Getting Started

[Dunkah]

Every game I have played with this new system has felt like I have had no iron. 2 iron is not enough to do anything with. And the fact that I still need to place two more cities and build two mines just to get it makes it not worth my while.

You asked what we didn't like please don't poo poo me now that I have said something.

 

[truetom]

I agree with Dunkah mostly. Love the mod, not ungrateful, can't play without it, but I feel this is not balance anymore and I'm stepping away a bit with all the constant changes. I'm lost and with resource changes I feel I was more satisfied before it went that way. It was totaly cool, err, a few pages of this thread back, so...

This is the only reason. I know you guys strive for better playability and all, but maybe you could make a few bus stops for people who prefered the way it was a bit before. Let that version be stored somewhere and continue testing. And post another bus stop, etc.

Take this in a positive way, please.

Edit: found my post a "few pages back", v1.07 was the one for me.

I will also probably not upgrade as I have v1.07 and love it. Is it upgraded or "upgraded" then?

 

[Polycrates]

Every game I have played with this new system has felt like I have had no iron. 2 iron is not enough to do anything with. And the fact that I still need to place two more cities and build two mines just to get it makes it not worth my while.

You asked what we didn't like please don't poo poo me now that I have said something.

Just wondering: when you've had too little iron, did you have heaps of horses to compensate? I only ask because my experience in my games has been that I've had heaps and heaps of iron deposits still around, far more than I knew what to do with; for me, too many given that my iron requirements have been cut down almost by half (catapults/trebuchets). Perhaps I've just been lucky with my starts.

 

[Ahriman]

You asked what we didn't like please don't poo poo me now that I have said something.

I don't feel that I was in any way disrespectful. I'm sorry that you feel patronized, I really didn't mean that.

All I meant is that I genuinely understand that this is something people will have different preferences for, and that the change isn't something that will suit everyone.
I was trying to acknowledge that its a totally reasonable difference of opinion and personal preference.

Personally, I feel that 2 iron is still very useful - its two swordsmen or longswordsmen (and as many catapults as you want), and these are much more useful than spearmen or pikemen, and I really enjoy feeling that resources are scarce and meaningful, but thats just my take.

 

[truetom]

I don't know if it's been answered: do you get more strat resources if you set them to "abundant" in advanced?

 

[Dunkah]

I don't feel that I was in any way disrespectful. I'm sorry that you feel patronized, I really didn't mean that.

Ok fine no problem.

All I meant is that I genuinely understand that this is something people will have different preferences for, and that the change isn't something that will suit everyone.
I was trying to acknowledge that its a totally reasonable difference of opinion and personal preference.

Yes and the point being that this is getting away from vanilla and becomes something other than Balance. Which is the original point that truetom brought up.

Personally, I feel that 2 iron is still very useful - its two swordsmen or longswordsmen (and as many catapults as you want), and these are much more useful than spearmen or pikemen, and I really enjoy feeling that resources are scarce and meaningful, but thats just my take.

This to me should be an arms race as well as a culture/ science etc race. All through history one Civilization would come out with one weapon then another would find a way to counter it. There seems to be very little of that. Each era should have opposing units. Sword vs Axe vs Horse... Anti Tank vs Tank vs Infantry vs Artillery... Rifles vs. Granadiers... Gunships vs. Mobile Infantry vs Modern Armour vs Air.

Forcing a player to build spears because he has nothing else to build is rediculous.

 

[Polycrates]

This to me should be an arms race as well as a culture/ science etc race. All through history one Civilization would come out with one weapon then another would find a way to counter it. There seems to be very little of that. Each era should have opposing units. Sword vs Axe vs Horse... Anti Tank vs Tank vs Infantry vs Artillery... Rifles vs. Granadiers... Gunships vs. Mobile Infantry vs Modern Armour vs Air.

Isn't this there already? Spears counter horses, horses counter archers and siege, swords counter spears, archers counter spears and swords. And swords can be stronger because they're rarer with less iron - they're more like the elite core of your army rather than just the entirety of your army.

Forcing a player to build spears because he has nothing else to build is rediculous.

I don't agree, personally. That seems to me to be the entire point of the limited strategic resources; if you can build all the swords you want, then why have the limited resources in the first place?
In any case, you're not limited to spears, you're limited to spears and archers and catapults and perhaps siege. That's more than sufficient for mounting a solid defence and even a pretty good offence if you build them in numbers. You play the hand you're dealt, I guess, and if that hand means that you have to hold off world conquest until a later age, then so be it. If anything, I'd say iron is now much less important because while swords may win the battles it's the siege that really wins you the cities. I'd also point out that this mod does buff spears slightly, and I think spears now play the role of the basic ancient/classical age grunt very well.

