I don't see the problem with the "reward the leader" quests - they are a great way to reward the leader in [x] in a non-linear fashion, and makes min/maxing potentially more rewarding than otherwise. I see CS quests as what the Advisers are supposed to be: a (fun) way to let new players try different actions that would benefit them, but have a moderate gameplay effect which can be used strategically as well.
I don't see the problem with the "reward the leader" quests - they are a great way to reward the leader in [x] in a non-linear fashion, and makes min/maxing potentially more rewarding than otherwise. I see CS quests as what the Advisers are supposed to be: a (fun) way to let new players try different actions that would benefit them, but have a moderate gameplay effect which can be used strategically as well.
I'm okay with more/stronger catch-up mechanisms in the game.
In a gameplay sense, this could make things a bit more fun (though admittedly random): maybe if you're not going for a Culture victory, you employ relatively few Artists so you can fill up all the Artist slots once a CS asks for a Culture increase.
Yeah, that's a bit gamey though. Although quests are meant to be, a bit, aren't they?
My real issue with these quests is that they help human runaway players (whether in that particular yield or in technologies) cement their advantage even further, which makes the game less challenging. In most games, I'm crushing all the AIs by turn 250 or so, and continuing the game feels sort of pointless – especially if I'm accruing further benefits to being in the lead like this one.
This thread seems as well to be about city states, so question: Are the 50 free turns of rewards going to be back in with the army stage? Because that's one thing I do miss (and what do they mean for a Faith-city state?)
As for military city states on long-term-thinking, what if we give them their own uniques and depending on how many mil city states you ally, you get a chance on that uu accordingly (i.e. 2 city states = 50% chance on that unit if in the era of the unit or if not 100% chance wanted: x = if era [2/3 * 1/#mil cs]. Can you make carbon copies of unit models? Or else one can use the models that are already in the game, though they mostly depend on DLC's... Also, they do not always fit, see the Norwegian Ski Infantry that got pushed out, but one could also kick out the unpopular Foreign Legion. Though then we need more city states, and there seems to be a bit of a unbalance in that space, to bring the mil cs up to 10. (not sure if we need more religious city states since they seem quite confined in use, but mil/merc/mar/cult should have the same number, not?). This gives me this tentative-took-me-5-minutes list:
Almaty Steppe Rider ( ) knight with terror promotion (no horse)
Belgrade Partisan Great War Infantry (?) with 2 free rough terrain promotions
Budapest Hussar (Light Hussar?) One era early Lancer?
Hanoi Vietcong Infantry with Ignore Terrain Mov Penalty and + defense
Sidon Bireme Trireme with +1 sight/movement
Valleta Knight's Templar Longswordman with cover (no iron)
??? Ski Infantry see Norwegian Ski Infantry Kiev/Yakutsk/Capital of Sami or Inuit?/another Swiss city?
Algier Foreign Legion or a Algerian UU
Majapahit Kapal replaces Galleass
Nairobi Maasai Warrior Pikeman with heal-on-kill?
But generally, what are the feelings for filling up the city states to roughly the same number? And at the same time provide more geographical balance from South America, Africa, Asia and Oceania?
EDIT: And btw. I'm just brainstorming over here, but what about a new slightly different system for diplomatic victory? I do think it should be a viable alternative late game (and the tech tree might need to get split again to change it from science victory, no?), but I do also think it should take into account the whole game, as the others do. Thus...
Spoiler:
Civs allocate their vote the same way as before, City states after the following formula:
[(get 2*era points for each turn allied + 1*era points for each turn friended)*5 if UN is built] + X points extra for allied at time of vote + Y extra points for liberation - Z points for conquest = the civ with the most points gets the vote
Votes Allied per turn Friended per turn
Ancient Era 2 1
Classical Era 4 2
Medieval Era 6 3
Renaissance Era 8 4
Industrial Era 10 5
Modern Era 12 6
Atomic Era 14 7
Future Era 16 8
This formula, if balanced correctly should allow to build up to a victory but also with heavy late game investment snatch away the victory. Is there a way to store information like this within savegames and/or would the formula be too complex to calculate every turn? Probably, right? Still, I needed to write that idea down somewhere
Good point; front-loading faith points is very different from front-loading other bonuses.
I'm not sure how to balance this. We could just reduce the amount, I guess, but an early rush could still be potentially game-breaking. The other possibility would be to change the by-era gradient for faith city-state capture. Its only really a problem in the first few eras, when religions are getting founded.
Are the 50 free turns of rewards going to be back in with the army stage? Because that's one thing I do miss (and what do they mean for a Faith-city state?)
Right, it's in the Armies stage because it deals with war and conquest, while Diplomacy is peaceful.
Capturing a religion citystate in the Classical era would give 300, which I agree is too much. On the other hand it only raises to 900 by the Modern era, which is a small amount then. We could make religious citystate rewards exponential instead of linear? Right now it's 3*(era+1), and we could change that to 2^era:
Right, it's in the Armies stage because it deals with war and conquest, while Diplomacy is peaceful.
Capturing a religion citystate in the Classical era would give 300, which I agree is too much. On the other hand it only raises to 900 by the Modern era, which is a small amount then. We could make religious citystate rewards exponential instead of linear? Right now it's 3*(era+1), and we could change that to 2^era:
Those numbers look pretty good, but I'm slightly worried about the 64 in atomic, and definitely worried about 128 in the information era. I think 1.8^era would work fine (~61 in information era 34 in atomic).
