1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Getting Started

Discussion in 'Communitas Expansion Pack' started by Thalassicus, Sep 30, 2010.

  1. Txurce

    Txurce Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,263
    Location:
    Venice, California
    I really like the names you came up with. Is the idea to nerf single-city NW builds, then create a middle ground for expanding empires to still get NW's? Obviously it hurts OCC... but that aside, the theory seems to be that if you're not puppeting everything, everyone is going to build at least three cities - and there should be some semblance of "progress" before a NW is earned. It makes sense, and is interesting to boot.
     
  2. doktorstick

    doktorstick Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    Messages:
    142
    It's not for nothing, eh? Don't the :c5production:s save indefinitely if you switch around what you are building?

    Aye. I like trying to win with one or two cities sometimes (witness my last one city game as Ghandi). :D It would be unfun not to be able to build National Wonders. I ran out of stuff to build as-is.
     
  3. Thalassicus

    Thalassicus Bytes and Nibblers

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    11,057
    Location:
    Texas
    Civ IV solved the OCC problem by allowing national wonders to only require 1 copy of the prereq building when that game mode is selected, which makes sense.

    What then are the purpose of national wonders? :crazyeye:

    Sadly, I'm in the "they dumbed the game down" camp on this particular topic. I feel Civ IV's maintenance was the one iteration of Civilization that truly eliminated ICS at a fundamental level. I think it was removed because it was complex, but I personally like complex games, which is why I play Civilization. I've been spending months finding ways to mitigate ICS when that one mechanic took care of it completely. :undecide:

    I don't know of a way to replicate it with happiness in a way that wouldn't change Civ V at a basic level, which is why I've implemented dozens of small tweaks to mitigate ICS:

    • Happiness per city, per population, per empire
    • The buildings that boost resources
    • Better buildings, especially at higher tiers, and weaker less-developed cities
    • Buffed national wonders
    • Shifted around and balanced policies
    • Aspects of conquest like puppeting
    • ...and so on

    Another problem is even if I did have a way to take more drastic measures with happiness to curb expansion, there's no parallel method to prevent the AI from ICS'ing. I've been trying for a month, ever since the patch where they made the AI do ICS, which is why I started this thread a week ago: AI city distance?
     
  4. doktorstick

    doktorstick Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    Messages:
    142
    In .08...

    Perhaps this is an effect of the resource changes, but the AIs threw anti-aircraft gun after anti-aircraft as invasion units. Even the AIs in Future Tech attacked with AAGs. Songhai and America nuked each other into the Stone Age (their entire lands were covered in fallout), but still they attacked each other's cities with AAGs. I fended off AAGs against Greece with my artillery.

    Is there a bias against Mech. Infantry as offensive units?

    Another interesting thing I saw was France was consistently losing between 4800:c5gold:/turn and 5300:c5gold:/turn, and only had around 4000:c5gold:. I observed this both in trades with them and with the Info* mod (the one that shows graphs). One other civ was in a similar boat, but his loss was around 1700:c5gold:/turn.
     
  5. Thalassicus

    Thalassicus Bytes and Nibblers

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    11,057
    Location:
    Texas
    Mobile SAM or an actual AA gun? AA guns have:

    • 0 offense flavor
    • 5 defense
    • 25 AA
    Both that and the mobile sam DO have the "UNITAI_CITY_SPECIAL" ai type... I honestly have no clue what this does, they're the only units that have it (we can't view or improve the AI code directly with current tools).

    Mech infantry have these AI types:

    • UNITAI_ATTACK
    • UNITAI_DEFENSE
    • UNITAI_FAST_ATTACK
    • UNITAI_EXPLORE
    Three flavors:

    • 9 offense
    • 15 defense
    • 3 mobile
    It sounds like it might be something with the (hardcoded) city_special AI the aa units have, or they perceived the enemy to have lots of air units. I don't see anything in the files that might indicate otherwise unusual behavior. I doubt it's due to strategic resource changes, since both these unit classes were unaffected.

    As for the gold, that's rather odd. I've made two main changes to the economy:

    • Trading post income
    • Unit maintenance
    The second one couldn't result in the numbers you're seeing though, because even 200 giant death robots would only cost 4k, less than the 4.8-5.3k deficit you see. It might be a display error with the UI. I suspect this is the case since you're seeing them with a positive gold supply despite the deficits.
     
  6. doktorstick

    doktorstick Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    Messages:
    142
    Actual AAGs.
     
  7. Thalassicus

    Thalassicus Bytes and Nibblers

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    11,057
    Location:
    Texas
    I see the problem:

    Mobile SAM flavors

    • 25 anti air
    • 6 defense
    • 4 mobile
    AA gun flavors

    • 25 anti air
    • 6 defense
    Exact same flavor values for AA and defense. I'll try increasing the Mobile SAM aa flavor, lower the aa gun defense flavor, and see what happens. The odd thing is they're building them over mech infantry... mech infantry have much higher defense value and also have an offense value, so the only reason I can see for building lots of AA is the city_special ai, or they perceive an air threat.

