Is not the unit supply cap a bit low ?

[Blue Ghost]

You're right. That's probably an awful solution as it completely messes with the current unit supply balance. How about giving tradition a flat bonus? Say +6 or 8?
Maybe laborers each increase unit supply by 2?

I stand by my opinion that that's unnecessary, and there is no problem with supply as is.

 

[tu_79]

One solution would be to make the OCC option (in advanced settup) increase the player supply cap.

This would be the best solution if we want OCC to be supported by VP (not that I care), without messing with current mechanics, if it's easily doable by G.

 

[GodDamnItAlexander]

This would be the best solution if we want OCC to be supported by VP (not that I care), without messing with current mechanics, if it's easily doable by G.

Well it's not really a solution to extremely tall conquesting (2 cities). OCC just happens to be the most extreme example. I don't understand why everyone is against having more cool ways to play the game. Making extremely tall conquesting viable does not mean that the entire balance of the game has to be messed with.

 

[tu_79]

Well it's not really a solution to extremely tall conquesting (2 cities). OCC just happens to be the most extreme example. I don't understand why everyone is against having more cool ways to play the game. Making extremely tall conquesting viable does not mean that the entire balance of the game has to be messed with.

Yes, it is. Tall playing is extremely efficient. If we don't handicap it some way, tall always win.

 

[GodDamnItAlexander]

If we don't handicap it some way, tall always win.

It is already extremely handicapped. You're not suddenly going to play like wide (unless you decide to devote a tree for it).
Let's say your gamble didn't pay off and you didn't get the snowball rolling in the early game. You have been forward settled by your neighbors (because you didn't settle those lands yourself). You have close to nothing in terms of unit supply. You never got close to a making a religion (assuming you're not playing Byzantium). You are poor.
Korea can still totally win the game. Japan, not so much.

Imagine playing tall Rome that didn't get the snowball going in the early game. Now you're stuck in the late game with one or two cities with basically no good win condition.
However if you did get the ball rolling you would probably be unstoppable in the late game.

 

[tu_79]

It is already extremely handicapped. You're not suddenly going to play like wide (unless you decide to devote a tree for it).
Let's say your gamble didn't pay off and you didn't get the snowball rolling in the early game. You have been forward settled by your neighbors (because you didn't settle those lands yourself). You have close to nothing in terms of unit supply. You never got close to a making a religion (assuming you're not playing Byzantium). You are poor.
Korea can still totally win the game. Japan, not so much.

Imagine playing tall Rome that didn't get the snowball going in the early game. Now you're stuck in the late game with one or two cities with basically no good win condition.
However if you did get the ball rolling you would probably be unstoppable in the late game.

Ask any experienced player. You just settle 3-5 cities, enough for taking a monopoly for yourself. Build an army, position it correctly. Place all your cities in well defended locations, a healthy mix of land locked and costal. Even with aggressive neighbours you can block almost anything providing you didn't neglect military units. You'll be a bit short of faith, and it will be difficult to dominate world congress, but be ahead in policies and quite advanced in techs. You won't be able to take on big neighbours, unless you time it well, but you can successfully defend yourself if you know how.
After that, focus on science or tourism and keep your army up to date. Congrats, you've won.

Well, it's not the case anymore, now you'll be short of unit supply, so you need to protect your empire with far fewer units and more skill, or go wider.

 

[GodDamnItAlexander]

Ask any experienced player. You just settle 3-5 cities, enough for taking a monopoly for yourself. Build an army, position it correctly. Place all your cities in well defended locations, a healthy mix of land locked and costal. Even with aggressive neighbours you can block almost anything providing you didn't neglect military units. You'll be a bit short of faith, and it will be difficult to dominate world congress, but be ahead in policies and quite advanced in techs. You won't be able to take on big neighbours, unless you time it well, but you can successfully defend yourself if you know how.
After that, focus on science or tourism and keep your army up to date. Congrats, you've won.

Well, it's not the case anymore, now you'll be short of unit supply, so you need to protect your empire with far fewer units and more skill, or go wider.

You are making lots of assumptions here.
What if you're not tech leader even with rationalism? What if you didn't go artistry? And so on.
I don't understand why people are fighting me over this. OCC conquest is currently not even close to being viable or relevant. And the game can obviously support the play style. For example at the end of tradition give a flat bonus to unit supply (let's say plus 6) -1 for every city ever created. There, OCC conquest is now just a bit more but not really viable and the whole balance of unit supply has been preserved.
What's the big deal?

 

[tu_79]

For example at the end of tradition give a flat bonus to unit supply (let's say plus 6) -1 for every city ever created

You are making the assumption that Tradition stays small. Some strategies begin with a slow tradition settling and then create a massive puppet empire.
I stand with Moi Magnus suggestion if that is feasible.

 

[GodDamnItAlexander]

You are making the assumption that Tradition stays small. Some strategies begin with a slow tradition settling and then create a massive puppet empire.
I stand with Moi Magnus suggestion if that is feasible.

Nope. I was implying massive growth (through conquest like you said) this entire time.
My problem is doing this on OCC is ridiculously hard with ~12 units to get the snowball going. That's why I suggest +6 to unit supply -1 (or even -2) for every city ever created (with your settlers, that is YOU make the settler and plant the city, not take it by conquest) as a tradition buff.