 

[Txurce]

I don't agree, personally. That seems to me to be the entire point of the limited strategic resources; if you can build all the swords you want, then why have the limited resources in the first place?

That is the point, and I happen to agree with you, but limited resources are exactly what they don't like. I understand someone preferring to build an all-sword army, using a tech edge backed by plentiful resources. That the same can be achieved with catapults and a couple of swords - or even no swords at all - isn't appealing to some. I disagree that having to build spears at times is "ridiculous," since every warmonger eventually runs out of iron. But it probably feels like it happens too soon to these guys.

The easy fix may be for Thal to show which numbers to change for anyone interested in vanilla strategic resources.

 

[Seek]

The easy fix may be for Thal to show which numbers to change for anyone interested in vanilla strategic resources.

Or simply put the debated changes into a separate, easily deleted folder.

 

[Thalassicus]

It took a long time but I redesigned the whole tooltip system to automatically read from the database (just buildings so far), and rebuilt the code from ground up in way that's easy to extend and read. It's in the alpha version on the first post. Alpaca's work finding which functions to call to get values for each building stat was invaluable for this!

I'm putting a lot of work into this because of how much time I spend tooltip editing. Steam says I've had CiV open over 900 hours, all but the first week of that has been modding, and easily 1/4 of it's been spent on updating tooltips. The past 20 hours' work on the new system will save me literally hundreds of hours in the future!

The best part of this means once I find someone to translate the file handling the text for this... all tooltips the system is adapted to, in all mods using it, will have automatic language localization! I really don't know why Firaxis didn't do it this way in the first place, I can't over-emphasize how excited I am... now I'm working on nixing default "help" text previously containing this information, and will add a box to the Civilopedia interface to display it.

If you get the alpha version, please check for any tooltips on the tech tree containing the words "MISSING DESCRIPTION" or where information seems inaccurate, there's a lot to look over and it's easy to miss some things.


---------------------------

With riverside tiles so much stronger now this would be a great way to encourage settling on the river rather than one tile off.

For the human player.
What makes you think the AI player will do that, particularly if its forced into suboptimal (from its perspective) settlement patterns by increasing minimum settlement distance to 3?
I worry that such a change would increase the human-AI gap, because the human player would know to always settle on a river, whereas the AI wouldn't try so hard to do so.

Actually we have the capability to alter the AI prioritization of rivers, and with an edit of river-city flavor values from 5 to 10 I discovered they now settle on them somewhat more often instead of 1-tile away like before.


@Dunkah
I do understand what you're saying. In vanilla we have more resources than we need, and in this mod they're 25% less.

Something to ask... I've started some games with only 2 horses but 10+ iron, other games reversed with 10 horses and 2 iron. It's largely up to map generation luck, the "balanced" option in map settings can make it non-random. In the game where you had 2 iron, how many horse resources did you have? Horsemen, Chariot Archers, Archers, and Spearmen were all are buffed in this mod and Catapults don't need iron, so we can do a lot even if random map generation gives us limited iron.

It'd be very difficult to add a new resource like Bronze or unit like a Battering Ram to the game, since I wouldn't have artwork for them. I think it might also be felt of as a move away from vanilla too, quite a few people got upset when I added the national wonders and aqueduct. I do feel it's a step in the right direction, as a few months later Firaxis added two of the same national wonders and adjusted population growth (which the Aqueduct is designed to help).

I think Firaxis intended strategic resources to be scarce, otherwise they wouldn't have decided to change from unlimited resources in Civ IV to limited in Civ V. I do feel this 25% reduction in availability enhances balance between strategic and non-strategic units.


@Txurce, Seek
In this particular case the numbers are actually scattered around hundreds of lines of code due to how it was programmed by the developer of the resource distribution system.


It would be easy to split it into a different file though (the stuff that makes Siege units require no iron, and reduces strategic resource availability 25%). I could separate this part and include instructions on how to remove it from the package if desired. Would this accomplish what you want Dunkah, Truetom?




------------
attaching something for alpaca

 

[rhammer640]

Its not really getting away from balancing vanilla in all honesty. It was their intent to make strategic resourses a requirement for elite units, they just didn't balance it out right and thus spearmen where useless because everyone could build an army of all horse and iron units. You keep bringing up copper and axmen from civ IV and it seems like you want the game to be more like that then like vanilla civ V.

I don't mean any disrespect by this and everyone is entitled to their opinions but thal has at every step of the way tried to stay true to the intent of ciV and i think he has done a very good job of doing that.

"Forcing a player to build spears because he has nothing else to build is rediculous. "
Spearmen having no use whatsoever is much more rediculous in my view.

