July Patch - Upcoming Changelog Discussion Thread

[create0]

Thank you for such an herculean solution. Totally agreed with the concept. It really worked for me.

 

[chicorbeef]

First of all Gazebo, thank you again for putting in the work that keeps this whole thing going while also pulling together everyone's ideas! Thank you for still finding the time to do this even when you're so busy.

I'll add in my own feedback to add to everyone else's:

Code:
Balance
Difficulty:
All difficulties now gain +2 happiness base, removed +2 happiness from tradition palace bonus

Happiness
Removed specialist unhappy prevention cap
Need divisors now /50 across the board (were /25)
Tech modifier now 100 (was 75)

-Great!

Growth:
Function (existing values included in /* brackets */):
int iBaseThreshold = /*15*/ GC.getBASE_CITY_GROWTH_THRESHOLD();
int iExtraPopThreshold = int((iPopulation-1) * /*12*/ GC.getCITY_GROWTH_MULTIPLIER());
iBaseThreshold += iExtraPopThreshold;
iExtraPopThreshold = (int) pow(double(iPopulation-1), (double) /*2.22*/ GC.getCITY_GROWTH_EXPONENT());
New values:
20/13/2.3

-So this makes Growth harder now? That sounds fine to me.

Plot culture cost up as well (uses same formula)
was 16 multiplier/1.35 exponent, now 20 multiplier/1.40 exponent
iThreshold = iBaseThreshold + iExtraPopThreshold;

-Not totally sure why this was changed but I'm indifferent to it.

Buildings:
Removed base yields from Hospital, Workshop, Grocer
Workshop now +1 production per 10 citizens
Grocer now +1 food per 5 citizens
Hospital now +1 food per 10 citizens

-The Grocer change makes sense, the others were just nerfed into the ground and I think they should stay as is.

Workshop loses 1 free urbanization unhappiness
Library gains 1 free urbanization unhappiness
Factory urbanization bonus reduced to 1 (was 2)
Internal TR bonuses on Market/Workshop/Stockyard/Factory changed:
Now grant a flat bonus to each route yield type:
Market: ITR gain +2 food
Workshop: ITR gain +2 production
Stockyard: ITR gain +4 food
Factory: ITR gain +4 production
Grocer provides +1 happiness

-I think Granary could use the ITR boost instead of Market, but other than that nitpick, I like these changes!

Civs
Venice
UU: can now found Colonia cities instead of special Colonia towns (Colonia town removed)
Colonia start with 3 pop and 3 extra tiles, as well as a market and a monument
Venice can have max 3 colonia at one time
Piazza: gains +5 flat supply
Arsenale: gains +5 flat supply
-Sounds fun!
Ethiopia:
UA: removed +1 faith on SR
UB: culture mod now 25% (was 33%), faith yield now +2 (was +3)

-I agree with this change, it makes Ethiopia's pantheon a little less fast (which is a good thing) and tones down the Religous snowball.

Celts:
Epona pantheon: now +10 science/culture/gold (was science/culture/food)
Arabia:
UB: now +3 gold (was +4)

-I'm fine with these changes.

Germany:
UB: now +4%p per CS TR (was +3%)
UA: now +2c from CS ally (was +2s/+2c/+2GAP), +2s from CS friend (was +1s/+1GAP/+1c)

-First of all, Germany now recieves no GAP, which makes me sad. Second of all, this UA is now nerfed HARD, harder than I think is warranted. I say we leave the UA as is.
The UB going to +4% doesn't make much of a difference to me, just makes stacking in one city a little easier. I think the OPness of the Hanse died when the bonus was made local rather than empire-wide.

China
UA - now +1 gold and +1 food for UA (was culture and food), reduces by 50% at era change
India:
UB: base yields now +3p/+3f (was +2/+4)
Oasis yield now +2p (was +2f)
Lake yield now +2p (was +2f)
Farm Yield now +1f/+1p (was +2f)

-Are the Oasis/Lake changes applied to Aqueducts as well? I kind of liked Ghandi's all-in kit but if others are open to India having strong I would be willing to try it.

Policies
Artistry
Refinement: Removed +2 specialist no unhappy

-Yay! Though maybe keeping 1 free Specialist could be better-it would suck to play Artistry and be locked out of working Guilds.

