General discussion for civics

[raxo2222]

Interesting.
It seems like only you and maybe few other civs are in prehistoric era.
Also tech progression seems to be in disarray now - you are now too slow and AIs are too fast.

You are in Prehistoric era, so changes in era infos didn't affect tech progression yet.
Immortal has following setup for construction/research discounts (stuff for AI is cheaper than for players):

<iAITrainPercent>60</iAITrainPercent>
            <iAIWorldTrainPercent>60</iAIWorldTrainPercent>
            <iAIConstructPercent>68</iAIConstructPercent>
            <iAIWorldConstructPercent>68</iAIWorldConstructPercent>
            <iAICreatePercent>68</iAICreatePercent>
            <iAIWorldCreatePercent>68</iAIWorldCreatePercent>
            <iAIResearchPercent>80</iAIResearchPercent>

Techs/buildings/units are 20%/32%/40% cheaper for AI - @Toffer90 you listed buildings and units as having same discount for AI in other thread.
Now I'm not sure if units being slightly cheaper than buildings for AI is intended or you forgot to adjust those.

I guess choosing between units and buildings is bit of catch-22 now - building buildings helps you to keep up with AI, but then you have less units both to defend and to control properties, that are more aggressive for players on immortal.

As for Salamasina leader it seems like someone never got to writing her diplomacy texts.

As for civics it was more of general notice - you are balancing civics against each other, so buildings unlocked by civics are important here too.
Civic buildings should be balanced against each other too.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Now I'm not sure if units being slightly cheaper than buildings for AI is intended or you forgot to adjust those.

That was me and yes I intend that. They use the same base cost scale but I don't mean for them to actually often BE the same cost. Units should be more disposable.

I still have not reached Ancient era,

Do not look to the latest adjustments to tech costs by era to explain this because no adjustments have been made to the Prehistoric costs. It's pretty normal for the earliest stage of the prehistoric to exceed the target turn count but after the city gets on its feet a bit it seems to usually catch up to the target pretty quick. By the end of the Prehistoric I've found it's usually right where we want it. I feel all that's ok because it gives that feeling of clawing your way out of the pit of the wild. It's from there on that it's been gradually dropping too far and that I've been trying to correct for.

The changing of entry levels on Common Cold and to False Accusations to level +1 for Disease and Crime respectively is also being felt.

This is why I was warning that perhaps they are established to be a bit too painful. Is it manageable at least or were you getting an unhappy 1 pop city right away where the one population won't work? This is kinda the limit and shouldn't even be allowed to happen on Nightmare imo. Mostly because it's just too crippling. Some tests to ensure it's not happening there should be in order I think. By dropping the threshold back to 1 we are accepting that it's going to be an unavoidable thing to have to overcome so the disease and crime AT that threshold need to be minor enough to not bring the economy to a screeching halt, just there to make it very helpful to overcome as quickly as the player can manage.

We could also work the initial civics to offset whatever they bring in if we want to keep them as they are and they are a bit too rough at the moment.

 

[raxo2222]

This is why I was warning that perhaps they are established to be a bit too painful. Is it manageable at least or were you getting an unhappy 1 pop city right away where the one population won't work? This is kinda the limit and shouldn't even be allowed to happen on Nightmare imo. Mostly because it's just too crippling. Some tests to ensure it's not happening there should be in order I think. By dropping the threshold back to 1 we are accepting that it's going to be an unavoidable thing to have to overcome so the disease and crime AT that threshold need to be minor enough to not bring the economy to a screeching halt, just there to make it very helpful to overcome as quickly as the player can manage.

We could also work the initial civics to offset whatever they bring in if we want to keep them as they are and they are a bit too rough at the moment.

I was doing Nightmare test, there was no problem with excess unhappiness, when I got education level of -1, common cold and false accusations.

I should try another test with negative traits being on though.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I should try another test with negative traits being on though.

Ah... yeah that's where it can really become a problem. However, I'm not a big proponent of plotting the game to start with traits so that might not be too concerning. Particularly when some traits have more than 1 penalty in unhappiness out the gate.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Bad enough that a

This is why I was warning that perhaps they are established to be a bit too painful. Is it manageable at least or were you getting an unhappy 1 pop city right away where the one population won't work?

