pineappledan
Deity
I like both these solutions... could we do both? Then the only people who can get +2 move are England and Venice
Last edited:
Ideas for VP changes & discussion
- Thread starter pineappledan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- curly-fries fruits ideas
pineappledan
Deity
Gonna come clean guys. An additional reason why I want to replace range on aircraft for the imperialism finisher is because the 4UC mod is giving France a unique triplane with a free range promotion. Changing the air unit promotion to +20% on attack would stop that redundancy
Is there a reason why chu ko nu has only 19rcp, in addition to the -20% from logistics? Why not make it the same RCP as crossbow (20), so it hits for an even 16 instead of 15.2?
Is there a reason why chu ko nu has only 19rcp, in addition to the -20% from logistics? Why not make it the same RCP as crossbow (20), so it hits for an even 16 instead of 15.2?
Because even with the lower strength its still freaking amazing! And China doesn't need any help, its a very solid race right now, one of my personal favorites.
pineappledan
Deity
Oh my previous points and justifications definitely still stand. I just wanted to come out with regards to my ulterior motive as well.
- Naval units get a unique promotion, Ironsides, and Air units don't get a unique promotion
- The current setup looks less engaging and asymmetrical
- The rationalization that Range is comparable to the Naval +1 vision/+1 move rings hollow to me, because range on planes and speed on ships simply aren't comparable in any meaningful way. The fact that ironsides and range used to be the two finishers also has me convinced that that was never the intention.
- Adding a more specific, historical promotion is an opportunity to add flavor and "teaching moments" to the game. Ironsides is just such an instant, since you can look up the USS Constitution, and the advances that the US made in wooden ship materials and design.
- The French UU we are making (SPAD VII) is best remembered for being blindingly fast, but relatively poorly armed. Giving it a unique promotion based on synchronization gear (which first was widely used by the Germans, hence the Fokker Scourge) would be tantamount to misinformation as far as I'm concerned.
pineappledan
Deity
We toyed with that idea, but ultimately abandoned it.
Triplane has 5 range
bomber has 5 range
Fighter has 6 range
Heavy bomber has 6 range
B17 has 8 range
With a unique +2 range promotion, SPAD could be stacked with another range promotion for 9 range, outranging any unpromoted air unit prior to stealth bomber. With the meager increases in range from increased tech, any unique promotion felt... wrong. Anachronistic. and a +1 range increase felt pointless. We also toyed with the promotion being lost on upgrade but, as a general policy, we are trying to avoid that.
Or maybe, you know, the modmod can adapt to VP? I dunno, maybe I'm crazy.
The rest of your ideas have immediately become suspect, btw.
G
pineappledan
Deity
Lol. Suspect of what? If it's a bad idea then don't use it. If it's a good idea then take it on its own merits.
If it happens to fit someone else's aims too then bonus. Just laying my cards on the table.
Last edited:
If you want to make the unit really good, give it air repair. Its a decent way to represent increased speed (a unit with air repair will be able to attack more often)
pineappledan
Deity
Here's the current French SPAD. I don't think it needs to be changed and it's not bad even if it doubles up on Imperialism:
You can see the rest of the 4UC project here. We are trying to roll with the punches w.r.t. these new updates. lots to keep track of!
Spoiler :
You can see the rest of the 4UC project here. We are trying to roll with the punches w.r.t. these new updates. lots to keep track of!
Vortok
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2017
- Messages
- 69
Seems that half the Naval problems are due to the shoot and move ability that VP gives to all ranged ships (to not make going for Logistics as much of a requirement/no brainer as it is in base game?). New problems arose, so whack-a-mole balancing commenced because the original change was stuck to for whatever reasoning/balance concern initially prompted it. Still not sure why the ranged ships get to attack and move as a baseline ability (which seems to cause problems for the AI if the ship leaves vision range - simplification of the AI issue) but melee ships stop after attacking. It's consistent within a type of ship, but not consistent within the overall naval realm. Also just seems a depowering of melee ships (given their inability to influence anything on land that isn't a coastal city) and further emphasis on ranged ships.
Solid naval data is probably hard to come by, though.
Solid naval data is probably hard to come by, though.
Moi Magnus
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2015
- Messages
- 1,867
Ranged attack also cause problems. The change of the dromon "2 range" -> "1 range and move after attack" was made to simplify AI calculation.
You can consider that the most difficult part for the AI is unit positioning. Adding "move after attack" definitevely simplify AI's work.