 

[Dunkah]

Hey... if I am in the minority here then please don't add anything extra just for me... I will learn to live with it. Keeping those additional resources in the game by removing that part of the mod would be kind of pointless without the other balances like copper etc added. So if that is too difficult or getting away from vanilla then so be it. Leave it as is.

 

[skallben]

Ever thought of making different versions of the mod?
I am thinking one that is more true to vanilla game but with the crucial balance changes and another that expand on the themes that are features in balance.
Just lurking the thread but it seems preferences are starting to pull apart somewhat and this might be a solution that satisfy everyone, no?
Should not necessarily mean more work either as the "light" version would just include less features. Just a thought that hit me...

 

[V. Soma]

Thal, is this alpha version making that "much" money (gold) in the played world?
I think of the problem that Polycrates mentioned...

 

[Ahriman]

Actually we have the capability to alter the AI prioritization of rivers, and with an edit of river-city flavor values from 5 to 10

Cool, I didn't realize that was already accessible in XML.

I think it might also be felt of as a move away from vanilla too, quite a few people got upset when I added the national wonders and aqueduct. I do feel it's a step in the right direction, as a few months later Firaxis added two of the same national wonders

Totally agree.

It would be easy to split it into a different file though (the stuff that makes Siege units require no iron, and reduces strategic resource availability 25%).

Seems like a reasonable compromise if its easy for you to code.

Ever thought of making different versions of the mod?
I am thinking one that is more true to vanilla game but with the crucial balance changes and another that expand on the themes that are features in balance.

I think that maintaining multiple versions would get out of hand.
Its also not to identify what is a "crucial balance change" and what is an "expansion on themes". To me, reducing resource availability is a crucial balance change; without it, the strategic resource system just doesn't work.
I'd recommend keeping a single version, but trying to keep a changelog updated of various versions with links to those downloads, so people can select an earlier version download if they prefer.

 

[Thalassicus]

@skallben
The thing is, I only add things I consider it a crucial change... I'm not really sure what I'd leave in, and what would be returned to vanilla...

I wouldn't have the time to do everything that would fit into a feature/wishlist category, so I focus on what I consider are the most important changes I can make within this mod's goal to "increase the choices and interesting decision-making opportunities available to the player, while keeping the changes within the same fundamental framework and gameplay as vanilla Civ V." This is one reason I don't put much effort into enhancing the Civilopedia, for example, even though it could use some work. Tweaking resource abundance -25% I do consider to still be within the same fundamental gameplay.

@Ahriman
Do you mean like adding an archive to the changelog? I might be able to find somewhere to upload all the past versions (I keep everything I've ever done since getting a computer 20 years ago ) but I couldn't do so on CivFanatics since we have finite file space available.

Thal, is this alpha version making that "much" money (gold) in the played world?
I think of the problem that Polycrates mentioned...

I believe one problem might have been my initial /100 estimate for maintenance costs was too low. I'm testing it at /50 now, which is in the latest uploaded version.

 

[skallben]

@skallben
The thing is, I only add things I consider it a crucial change... I'm not really sure what I'd leave in, and what would be returned to vanilla...

I don't put work into any change lightly, or just for something that's a nice thing to have. I wouldn't have the time for that so I focus on what I feel is most important. This is one reason I don't put much effort into enhancing the Civilopedia, for example, even though it could use some work.

I'm with you, I just started playing the whole combined mod but I see no changes this far I disagree with...It just seemed to me from skimming the thread that some would like less changes. I was merely thinking out loud, maybe those who think so are a minority. Good work anyways IMO.

Edit: Or well, when loading up my game I just noticed the AI loves catapults on a quite epic scale. It's good they use them but it seems as their army composition in my current game is not to their advantage.

 

[doktorstick]

Cultural victory, round fifteen. Again with officially released balance mods, standard-standard-small-continents-emperor-as-Siam. Some of this post will be random queries that I may find answers elsewhere. The first being...

Does the AI try to win the game, or prevent losing? Anecdotally, I have yet to see the AI drive for a victory condition. In all my games, UN gets built but the person that built it doesn't try gobbling up all the CS states for votes, no one does. Rome built the UN in the late 1800s and it is 2000 now and the most votes have been 5 (for me). China built an SS cockpit in 1919 and then in 1970 built a booster. What!? They were not at war anytime during those intervening years. Why didn't they push for the victory?

As a curiosity, I let them build all the parts of their spaceship except one. I then went to all the leaders asking for them to join me in a war against the Chinese. Even those that denounced them would not join in a war. They were about to win! Anyway, I went to war with them and was immediately denounced as a warmongering fool by other civs that had denounced China before. Hah! I've been at war with them for about 15 years and they are so focused on invading my allied CS, that my lone battleship has effectively shutdown their victory "push". The other AIs have built the Apollo program but have yet to build a SS part.