Authority
Tribute: Food on border expand now Production

-Whoa. I think this change is a little much. Authority already recieves +6 per city, I think doubling down on it is a bad idea that will make unit spam and snowballing worse. I don't like the idea of Authority receiving so much , especially as this is doubled by the Finisher.
Authority has no other source of besides Tribute and border growth is typically slow enough to not be a problem. I like Authority's early game , being able to have an instant 2 city with an additional tile is a fun synergy that is now ruined.

If we want to nerf Authority's mid-late game , why not restrict the double yields from Tribute in the finisher to just the ? That way Authority still has a fun early game but the tapers off later on. We could nerf the down to 10 as well if we need to nerf it more (but no less I think).

Progress
Expertise: removed food on building construction, bumpbed culture to +12 (was +10)
Finisher: now +25g from citizen birth (was +15)

-Sounds good!

Statecraft
Trade Confederacy: added 'Trade Routes to Civilizations with more Techs and/or Policies than you generate an additional +3 Science and/or Culture'

-Something I've wanted for a long time now. Yay!

Fealty
Nobility: food from Castle now Gold
Burghers: removed TR to other civs' bonus; added '1 specialist in each city no longer produces unhappiness

-Free Specialist scares me a little. Would it be possible to have Castles produce 2-3 Merchant points instead of Gold and remove the free Specialist? I don't like the idea of Fealty recieving too much static per City because that's supposed to be Statecraft's thing and I like the idea of Fealty being pushed to not need Specialists and I think having inherent Merchant generation would be cool and would help this theme.

Specialists:
Merchants now +4g base (was +3)

-Sounds good!

Trade
Divisor for Culture/Science delta for trade routes now 125 (Was 120) - less c/s from international routes
Units:
Adjusted CS for infantry line (old/new)
Fusilier (35/38)
Mehal Sefari (40/42)
Foreign Legion (52/55)
Rifleman (45/48)
Paratrooper (40/42)
Infantry (55/60)
Guerilla (57/62)
Mercenaries (60/62)
Marine (60/65)
Mech Infantry (70/75)
XCOM (70/75)
-Sounds good! I think Rifleman could go all the way up to 50.

 

[Stalker0]

On this one:
Burghers: removed TR to other civs' bonus; added '1 specialist in each city no longer produces unhappiness

Some of the initial feedback has been "this doesn't make sense, as fealty is not the specialist tree".


We do have precedence for this, especially in the later trees. For example, even though rationalism is the "science tree", imperialism has several science bonuses as well, just not to the same extent. So I'm not innately against Fealty getting a few bonuses outside of its core niche. Now whether this is the right change or not we should debate, but I wouldn't want to discount that type of bonus right off the bat.

Funny enough, I am going to narrow in on the smallest change in these patch notes:

Arabia:
UB: now +3 gold (was +4)


Culturally, I don't like this change for several reasons:

1) Arabia has no consensus for nerfing. I still hold that the only 2 civs that had a consistent community note for adjustment was China (too strong) and Venice (too weak in AI hands). I think every other change to civs was premature.
2) This change is so small....what are we accomplishing here? This may seem ultra nit picky to some, but my concern is this notion that we can get absolute perfect balance with civs. We can't. If a change this small can actually address the balance of a civ, than that means our system is so swingy that a few GPT can change things and that is a much bigger problem.

And if such a change really doesn't make a difference, than why make it? This goes back to the "Gold Standard" concern, if we keep getting this nit picky about civ balance we will never ever finish tweaking them.

I think we are at the point with Civs that we can tier them. Our goal should get the civs in roughly the same tiers, but we will never get them to perfectly align with each other. Arabia was a good solid civ, but not top tier like China. It doesn't need adjustment, and certainly not sometimes this min-ute.

 

[Txurce]

I'm aligned with chicorbeef, with the following exceptions: no opinion on Tribute and Burghers, and I have no problem with Germany being nerfed to whatever degree they have been, but wish there were more thematic reasons for the specific changes.