Then, the problem is that "2 range + move after attack" is OP. Which is a balance problem, not an AI problem. That's why reducing the range of all ships to 1 is a solution : we keep "move after attack" (for the AI) and we avoid "2 range + move after attack" (for balance reasons).
BiteInTheMark
Deity
After some games, I want to make now a conclusion about the last 3 patches:
Trade Routes:
I was sceptical about the distance modifier and 1-city-cap. But with the changes made in the last version (14-1), those ideas are good and now good integrated and balanced.
The new UI for trade units is great and helps a lot to consider the values of the different routes and the impact from recently made changes. Thank you Infixo.
Changes to production cost and purchases:
The xp-nerf was integrated in first place to stop 100% purchase of units in the lategame, but in my opinion its absolutly unnecessary. The problem, everyone in lategame is purchasing units, can be solved by the reduction of gold income. This has happened, maybe it needs some more observation and balance, but it still has greatly reduced the ability to buy every unit. Now the reason for the nerf is solved in other way, this change should be reversed.
The production cost for units and buildings feeled good in the last patch (8-1). I was able to catch up with buildings in the mid-lategame and was able to purchase buildings and units greatly in lategame. Maybe it was because I played a fast-growing nation (India), which in my opinion has become much stronger in these patches (more on that later). I would reduce the production cost in early game a bit by 20%, midgame by 10% and zero or 10% more in lategame.
Food generation and consumption:
The passiv food generation by buildings has decreased clearly. From 9/10 food for a medieval 10-Pop city down to 4/5 food. In general, the reduced passiv food generation by buildings is a good thing. You have to think now more about city placement (Are there enough food capabilites), specialist usage (does working this specialist hurt or help me), decisions for growth (do I cut forests to create farm triangles and work food tiles instead of specialists). This gives more diversity and make it more difficult to decide, instead of no-brain insta work all specialist slots. I appreciate that very much. I didnt expected the nerf to forests, but changes feels good, gives the game more diversity.
Freedom ideology:
It feels a bit too strong, cause it solves nearly every problem you can have, no matter which VC you go for. Civil service saves you 70-90 food in lategame. You can now easily work all specialists and the population that comes through the growth can then work more and more the normal fields. Urbanisation makes it even easier to sustain fast grow. Why does it give +2 food to farms/... while order only gives +1 to mines/..... Wouldnt it be more balanced if urbanization would only give +1 food (and autocraty +2 science) or bump order tenet to +1hammer/gold? (I agree, production can get more increased by trainstation/seaport than food. But if you lack coal or have a lot growth/food modifier, it stays the same).
Order can give up to 2 happiness per city, autocraty 1 (4 with courthouse), but with the capitalismn tenet from freedom alone, you can change your happiness by 6 for every city, total of 8 happiness in every city with freedom.
Volunteer army gives +15% military supply cap by population. Asking me, why is this tenet in freedom ideology? Nations following democracy have nearly always smaller armies than any other government system. (USA is here the exception, but this may be the result of WW2 and cold war.) And enabling a volunteer army normally decreases the size of an army, due to the lack of the willingness of people to sacrifice their own lifes. I could understand, if it would give +5/10% CS due to morale or something like that, but as it is now, it doesnt make that much sense.
Specialists:
While in previos versions, working specialists was very often the best/good decision, the yields by specialists get creatly reduced. This gives working tiles more importance. And its good.
But I think, together with the decreased food from buildings, the reduced generation of yields by specialists, the tradeoff especially in early and midgame feels now bad. As a cause, I would call the increased nutritional needs of specialists.
It feels like Gazebo likes to over-energize his changes.
After we decreased the growth potential of cities, which is necessary to supply specialists and decreased their yields, the maybe former necessary nerf by food consumption is now also too much like the xp-nerf for purchased units.
Food by social policies:
I see a little unbalance in the medieval social trees. Food, especially in early-midgame, is now much more worth. Fealty gives up to 11 food per city (6 by buildings, 5 by scaler), enough to compensate a whole food triangle on grassland or 3 specialists. Statecraft doesnt generate any food, except small amounts in capitol by opener, not really worth mentioning. This can be compensated by alliances with maritime CS, cause their food benefit is spread to all cities. But Artistry gives absolutly no food. This tree only makes sense if you are actively using specialists, but they consume a lot of food that is difficult to access. And this tree absolutely does not help in this respect.
I would recommend to switch partially the scaler from Fealty and Artistry. Give Fealty now +1 science and +2/3 defence in any city and Artistry get +1 food and +2 GAP in every city. This would help a bit, and wouldnt be op, if you change the food consumption back to 2+age. If you want to stay with 3 base food for specialists, I suggest -1 food consumption for specialists in the later policies of the tree. (and nerf something else to compensate)
Mastery:
As already mentioned in other thread, in every game since the change, this belief was chosen by the first nation which founded a religion. Coincidence? Would like to know if others watch this behavior too.
