How effective should Forbidden Palace be in Conquests?

[royfurr]

Mostly agree with Sir Pleb's points, but more so with Marlor and cgannon64. The idea of regional captiols is nice but would take effort and time to get right and balanced, and I am with Sir Pleb that a patch is not the place for that. Ditto for making the ai "better", THAT is a long term issue.

For now, I am not in favor of weakening the FP. This is not an issue in MP as all humans could do it, (use a stronger FP), and frankly in SP I don't want other peoples desires for a game that is a greater challenge to impact my play- THEY can simply not build a FP if they are so worried about the ability of the ai to compete- but please leave me the ability to do so.

 

[USC]

Actually, regional capitols are possible through modding already -- there is an "acts as a palace" flag. In fact, Tavis wrote that the problems introduced in 1.12 (or maybe 1.0) were caused by introducing support for such "multiple FPs".

I think regional capitols would be INSANELY cool, or rather -- they are (for those who mod them in, which I just may -- I assume the flag need not be assigned to a small wonder, although they may be a huge burden on processing speed if their numbers are too large, and it's nearly certain that the AI will fail to build them.

Maybe I'll stick a "regional capitols" scenario in my civ-content folder and always play that scenario on demigod.... ouch!

USC

 

[Park Ranger]

I like the idea that the FP's effects aren't as far-reaching as the real Palace. But while the BETA version FP seems to do that, I have two concerns about leaving it that way:

1. The effectiveness of FP, as I understand it, depends on its distance from the real Palace. I'm OK with this in theory but how can the casual player estimate what distance is good for his/her circumstance? Especially since for every map size the corruption/distance rates change.

2. I'd really like it if older, more developed cities didn't have sudden increases in corruption when a newer, closer city is added to my civ. My guess is that this is always going to be the case but which version of the FP lessens this? Does it matter?

 

[anarres]

I guess my vote is obvious by now.

I would actually be happy with a flag in the editor so the "reduced FP" could be enabled/disabled that way...

 

[troytheface]

Forbidden palace should give u a camel every 5 turns.

 

[Offa]

I'd like less corruption overall, regardless about what happens to the Forbidden Palace. Corruption is too extreme in Civ3 compared with Civ2, and having loads of large but otherwise worthless cities is rather unsatisfying.

The regional capitals idea sounds good to me.

 

[Yumbo]

Originally quoted by Bam Bam: Regarding this, though slightly off topic, are there any ideas on how placement of FP by the AI might be improved?

As a developer myself, I know that the following statement is ludicrous, but I'll make it anyway: I don't think implementing this would be that hard. And you might even tweak it to operate differently on different map sizes/difficulty levels.

Just lay down some minimum conditions under which the AI will build the FP, and program them in. For example:

1) AI must have x number of cities (where x depends on map size/difficulty level, with x being higher for higher difficulty levels);

--and--

2) AI always uses GL to rush build FP, if one is available and AI already has had an army;

--and either--

3) AI always builds FP in farthest city from capital, once threshhold in 1) is met;

--or--

4) Once threshold in 1) is met, AI calculates which potential FP city in current configuration would result in greatest overall corruption/waste decrease, and builds city there.

Obviously, I don't know how complicated it is to make chages to hte CivIII AI, but it seems to me that running a series of checks before building the FP should be relatively minor compared to other AI changes.

That said, obviously I am in favor of ordinary-strength FP. If, in fixing the rank corruption, the FP lessens somewhat in power, then I can live with that. But I think that greatly diminishing the power of the FP limits the enjoyability of the game for those who wish to focus on the emipre-building aspects of the game.

 

[Offa]

Originally posted by nihil8r
i think that they should patch conquests to be a ww2 shooter.

Try Medal of Honour, I have played this a bit and can recommend it, although you may find it a little different, even from the new patch of Conquests. I don't think the Forbidden Palace features in the game at all.

 

[Grille]

My personal reference would be:

-two seperate 'rank lists' for FP/P
-a certain city's rank list affiliation is defined by min distance (FP,P)
-a certain city's rank is defined by # of cities being closer to Pallace (if in 'Palace rank list'); same for cities in 'FP rank list'
-FP and P are centre of reference for distance corruption

Tie-breakers needed for cities that are equidistant to FP/P (define rank list affiliation clearly) and for cities at same distance to FP (respectively P)
->2 cities can only have the same rank if they belong to different rank lists (no RCP - seems to work right now)

-once FP is built, both rank lists can 'maintain' [improved]OCN/2 cities constantly.
that means:
before FP is built: Palace list can maintain OCN
after FP is built: Palace list maintains a reduced number of cities (55% of 'real' OCN if I got that part right out of alexman's formula), but FP list can maintain 55%OCN as well.

