Getting Started

[ezysquire]

Unfortunately I don't have a screenshot of the social policy window on turn 67. You will have to trust me in saying that there is no free policy choice there!

 

[Seek]

Now that you mention it, ezysquire, I don't think I have gotten the free SP from entering the Classical Era, either. No problems with the others, though.
I initially thought this may have been intentional because it's so early, but I looked at the Lua and it doesn't look like it.

BTW, Thal, why is it set to give the SP at the end of the turn and not the beginning?

 

[Thalassicus]

I dunno why it runs at the start of the next turn, it's just how the developers coded it. If we're not getting a free policy from the classical era there's a bug in the (hardcoded) SerialEventEraChanged:

function GivePolicy( era, playerID)
  pPlayer = Players[playerID];
  if pPlayer:IsAlive() and not pPlayer:IsMinorCiv() then
    pPlayer:ChangeNumFreePolicies(1);
  end
end
Events.SerialEventEraChanged.Add( GivePolicy );

Bugs are probably because they don't use the event for any of the normal lua files, so it probably didn't get tested. The "new era" popup is created with a hardcoded method we don't have access to, so I can't use whatever era change detection they used for the popup.

However...

Since we've clearly identified the game's own event is bugged, I think I might be able to do a workaround. I can keep track of every player's era, and if GetCurrentEra() doesn't match, give a free policy. It won't be as simple but should be doable. The lack of a ChangeNumFreePolicies function before the Mongol DLC's release was holding this concept back, not era detection.

 

[ezysquire]

Great work Thal and Seek!
I am building a play through demo to show off all your hard work Thal.
I am doing it in chapters as a strategy guide for Immortal level play with Balance - Combined.
Hope you don't mind...
See here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=9938597#post9938597

 

[Zuxx]

First of all thanks for the great effort doing the job, i'm enjoying it a lot

I wrote to ask if it is possible to do some small changes or if someone can redirect me to a topic who shows "how to" do this kind of changes.

My first question is if it is possible to have a building limit of 1 wonder x city, i satarted a totally random game to try this set of mods and i've ended with Ramesess .... the temptation to go Tradition and take the 33% bonus in wonders production was high .... and i tried.
It's simply OP, even without marble, so i think that limiting 1 wonder per city can balance a little, because i can do a wonders spam even with other civs if i found marble and i adopt a good strategy to avoid wars and consecutive lost of time in military units production.

Second question is about submarines, as they are now they can't navigate in other civs seas, but they are designed for that kind of work .... so i would like to know if it is possible to allow them to navigate every sea tile except not owned ( or allyed ) tiles with improvements to avoid to be detected.

The last thing to say is that i have a strange "bug" if it can be called so, the little number over cityes or carriers that indicate the number of planes stationed do not go away when i relocate airplanes, it remains always, evn moving a carrier with 3 planes on it .... the little number remain on the map in the arrival tile each movement, i'm going to show you a screenshot soon as i'm at home if it's needed.

By the way, great job really .... this series of mods are giving me a really good game experience, thanks

 

[gruven]

Since we've clearly identified the game's own event is bugged, I think I might be able to do a workaround. I can keep track of every player's era, and if GetCurrentEra() doesn't match, give a free policy. It won't be as simple but should be doable. The lack of a ChangeNumFreePolicies function before the Mongol DLC's release was holding this concept back, not era detection.

I didn't remember seeing this problem in my games. I just tested it out and got my free policy right on cue for classical. This was archipelago/tiny/quick.

 

[Lazy Knight]

Just finished a playthrough with your mods, and I have to say, it's shaped up really nicely since I last played CiV. The numerous changes are well balanced and make the game more enjoyable (for me at least).

 

[Riot_Starter]

I've also been getting all my free policies, recently. I'm just running Balanced, Attila's mods, and techoverflow.

