July Patch - Upcoming Changelog Discussion Thread

[Enrico Swagolo]

What if China had it's old Culture, but every Culture providing building (excluding those that give 1) gave 1 less? So only 1 from Monument, Amphitheatre, Opera house, etc.

 

[vyyt]

I will love and play whatever @Gazebo throws at me, but what concerns me about that screenshot is that it seems that vast majority of the Chinese and American army consists of Gatlings. Is this intended? Or is it mostly because UUs are prefered and China has been mass-producing the Choks and then upgrading them all to Gats? Or does AI think the ranged (non-siege) are the best units in the field in general?

 

[pineappledan]

How bout we continue this conversation in the China thread?

 

[Kim Dong Un]

Y'all are taking this all way too seriously. I noted, clearly, that I'm running permutations (noticed the S) to see about under-performance, and this particular example popped up. After this many years of working on this, you think I'm just going to do one test and call it a day, especially when I've said multiple times I'm in the midst of testing?

Seriously, guys, chill out. Or, conversely, have a little faith. Or take a break. Whatever you need.

G

So you mean to tell me this isn't your first rodeo...?!?

 

[tothePAIN]

The problem with China isn't the value of the decrease at era change, it's the power of that extra culture in the ancient and classical eras. You can blunt it slightly, but even at 100% decrease China was eclipsing other civs handily.

G

Thank you for the explanation.

 

[tothePAIN]

I will love and play whatever @Gazebo throws at me, but what concerns me about that screenshot is that it seems that vast majority of the Chinese and American army consists of Gatlings. Is this intended? Or is it mostly because UUs are prefered and China has been mass-producing the Choks and then upgrading them all to Gats? Or does AI think the ranged (non-siege) are the best units in the field in general?

The American UU also upgrades to gatlings. I've noticed with China, they usually have lots off gatlings. With Persia, lots of pikemen. Etc. Its a source of strength for AI with ranged UU

 

[Txurce]

[

I will love and play whatever @Gazebo throws at me, but what concerns me about that screenshot is that it seems that vast majority of the Chinese and American army consists of Gatlings. Is this intended? Or is it mostly because UUs are prefered and China has been mass-producing the Choks and then upgrading them all to Gats? Or does AI think the ranged (non-siege) are the best units in the field in general?

Who knows? It's one game. But given the buffs to melee and nerfs to range that the example probably incorporates, I'd say there's no more reason for concern here than there would be with the current patch.

 

[Gazebo]

So you mean to tell me this isn't your first rodeo...?!?

Live every day like it’s your first. Goo goo gah gah.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

What if China had it's old Culture, but every Culture providing building (excluding those that give 1) gave 1 less? So only 1 from Monument, Amphitheatre, Opera house, etc.

Thats a bit strange, or? How would be this: Gaining a city or a great work grants......

• 2 different, random yields /////) in each city.
• 1 random local yield // and 1 random global yield //
• / following / following / and repeating

How much reduction per era is necessary has to be tested.

 

[CrazyG]

Y'all consistently miss the point of my posts.

G

That picture is the only information you have given about growth. Multiple people requested clarification on what the growth cost change means, with no response. If you want us to analyze something else, give us something else to analyze.

You are removing a huge amount of food from the game AND increasing growth costs. The response from players isn't unclear about this, we are concerned this removes too much growth.

You miss the point of my posts. I don't care about what China does next path, there are 43 civs, I can live with one being weak. I'm worried about growth. A ton of your ideas are taken from me, and I was the most adamant about reducing food, but you've gone much farther than I or anyone else suggested.

 

[chicorbeef]

Even if increasing Growth thresholds is the right call, I think we should hold off on it till the version after at least so that we can get a feel for how removing Progress and other bonus feels. If that is good enough to reduce 'accidental' growth why go further?

 

[Txurce]

That picture is the only information you have given about growth. Multiple people requested clarification on what the growth cost change means, with no response. If you want us to analyze something else, give us something else to analyze.

You are removing a huge amount of food from the game AND increasing growth costs. The response from players isn't unclear about this, we are concerned this removes too much growth.