Manageable on Immortal but painful. You feel them as I said but they don't stop you in your tracks.

While having a Settler give your new city 2 pop and 50% food bar is pleasing, it is really detracting from the 1 City tile start. This boost is really aiding the AI/player way too much. Imho Settler should not give 2 pop but only 1 and the 50% food bar is also too strong. If you get the Venus of Willendorf you now get 3 pop with 50% food bar from a Settler. This is definitely too much of a boost for player or AI, whomever gets it. The Food bar at 50% insures that not only does your 2 pop from Settler not starve but gives a Big Boost towards the next pop to grow.

So I'm asking for at least the Settler to Not give 2 pop. And for the Food bar % to be dropped to 15% for those of you fretting over the Venus of Willendorf Wonder and losing a pop right off the bat. Which never happens on the 1st turn after a city is settled nor for many turns (as high as 20 turns that I have seen) unless you are silly enough to settle on a Barren plain terrain (multiple barren tiles in the main 8). The whole business of Settler type units giving extra pop when a New City is founded is a bad idea period. It was never needed.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Bad enough that a
Manageable on Immortal but painful. You feel them as I said but they don't stop you in your tracks.

While having a Settler give your new city 2 pop and 50% food bar is pleasing, it is really detracting from the 1 City tile start. This boost is really aiding the AI/player way too much. Imho Settler should not give 2 pop but only 1 and the 50% food bar is also too strong. If you get the Venus of Willendorf you now get 3 pop with 50% food bar from a Settler. This is definitely too much of a boost for player or AI, whomever gets it. The Food bar at 50% insures that not only does your 2 pop from Settler not starve but gives a Big Boost towards the next pop to grow.

So I'm asking for at least the Settler to Not give 2 pop. And for the Food bar % to be dropped to 15% for those of you fretting over the Venus of Willendorf Wonder and losing a pop right off the bat. Which never happens on the 1st turn after a city is settled nor for many turns (as high as 20 turns that I have seen) unless you are silly enough to settle on a Barren plain terrain (multiple barren tiles in the main 8). The whole business of Settler type units giving extra pop when a New City is founded is a bad idea period. It was never needed.

Perhaps with Settlers specifically. I've been dubious about it myself. No problem with the way it works for units beyond that point such as Colonists and so on. Settlers are faster units and they are not limited to 1 like tribes and perhaps they should start with 15 or 20% food where a tribe doesn't but 2 pop starts at that stage is very powerful. This actually mutes the power of the Great Bath a little since without the extra pop, the Great Bath doubles the starting power of a city whereas with it, it only adds 50% more to the starting power of a city. BUT, I'm not writing off this point that it goes even further towards all cities for that nation starting off half built up already. The first few population can be the hardest to earn so this is not a minor shift in progress we're giving the beginning of the game.

I do have a trait that's primary ability is to add a population to starting cities so this has been good to observe to get an idea of the impact such a trait brings.

 

[JosEPh_II]

This giving a Settler 2 pop is a firm basis for the runaway Tech leaders. And aids the ability to runaway even more. On lower Difficulty levels the player can catch the "wave" of population and ride it's crest. But as the Difficulty levels increase it is the AI that rides the 'wave" while the player flounders in the trough between the waves. Effectively increasing the actual difficulty of the set difficulty/Handicap chosen to play.

And as I said it's really muting/nullifying the 1 City Tile Start Option. Which was meant to make the starting of a new city slower. Thereby slowing down All Civs expansion. But that has been reversed with this additional pop and Food given to "settler" type units. 1 City Tile Start is so diluted by this as to make the Option a wash. All because of the 'fear' that the Venus or Great bath wonder would be hindered. Which has so far not been proven to do so. Just conjectured.

 

[Thunderbrd]

This giving a Settler 2 pop is a firm basis for the runaway Tech leaders. And aids the ability to runaway even more. On lower Difficulty levels the player can catch the "wave" of population and ride it's crest. But as the Difficulty levels increase it is the AI that rides the 'wave" while the player flounders in the trough between the waves. Effectively increasing the actual difficulty of the set difficulty/Handicap chosen to play.