 

[Seek]

I dunno why it runs at the start of the next turn, it's just how the developers coded it. If we're not getting a free policy from the classical era there's a bug in the (hardcoded) SerialEventEraChanged:

function GivePolicy( era, playerID)
  pPlayer = Players[playerID];
  if pPlayer:IsAlive() and not pPlayer:IsMinorCiv() then
    pPlayer:ChangeNumFreePolicies(1);
  end
end
Events.SerialEventEraChanged.Add( GivePolicy );

Bugs are probably because they don't use the event for any of the normal lua files, so it probably didn't get tested. The "new era" popup is created with a hardcoded method we don't have access to, so I can't use whatever era change detection they used for the popup.

However...

Since we've clearly identified the game's own event is bugged, I think I might be able to do a workaround. I can keep track of every player's era, and if GetCurrentEra() doesn't match, give a free policy. It won't be as simple but should be doable. The lack of a ChangeNumFreePolicies function before the Mongol DLC's release was holding this concept back, not era detection.

Hmm, the code I see in the lua is

function GivePolicy( era, playerID)
	print("GivePolicy(" .. playerID .. ")");
	pPlayer = Players[playerID];
    if pPlayer:IsAlive() and not pPlayer:IsMinorCiv() then
        pPlayer:ChangeNumFreePolicies(1);
    end
end
Events.SerialEventEraChanged.Add( GivePolicy );

function doTest()
	print("[B]End of Turn[/B]");
end
Events.ActivePlayerTurnEnd.Add( doTest );

See the bolded bit. If this is changed, would the policy appear on the correct turn? Please correct me if I'm looking at the wrong thing.

 

[Tomice]

Thal, what do you think about Dale's anti-ICS mod?

While I think he overdid it with the whole package, the idea that happiness buildings reduce a percentage of the unhappy faces in a city sounds very promising.

I think that a combination of buildings that reduce unhappiness locally by a certain percentage (theater, stadium) and buildings that provide happiness empire-wide (pilgrimage shrine, TV station) could work.

Also, wouldn't a mechanic similar to the +30% SP cost per city counter ICSing as well?

 

[Thalassicus]

I've uploaded the current development testing version.

@Seek
All the additional code in the second quote is extraneous stuff I removed. It was from when I was doing testing... print() simply displays messages on the FireTuner console.

@Tomice
Local happiness/unhappiness is something the developers specifically shifted towards a global approach though, it's a game mechanic I'd rather not significantly alter. I feel the changes in these mods are sufficient to counter ICS while remaining within the fundamental "feel" of the game. I'm uncertain if he's looked at these changes since he states he hasn't seen anyone doing anything to solve it. (PieceOfMind also has a mod specifically targeting ICS.) I addressed this issue some time ago with:

• 66% maximum Maritime bonus in cities outside the Capital.
• 1 Scientist moved from Library to Research Lab
• Happiness
  1 moved from Colosseum to Stadium.
  +6 national wonder (Baths of Trajan).
  +2 from difficulty.
  +1 per city.
  -20% from population.
• Forbidden Palace
  -33% from number of cities (was -50%)
• Planned Economy
  -33% from number of cities (was -50%)

With the full balance package I don't believe ICS is significantly more effective than playing with low quantity, high quality cities, though it could always use further testing.

 

[Tomice]

@Tomice
Local happiness/unhappiness is something the developers specifically shifted towards a global approach...

With the full balance package I don't believe ICS is significantly more effective than playing with low quantity, high quality cities, though it could always use further testing.

I have no doubt you weakened ICS significantly, and I'm a great fan of your approach, since you kept many small cities still viable. In fact, in my recent game I expanded quite a lot and it worked out well (emperor diff).

My remark was more about flavour.

Civ5 fails to make the player feel like a nation's leader, it's more "gamey" than any previous installment. This is to a a huge extent due to trading posts, which have no real world counterpart*.

But it is also due to the "gamey" approach with happiness, although I see it as "empire stability" rather than literal happiness, so it's not about the name. Don't get me wrong, it is a highly interesting concept, with many advantages. It for instance allows (in theory) a nice mixture of big and small cities, without need to found only cities in "optimal" places (with a size 20+ potential).
But building theaters and stadiums in whatever city that has free production capacity is immersion-breaking. I know Las Vegas is an example, but such cities are not common in reality. In Civ 5 it's the rule.
At least some buildings that reduce local unhappiness like Dale suggests could also help a lot to let cities grow to interesting (huge) sizes.