You miss the point of my posts. I don't care about what China does next path, there are 43 civs, I can live with one being weak. I'm worried about growth. A ton of your ideas are taken from me, and I was the most adamant about reducing food, but you've gone much farther than I or anyone else suggested.

You do have a lot of great ideas, and I support most of them. And you may wind up being correct that growth has been adversely affected. But I think you're off-base in your overall statement.

Gazebo has yet to clarify what the growth cost change means; in the meantime, all people have to go on is that "settler China" snapshot. You say that this justifies the critical analysis of that picture. I think it tells you to quit analyzing until you have enough to go on. Some people here love to flex their extrapolative muscles, but often they are extrapolating inside Plato's cave.

 

[Gazebo]

That picture is the only information you have given about growth. Multiple people requested clarification on what the growth cost change means, with no response. If you want us to analyze something else, give us something else to analyze.

You are removing a huge amount of food from the game AND increasing growth costs. The response from players isn't unclear about this, we are concerned this removes too much growth.

You miss the point of my posts. I don't care about what China does next path, there are 43 civs, I can live with one being weak. I'm worried about growth. A ton of your ideas are taken from me, and I was the most adamant about reducing food, but you've gone much farther than I or anyone else suggested.

No response?

G

 

[Gazebo]

Further data:

This is on Emperor with the following defines. China is 10 techs ahead (67) of second highest player.

UPDATE Defines SET Value = '15' WHERE Name = 'BASE_CITY_GROWTH_THRESHOLD';
UPDATE Defines SET Value = '2.26' WHERE Name = 'CITY_GROWTH_EXPONENT';
UPDATE Defines SET Value = '13' WHERE Name = 'CITY_GROWTH_MULTIPLIER';
UPDATE Defines SET Value = '20' WHERE Name = 'CULTURE_COST_FIRST_PLOT';
UPDATE Defines SET Value = '16' WHERE Name = 'CULTURE_COST_LATER_PLOT_MULTIPLIER';
UPDATE Defines SET Value = '1.38' WHERE Name = 'CULTURE_COST_LATER_PLOT_EXPONENT';

Legal Warning: This is not definitive data. This data cannot be used in a court of law. Any attempt to use this data for anything other than blankposting will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, which is zero. If you bludgeon someone with this data, you will have your toenails stolen while you sleep. Drink ovaltine.

G

 

[Kim Dong Un]

I might as well take this opportunity to ask for a generalization on what the intended pace is for city size at different eras of the game. Obviously it will vary by civ, but what would we consider to be the tiers for population using standard settings?

Is a 20 pop capital in medieval considered high? How about for a secondary city at turn 300? Maybe we can table these out in order to give the community some idea of what players should be aiming around at certain points in the game, as to refrain from having to hit that 'stop growth' button and see that their growth pace doesn't lead to an out of control pop. I realize there are a host of factors between growth, unhappiness, city size, etc., but maybe it would help in giving players, including myself, something more tangible and concrete for guidelines.

I'm on the side that hopes the button preferably never has to be used (it ends up culminating in tedious micro and leaves me unsure of how exactly I should proceed without miserably scrutinizing numbers for the first 5 minutes of every turn). I'm just instinctively one of those people who get the dopamine hit in response to watching that number rise. Having huge cities is fun, and in no way do I really want to stunt any growth over the course of a game. I like the historical and thematic aspects of controlling population in relation to whats occurring in your empire unhappiness wise, but practicality and gameplay wise it just sucks the air out of it sometimes while dealing with large empires of 10+ cities.

One important point I will also add with all of this discussion on unhappiness - especially after distress was suspiciously high in the current version - we should also be asking ourselves how impactful and tangible we still want unhappiness to be. If it becomes too lax again we're basically removing entire mechanics that stem from unhappiness; things like barb partisans and city flipping will almost never occur, and I don't think that's a great idea having those features take place so rarely that they become almost nonexistent.