Perhaps if it were (1 + era² - era)
then would be
1 50
3 150
7 350
13 650
21 1050
32 1600
43 2150
57 2850
This would slow down things a bit at start, but really worth keeping it alive late game for spawning great people, since religious CS are almost obsolete late game in G&K.
But I still am a bit worried if it isn't quite high at ren and ind eras.
This could be smoothed with (2 + era² - 2*era)
1 50
2 100
5 250
10 500
17 850
26 1300
37 1850
Not so worthy late game but very balanced mid game and a bit slow at early game.
What you think?
I prefer exponential (2^era) functions more than polynomial ones (era^2) because progress in Civilization games follows an exponential curve. Is 64 per turn a lot in the modern era? I've only had one G&K game go that long, so I don't know what impact faith has at that point. Any per-turn bonus in the late game has to be rather powerful to influence the outcome of the game.
@Ahriman
These are ally numbers. Friend yields are 2/3 of ally yields (rounded).
Is 64 per turn a lot in the modern era? I've only had one G&K game go that long, so I don't know what impact faith has at that point. Any per-turn bonus in the late game has to be rather powerful to influence the outcome of the game.
IMO yes it's a lot, a little bit too much regarding your other incomes. My late game numbers were around +60-150 with only 16 from one or two CS. You can buy GG, GA, GS, GM, GE,.. and they are not that much expensive, even in the late eras (I think the era doesn't matter for ; you pay 650 for the first one of a kind, then 1000, 1600, 2400,... something like that).
I'm not sure that there has to be a particular function.
How about something like:
Anc 2
Class 5
Med 8
Ren 12
Ind 18
Mod 24
Atom 32
Info 38
The ratio of per turn/capture also doesn't have to stay constant. I think 1 per turn for an ally is too slow even in ancient era, but one could have 2 per turn in ancient and 5 per turn in classical but still leave the capture bonuses for those eras at say 60 and 140.
I prefer exponential (2^era) functions more than polynomial ones (era^2) because progress in Civilization games follows an exponential curve. Is 64 per turn a lot in the modern era? I've only had one G&K game go that long, so I don't know what impact faith has at that point. Any per-turn bonus in the late game has to be rather powerful to influence the outcome of the game.
Yes, 64 is a huge amount in the modern and 128 would be ridiculous in information.
By the modern era, with even say 6-8 cities (medium empire) I might have between 60-140 faith/turn coming in, meaning that one religious CS would be a 40-100% increase in faith output.
What about using the Fibonacci sequence to determine the ammount of faith given by religious city-states per era?Starting with +2 /per turn on Ancient era,the progression would work like this:
I've been looking over the difference between research agreements in Vem and G&K. Firaxis adopted my combined-research approach, thankfully. However, they did make some changes from Vem. If we have neither the porcelain tower nor rationalism, each research agreement with an equal partner increases our research rate by:
Porcelain Tower and Rationalism each provide a 50% bonus in G&K (not the 25% bonus on the tooltips), for a maximum double bonus. In other words 3 RAs doubles our tech speed in G&K, on average, with the wonder and policy. In both vem and G&K we get a double bonus if our partner has twice our science, and vice versa. We also get less less rewards if our partner produces more than 6-12 times our (a rare situation).
What are your thoughts about this?
SpoilerMath :
PT and Rationalism bonuses listed at 25%, but with a -50% value hidden in the formula:
(.5 + .25 + .25) / 6 = (1 + .5 + .5) / 12
a : total we produced b : total they produced r : rationalism (0 or .5) p : porcelain tower (0 or .5)
m = (1+r+p) / 12 us n = (1+r+p) / 12 them
reward = am + min(a, bn)
The min() only matters if they produce 6-12 times our personal science, which is unlikely so the formula is normally:
reward = am + bn
I suspect any discrepancies are from rounding or a bug. With partners of equal status, say we both produce 100 per turn:
If you maintain the requirement of DOF to sign a RA and maintain the technology requirement in Education,then I suggest increasing the values . Other suggestion that seems nice to implement is making "Porcelain Tower" and the SP of "Rationalism" increases the bonus for the other part of the agreement as well .
I definately wouldn't count the Porcelain Tower bonus when comparing strenght. Only one civ can get it and as a world wonder it's supposed to enhance one part of the game. It shouldn't be needed for a successful RA strategy.
Allowing non-allies to make research agreements also seems like a good idea, more options and such.
A balance for strengths of RA is hard to determine since they are really dependent on the number of suitable civs in the game (i.e. non-warmongers mostly) and that is a function of the map size. The only other game element this dependent on map size that I can think of are city state (types). That being said, doubling your science with three RA feels too strong.
I think it'd be nice to maintain the requirement of DOF for signing a RA . It makes diplomacy much more important and makes the game more challenging,as you need to select your partners(and your enemies) more carefully,in order to get the maximum ammount of RAs .
Agreed. However, if Thal decides to maintain non-DoF RAs, perhaps they could yield -70% while DoF RAs yield the normal -50% (PT and Rationalism SP each adding 25%) or something similar.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
and
quests as is.
(and what do they mean for a Faith-city state?)
; you pay 650 for the first one of a kind, then 1000, 1600, 2400,... something like that).
rate increase