Makes sense. @Toffer90 would you agree? You're the one setting the added population. I know when my wife encountered it she's had much the same feeling about it. I don't mind a trait and the great Bath giving this ability (because with the trait it means you're missing out on other benefits and this is the super power you've opted for and only one nation can reach out for the Great Bath which will slow down your growth a lot to do so since you're building it when you should otherwise be planting cities) but for all does seem to be a potential imbalance to some other elements of the game I think.

All because of the 'fear' that the Venus or Great bath wonder would be hindered. Which has so far not been proven to do so. Just conjectured.

By this experiment, you can see how the Great Bath would be useless on a 1 city tile start for an AI. Having no land to work outside the city would ensure the starving off of the first population if extra food isn't also brought in. The only other alternative is that cities are limited only to being planted where there are already claimed tiles, culturally, and this is not common for the AI to plant cities in this manner - it's not to say they can't or that it doesn't sometimes happen, just that it literally doesn't influence the decision for the AI on where to place a city whether there are already culturally claimed tiles around the founding site or not. I know this because I have seen the code where the AI determines best places to place a city. Therefore, it's unusual for the AI to place a city in a spot that a 2nd population will survive unless they've gone out building forts before founding cities, which they sometimes do but not always, or plant their cities crazy close to one another, which again, they sometimes do because of the accumulated evaluation of value of the closer in plot as a good spot to found a city, but again, that's not always going to happen and it's not a factor they seek for any particular reason.

Therefore, Humans would easily get a lot more benefit from the Bath because they can adapt their thinking easier. Knowing they need extra land to work immediately they can bring entertainers to ensure they'll have it in the first round of the city's life, and workers to improve the land the entertainers reveal in that first round. Otherwise, with no extra starting food stores, the added pop asks for more food than the population that's there can give the city, because there's no other plots to work but the city itself, and that's not enough to sustain the population needs (4 food per population) and as soon as you're out of food reserves, if you are still needing more food than you can produce, you are losing a pop per round (min 1 pop in the city).

So that means an AI would commonly lose their additional population in the first round. Even if they have another land plot to work when the city starts, it may not be enough. No non-bonus bearing plot will produce enough food without being improved to pay for that added population's needs.

This is a simple math problem. Having been a fan of the Bath, I've founded many cities that starved off their extra population in the first round, and that's WITH the first rung automatically going to the city founder. Knowing that the AI has no protocols to bring a food merchant or entertainer along with a settling party, it becomes obvious that they'll encounter the issue.

That said, the food adjustment was for the extra 2nd population being given to all settlers, not to account for the Bath. But as you suggest, a little to account for other ways that the AI MIGHT end up with an additional population to start would probably be very helpful for them.

 

[Toffer90]

Techs/buildings/units are 20%/32%/40% cheaper for AI - @Toffer90 you listed buildings and units as having same discount for AI in other thread.
Now I'm not sure if units being slightly cheaper than buildings for AI is intended or you forgot to adjust those.

I posted that list without looking in the xml, and I corrected the numbers in that post 4 days ago.
The different scaling of unit and building cost for AI based on human player handicap level is intentional.

We can allow a bigger AI discount on units than on buildings/techs as it makes the AI harder without it significantly distorting the experience of game balance and appearing unfair to the human player.
The human player don't want the AI to run away technologically (full eras ahead) when playing on higher difficulty (it also distort gamespeed experience through tech diffusion mechanic), hence why techs gets the least amount of AI discount.
Since buildings indirectly boost tech progression it gets a bit less discount than units and can be considered a middle ground between units and techs in this regard.
The tech cost discount for AI should imo ideally be removed, but since the AI is so terrible it has to be there so the human player is not always the tech leader.
The building cost discount should ideally be less but perhaps never removed, if the AI was a lot better.
As we gradually improve the AI we may have to gradually reduce the tech cost discount given to AI through handicaps.
The current unit discount for AI through handicaps are probably fair even if the AI was 16x better than what it is today.

Do you understand/accept my viewpoint on this?