    I'll then start a game with changed flavor settings in the modern era and run an autoplay between the AIs to see what they do. Thank you for bringing up the subject! :goodjob:

    All these bug reports have been really helpful everyone, and since there's no way to tell if it's a vanilla or mod game issue at a glance, keep them coming! Even vanilla game bugs are a great way for me to fix some more problems in the unofficial patch! Thank you! :beer:
     
  8. Seek

    Seek Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,410
    A few days ago when I was arguing for a nerf or move for the NC (Thal did the latter) in the Research thread I decided to test it for myself: play two games from the same start, one with rex and one with the one city NC rush with a rex afterwords if possible.

    Random leader (Greece), Tectonics map, standard size, standard speed, emperor. Compared at turn 120.

    National College version
    (NC finished around turn 40)
    • Renaissance era
    • 3 cities (only, because I got completely walled off really early by Arabia)
    • 71 :c5science:/turn with specialists enabled and two academies worked.
    • 23 techs
    • 7 policies (most of Tradition, a couple in Rationalism)
    • 20 :c5gold:/turn
    • 1 wonder (Great Library but Porcelain Tower nearly finished)
    • 0 city states (playing with CSD, no spare hammers for diplomats)
    • 1 RA


    Rapid Expansion version
    (Note, I didn't remember where the goody huts were and actually got 1-2 fewer:lol:)
    • Medieval era
    • 6 cities
    • 46.5 :c5science:/turn (no specialists available)
    • 17 techs
    • 6 policies (Liberty mostly, and Piety because of happiness issues)
    • 20 :c5gold:/turn
    • 0 wonders
    • 3 city state allies (one of each type)
    • 0 RAs

    All in all, fairly equally powerful empires. Though the NC is dominant in science by far (I hit 100BPT not long after), the other felt much more balanced and able to accomplish much more in the long run.

    I posted this because I'm not crazy about the small number of cities requirement idea for National Wonders; it should be a reasonable and balanced choice to expand or not - which I think is Thal's point - and I found that to be true.
     
  9. Thalassicus

    Thalassicus Bytes and Nibblers

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    11,057
    Location:
    Texas
    Thank you for that comparison Seek. Even if it's only one game, I agree with you that in practice, the national college isn't as powerful as it might seem. Since it now requires an additional tech, a rush to the NC is delayed 10-30 turns compared to vanilla (depending on game speed) which is a long time to halt expansion.

    I'm running an autoplay in the modern era right now and seeing that AA-gun unit spam doktorstick described. I traced the anti_air flavor through the files to the military strategies file, these two strategies are the furthest I can go:

    • MILITARYAISTRATEGY_NEED_ANTIAIR
    • MILITARYAISTRATEGY_ENOUGH_ANTIAIR
    I think the problem is in the core game code, it's not reaching the "enough antiair" conclusion soon enough. Since AA guns have the same antiair flavor as mobile SAMs, but cost less, it concludes it needs to spam the AA-gun unit. Doubling the mobile SAM flavor did result in it building more of that unit type, still only AA though.

    If the "need_antiair" strategy is in place it does nothing but build that one unit type because the strategy's flavor is set to +75, a colossally high number (most strategies are around -10/+10). I think they did this to counter the player complaint that the AI didn't defend against air well enough, but accidentally went overboard.

    I'm going to run more autoplays in the modern era to see if I can get the AI to build a better mix of units.
     
  10. Sneaks

    Sneaks Brooklyn Bum

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,877
    Location:
    NYC
    You touch upon one of my biggest issues with the NW system as it stands. Expansion should indeed hurt in some form or another. However, the requirements of a building in every city ignores this very basic idea: Cities can and should be specialized. I have had instances where I might have the top 4-5 science producing cities in the entire game, but I am disallowed from building a national university because my size 2 city on the border of my empire does not have the same level of technological advancement as the capital which has existed for eras longer.

    The reason city maintenance is a much more appealing negation to expansion to me is that it flows much smoother as a game progresses, and can reasonably be overcome after infrastructure investment. As it stands, a player that wants to play with 15 cities is more or less disallowed from building any non-tier 1 national wonders. Every time the game removes things from the player as a means of balance, I consider it poor design.
     
  11. Thalassicus

    Thalassicus Bytes and Nibblers

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    11,057
    Location:
    Texas
    Sort of like removing...

    • Promotion saving
    • Policy saving
    • Early game scientists
    ...to try and solve:

    • Insta-heal
    • -25% policy cost effects
    • Lightbulbing techs
    The point of balancing is to enhance choice, and removing options reduces choice. It's a quick and absolute way to solve imbalances because the balance equation itself is removed, but doesn't really deal with underlying issues. :shifty:
     
  12. Txurce

    Txurce Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,263
    Location:
    Venice, California
    That "cities should be specialized" seems like a very subjective opinion. I see the point that a good-sized empire with specialized cities may be deprived of a NW, but my response is, so what? Your empire has the advantage of having more cities - cities that you chose to keep small because it suits some other part of your approach. I have the advantage of getting more NW's, because I passed up the advantage of REXing or ICSing.