These patch notes aside, I much prefer nerfing civs like Ethiopia and China that have become a staple atop the leader boards... especially Ethiopia's extremely annoying religious strength and attitude. But I don't see the reason for mild-to-moderate adjustments for civs like Germany or Arabia, unless we decide we want to revisit all civs for final tune-ups.

 

[FoxOfWar]

I am carefully optimistic about the lot of these - admittedly I haven't followed a lot of the balance conversations that closely so I'll just have to play and see.

I do like the Venice change though. Should be more fun playing a non-warmonger Venice now. (Puppet empire was always fun to me.)

 

[arthurF]

I'll put thoughts in the quote, but I want to say this first for the discussion. We do have the option to nerf tradition, rather than buff progress or authority. The +2 culture on baths/gardens and the +1 science on herbalists get complaints on occasion. In particular, the Hanging Gardens is a crazy wonder with that +2 culture. Tradition could lose some food since everyone else did, and the border growth could afford to be slower in the mid-late game.




1) You can work as many specialists as you want, even if it makes a city unhappy.
2) Your cities will get less unhappiness from boredom, illiteracy, distress, and poverty.
3) Researching technologies will cause a bit more unhappiness than before.

#2's effect should be bigger than #3's so overall expect happiness to be easier.

Thank you

 

[Gazebo]

Good feedback here, I noticed a few typos in my changelog (I blame lack of sleep). I had compiled a list of community suggestions to process into a changelog, and I forgot to adjust some of the lines.

General responses to questions/concerns:

Hospital/Grocer/Workshop. The line should read 'reduced' not 'removed' - the base yields for workshop and hospital are now +2, not +0. Grocer did have it's +1 removed, however.

Growth function:

The changes I'm tinkering with primarily affect the mid and mid-late game in terms of cities that grow almost by accident. It means that farms and terrain food will remain important, whereas in the current version a lot of passive/instant food can propel cities forward without any farms whatsoever.​

Border growth function:

AI often runs out of border tiles to naturally grow into by the industrial era. My changes push this into the modern. Nothing major.​

Ethiopia:

SR +faith on UA removed because, frankly, it is bloat.​

Arabia

UB gold reduction is small, but is intended to keep Arabia's UB 'neutral' with the bump of the merchant specialist by 1.​

Germany:

Typo: they keep the GAP at ally/friend (+2 at each level, actually, so a slight buff in that way). You just won't compound science and culture from allies/friends, they'll be exchanged. Gives Germany a reason, if slight, to pursue open doors in some CSs it can't influence, or to allow some CSs to slip away for realpolitik purposes and still have a solid buff.​

China:

I knew this would hurt. There's just no easy way to balance +1c gained as easily as it was. I've tinkered with +gold and +production, and I like +gold more for it's synergy with the Paper Maker. Besides, again, I'm trying to clip the 'free floating food/production' issue we're seeing.​

Expertise: is +15, not +12, from buildings

Tribute: losing food from expansion does mean that Authority will want for food. But I think this sharpens the divide between Tradition and others in a good way.

Tradition: left out of changelog: growth scaler reduced to 5%/3% (was 5%/5%)


I also left off a few RCS changes:

Adjusted RCS for a few late units
            Gatling Gun (47/45)
            Cavalry (43/42)
            Berber Cavalry (47/46)
            Cossack (49/47)
            Machine Gun (62/60)
            Light Tank (60/58)
            Bazooka (67/65)
            Rocket Artillery (79/75)
            Helicopter (68/65)

G

 

[Txurce]

Good feedback here, I noticed a few typos in my changelog (I blame lack of sleep). I had compiled a list of community suggestions to process into a changelog, and I forgot to adjust some of the lines.

General responses to questions/concerns:

Hospital/Grocer/Workshop. The line should read 'reduced' not 'removed' - the base yields for workshop and hospital are now +2, not +0. Grocer did have it's +1 removed, however.