I would *expect* these effects (may depend on city spacing; OCN corr <-> dist corr):
If you have a large core, it's probably not bad to build FP somewhat near Palace.
On the contrary: if you'd rush the FP (or P if FP already in core) in a remote, totally isolated city, corruption would get worse in total, because the edged core cities get a 'good' rank but bad distance corruption. ->FP or P are only worth it if there's some cities around them.
2 seperated, not so big cores, with FP in the one and P in the other would still be an option, e.g. for archipel maps. Granted, the ai might not be capable to place FP reasonably, but on such a map there's other issues as well.

Not sure, but I *think* it was intended that way. Incorrect rank assignment (resp RCP) was possibly the main reason that a two core system was so much better in vanilla/PTW.

 

[bru]

Being a builder, I would choose 1. I get more enjoyment out of expanding the Empire as apposed to annihilating my opponent!!
Whatever decision is made it should be carefully thought out because this is a critical part of the game and could make or break it!!

 

[akots]

Originally posted by Park Ranger
2. I'd really like it if older, more developed cities didn't have sudden increases in corruption when a newer, closer city is added to my civ.

Certainly that will be great. Also, I'm playing Rise of Rome now and it feels that rank is somehow connected to the date of build. Though it is difficult to tell and has to be studied separately. May be it has to do something with RCP being fixed.

 

[Arathorn]

I'm still in two minds (at least) about what the best solution is, but I wanted to throw out another idea on how to make the FP and its ring less powerful than the palace and its ring, while still making them useful.

Consider the FP city to have a distance of, say, 4, from the capital, so that all cities would calculate distance to capital and compare that with (distance to FP + 4). Also, give the FP a starting rank of 3 (or, more appropriately, floor(OCN/3) or something similar), so that the rank of a city is determined by comparing rank to capital vs (rank to FP + 3).

This makes the FP less strong than it was, should be easy to program, and appears to scale nicely. It's reasonably intuitive, but the details are hard to explain. I think adding a fixed number, though, is easier than the 150% scaling some have proposed, but accomplishes a similar purpose.

I'm sure I'll have more to say later, but that's it for now.

Arathorn

 

[akots]

Originally posted by Arathorn
Consider the FP city to have a distance of, say, 4, from the capital, so that all cities would calculate distance to capital and compare that with (distance to FP + 4). Also, give the FP a starting rank of 3 (or, more appropriately, floor(OCN/3) or something similar), so that the rank of a city is determined by comparing rank to capital vs (rank to FP + 3).

This does not solve the problem of FP effect on rank corruption. On a huge map this would be probably OK, but on Tiny/Standard maps, when every city's rank counts, this would result in some cities at a certain distance from the Palace to get more corruption after building FP in some remote area. Since these cities would be more productive, the gain in the remote FP region would be less than the loss in the Palace area. This is part of the problem which was in C3C before the beta-patch.

On the other hand, linking rank to time when the city was founded might compensate for this. Especially with ranks for the cities built beyond OCN. Though, not in the long run and not with huge number of cities. Which is good for me because the main advantage of human players versus AI still exists. Which is having more cities. AIs play or try to play with OCP. In this case, it would force a human player to use OCP in later stages of the game during expansion phase.

The problem is more complicated than it seems. It was handled rather simply in PTW and did result in more or less balanced and understadable gameplay.

 

[akots]

Originally posted by Yumbo
1) AI must have x number of cities (where x depends on map size/difficulty level, with x being higher for higher difficulty levels);...
...4) Once threshold in 1) is met, AI calculates which potential FP city in current configuration would result in greatest overall corruption/waste decrease, and builds city there.

This makes sense but not the other points 2 and 3. It would be easy for AI to calculate the outcome but not in the long run. In this case a human player would have an advantage of knowing where to expand and to build FP in this context. AI does not know where to expand. It just happens.

Also, there is no point in building FP if it take more than, let's say, 20 turns.

 

[Fanny Brice]

I voted "less strong." But definately NOT in its current form. Getting a camel every fifth turn is a good idea too.

I recently built it in my current Beta patched Epic game. I'm playing on a large map with two major continents. My nearest rival has been gutted and I built the FP deep in his former territory to take advantage of his old core productive cities. This being my first experience, I am disappointed with the returns I am receiving. About 50% to 80% corruption in nearby cities giving me about 4 shields in some mostly grassland cities (I can improve these somewhat with better mine placement and rail).

Lately, this is my typical FP placement strategy... wait until I have conquered a significant chunk of territory and place the FP. After early expansion stops I map out the ideal place for the FP continent-wise. Monarch level.

I'm OK with a reduced efficiency FP since by the time I place it I have basically won the game (usually). But NOT this much! But as Bru remarked... I get more enjoyment out of the game by having productive cities. The result I expect now is FRUSTRATION with rapidly growing conquered cities (because all the tiles are irrigated) that will be going into disorder every second turn because I can not build temples, marketplaces, and cathedrals fast enough (what should take 8-10 turns is taking 20-40). In addition, this increases the risk of culture flips because I’ve got unhappy “foreign” citizens and I’m not producing my own culture.