    I still like the thought behind your earlier proposal, but think it has to be considered very carefully, or it will penalize small empires over mid-sized ones.
     
  13. Txurce

    Txurce Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,263
    Location:
    Venice, California
    The AAG is definitely the military unit of choice for some of my AI. However, it is definitely not always the case, and that's what's most odd about it.

    Curiously, CS build them in much smaller proportions.
     
  14. Thalassicus

    Thalassicus Bytes and Nibblers

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    11,057
    Location:
    Texas
    I think what Sneaks is talking about is how we were rewarded for specializing in Civ IV. We'd have our military city, gold city, science city, GP city, etc.

    In V, the nature of things means city focus is mostly gone, just about every city can be the same. National wonders sort of force us into non-specialization, and science is no longer tied to improvements, so science-focused cities don't really exist anymore either. Specialists themselves are also very limited in vanilla, making it difficult to have a "specialist city," one reason I added specialist slots to a bunch of stuff.

    The capital tends to be a wonder and/or science city, but not really out of any choice of our own... there's lots of stuff that only boosts that one city and we can't decide where those boosts go.
     
  15. Seek

    Seek Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,410
    I like the proposal as well. A dynamic percentage-based system rather than the flat number system may be a good compromise: if you have the prereq building in, say, 75% *or more* of your cities, the NW would be unlocked. I don't know if it's possible, but it would avoid the downfalls of both sides of the argument.

    Following this, perhaps more NWs should be % boosters.
     
  16. Thalassicus

    Thalassicus Bytes and Nibblers

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    11,057
    Location:
    Texas
    I agree about NW's as boosters, one reason I added a bunch of % and pop-based bonuses lately... basically I'd like to find some way to reward thoughtful, strategic specialization.

    Percent-city requirements to build NWs aren't an option with the tools.
     
  17. doktorstick

    doktorstick Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    Messages:
    142
    I've upgraded to .14, but I've also added the Tectonics mod. Do you know if I will still have less SRs as per the balanced mod?
     
  18. Thalassicus

    Thalassicus Bytes and Nibblers

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    11,057
    Location:
    Texas
    I think so, since Tectonics doesn't override "AssignStartingPlots.lua," which is where I make the strategic resource changes. I actually haven't played the Tectonics script since I started those strat resource adjustments though so I can't say for sure... easy to check though... just start a game, open LiveTuner and use the active player -> modern era techs button. It'll reveal the map and all resources, quick way to inspect resource placement.

    I've updated to .15 beta, where AIs should build a much better mix of units in the modern era, instead of just spamming AA guns. However, I've been basing adjustments off watching autoplays of their wars on modern start/immortal/standard/pangaea, so results might vary in practical gameplay. For each military strategy, in order of priority I've roughly emphasized:

    Offense

    1. Bombers
    2. Tanks
    3. Guided missiles
    4. Rocket artillery
    Defense

    1. Bombers
    2. Mech Infantry
    3. Guided Missiles
    Range

    1. Guided missiles
    2. Bombers
    3. Rocket artillery
    Mobile

    1. Helicopters
    2. Tanks
    Threatened by enemy air

    1. Fighters
    2. AA units (generally only 10%-50% of their army now)
    They should also now prioritize higher-tech units over lower-tech ones. Air and missiles used to have extremely low priorities and therefore never built - I greatly increased their chances of constructing missiles in particular. Missiles are near the end of the tech tree but are basically ideal AI units: no pathfinding, experience, resources, or per-tile restrictions to worry about. I have the priorities set up where they shouldn't build missiles exclusively though (in theory).
     
  19. SuicideMW

    SuicideMW Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2002
    Messages:
    25
    Location:
    New York, USA
    I think I found a critical bug with the latest beta release.

    I started a new game as Babylon and as I was obtaining more and more techs, after obtaining Writing, I was given a Great Scientist, which is the unique ability of the civ. Apparently, pressing the beaker icon is supposed to give you a certain amount of science towards the next tech you're researching, but all it does is absolutely nothing.

    At first, I thought it may have been due to a conflict with Tech Diffuser. So, I started up another game with the mod not enabled and the same thing happened. I haven't checked to see if it will happen again if I get another Great Scientist the old-fashioned way, but figured I bring this to your attention.

    EDIT: After getting my next Great Scientist, I can confirm that the unit doesn't have the option to give any addition science. I think the issue may be in the DiscoverMission.lua file, though I'm having somewhat of a hard time pinpointing the issue at hand.
     
  20. Madfox

    Madfox Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    Europe
    Hello Thal,

    still playing with the mod I encounterd a problem wich I had before. In 2.0.11 beta I lost the Unitinterface again. Wenn turning off the barbarian mod the interface was back. So the problem is caused somewhere in the barbarian mod. I will try the latest version this eving to see if it is still occuring.

    Keep up the good work, madfox
     

Share This Page