Growth function:

The changes I'm tinkering with primarily affect the mid and mid-late game in terms of cities that grow almost by accident. It means that farms and terrain food will remain important, whereas in the current version a lot of passive/instant food can propel cities forward without any farms whatsoever.​

Border growth function:

AI often runs out of border tiles to naturally grow into by the industrial era. My changes push this into the modern. Nothing major.​

Ethiopia:

SR +faith on UA removed because, frankly, it is bloat.​

Arabia

UB gold reduction is small, but is intended to keep Arabia's UB 'neutral' with the bump of the merchant specialist by 1.​

Germany:

Typo: they keep the GAP at ally/friend (+2 at each level, actually, so a slight buff in that way). You just won't compound science and culture from allies/friends, they'll be exchanged. Gives Germany a reason, if slight, to pursue open doors in some CSs it can't influence, or to allow some CSs to slip away for realpolitik purposes and still have a solid buff.​

China:

I knew this would hurt. There's just no easy way to balance +1c gained as easily as it was. I've tinkered with +gold and +production, and I like +gold more for it's synergy with the Paper Maker. Besides, again, I'm trying to clip the 'free floating food/production' issue we're seeing.​

Expertise: is +15, not +12, from buildings

Tribute: losing food from expansion does mean that Authority will want for food. But I think this sharpens the divide between Tradition and others in a good way.

Tradition: left out of changelog: growth scaler reduced to 5%/3% (was 5%/5%)


I also left off a few RCS changes:

Adjusted RCS for a few late units
            Gatling Gun (47/45)
            Cavalry (43/42)
            Berber Cavalry (47/46)
            Cossack (49/47)
            Machine Gun (62/60)
            Light Tank (60/58)
            Bazooka (67/65)
            Rocket Artillery (79/75)
            Helicopter (68/65)

G

That ought to reassure most people.

I figured you were thinking Papermaker.

 

[Stalker0]

Good feedback here, I noticed a few typos in my changelog (I blame lack of sleep). I had compiled a list of community suggestions to process into a changelog, and I forgot to adjust some of the lines.

General responses to questions/concerns:

Hospital/Grocer/Workshop. The line should read 'reduced' not 'removed' - the base yields for workshop and hospital are now +2, not +0. Grocer did have it's +1 removed, however.

-- Makes this a little better, but honestly I think its still too much of a nerf, at least for the workshop. That building is in a very good place to me. Its solid and fun. Its biggest bonus is in your smallest cities, the ones that need the hammers the most. It still takes a 30 pop city to get it to pre-nerf values...and now growth is even harder. Both the hospital and workshop are good buildings right now, no reason to rock the boat.

Growth function:

The changes I'm tinkering with primarily affect the mid and mid-late game in terms of cities that grow almost by accident. It means that farms and terrain food will remain important, whereas in the current version a lot of passive/instant food can propel cities forward without any farms whatsoever.

​

--I personally think we are missing the forest for the trees a bit here. Now the idea that instant food causes issues with auto growth when you don't want it, makes city governors act weirdly, etc, are all reasonable issues. That is why I have supported the shift of food to non instant sources. But that is not the fundamental problem to me, the issue is that growth is just too weak. You have two systems butting heads with each other....at high pops it takes every increasing amounts of food, for ever decreasing benefits (as tile yields get crappier as the "good land" runs out).

If you put it in culture turns, imagine if when you started you were picking ideological tenents, but by the end game you were picking ancient era trees. That is what growth is right now, and under that scenario late game culture wouldn't look as hot. This is one of the reasons that people are specialist heavy, its not that specialists are "too powerful" its that there is no opportunity cost. Why would I give up a specialist to work a tile that will shave off a turn or two to my growth that will net me a non-road village? Right now you don't, unless you are forced to by unhappiness. But if growth was more reasonable, and that bit of extra food actually made a difference, well okay maybe I will grow a little more.

I don't mind if pop 1-10 growth is a little more difficult, but I think pop 15-30 should be easier, and hell by 35 I don't think it should increase exponentially at all. If you want to get to a pop 60 city go nuts...what does that actually gain you?




Border growth function:

AI often runs out of border tiles to naturally grow into by the industrial era. My changes push this into the modern. Nothing major.

--So this is not going to have any impact on border growth in the mid game? Because I certainly feel the lack of natural border growth with non-tradition civs.
​

Arabia

UB gold reduction is small, but is intended to keep Arabia's UB 'neutral' with the bump of the merchant specialist by 1.

--Fair enough.
​

China:

I knew this would hurt. There's just no easy way to balance +1c gained as easily as it was. I've tinkered with +gold and +production, and I like +gold more for it's synergy with the Paper Maker. Besides, again, I'm trying to clip the 'free floating food/production' issue we're seeing.