Makes sense. @Toffer90 would you agree? You're the one setting the added population. I know when my wife encountered it she's had much the same feeling about it. I don't mind a trait and the great Bath giving this ability (because with the trait it means you're missing out on other benefits and this is the super power you've opted for and only one nation can reach out for the Great Bath which will slow down your growth a lot to do so since you're building it when you should otherwise be planting cities) but for all does seem to be a potential imbalance to some other elements of the game I think.

Sure, the settler may be too early to award extra pop pints to cities, I'll remove it. The Settler does have 1 more MP than the Tribe unit so that's a big upgrade in itself.

Before my change in that area the extra pop points were awarded when the player had the techs Colonialism and Steam Power resulting in only +1 pop point for colonist and +2 pop points for Pioneer and later settler units.

 

[Toffer90]

Sure, the settler may be too early to award extra pop pints to cities, I'll remove it.

Before my change in that area the extra pop points were awarded when the player had the techs Colonialism and Steam Power resulting in only +1 pop point for colonist and +2 pop points for Pioneer and later settler units.

So I'm thinking of setting it like so:
Colonist +1 pop
Pioneer +2 pop
Air Settler + 4 pop

I was surprised to see that the colonist have 3 MP and the Pioneer 4 MP.
I would like to set both of those to only 2 movement points, as settler type units should not be very fast until automobiles are invented. Even though the colonist and pioneers have carts and more mounts than the settler unit, they would still have more people and equipment that would slow their travel. Better road types should be enough to satisfy the impatient player.
Any objections to that?

I'll add help text entries to the settler units that provide more population points.

 

[raxo2222]

I posted that list without looking in the xml, and I corrected the numbers in that post 4 days ago.
The different scaling of unit and building cost for AI based on human player handicap level is intentional.

We can allow a bigger AI discount on units than on buildings/techs as it makes the AI harder without it significantly distorting the experience of game balance and appearing unfair to the human player.
The human player don't want the AI to run away technologically (full eras ahead) when playing on higher difficulty (it also distort gamespeed experience through tech diffusion mechanic), hence why techs gets the least amount of AI discount.
Since buildings indirectly boost tech progression it gets a bit less discount than units and can be considered a middle ground between units and techs in this regard.
The tech cost discount for AI should imo ideally be removed, but since the AI is so terrible it has to be there so the human player is not always the tech leader.
The building cost discount should ideally be less but perhaps never removed, if the AI was a lot better.
As we gradually improve the AI we may have to gradually reduce the tech cost discount given to AI through handicaps.
The current unit discount for AI through handicaps are probably fair even if the AI was 16x better than what it is today.

Do you understand/accept my viewpoint on this?

Ah so you made mistake on forum post.
Also Joseph is playing on immortal and AI is two eras ahead of him - hes in Renaissance and AI is in early modern in one of games.
That never happened to him before though.

 

[Toffer90]

Also Joseph is playing on immortal and AI is two eras ahead of him - hes in Renaissance and AI is in early modern in one of games.
That never happened to him before though.

The AI has seen some important fixes and improvements since I revised the handicap xml in rev 9976.
I originally wanted iAIResearchPercent to increment with 2 so that deity was only at 90, but TB convinced me, more than once, to give the AI more research discount per difficulty level, it ended up at an increment of 5 so that deity was at 75.
Perhaps it is time to reduce it again? Should we start careful with an increment of 4 (80 at deity) or push it down to 3 (85 at deity) right away? 2 is probably still too low.

 

[raxo2222]

The AI has seen some important fixes and improvements since I revised the handicap xml in rev 9976.
I originally wanted iAIResearchPercent to increment with 2 so that deity was only at 90, but TB convinced me, more than once, to give the AI more research discount per difficulty level, it ended up at an increment of 5 so that deity was at 75.
Perhaps it is time to reduce it again? Should we start careful with an increment of 4 (80 at deity) or push it down to 3 (85 at deity) right away? 2 is probably still too low.

Step is 10 for units, 8 for buildings and 5 for techs (x2 for Deity -> Nightmare step) as we know.