EDIT: At this point I feel the need to sincerely thank you for always listening to us wannabe modders! It really feels good being involved, especially since you added partisans, which were my idea





*) IMO, trading posts should be replaced with villages. They should be weak in remote areas, but significantly stronger in places were humans would naturally settle.

In practical terms, this could mean 1 gold yield for each of the following:

- next to major city (suburb)
- next to river
- next to coast
- next to a ressource (? when on a ressource ?)
- maybe roads could be free if they are on a "village" tile

In areas without any of these, villages should be forbidden to build (zero income). City tiles should have a gold output that's at least as high, to prevent oddities where a village is better than a city. If they appear too strong, each village might consume 0.5 to 1 happiness (seeing them as some form of population).

I think this would create very realistic looking landscapes simulating urbanization nicely. It might also create some interesting gameplay choices. Of course this is not a final, balanced concept, but only a suggestion.

 

[guczy]

I would like to know if the balance mods would be compatible with a mod the rearranges the tech tree, particularly i mean this mod:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=397430
The game is infinitely better with the longer research times, but the tech tree is still utter crap, so i'm hoping i can have both mods (well alongside your other mods)

 

[Txurce]

With the longer modded happy GA's, how long would Persia's GA be with Chichen Itza?

 

[Thalassicus]

@guczy
I think if you comment this section out from Combat mod's BC - General.xml file it should take care of any compatibility issues of a rearranged tech tree. Add the <!-- and --> markers before and after the section, this makes the section a comment which will have no effect on the game.

<!--    <Technologies>
        <Update>
            <Where Type="TECH_DYNAMITE" />
            <Set GridX="9" />
        </Update>
        <Update>
            <Where Type="TECH_COMPASS" />
            <Set EmbarkedMoveChange="1" />
        </Update>
        <Update>
            <Where Type="TECH_ASTRONOMY" />
            <Set EmbarkedMoveChange="0" />
        </Update>
    </Technologies>
    <Technology_Flavors>
        <Update>
            <Where TechType="TECH_COMPASS" FlavorType="FLAVOR_NAVAL" />
            <Set Flavor="5" />
        </Update>
    </Technology_Flavors>
    <Technology_PrereqTechs>
        <Row>
            <TechType>TECH_DYNAMITE</TechType>
            <PrereqTech>TECH_MILITARY_SCIENCE</PrereqTech>
        </Row>
    </Technology_PrereqTechs>
-->

The base length of golden ages is modified:

15 turns - Happy
8 turns - Artist
6 turns - Other GP

Chichen and Persia are both +50% right? So their GAs would be 30, 16, and 12 turns, respectively.

Of course, the duration of happy golden ages are longer, which is different from the percentage of time you spend in golden ages. The increase in time spent in GAs = 50% * (vanilla time in GA) / (vanilla time out of GA). In other words, situations of high happiness or where your golden ages are naturally longer (Persia, Chichen Itza) get a bigger impact from the change.

For non-Persian civs without Chichen, if you spend X turns between one golden age and the next:

25 turns: +20% increase in game time spent during a happy
50 turns: +10%
100 turns: +5%


Chichen increases these values 1.5 times, and Persia with Chichen increases it double. If you had 50 turns between happy golden ages as Persia before, you'll spend 20% more time in a happy GA.

 

[bryanw1995]

Now that you mention it, ezysquire, I don't think I have gotten the free SP from entering the Classical Era, either. No problems with the others, though.
I initially thought this may have been intentional because it's so early, but I looked at the Lua and it doesn't look like it.

BTW, Thal, why is it set to give the SP at the end of the turn and not the beginning?