I'm the last in tech. I've been culturally focused since about 1900 (all but my wonder factory being culturally focused). I have cultural wonders (e.g., 33% more culture, 25% less policy cost). I am Siam and have been allied with one cultural CS the entire game, and with the other two for about 40 turns. I still have three social policies before I can start the wonder. (I thought it was 5, not 6, and burned my 2-free social policies to hit 5.) I noted that in previous post that I've not been able to win culturally, mainly because other victory paths were easier. I find this to be the case during this go as well, but I'm ignoring all else. For reference, I have three puppet cities and ten other cities (the last three not coming until in the 1800s).

I own no aluminum this game, but it hasn't been a problem since my CS gives it to me.

I find that the naval aspect of the game is "blah" and unbalanced. The AI does nothing more than build destroyers, and there really isn't much incentive to build anything else--they are resourceless, have tremendous range, and great offensive power. They really have no counter; they can shoot planes out of the sky, subs are spotted by them, they can stand-up to battleships and run with ease if injured. Their range makes it great for chasing down embarked units--run over them and they die (so much for that escort you had!). A spotted sub is insta-killed. As an aside, why aren't embarked units and fishing boats treated as workers/great people/settlers for the purpose of sea travel... meaning real naval units can stack on top of them?

I saw a few posts about cultural spread a while back. I think that culture should favor spreading along your land trade routes. At first I thought about culture favoring roads, but that could be gamed. Trade routes, however, are about city placement. Speaking of culture spread, do tiles flip ownership from culture (outside of the bomb)? Do cities? I have yet to observe this even though my culture flourishes.

As for CS, I like how CS are not aggressive. However, I think it incredibly mundane that if they take a city (they rarely do anyway), they raze it. Having the rare CS with an extra city (and likely extra resources) makes them a more valuable play in the game.

(I've started giving up the notion that vanilla balanced is better than they beyond-balance changes these mods make. Above all, I want a good strategy game that is CIV from balls-to-bones.)

Cheers.

 

[Ahriman]

the AI loves catapults on a quite epic scale. It's good they use them but it seems as their army composition in my current game is not to their advantage.

This is an interesting issue. I'm of two minds. On the one-hand, the AI will have no hope of actually making successful conquests if it doesn't build lots of catapults, and these can get really nasty once upgraded to trebs and cannon and artillery.

On the other hand, the AI doesn't always use them very well, and often advances them without sufficient support, which makes them easy to kill.

I wonder: is there some Unit value parameter which gets assigned to each unit? Civ4 had something like that.
I could imagine a situation where they assigned high iPower ratings to the various strategic-resource requiring units to make sure that the AI built those first before they built generic units, and I could imagine that catapults still have this high iPower rating making the AI build lots of them even though they're weaker/more specialized than in vanilla, and they can now build more of them because they don't require a resource.
I hardly ever notice the AI build crossbows anymore, or any non-UU archers once they have tech for siege.

Does the AI try to win the game

I think so, AFAIK an AI going for culture will expand less and focus more on culture, an AI going for space-race will pick those techs before others, an AI going for diplomacy will focus those techs at the high end and will buy more city states.
They don't pick on someone particularly who is "about to win though".

The AI does nothing more than build destroyers, and there really isn't much incentive to build anything else

I agree that there needs to be more naval balancing. I'd like to see battleships be considerably more resistant to fire, while destroyers go down in a few shots, and I'd like to see subs able to come close to 1-shotting a destroyer (and getting almost 1-shotted in return).

As an aside, why aren't embarked units and fishing boats treated as workers/great people/settlers for the purpose of sea travel... meaning real naval units can stack on top of them?

I think Firaxis intended this originally (they certainly announced it), but then my guess is that they couldn't get the AI done so that the AI escorted them appropriately, so they went with the current method in order to avoid giving the human player a large advantage in its ability to escort a naval fleet.
I don't like the lawnmower method though, particularly when the AI is still incompetent at blocking civilians, I'd prefer to see a method where naval bombardment did 5 damage to transports (not 4 damage from land bombardment) but couldn't run them down anymore, so 2 bombardments = death for any transport.

Aircraft also still need rebalancing.

. However, I think it incredibly mundane that if they take a city (they rarely do anyway), they raze it

I don't think mundane fits here....
But I think its appropriate that the CS razes the city, because they probably don't have the happiness to be able to support it. My impression is that the only times they don't raze a captured city are when its very small, and so they have sufficient excess happiness for it to not drive them into negative happiness.
You could probably change this behavior by giving city states a large positive happiness bonus.

 

[Maxii]

Just tried the 2.0.04beta and the unit command interface is missing. This is not the conflict with Liberation Boost as before. In fact, I had no other mods enabled.