstood?

Yeah, it seems to be the most-cited strategy against aggressive neighbors, at least at Emperor and above. That seems specific enough to me as to not be unduly limiting, especially considering that taking all first- and second-level techs usually occurs fairly early, anyway.

 

[Zaldron]

@Txurce
How about a compromise? The base game provides 0-200% of the resources we need. VEM gives us 100%. What if we do 50-150%? It would be easy to add a random +/- to the algorithm, if that would accomplish the goal you're looking for.

I do not think villages contribute to ICS. Building a village on a hill means we don't have a mine, and many people consider production more valuable than gold/science in the early game. There's tradeoffs involved. The +1 on villages goes together with -1 per population in cities so overall research is somewhat lower. Late villages bother me because it makes improvement selection too simplistic: we only have one choice on most tiles for half the game! I do not like removing gold from the early game.

What about Villages and Camps both on trapping, renamed to trade?

I think 50-150% sounds fantastic. I'd even be fine going as low as 30% to make you think long and hard about how you use those few special units you get.

While I don't think science on villages favors ICS I do believe it has a weighting towards wider empires. With the VEM changes to NWs and especially things like NT and ironworks (% rather than fixed) I'm not concerned with earlier villages at least until I have a chance to test it. All that said I want to play several more games with completely baseline G&K before I start making lots of suggestions.

 

[mystikx21]

Anything can change. I posted the change list early to get feedback like this. Please keep in mind I haven't had much time to play the game recently... I got somewhat burned out, so your feedback is very important for this.

Job hunting is exhausting. No worries. This mod has generally made Civ5 much more interesting speaking for myself and seeing some input and responses when changes are proposed and evaluated and argued suggests that it will continue to do so.

I'm not sure, which is why I didn't list it. I want everyone to prioritize coastlines equally with river cities, and both higher than dry landlocked cities. Is this how you settle right now? If not, more Atolls might be enough to increase coastline importance.

Less coastal becomes better in GK without the food. I have been fine in a couple cases with cities near coast in GK because of flood plains, extra hills, etc and just ignoring the then completely useless coast tiles in favor of specs. I tended to ignore them anyway even when I could use them more fruitfully. 2 food plus 1-2 gold is bleh versus an extra specialist or almost any land tile. Atolls are nice, but not enough to make me want to settle there instead of adding a hill. The issue for me there is that basic mines, farms, and villages are all much superior in tile value to a lighthouse-harbor basic coast tile (to say nothing of any ocean) and labs only show up late game. Right now a GK coastal city feels like it's in tundra a good chunk of the time, with a couple super "deer" or "alum" or oil, but then 5-10 tiles of complete waste for which you may as well ignore it if you can't get any resources for your trouble. Also with melee naval units as assaults, it adds a layer of defence against naval invasions to park off coast if it wouldn't add much to be on coast.

VEM seemed to already have a good ratio of extra bonus/resource tiles on coastal areas plus better coastal natural wonder placement to make up for this. Maybe a slight boost to that is enough. I did like that in VEM coastal cities could get somewhat larger while letting interior/rivers focus on mining and villages. I thought of this as reflecting historical effects of coastal property value and access to trade, and that blockades were then somewhat useful for starving them down and reducing their economic activity, requiring both naval defence and a secondary use for naval units that looked closer to their historical purposes. But that could be more a personal preference than a necessary game mechanic.

@Txurce
How about a compromise? The base game provides 0-200% of the resources we need. VEM gives us 100%. What if we do 50-150%?

I like it.

Capturing cities in the ancient era is too exploitable against AIs. If that's possible, I'd like to change it. If Archery is too important for early city defense we could reduce it by making walls or basic city defense better. It should be spread around multiple avenues of defense instead of concentrated in one area.