It's a fine line. My current Dido game (standard emperor) had me expand to 10+ cities (with a few being 1/2 tile islands) as soon as Pioneers unlocked, with many chained wars throughout, leaving me in unhappiness and weariness for many turns. Despite consistently being between 50-60%, I never spiraled out of control. However, I did resort to basically locking almost all my cities for the time being, and if not for my 20 wonders, would've probably been hit even harder. Still, as it stands there's no way I can see truly going wide domination as viable, as @Enrico Swagolo addressed in the version thread.

 

[JNZS13]

Legal Warning: This is not definitive data. This data cannot be used in a court of law. Any attempt to use this data for anything other than blankposting will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, which is zero. If you bludgeon someone with this data, you will have your toenails stolen while you sleep. Drink ovaltine.G

HaHaHa!

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Ok, here some real game numbers from a recent game as Germany, version 6-2, Emperor, small size, standard speed, communitas map.
The save game is from turn 372, so only 7 turns later than the shown game from Gazebo.

• Most normal cities (non-capital and non-1-tile-island cities) are around size 25. Capital cities are around the size of 35-40. Normal cities in my game are 5 citizens bigger, capitals 10-15 citizens bigger than in the test version. Differnt difficulty will probably have an impact, but very probably not that much (btw., in my eyes it doesnt make that much sense to make balance tests on settler difficulty while the average player plays on king +/-1 difficulty).
• Hard to tell about the technological progess, but the worst in tech is at the very start of modern era, the most advanced AI at the very end, so it seems in my game the AI civs are a bit more advanced than in the test game (which will be a result by difficulty and less population)
• Here is the total science output of my German Empire, as you can see, only 30% of my total science output comes from population and infrastructure, another around 30% by different sources (mainly by CS alliances through Wire Service an the UA), but astonishing 40% of my total output comes from instant yields (purchase with banks, citizen birth by universities, Great Scientists, statecraft delegates,....)

Conclusion:
This comparison was done with a 50-citizen capital, ~32 citizen core cities and one 20 citizen puppet. As you can see, infrastructure and population contribute relative little to the total amount of science, even my cities are relative big. All scientist slots in my cities are working, everything is build (state of the art). Even if we presume the next citizen is as much effective in science as all previous citizens, gaining everywhere a new citizen would increase my science output only by (6,7%+2,7%) / 32*= 0,294%

You may claim the comparison for science is bad, cause its hard for citizens to work science tiles, but the result for culture isnt better, its kinda the same. And both are needed massivly in the lategame. I can do the same for production/gold if wished.

 

[Recursive]

(btw., in my eyes it doesnt make that much sense to make balance tests on settler difficulty while the average player plays on king +/-1 difficulty).

coughs visibly

Settler difficulty, the AI is always very slow on Settler. I've been working my way down from Deity to see how the AI is doing.

As I continue tests I am tweaking and modifying values, particularly the define constants, to achieve milestones that allow the AI at multiple difficulties to win in a constant, consistent manner.

Edit: Also, difficulty has an impact on AI growth - the production cost discounts and periodic Food yields at higher difficulties make a significant difference.

 

[Bromar1]

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

I know it's all an abstraction of an abstraction but everything about gold in this game is couched in the abstraction of diplomacy and internationalism. External trade routes have gold, statecraft uses gold for its scaler, tributes are paid in gold, strategic and luxury resources, defensive pacts, open borders, embassies are all traded for gold.

Swapping culture for gold will make China lose that culturally advanced isolationist empire feel, regardless of how you frame the abstraction of history.

I'm not totally against the balance changes if that's the only realistic way to keep China in line but this is a pretty significant thematic shift. +Food and +gold seems more thematic to communist China imo

 

[Gazebo]

I know it's all an abstraction of an abstraction but everything about gold in this game is couched in the abstraction of diplomacy and internationalism. External trade routes have gold, statecraft uses gold for its scaler, tributes are paid in gold, strategic and luxury resources, defensive pacts, open borders, embassies are all traded for gold.

Swapping culture for gold will make China lose that culturally advanced isolationist empire feel, regardless of how you frame the abstraction of history.

I'm not totally against the balance changes if that's the only realistic way to keep China in line but this is a pretty significant thematic shift. +Food and +gold seems more thematic to communist China imo

Gold sees more use for building and unit maintenance than diplomacy.

G