-- Just adjust the decay. Give China the bonus, and then run it into the ground with the era change. If that's not enough, weaken the paper maker a touch. I don't feel we have to reinvent the wheel here.​

Expertise: is +15, not +12, from buildings

--That's a bit better, willing to see how it goes

Adjusted RCS for a few late units
            Gatling Gun (47/45)
            Cavalry (43/42)
            Berber Cavalry (47/46)
            Cossack (49/47)
            Machine Gun (62/60)
            Light Tank (60/58)
            Bazooka (67/65)
            Rocket Artillery (79/75)
            Helicopter (68/65)

I like it, I'm eager to try late game melee and see if its back in action.

 

[pineappledan]

China:
I knew this would hurt. There's just no easy way to balance +1c gained as easily as it was. I've tinkered with +gold and +production, and I like +gold more for it's synergy with the Paper Maker. Besides, again, I'm trying to clip the 'free floating food/production' issue we're seeing.

i just think gold is a really strange choice for role-play. Most pop-history will tell you that China’s greatest historical weakness was its negligence, bordering on contempt, of financial instruments and international trade. It just seems like the most un-China-ey yield to pick of the options available.

- yes. China has an enormous population and invented bi-annual crop rice farming and many other innovations which allowed them to support a massive population quickly
- absolutely. The bureaucratic system which sprung up to support a deeply ingrained political machine. A rich history of arts and letters. Philosophy and poetry, and a deep sense of China as the center of cultural landscape with Korea, Japan, and smaller southeast Asian nations in its orbit.
- sure. China had craftsmen and artisans creating silk, bronze, steel and all sorts of tools of industry in greater number and variety than anywhere else in the world for nearly 2 millenia. At various points in history, it is estimated that China produced up to 1/3 of the entire planet’s GDP.
- absolutely. The four great inventions. By 200 BC, China had repeating crossbows, trebuchets, large standing armies and bureaucracies to administer a sophisticated feudal society.
- I guess. 2 of the default religions in the game are Chinese (Confucianism and Taoism). 3 if you count Shintoism, which is basically Japanese Taoist fan-fiction.
- ??? China invented many things, but they did not invent insurance, stock trading, mortgages, sophisticated debt instruments, double-entry accounting, corporations, etc. They did not contribute very meaningfully to the field of economics. Their inventions weren’t effectively leveraged for financial gain, their international trade missions had financial benefits subordinated completely by diplomatic concerns. They never exerted any significant interest to protect or promote the Silk Road trade routes either.

 

[CrazyG]

Growth function:
The changes I'm tinkering with primarily affect the mid and mid-late game in terms of cities that grow almost by accident. It means that farms and terrain food will remain important, whereas in the current version a lot of passive/instant food can propel cities forward without any farms whatsoever.

So to be clear, you aren't changing the cost of the first citizen to 20 (that would be 33% slower growth in ancient era). I'm very concerned that this goes too far. Also, tradition is top dog even with slightly less bonus growth, and I'm pretty sure aestheticism is going to be too good if food is actually scarce.

 

[pineappledan]

Asceticism

 

[Rosaria's Sandwiches]

I'd rather have current China lose all its yields on Era change than the proposed changes; the rest of the changes seem interesting and I'm looking forward to test that out

 

[Txurce]

- ??? China invented many things, but they did not invent insurance, stock trading, mortgages, sophisticated debt instruments, double-entry accounting, corporations, etc. They did not contribute very meaningfully to the field of economics. Their inventions weren’t effectively leveraged for financial gain, their international trade missions had financial benefits subordinated completely by diplomatic concerns. They never exerted any significant interest to protect or promote the Silk Road trade routes either.

You could say most if not all of the same about Carthage.

More seriously, apart from paper money, China had a very robust series of very far-ranging trade arrangements up to the Admiral Heng era, and an internal economic system that kept them on a par with Europe until the 19th century. If you leapfrog less than 200 years (a wink of an eye for China), they now have a unique hybrid economic system that may wind up knocking the West off its perch.

All that by way of saying an argument supporting Gazebo's choice exists.

