Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Sounds fantastic! 
Getting Started
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
Ahriman
Tyrant
[On CS conquest bonuses]
The problem is, on most map types, there aren't really any disadvantages of conquering a nearby CS, because you can still use your gold to ally with another CS further away.
Then you're not really playing to win.
Its fine to play in a roleplay manner, but I don't think we should design a balance mod around that.
Kirschi
~~~
Actually, I do not like loosing a game...
And I didn't say you should change that part of the mod for me, I just expressed my opinion about CSs, because thal thought noone noticed this change.
Thats just the way I play. I like winning, but "DoFing" half the civs and then go for a domination victory is not my way (for example). You wouldn't make a lot of frieds in a multiplayer game if playing like Montezuma ^^ (no offense).
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I think Kirschi has a valid point that psychology has a lot to do with things, not just numbers alone. 
Txurce
Deity
1. This is just speculation. If your scenario proves to be the case in a significant percentage of games, and that in turn leads to unbalanced games, then I'm sure it will be reported in these threads.
2. This is presumptive with regard to both the purpose of the mods and how Kirschi plays.
Ahriman
Tyrant
How is it speculation that CSs are fungible to some extent?
I don't care that much about whether my ally is near or far, and it is seldom the case that there is only one CS that I encounter.
So as long as there is another CS you could spend your gold on (of the same type), there is no particular downside for conquering one.
I don't think thats the case. The poster effectively stated that they would not conquer a CS no matter how much of a benefit they gave, because they preferred a more roleplay type of game where they were a protector.
There's nothing wrong with playing that way, but I don't think we should design balance around assuming that people won't take a big advantage if its available to them.
"Playing to win" has a specific interpretation in gaming (based on http://www.sirlin.net/ptw )
It means using every advantage at your disposal, with victory as the goal.
If you deliberately handicap yourself by not pursuing a particular strategy, no matter how effective it is (eg "no rush" in an RTS game) then you're not playing to win.
Again, there's nothing wrong with that, particularly in a singleplayer game, but its not a good design assumption to use when balancing various different strategies.
When doing balance design, you should assume that the player will always be trying to find a "most effective" strategy, and you should try to make sure that the design is such that its hard to find a "most effective" strategy, because many strategies are all powerful.
If there is a single "most effective strategy" then the game is not very interesting, because it does not have meaningful decisions.
I wasn't trying to be pejorative at all, I'm sorry if I came across that way, I was trying to make what I think is a legitimate design argument.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I believe both points of view have important things to take away from the discussion. On the one hand, psychology does matter a lot in games. They're entertainment, after all! 
On the other hand, it's also important to structure the underlying mechanics well.
On the other hand, it's also important to structure the underlying mechanics well.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Saying psychology matters is fine, but its not clear to me that this necessarily biases things in terms of creating large bonuses for attacking city states.
For some people, going and wiping out all the city states is psychologically fun, and they'd play that way even if it wasn't optimal.
For some people, going and wiping out all the city states is psychologically fun, and they'd play that way even if it wasn't optimal.
Txurce
Deity
We were speaking not about CS's, but Maritimes - and you focused on the exaggerated advantage of conquering one in the early game. Claiming that having a second Maritime available for food negates the downside of losing the first one is highly debatable - it's conventional wisdom to sign up as many Maritimes as possible in most cases. Given that many players would think twice about conquering one if there were only one other Maritime on their continent, or don't want to take a diplo hit for a gain that requires a difficult happiness prep early in the game... and that not a single player including you has yet to try it and produce OP results... I'd say that you are speculating.
I'm consistently in favor of multiple effective strategies. If the current Maritime conquest gains were OP, then I would place design balance for optimal play on a par with the romantic psychology of the game, and let Thal play Solomon. But since no one has come remotely close to demonstrating that this is the case, I see no reason to consider changing it at this time.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
The way I'm redesigning maritime city-states should help. They're going to give food split among the 5 largest cities, and when captured split population the same way. Since I also gave citystates starting defensive units now to make rushing more difficult, this should achieve my goals while mitigating potential exploits.