This means use of processes especially research may be not bad strategy for AI on highest handicaps.

It looks like process is getting production bonuses before getting converted to target yield - It doesn't get target yield bonuses though.
Still those can increase research rate by 50% if you set all cities to research in some cases - this can be even stronger - even 100% boost at later game and when you are getting all (sometimes somewhere in middle of chain) as I increased minimum production yields of all buildings in Ancient and later eras earlier in attempt to help with new cities in later eras few months ago or so.

So steps could be lowered to 7 (or even 6 as tech costs are increased without increasing building costs) for buildings and 4 for techs now.

 

[Toffer90]

It looks like process is getting production bonuses before getting converted to target yield - It doesn't get target yield bonuses though.

The hammer to commerce ratio from processes are unaffected by any handicap xml values. They get the same amount of commerce per hammer as the human player regardless of difficulty the human player use.

So steps could be lowered to 7 (or even 6 as tech costs are increased without increasing building costs) for buildings and 4 for techs now.

What's your rationale for reducing the building cost discount AI get from handicap? I see no good reason to make difficulties easier in that regard at this moment...
Reducing the AI tech cost discount to zero should happen before we even consider reducing the AI building cost discount at all.
I don't think the AI is currently strong enough for us to remove the tech cost discount entirely.

 

[raxo2222]

The hammer to commerce ratio from processes are unaffected by any handicap xml values. They get the same amount of commerce per hammer as the human player regardless of difficulty the human player use.

I know, I meant that processes may be bit OP.

As for reducing building discount cost discount it speeds up techs, since they can get more buildings or just use research process.

 

[Toffer90]

I know, I meant that processes may be bit OP.

Ah, well, you jump topic too quick for me sometimes.
I did nerf the process conversion ratio slightly in my last SVN commit, do you still think they are so OP that the human player should do processes instead of building buildings?

Edit: Why are we discussing this here? Haha, I didn't notice before now.
This is a civic thread, we should be in the "Balance Factor" thread....

 

[raxo2222]

Ah, well, you jump topic too quick for me sometimes.
I did nerf the process conversion ratio slightly in my last SVN commit, do you still think they are so OP that the human player should do processes instead of building buildings?

Yes - in certain conditions you can even double research rate at least for a while, when you think you don't have worthwhile buildings to build for now.
If you are playing on higher handicaps, then AI may benefit too much from processes.
I think 10%, 25% and 50% would be better for process conversion rate.

I'm not sure if WFL/TD benefit from research from processes, but they probably do.

 

[JosEPh_II]

By this experiment, you can see how the Great Bath would be useless on a 1 city tile start for an AI.

You context is out of place. By the time you and the AI can Get the Great bath both already have means to insure it is not wasted. And the AI is quite capable of using it with the 1 CTS Option. Very capable. So I do not agree with your conjecture.

So that means an AI would commonly lose their additional population in the first round. Even if they have another land plot to work when the city starts, it may not be enough. No non-bonus bearing plot will produce enough food without being improved to pay for that added population's needs.

Again not proven to be true. And game play shows it not to be so.

Please let go of this unfounded assumption, please.

So I'm thinking of setting it like so:
Colonist +1 pop
Pioneer +2 pop
Air Settler + 4 pop

I was surprised to see that the colonist have 3 MP and the Pioneer 4 MP.
I would like to set both of those to only 2 movement points, as settler type units should not be very fast until automobiles are invented. Even though the colonist and pioneers have carts and more mounts than the settler unit, they would still have more people and equipment that would slow their travel. Better road types should be enough to satisfy the impatient player.
Any objections to that?

I'll add help text entries to the settler units that provide more population points.

I would add one thing to this. Reduce the 50% food bar for Settler to 25% and definitely no more than 33%. 50% is too much and is OP.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Please let go of this unfounded assumption, please.

I can't write out the way it happens any clearer. But I really don't care if you can follow the logic or not because I'm not arguing for a particular action we disagree on to be taken anyhow.

 

[Toffer90]

I would add one thing to this. Reduce the 50% food bar for Settler to 25% and definitely no more than 33%. 50% is too much and is OP.

Ok, 25% it is. ^^