Yield by follower-belief:
Those beliefes doesnt look very balanced. Some beliefes gives their maximum amount with only 10 follower, which is easily to reach, but others need 30 follower to reach their maximum which is extremly difficult to reach, if you have any neighboring religion with some pressure. I see that one has thought about which good gets which weighting. But while my 6 city empire is producing 320 hammer, i only create 140 culture, both yields have the same conditions. My flat food generation is around 250 in all cities and I can reach the maximum +10 food by only 10 follower, while i have to reach triple the amount to get 15 hammer. As you can see, atleast in the moment, my production is 50% higher than my food generation, the 50% higher maximul is justified. But I still have to hit 3 times harder condition for it.
37,5% of follower beliefs are yield-by-follower, but I really rarely see them picked by AI. Playing in most cases on small or standard map, this may have an influence due to maximum of religions, but still the AI priorizes other.
Iam open to any discussion, but would suggest a change in this:
Faith, science, culture stay with 1 yield by 2 follower, maxed at 12, but get a flat 1 yield for every city.
Food, production, gold is now 2 yields for every 3 follower, maxed at 16, but get a flat 2 yield for every city.
The necessary follower to reach maximum is now 24, something you can achieve even with some other religion pressure. You get the local yields faster than the valuable global yields, but not as fast as in previos versions. Also, the amound of produced yields is more relative to their amount you normally generate in lategame.
Science:
The general science generation is much slower than before. I like it, cause it slows down the lategame, making it possible to enjoy the later eras and be able to stay up to date with buildings and units.
This may be the result of the reduced growth by less food and nerfed specialists. I think this has now a good balance.
Trade Routes:
I was sceptical about the distance modifier and 1-city-cap. But with the changes made in the last version (14-1), those ideas are good and now good integrated and balanced.
The new UI for trade units is great and helps a lot to consider the values of the different routes and the impact from recently made changes. Thank you Infixo.
Changes to production cost and purchases:
The xp-nerf was integrated in first place to stop 100% purchase of units in the lategame, but in my opinion its absolutly unnecessary. The problem, everyone in lategame is purchasing units, can be solved by the reduction of gold income. This has happened, maybe it needs some more observation and balance, but it still has greatly reduced the ability to buy every unit. Now the reason for the nerf is solved in other way, this change should be reversed.
The production cost for units and buildings feeled good in the last patch (8-1). I was able to catch up with buildings in the mid-lategame and was able to purchase buildings and units greatly in lategame. Maybe it was because I played a fast-growing nation (India), which in my opinion has become much stronger in these patches (more on that later). I would reduce the production cost in early game a bit by 20%, midgame by 10% and zero or 10% more in lategame.
Food generation and consumption:
The passiv food generation by buildings has decreased clearly. From 9/10 food for a medieval 10-Pop city down to 4/5 food. In general, the reduced passiv food generation by buildings is a good thing. You have to think now more about city placement (Are there enough food capabilites), specialist usage (does working this specialist hurt or help me), decisions for growth (do I cut forests to create farm triangles and work food tiles instead of specialists). This gives more diversity and make it more difficult to decide, instead of no-brain insta work all specialist slots. I appreciate that very much. I didnt expected the nerf to forests, but changes feels good, gives the game more diversity.
Freedom ideology:
It feels a bit too strong, cause it solves nearly every problem you can have, no matter which VC you go for. Civil service saves you 70-90 food in lategame. You can now easily work all specialists and the population that comes through the growth can then work more and more the normal fields. Urbanisation makes it even easier to sustain fast grow. Why does it give +2 food to farms/... while order only gives +1 to mines/..... Wouldnt it be more balanced if urbanization would only give +1 food (and autocraty +2 science) or bump order tenet to +1hammer/gold? (I agree, production can get more increased by trainstation/seaport than food. But if you lack coal or have a lot growth/food modifier, it stays the same).
Order can give up to 2 happiness per city, autocraty 1 (4 with courthouse), but with the capitalismn tenet from freedom alone, you can change your happiness by 6 for every city, total of 8 happiness in every city with freedom.