Since this is my first comment on the whole FP issue, let me add this. I am AMAZED at the decision of the Firaxis developers to radically change the game in this way. The original bug was one thing. They messed up and they have always had a good record of fixing things. I have always respected that. But to alter one of main tools of the player’s ability to control the game is one more in a string of bad business decisions. It reminds me of the “New Coke” fiasco. No, the game is not “ruined” but it is less enjoyable. Even if the FP was always broken… it has been like that for two+ years. Even with the best of intentions, you can’t toss out a change like this with no warning and no “reason why.” I chalk it up to inexperience. These guys might be great programmers but CIV is a product… not a program. More than that it is a multi-million dollar CASH COW. The kind of casual attitude that has allowed the release of a clearly broken PTW, immediately recognizable bugs with the original C3C, and this beta are burning up the good will that has been built up over so long. Someone with some business sense needs to start paying attention at Firaxis/Atari. But, as is typical in business, the “suits” only come in after the crisis has exploded and make “crisis management” type decisions (bad). Manage the process!

Sorry for the rant. Now, back to having fun!

 

[Marlor]

Originally posted by Fanny Brice

Lately, this is my typical FP placement strategy... wait until I have conquered a significant chunk of territory and place the FP.

This is pretty much my strategy too (it has been all along). Actually, I often place it on a new continent. The new FP blows this strategy out of the water.

I get more enjoyment out of the game by having productive cities. The result I expect now is FRUSTRATION with rapidly growing conquered cities

I agree 200%.

Since this is my first comment on the whole FP issue, let me add this. I am AMAZED at the decision of the Firaxis developers to radically change the game in this way.

Well, actually, the "new" FP was the result of another bug, and not a design decision. So hopefully it will be fixed in the next beta patch.

I don't think Firaxis would do something like this intentionally without consulting the community.

 

[Strider]

I prefer the FP in Civ3/PTW, than the old one in conquests. The way it was in C3C it was useless. No point in building it, really no point in having it at all.

 

[Yeti]

Since someone asked My idea for improved AI placement of the FP:

Use rules along the lines of what Yumbo suggested (minimum city count, use leader if available) to determine when to build the FP.

Then to determine where to build it, use brute force - Calculate the empire's total production and income for each possible city where the FP could be built (for non-leader rushing situations, disqualify all cities too corrupt to build it in a reasonable amount of time), then build in the best location.

 

[royfurr]

Sorry for this OT, but hopefully the Friaxians may read this "market research" topic and see this question.

I am curious, has anyone noticed in the patch if the bug that miscalculates corruption (and I think waste too) if one has used the corruption slider in the editor, is still present or not. I believe this was a round-off error in the calculation, IF one had used the slider. I have to admit that my frustration with corruption was making me yearn to use that slider a bit- not a lot, say 10% or so, so that I didn't have to do as much micromanagement with the specialist to allow just a LITTLE productivity in those totally corrupt cities on far away continents. Just a few shields per city.

ANYWAY has anyone seen if this bug has been fixed or if it is still present?

Tavis, or any other Firaxian- any input?

THANKS!

Just to keep it a little OT- I suggest to Sir Pleb that maybe we need one more possibility- sort of in between the two given. It seems a lot of people REALLY don't want the 1.12 FP but NOT all the way back to Civ3/PTW. A "in-between" situation of a not as strong as C3/PTW FP but definitley stronger then 1.12.

Personally, I would vote for the full C3/PTW strength.

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by royfurr
Just to keep it a little OT- I suggest to Sir Pleb that maybe we need one more possibility- sort of in between the two given. It seems a lot of people REALLY don't want the 1.12 FP but NOT all the way back to Civ3/PTW. A "in-between" situation of a not as strong as C3/PTW FP but definitley stronger then 1.12.

Oops, I'd hoped that the second choice would be interpreted as being a vote for any kind of reduced FP effect, be it the 1.12 effect (which Firaxis has said is a bug and will be fixed) or any lesser or greater effect based on any scheme

I pondered for a while about making the poll a multi-way choice with the first choice being as it is now, and then an option for each of a number of FP effect alternatives which have been suggested. But I concluded that separating out the "reduce FP's effect" option into multiple choices could have some problems:
1) The question becomes more difficult to answer.
2) Someone's preferred way of reducing FP's value might not be included.
3) It seems premature to ask about the preferred method. I figured that the first thing to learn is how many people want FP's effect reduced at all. If that were a majority, then another thread could discuss options, and then a third thread could poll the predominant ones.

BTW, my understanding is that at this point Firaxis intends to change the FP back to its CivIII/PTW behaviour in the next patch, but with the Palace rank exploit and RCP both removed. I doubt they have time to consider anything else for a patch coming out somewhere around two weeks from now.

I started this thread because Firaxis is interested in the community view on what should be done in the longer term, and because many people seemed to strongly believe that the game would be better if the FP's effect were reduced.

When this poll goes quiet (i.e. has few new votes per day) I'll post about it in a thread that I'm sure Tavis is watching, to ensure that Firaxis sees the end result.