It might be sufficient to boost a city defence to base at the same as a warrior and then grow with defence buildings, garrisons/policies, size, or techs. I think it starts at 6 for flat ground as a non-capital, non-garrisoned in vanilla. Which seems too low given all the other combat changes. Alternatively boosting the base city HP, but that seems unnecessary as it has too long an effect in game where as the slight boost to combat value would be only noticed in the ancient age. Walls are already good enough, and walls+archer garrison is plenty good enough. I thought the issue was more tech-based for archery being already powerful in early game than that cities are too easy to rush and that keeping camps off it would at least make it a little less useful by reducing a situational aspect.

What about Villages and Camps both on trapping, renamed to trade?

I am fine with this. I disagreed with their much delayed appearance at guilds myself, but I didn't see right off the bat being a good time for them either. Trade is a decent compromise.

Overall, I am happy with these proposed changes.

Also: Were natural wonders going back to being somewhat balanced for this? I assumed their placement was partly a CivUP thing, but their actual tile values are not.

 

[Txurce]

I'm on board with everything mystikx posted.

 

[Zaldron]

Could you explain this further? I'll try to explain my viewpoint. I think of this comparison:

• Can only build a mine on a hill.
• Can build a mine or village on a hill, and they provide different bonuses.
• Can build a mine or village on a hill, and they are identical.

I like B. My preference is based on my belief that challenging choices are complex, and complexity makes games fun. Option A is on the left side of my scale below, and C is on the right side, with B in the middle.

Practically speaking for the first 1/3rd or so of the game A *is* true because production is worth so much more (2-4 times as much) as gold. I *never* build villages on hills ever, except for cities I intend to leave permanently puppeted. For the latter 1/2-2/3rds of the game I think the choice already is B, especially with science on villages.

 

[Tarquelne]

50-150%

Anything that has me saying "Arg! I've got no /resource/!" more often sounds good to me.

(BTW - Is the total amount of resources a function of # of players or map size?)

Resources are random, so revealing resources adds randomness. Does that make sense?

What the added randomness results in is probably the key issue. In this case it can indeed make city placement more interesting, and it allows you to plan ahead more. OTOH, you can plan ahead rather than be required to react: ("Arg!")

The need to react to a resource dearth is there (or not) because of luck. But the challenge in adjusting your plans is, IMO, well worth making the game less chess-like. (Of course if it's *too* random you don't bother making significant plans based on future-resources at all.)

So making a resource allocation below 100% should go well with early-reveal of the resources: Players can adjust their plans around future shortages (to cope or correct) rather than simply being stuck with the shortage when they gain the appropriate tech.


Resources and CS: I haven't played a lot of G&K games, but in each one I thought it too easy to get resources from CSs. Maybe just an artifact of VEM having toned-down the total resource amounts?

 

[Txurce]

Anything that has me saying "Arg! I've got no /resource/!" more often sounds good to me.

The need to react to a resource dearth is there (or not) because of luck. But the challenge in adjusting your plans is, IMO, well worth making the game less chess-like. (Of course if it's *too* random you don't bother making significant plans based on future-resources at all.)

That's a good summation.

So making a resource allocation below 100% should go well with early-reveal of the resources: Players can adjust their plans around future shortages (to cope or correct) rather than simply being stuck with the shortage when they gain the appropriate tech.

Or it could be a late-game example of "Arg! I've got no /resource/!"

 

[glider1]

I'm not sure, which is why I didn't list it. I want everyone to prioritize coastlines equally with river cities, and both higher than dry landlocked cities. Is this how you settle right now? If not, more Atolls might be enough to increase coastline importance.

Just want to ensure that the focus of terrain changes is still seeing the big picture of the structure of city placement as it plays out in the late game. If cities become better on the coastlines that is fine and even more realistic to a degree, but what about the AI prioritizing the coast relative to human exploitation?

Has the GEM mod got this late game tactic in mind when it tries to prioritize coastal cities more:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11656045&postcount=1

Note that this is an Emperor level player. Personally since ditching Continents Plus maps altogether, I like the way that on Continents standard sized maps you can get a Pangaea like situation where civs are landlocked, but still able to compete with the civs on the coast at least to some degree that they can survive. The landlocked civs do become buffer states but they still have a chance.

Cheers