Volunteer army gives +15% military supply cap by population. Asking me, why is this tenet in freedom ideology? Nations following democracy have nearly always smaller armies than any other government system. (USA is here the exception, but this may be the result of WW2 and cold war.) And enabling a volunteer army normally decreases the size of an army, due to the lack of the willingness of people to sacrifice their own lifes. I could understand, if it would give +5/10% CS due to morale or something like that, but as it is now, it doesnt make that much sense.
Specialists:
While in previos versions, working specialists was very often the best/good decision, the yields by specialists get creatly reduced. This gives working tiles more importance. And its good.
But I think, together with the decreased food from buildings, the reduced generation of yields by specialists, the tradeoff especially in early and midgame feels now bad. As a cause, I would call the increased nutritional needs of specialists.
It feels like Gazebo likes to over-energize his changes.
After we decreased the growth potential of cities, which is necessary to supply specialists and decreased their yields, the maybe former necessary nerf by food consumption is now also too much like the xp-nerf for purchased units.Food by social policies:
I see a little unbalance in the medieval social trees. Food, especially in early-midgame, is now much more worth. Fealty gives up to 11 food per city (6 by buildings, 5 by scaler), enough to compensate a whole food triangle on grassland or 3 specialists. Statecraft doesnt generate any food, except small amounts in capitol by opener, not really worth mentioning. This can be compensated by alliances with maritime CS, cause their food benefit is spread to all cities. But Artistry gives absolutly no food. This tree only makes sense if you are actively using specialists, but they consume a lot of food that is difficult to access. And this tree absolutely does not help in this respect.
I would recommend to switch partially the scaler from Fealty and Artistry. Give Fealty now +1 science and +2/3 defence in any city and Artistry get +1 food and +2 GAP in every city. This would help a bit, and wouldnt be op, if you change the food consumption back to 2+age. If you want to stay with 3 base food for specialists, I suggest -1 food consumption for specialists in the later policies of the tree. (and nerf something else to compensate)
Mastery:
As already mentioned in other thread, in every game since the change, this belief was chosen by the first nation which founded a religion. Coincidence? Would like to know if others watch this behavior too.
Yield by follower-belief:
Those beliefes doesnt look very balanced. Some beliefes gives their maximum amount with only 10 follower, which is easily to reach, but others need 30 follower to reach their maximum which is extremly difficult to reach, if you have any neighboring religion with some pressure. I see that one has thought about which good gets which weighting. But while my 6 city empire is producing 320 hammer, i only create 140 culture, both yields have the same conditions. My flat food generation is around 250 in all cities and I can reach the maximum +10 food by only 10 follower, while i have to reach triple the amount to get 15 hammer. As you can see, atleast in the moment, my production is 50% higher than my food generation, the 50% higher maximul is justified. But I still have to hit 3 times harder condition for it.
37,5% of follower beliefs are yield-by-follower, but I really rarely see them picked by AI. Playing in most cases on small or standard map, this may have an influence due to maximum of religions, but still the AI priorizes other.
Iam open to any discussion, but would suggest a change in this:
Faith, science, culture stay with 1 yield by 2 follower, maxed at 12, but get a flat 1 yield for every city.
Food, production, gold is now 2 yields for every 3 follower, maxed at 16, but get a flat 2 yield for every city.
The necessary follower to reach maximum is now 24, something you can achieve even with some other religion pressure. You get the local yields faster than the valuable global yields, but not as fast as in previos versions. Also, the amound of produced yields is more relative to their amount you normally generate in lategame.
Science:
The general science generation is much slower than before. I like it, cause it slows down the lategame, making it possible to enjoy the later eras and be able to stay up to date with buildings and units.
This may be the result of the reduced growth by less food and nerfed specialists. I think this has now a good balance.
tu_79
Deity
Though I agree with most of your analysis (G likes to push new ideas quite hard, to find a sweeter spot later), this one I just can't agree. Fealty was ignored by any civ with a focus on specialists. But now that it's a reliable source of food, it can be used for those civs with a focus on specialists (coming usually from Tradition) but with the bad luck of not having enough food in their settling lands.
Artistry is still quite potent IF you have enough food (good start, or good pantheon). Its strenght lies in the extra GP generation, mostly, and the extra tourism, which can lead to higher growth bonuses for your trade routes.
In a sense, the excesive synergy between tradition and artistry has been reduced. But artistry still is more benefitial for tall play (there can be only 3 of each guild, great works do better for smaller civs, open borders are given to friendly civs and tall civs have more friends), which is the usual settling pattern for Tradition.
I opened a thread not long ago about widening artistry. Seeing how artistry needs food now, I'd say that a good way to widen this policy tree is making it buff all food buildings. Something like "+1s/+1 c to granaries, aqueducts, grocers, and hospitals". Or "+1 GWAM points to granaries and grocers, +1 GSEM points to aqueducts and hospitals", if it conflicts with the scaler.