I got the free tech last night but I reloaded right afterwards (wasn't paying attention and lost pop in both cities on same turn - stupid governor!!). when I reloaded and went to classical again I didn't get the free tech. weird, kinda like the bug where you don't get unhappiness for razing cities unless you save then come back to the game .

btw, I just linked to this thread in my sig. ciV is much more enjoyable now!

 

[orangecape]

I have been doing some alterations/additions to thal's mods and I am looking for feedback on what people think of Mech Infantry, Knights and Cavalry in the current build. In particular I think the nerfs to Horsemen (11 str, -40% vs. city) leaves them still very powerful and useful but I have been finding the Knight and Cavalry very lacking. The Horseman is weak on defense, weak on siege but wonderful for flanking and smashing ranged/artillery units caught in the open. The Horseman has the same strength as the Swordsman and they both feel really useful in different ways. The Knight/Cav though, despite having the same strength as Longsword/Rifles are very lacking. They simply aren't fast enough to perform their hit and run role and they end up feeling much weaker than their melee counterparts because they have only 3 speed instead of 4. Each of the 3 horse units has a direct melee counterpart but only the Horseman feels like a really good alternative, largely due to this speed difference.

So, the question is, do you find that Knight/Cav units are quite poor now that they have the -40% to city change? Do you use them when you have the option of using Longswords/Rifles? I personally tried changing them to 4 movement and found that I still wanted to use Longswords/Rifles but that a mixed army was strongest, whereas at 3 I just scrapped the horse units and went pure melee.

Secondly I am curious about Mech Infantry. The trick here is that Mech Infantry seems to be the end of the line for modern units until the GDR arrives. Even with the new upgrade to Tanks (55 Str) I still like Mech Inf much better due to lacking a resource requirement, being much better on defense and also much better at attacking cities. Even when I have the option of Modern Armor I can't justify the additional cost of the Modern Armor considering how flexible and strong Mech Inf is, especially considering that Modern Armor is later in tech and costs Aluminum - it should be a clear, obvious upgrade. This leads to a cascade effect where AntiTank Guns/Helicopters are weak because tanks aren't much use. I inevitably end up in the endgame only building artillery and Mech Inf, which is boring and makes the rest of the military advances seem worthless.

Again, are other people seeing the same thing? My thought on this is that I have no problem with Mech Inf being the last word on defense and sieging but it shouldn't be so bloody mobile. The advantage of horse/tank units is supposed to be their speed but unlike Horsemen the Tanks don't actually go faster. I think I would still use Mech Inf even if they were 2 speed - I would just include Tanks and other units in the mix. However, that might be a bit of an extreme nerf so I am thinking about what unit mix I would use if Mech Inf were 3 speed. This would actually give tank units a noticeable mobility advantage where now they really lack it. It might also be reasonable to give Modern Armor 5 speed to really give it some zoom.

 

[Txurce]

I have been doing some alterations/additions to thal's mods and I am looking for feedback on what people think of Mech Infantry, Knights and Cavalry in the current build.

I agree in general. Knights being slower makes sense, but they should be stronger in the open field. Why cavalry are slower than horsemen makes no sense at all.

The problem with MI is manifold. They come too soon after tanks, and then are definitely too fast.

 

[bryanw1995]

I think that mech inf movement should be 2, tanks 4, and modern armor 5. also, cavalry should be 4 instead of 3, just because by the time you get there you're so close to infantry that you don't build any, all you do is upgrade your knights b/c they're going to be obsoleet soon. playing this mod does help tremendously in that tanks have slightly higher str and are an upgrade option for cav at least, hopefully the next patch will allow that upgrade as well.

 

[Tomice]

I think that mech inf movement should be 2, tanks 4, and modern armor 5. also, cavalry should be 4 instead of 3,...

I agree with cavalry, I see no reason why they should be slower than horsemen. I'd balance knights through strenght and cavalry through speed, for the sake of realism and variety.

Mech Inf should really be slaughtered by tanks, at least in the open field. But it should be faster than unmotorized infantry. Again, I'm only talking about realism, haven't played many modern era games and can't really say much about balance.