Getting Started

[Seek]

Five per Maritime alliance is an incredible nerf, it seems to me. That's the food equivalent you get with *two cities* in vanilla! I haven't tested the new beta yet, but that's really low. I'd also think an extra food or two should always go to the capital. I think something like: 4/8 for friend/ally with a guaranteed +1/+2 always going to the capital regardless of size.

 

[Thalassicus]

Let's shift to the citystate thread here, so it's easier for people to follow after this page of the combined thread gets buried in the other 70 pages.

 

[Seek]

Let's shift to the citystate thread here, so it's easier for people to follow after this page of the combined thread gets buried in the other 70 pages.

Saw this after I posted. Moved.

 

[Sneaks]

Do the other CS bonuses decrease during unhappiness? If not, I would say that adding it is too much. A player should be able to decide whether or not to let his civilization slip into unhappiness, but those unhappy citizens should not therefore receive less food from an outside source.

 

[Kirschi]

Do the other CS bonuses decrease during unhappiness? If not, I would say that adding it is too much. A player should be able to decide whether or not to let his civilization slip into unhappiness, but those unhappy citizens should not therefore receive less food from an outside source.

Maybe they are rioting and pillaging incoming food transports? Would actually make sense. As history shows, unhappy citizens are not always peaceful citizens.

 

[Ahriman]

Do the other CS bonuses decrease during unhappiness? If not, I would say that adding it is too much. A player should be able to decide whether or not to let his civilization slip into unhappiness, but those unhappy citizens should not therefore receive less food from an outside source.

I'd agree that there's no obvious need to make unhappiness fix things.

If you're unhappy, you grow less and get less benefit from MCS, so be it.

I guess I'd be ok with unhappiness also retarding your culture growth, if you're worried that a CCS benefit isn't affected.

 

[Thalassicus]

Do the other CS bonuses decrease during unhappiness? If not, I would say that adding it is too much. A player should be able to decide whether or not to let his civilization slip into unhappiness, but those unhappy citizens should not therefore receive less food from an outside source.

I didn't mean to imply that I added new effects to the / happiness levels, things still work the same as vanilla in that regard.

If I understand you right, you're suggesting to buff Maritimes by adding a new gameplay mechanic so civilizations can grow during unhappy/very-unhappy status if we have maritime allies?

It could make it a little difficult to get out of the very-unhappy status... we can't cancel a maritime alliance, so cities would keep growing, adding more unhappiness and possibly trapping us there. I think the reason growth halts when the empire is unhappy is to let the player escape from that state.

Do the other CS bonuses decrease during unhappiness? If not, I would say that adding it is too much. A player should be able to decide whether or not to let his civilization slip into unhappiness, but those unhappy citizens should not therefore receive less food from an outside source.

I'd agree that there's no obvious need to make unhappiness fix things.

If you're unhappy, you grow less and get less benefit from MCS, so be it.

I guess I'd be ok with unhappiness also retarding your culture growth, if you're worried that a CCS benefit isn't affected.

Asking for some clarification here... are you agreeing with what you quoted, or agreeing with the way / levels currently work?

 

[Ahriman]

Sorry, I was unclear.
I think its fine if MCS bonuses are less valuable (in terms of increasing city growth) in periods where you are unhappy.

The food yield increase from them stays the same, but then the city growth is slowed by the unhappiness-penalty after that.

Basically: MCS food should work the same as food from any other source.

 

[Thalassicus]

I'm thinking the same, both for consistency and the risk of getting trapped in very-unhappy status as described above.

I try and keep my empire as happy as possible, so it doesn't come into play often anyway.

(Just in case anyone missed that in the readmes or patch notes: happiness golden ages are twice as long as great-person ones, their cost increases 40% slower than vanilla, and the policies based on a happy empire were buffed.)

 

[Txurce]

I'm thinking the same, both for consistency and the risk of getting trapped in very-unhappy status as described above.

I'm on board with you guys, for every reason including simplicity.

 

[Sneaks]

I agree with those numbers as well, if that is how it works in vanilla with the food drop. If you added the food drop mechanic independent of how maritime work in vanilla, I think it is a bad idea.

I am not at all worried about the trapped in unhappy thing. A player has full control over how much food he generates, regardless of happiness level, via maritimes and which tiles are worked. If you add a single part of the equation that operates under a different rule set, you add unnecessary math. I often love playing with sprawling empires, and this usually includes settlement periods where I might dip do 1 to 4 unhappiness.

Where I do not like the idea of unhappiness dropping a food source is this: If I am reliant on maritime food sources, falling into unhappiness might seriously starve my 5 largest cities. This is a concern I do not have in vanilla. I worry about production drops, army inefficiency, and stagnation. There is a big difference between disallowing growth and actually cutting into population, and I think the latter is an awful mechanic to add.

 

[Thalassicus]

Something I should have clarified is only surplus food is affected by unhappy/very unhappy states (not a city's total food income), which is part of vanilla so there won't be any differences.

 

[Kawamura]

I'm sorry to be a bother (and I would have posted this in the bug section, but I imagine it's me being very, very silly that's causing the problem), but I simply can't figure out a way to get the combined mod pack to work with the Conquest of the New World dlc mod.

The mods appear to work apart, but not together. Have I missed something saying that the two are simply immiscible?

 

[Sneaks]

Considering that that scenario deletes several things that Thal's mods edit, it is possible that the two together are causing silent failures in XMLs

 

[Ahriman]

I don't think its really feasible for a balance mod to be compatible with a scenario.

 

[Kawamura]

Considering that that scenario deletes several things that Thal's mods edit, it is possible that the two together are causing silent failures in XMLs

Hmm. That makes sense.

I had wondered if it was something like that (since I'm not sure what the scenario modifies), but I thought I should go ahead and ask. Thank you.

 

[Sneaks]

Thal, finally finished the custom notifications. Take a gander:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=411186

 

[Sneaks]

Another thought: I know you wanted to add HoverInfo, but have you seen this mod? It is HoverInfo plus Cseb and some other stuff. Very spiffy.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=392110

 

[Txurce]

Another thought: I know you wanted to add HoverInfo, but have you seen this mod? It is HoverInfo plus Cseb and some other stuff. Very spiffy.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=392110

This used to be part of Thal's recommended mods in the fall, but it fell by the wayside at some point.

 

[Thalassicus]

Slow going today . . .

Normally this bug in the bug reporter doesn't bother me (the truncated path name)... but without any variable names either, heck that's a horribly non-useful error report!