Asterix Rage
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,585
VP changes ?
I'd rather prefer to see a solid, a final and a conclusive version 1.0
Then modmods can rebuild/enhance things from it.
The community around VP is amazing.
But i'm a bit tired with continual changes. Sometime big.
A discussion like this one is fun anyway
I'd rather prefer to see a solid, a final and a conclusive version 1.0
Then modmods can rebuild/enhance things from it.
The community around VP is amazing.
But i'm a bit tired with continual changes. Sometime big.
A discussion like this one is fun anyway
Last edited:
A well thought out post. I will note a few things below:
Playing the current patch, I'm definitely buying less than I was in the immediately previous one. The XP thing is not really factoring into my buying decision making right now, its more a limit on my gold. So I'm fine with removing or keeping the half XP thing, but I think the gold overall is in a better place.
I personally feel these two together were a bit of an overnerf on Specialists, I am barely working any for a good portion of the game now. Whether its changing the food cost or the happiness cost, I think we can roll back one change to find that sweet spot.
Civil service has been debated before but I think Urbanization is just fine. The key difference is, civil service allows you to focus on specialists, which are very good at this point in the game. Urbanization only works if you are really focusing on your growth at the expense of other things (aka mines, forests, specialists)...and at this point in the game growth for growths sake is only so useful.
If the specialists unhappy change holds, I agree capitalism will need a nerf....it was just an unintended buff to that policy due to another change.
Freedom is good no question, but there are some other really good policies in Order (I don't war enough to comment on autocracy). I love the policy that triples internal trade routes. An extra 30 hammers to a city is no joke. The two free tech one is still freaking good. I would argue the 25% GP + 1 free GP is better than 33% more GP at that point in the game. I'm convinced that Ideologies are strong, just not convinced freedom is too dominant.
I will post a general discussion on Fealty/Statecraft/Artistry. I really like Fealty and Statecraft right now, both are flexible and powerful. Artistry just doesn't have the same oomph to me.
Playing the current patch, I'm definitely buying less than I was in the immediately previous one. The XP thing is not really factoring into my buying decision making right now, its more a limit on my gold. So I'm fine with removing or keeping the half XP thing, but I think the gold overall is in a better place.
Food generation and consumption:
The passiv food generation by buildings has decreased clearly. From 9/10 food for a medieval 10-Pop city down to 4/5 food. In general, the reduced passiv food generation by buildings is a good thing. You have to think now more about city placement (Are there enough food capabilites), specialist usage (does working this specialist hurt or help me), decisions for growth (do I cut forests to create farm triangles and work food tiles instead of specialists). This gives more diversity and make it more difficult to decide, instead of no-brain insta work all specialist slots. I appreciate that very much. I didnt expected the nerf to forests, but changes feels good, gives the game more diversity.
Specialists:
While in previos versions, working specialists was very often the best/good decision, the yields by specialists get creatly reduced. This gives working tiles more importance. And its good.
But I think, together with the decreased food from buildings, the reduced generation of yields by specialists, the tradeoff especially in early and midgame feels now bad. As a cause, I would call the increased nutritional needs of specialists.
It feels like Gazebo likes to over-energize his changes.
I personally feel these two together were a bit of an overnerf on Specialists, I am barely working any for a good portion of the game now. Whether its changing the food cost or the happiness cost, I think we can roll back one change to find that sweet spot.
Civil service has been debated before but I think Urbanization is just fine. The key difference is, civil service allows you to focus on specialists, which are very good at this point in the game. Urbanization only works if you are really focusing on your growth at the expense of other things (aka mines, forests, specialists)...and at this point in the game growth for growths sake is only so useful.
If the specialists unhappy change holds, I agree capitalism will need a nerf....it was just an unintended buff to that policy due to another change.
Freedom is good no question, but there are some other really good policies in Order (I don't war enough to comment on autocracy). I love the policy that triples internal trade routes. An extra 30 hammers to a city is no joke. The two free tech one is still freaking good. I would argue the 25% GP + 1 free GP is better than 33% more GP at that point in the game. I'm convinced that Ideologies are strong, just not convinced freedom is too dominant.
I will post a general discussion on Fealty/Statecraft/Artistry. I really like Fealty and Statecraft right now, both are flexible and powerful. Artistry just doesn't have the same oomph to me.
tu_79
Deity
It still needs to widen a little. How about buffing food buildings with some artistry policy?