Txurce
Deity
The extra units will also end most CS worker theft, as well as (for better or worse) finding CS workers in barb camps.
Will the 5-way food split scale down in the case of a conqueror who has 1-4 cities?
rhammer640
Russian Monk
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2010
- Messages
- 386
This fixes all qualms i had about the city-state capture bonus, 5pop in one city is much more powerful then 1 in 5 cities. Also i like the change to their normal bonus.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
@Txurce
It loops through the player's cities starting from the one with highest population. So if you have 5, 4, and 2 pop cities with 10
from maritime citystates, the cities receive:
5
: 4
4 : 3
2 : 3
-------10
It loops through the player's cities starting from the one with highest population. So if you have 5, 4, and 2 pop cities with 10
from maritime citystates, the cities receive:5
: 44
: 32
: 3-------10
Txurce
Deity
@Txurce
It loops through the player's cities starting from the one with highest population. So if you have 5, 4, and 2 pop cities with 10
5
4
2
-------10
Thanks, I didn't read your comments carefully enough the first time, and didn't realize that this was an anti-ICS nerf even more than a conquered-maritime one. To recapitulate, does this mean that I will get food based on city size for my five largest cities, with a total limited to 10 food per Maritime, but with no per-city bonus if I have less than 5 cities?
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
The current numbers are 2friend / 5ally (will adjust based on feedback), the example is with two allies. The food is split among the top 5 cities with priority to larger ones.
Some more examples:
Four cities with 5 maritime allies.
9 pop : 7
9 pop : 6
4 pop : 6
4 pop : 6
---__--25
Seven cities with 2 maritime allies.
9 pop : 2
9 pop : 2
4 pop : 2
4 pop : 2
4 pop : 2
4 pop : 0
4 pop : 0
---__--10
Seven cities with 3 maritime allies.
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 0
5 pop : 0
---__--15
So basically... food for the first five cities is about the same as vanilla (though no special capital bonus), with no food to cities after that. These numbers are very easily adjustable.
friend / 5ally (will adjust based on feedback), the example is with two allies. The food is split among the top 5 cities with priority to larger ones.Some more examples:
Four cities with 5 maritime allies.
9 pop : 7
9 pop : 6
4 pop : 6
4 pop : 6
---__--25
Seven cities with 2 maritime allies.
9 pop : 2
9 pop : 2
4 pop : 2
4 pop : 2
4 pop : 2
4 pop : 0
4 pop : 0
---__--10
Seven cities with 3 maritime allies.
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 0
5 pop : 0
---__--15
So basically... food for the first five cities is about the same as vanilla (though no special capital bonus), with no food to cities after that. These numbers are very easily adjustable.
Txurce
Deity
The current numbers are 2
Some more examples if a player has 3 allies:
9 pop : 4
9 pop : 4
4 pop : 4
4 pop : 3
---__--15
9 pop : 3
9 pop : 3
4 pop : 3
4 pop : 3
4 pop : 3
4 pop : 0
4 pop : 0
---__--15
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 0
5 pop : 0
---__--15
So basically... food for the first five cities is about the same as vanilla (though no special capital bonus), with no food to cities after that.
Very clear. Implicit is that the capital no longer gets a built-in bonus. If a player has only one city, does he get 5f per ally - pushing it to 15f in your example?
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Right.
Txurce
Deity
Right.
This is all... beyond the pale. I really appreciate your perseverance.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
The steps I created are:
So for example if Siam has 3 allies and 1 friend in 'unhappy' mode with 3 total cities:
- Add up food reward from all maritime friends & allies.
- Multiply by Siam's bonus.
- Reduce -75% if empire is
. - Round up.
- Loop through cities to give food.
So for example if Siam has 3 allies and 1 friend in 'unhappy' mode with 3 total cities:
- 5*3 + 2*1 = 17
- 17 * 1.5 = 25.5
- 25.5 * 0.25 = 6.375
- Round up to 7.
- Distribute 7 food to three cities:
3
2
2
Similar threads
- Sticky