 

[Tekamthi]

I don't understand why people are fighting me over this. OCC conquest is currently not even close to being viable or relevant. And the game can obviously support the play style. For example at the end of tradition give a flat bonus to unit supply (let's say plus 6) -1 for every city ever created. There, OCC conquest is now just a bit more but not really viable and the whole balance of unit supply has been preserved.
What's the big deal?

I'd actually love to see more diversity in what consists of a "successful" endgame civ. So if there was a change out there that left more viable opponents "in the game", closer to the end, I'd support it. I haven't seen a suggestion in this thread, though, that would reasonably accomplish this. I think the proposals so far would allow already-successful civs to be even more dominant. From my experience, the cap requires more sacrifice/compromise in critical military decision-making, and encourages diplomacy and anticipation -- all better, smarter gameplay imo. Raise the cap significantly, though, and these pressures go away as unit spam becomes the answer to every problem -- the game is easier but less fun. I think thats what everyone is worried about here.

From your description it strikes me that there already IS support for this playstyle, and that maybe you just failed the implement it successfully in your current game? The difficulty levels up to immortal are so subtly different, I find it difficult to imagine that dropping down just one level wouldn't have the effect you're looking for; can you confirm you've tested this?

All that said, I think there ARE some features that are currently broken in VP: for example the "complete kills" checkbox serves only to confuse the AI, and does not add any interesting or worthwhile change to the game outside of MP. I'll try a OCC run at some point soon.

 

[GodDamnItAlexander]

I'd actually love to see more diversity in what consists of a "successful" endgame civ. So if there was a change out there that left more viable opponents "in the game", closer to the end, I'd support it. I haven't seen a suggestion in this thread, though, that would reasonably accomplish this. I think the proposals so far would allow already-successful civs to be even more dominant. From my experience, the cap requires more sacrifice/compromise in critical military decision-making, and encourages diplomacy and anticipation -- all better, smarter gameplay imo. Raise the cap significantly, though, and these pressures go away as unit spam becomes the answer to every problem -- the game is easier but less fun. I think thats what everyone is worried about here.

From your description it strikes me that there already IS support for this playstyle, and that maybe you just failed the implement it successfully in your current game? The difficulty levels up to immortal are so subtly different, I find it difficult to imagine that dropping down just one level wouldn't have the effect you're looking for; can you confirm you've tested this?

All that said, I think there ARE some features that are currently broken in VP: for example the "complete kills" checkbox serves only to confuse the AI, and does not add any interesting or worthwhile change to the game outside of MP. I'll try a OCC run at some point soon.

I'm not suggesting to raise the cap significantly. Just buff OCC/extremely tall a bit. I'm testing an OCC Sweden domination run now.

 

[GodDamnItAlexander]

Mixed up emperor and immortal. I've been playing emperor this entire time, not immortal.

 

[SLGray]

One solution would be for everyone who wants to change something learn how to edit the game and mods themselves.

 

[GodDamnItAlexander]

One solution would be for everyone who wants to change something learn how to edit the game and mods themselves.

Well then why would we all come here if we're all playing a different game?
Personally I think the mod should be balanced only around one map type, size, speed and general settings (and that map should be doughnut center ocean because it is the most balanced ). Not that the game would be unplayable on different settings, just not at it's very best. The more you standardize the experience the more unified the community will be IMO.

 

[Gazebo]

Well then why would we all come here if we're all playing a different game?
Personally I think the mod should be balanced only around one map type, size, speed and general settings (and that map should be doughnut center ocean because it is the most balanced ). Not that the game would be unplayable on different settings, just not at it's very best. The more you standardize the experience the more unified the community will be IMO.

You want it balanced around a standard setting, yet you also want special rules for OCC?

OCC is a challenge. Should be. Not changing supply because of a fringe case.

 

[Gazebo]

Well then why would we all come here if we're all playing a different game?
Personally I think the mod should be balanced only around one map type, size, speed and general settings (and that map should be doughnut center ocean because it is the most balanced ). Not that the game would be unplayable on different settings, just not at it's very best. The more you standardize the experience the more unified the community will be IMO.

You want it balanced around a standard setting, yet you also want special rules for OCC?

OCC is a challenge. Should be. Not changing supply because of a fringe case.

 

[GodDamnItAlexander]

You want it balanced around a standard setting, yet you also want special rules for OCC?

OCC is a challenge. Should be. Not changing supply because of a fringe case.

No I don't want special rules. What I'm asking for is to allow for a wider variety of play styles, which is totally doable while still not forcing current play styles to be nonviable.

 

[matlajs]

The only thing is, that coastal cities are much better at increasing cap which is unfair. Logical, but unfair.

 

[tu_79]

The only thing is, that coastal cities are much better at increasing cap which is unfair. Logical, but unfair.

Why? You need extra units if you want your city coastal. In fact, I'd prefer that lighthouses increase supply cap too.

 

[Owlbebach]

Korea can still totally win the game. Japan, not so much.
Imagine playing tall Rome that didn't get the snowball going in the early game.

If you are playing tall Rome or tall Japan and it does not go well enough - thats your own problem dude. Those civ are designed to be conquerors, not farmers.

You are making lots of assumptions here.
What if you're not tech leader even with rationalism? What if you didn't go artistry? And so on.

What if you decide to play Progress-->Tradition-->Authority? Should this strategy be viable too?