 

[Gazebo]

i just think gold is a really strange choice for role-play. Most pop-history will tell you that China’s greatest historical weakness was its negligence, bordering on contempt, of financial instruments and international trade. It just seems like the most un-China-ey yield to pick of the options available.

- yes. China has an enormous population and invented bi-annual crop rice farming and many other innovations which allowed them to support a massive population quickly
- absolutely. The bureaucratic system which sprung up to support a deeply ingrained political machine. A rich history of arts and letters. Philosophy and poetry, and a deep sense of China as the center of cultural landscape with Korea, Japan, and smaller southeast Asian nations in its orbit.
- sure. China had craftsmen and artisans creating silk, bronze, steel and all sorts of tools of industry in greater number and variety than anywhere else in the world for nearly 2 millenia. At various points in history, it is estimated that China produced up to 1/3 of the entire planet’s GDP.
- absolutely. The four great inventions. By 200 BC, China had repeating crossbows, trebuchets, large standing armies and bureaucracies to administer a sophisticated feudal society.
- I guess. 2 of the default religions in the game are Chinese (Confucianism and Taoism). 3 if you count Shintoism, which is basically Japanese Taoist fan-fiction.
- ??? China invented many things, but they did not invent insurance, stock trading, mortgages, sophisticated debt instruments, double-entry accounting, corporations, etc. They did not contribute very meaningfully to the field of economics. Their inventions weren’t effectively leveraged for financial gain, their international trade missions had financial benefits subordinated completely by diplomatic concerns. They never exerted any significant interest to protect or promote the Silk Road trade routes either.

Love you Dan, but please don’t lecture me on history. China’s internal market economy was so large relative to global powers throughout, well, most of history, that the mere attempt to engage with china via trade pulled merchants from across the world. Not to mention that many of the dynastic upheavals that punctuate Chinese history were preluded or catalyzed by fluctuations in china’s currency and financial stability. Gold, as an abstraction of market power, is perfectly reasonable for China.

G

 

[pineappledan]

Trying to argue against a change using historical basis = lecturing you. K.

IMO it could be / instead of /. It’s at least as relevant.

You could say most if not all of the same about Carthage.

ehhhh... the merchants in purple? The wine trade with Egypt? Robust trade with Israel and various North African tribes? Vigorous exploration and colonization of Spain, Portugal, Crete, Sicily, Tunisia, Morocco, etc? If they didn’t have a gold focus I don’t know what else you would give them.

 

[Gazebo]

Trying to argue against a change using historical basis = lecturing you. K.

IMO it could be / instead of /. It’s at least as relevant.
ehhhh... the merchants in purple? The wine trade with Egypt? Robust trade with Israel and various North African tribes? Vigorous exploration and colonization of Spain, Portugal, Crete, Sicily, Tunisia, Morocco, etc? If they didn’t have a gold focus I don’t know what else you would give them.

Arguing from pop history implies that I know so little about Chinese history that even a cursory glance at it would prove me wrong.

Anyways, let's move on.

G

 

[Gazebo]

To dissuade any concerns that I've overnerfed...

The scoreboard seems to disagree (I've been running permutations with changed civs to see if they underperform, so far they've done just as well as always).

G

 

[Txurce]

ehhhh... the merchants in purple? The wine trade with Egypt? Robust trade with Israel and various North African tribes? Vigorous exploration and colonization of Spain, Portugal, Crete, Sicily, Tunisia, Morocco, etc? If they didn’t have a gold focus I don’t know what else you would give them.

Couldn't agree more. And I could put together a comparable list for China. Doesn't negate my point re: Carthage and your OP, which is that if you don't think China qualifies for the reasons you stated, then pretty much neither does Carthage.

 

[pineappledan]

Arguing from pop history implies that I know so little about Chinese history that even a cursory glance at it would prove me wrong.

Quite the opposite really. You could argue X is Y type of civilization for at least half these things because you have a PhD studying empires 'n' stuff. Civ is a game of gross abstractions and simplifications of entire cultures (in China's case an entire complex of cultures) and thousands of years of history. It's big dumb pop history, and from a big dumb pop history view of China, they don't trade gud, they science and culture and have lots of people gud, hurr durr.