March Patch Notes (formerly february)

[Deep_Blue]

I did not know that that existed on low difficulties... Hmm. May have to check how they did that then, could be that the happiness modcomp isn't needed at all.

Actually after checking the Extra Happiness at settler level is not per count but per resource , so I was mistaken about this, I thought it was per resource count...
so your mod is still valid

 

[Deep_Blue]

It's a bit of a mixed bag for me; It helps tall early on (given the way capitals tend to have several of a specific luxury nearby, for trading purposes), but ends up helping Wide more in the long run, yes. It was developed alongside Dale's happiness mod, where happy buildings contributed %, rather than flat amounts, so that's something to keep in mind. On it's own... Eh. I don't know if I would use it or not. More rational than a flat benefit, but has the potential to unbalance the game

Exactly it will be helpful for tall empire and more helpful for the fat one.

 

[Valkrionn]

Actually after checking the Extra Happiness at settler level is not per count but per resource , so I was mistaken about this, I thought it was per resource count...
so your mod is still valid

Ah, good to know. I knew about that one, then.

Exactly it will be helpful for tall empire and more helpful for the fat one.

Yep. Like I said, it was developed at the same time as Dale's happiness mod, which changed happiness buildings from +X to +%. It was intended to benefit Wide more, actually.

 

[JohnnyW]

Happiness from extra resources will benefit ICS more, because with ICS you will have more resources due to your city spam, plus this will release the pressure from limited happiness on ICS.

On it's own... Eh. I don't know if I would use it or not. More rational than a flat benefit, but has the potential to unbalance the game.

Okay, you've both said this, but exactly how would this benefit ICS moreso than now? As it is you sell all your excess resources to get the gold, not hang onto them for the bonus. With this system you would need more resources to reach an equivalent amount of . Since ICS need more from luxuries than tall empires I would imagine this would benefit tall ones more since they can sell the excess off with more regularity.

 

[Valkrionn]

Okay, you've both said this, but exactly how would this benefit ICS moreso than now? As it is you sell all your excess resources to get the gold, not hang onto them for the bonus. With this system you would need more resources to reach an equivalent amount of . Since ICS need more from luxuries than tall empires I would imagine this would benefit tall ones more since they can sell the excess off with more regularity.

It's not terribly different, honestly. It COULD make the difference between more gold, ore more cities (= more science, more coliseums, more gold). Luxuries always favor Wide. Which is why buildings should favor Tall.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Yep. Like I said, it was developed at the same time as Dale's happiness mod, which changed happiness buildings from +X to +%. It was intended to benefit Wide more, actually.

Was it ever!
The extensive benchmarking i did on the first iteration proved it without a doubt. Saves, included.

 

[Valkrionn]

Was it ever!
The extensive benchmarking i did on the first iteration proved it without a doubt. Saves, included.

I actually meant my mod, not his. His was intended to make Tall more viable, just didn't quite work.

 

[Seek]

I think where civ5 breaks down is through overpowered great scientists and research agreements, ...

Great post, I feel pretty much the same way overall. Quoted this to point out that Thal's Balance mods address both of these issues (which have been pointed to numerous times in this thread) as well as the problem of overpowered Maritime CSs. With these things fixed it's a much better game - it's a shame the patch doesn't address this stuff. I expect future ones will, however.

 

[_hero_]

I wonder what would happen if, say, colosseums, stadiums, and theatres each provided say +1 per every 5 with circuses no longer providing any . Then "wide" empires would pay hefty maintenance to have 3 buildings and only get +3 while "tall" empires could easily absorb the gold costs and get many more per building. Would make for an interesting mod, too bad I don't have the will to make it.

 

[Valkrionn]

_hero_, that's much what Dale's mod did. Your values equate to 20% per 5

 

[Zyxpsilon]

I actually meant my mod, not his. His was intended to make Tall more viable, just didn't quite work.

I was late to the bandwagon(s), indeed.
I almost fell stuck on the curb watching the Silver-Bullet Trains which went out the station waaaayyyyy before the game was release in September. I'm ugly too but not as much as Frankenstein has been or still is -- in the beautifully useful positive sense of the term though.
Back to Topic.

 

[_hero_]

_hero_, that's much what Dale's mod did. Your values equate to 20% per 5

Ah yes. I haven't had the chance to try it out. Looking at it, I feel like he overshot a little bit. I was suggesting more along the lines of keeping maintenance costs the same and luxuries the same.

 

[Thalassicus]

Still holding out for more effects scaled to city pop, and more reasons to want to hang onto excess happiness.

What puzzles me is the shift on several buildings from %'s towards flat X-per-city yields. A flat modifier has the same effect regardless of population, whereas the % modifier improves with population as more tiles and specialists are active. It's odd to simultaneously buff and nerf small cities with different changes.

 

[ArataWata11]

So this is the final patch? what a joke!

 

[PieceOfMind]

So this is the final patch? what a joke!

Most probably no. What gave you that impression?

 

[Valkrionn]

I was late to the bandwagon(s), indeed.
I almost fell stuck on the curb watching the Silver-Bullet Trains which went out the station waaaayyyyy before the game was release in September. I'm ugly too but not as much as Frankenstein has been or still is -- in the beautifully useful positive sense of the term though.
Back to Topic.

Not sure if that's a compliment or not.

Ah yes. I haven't had the chance to try it out. Looking at it, I feel like he overshot a little bit. I was suggesting more along the lines of keeping maintenance costs the same and luxuries the same.

Possibly. The bigger problem was the lag, though.

What puzzles me is the shift on several buildings from %'s towards flat X-per-city yields. A flat modifier has the same effect regardless of population, whereas the % modifier improves with population as more tiles and specialists are active. It's odd to simultaneously buff and nerf small cities with different changes.

I think that is more to make up for poor terrain. No matter what modifiers you have, if you lack base yield you lack yield.

So this is the final patch? what a joke!

Where on earth do you see "final patch"? Did you read the comments by the devs stating they will continue to work on the game?

 

[Michl2602]

I think what civ needs for city limiting is a combination of the corruption concept of Civ 3 and the maintenance of Civ 4 AND the global happiness of civ 5.

Please don't bring back corruption (at least not like it was implemented in civ3), where there was no real way to actually tune it somehow. If your new city was too far away from the capital (or forbidden palace) it was absolutely useless to even place it.
One of the things I like in CiV is, that this is much more softcapped now, even if probably not implemented optimally yet.
I don't exactly know what I want to be implemented, but I exactly know what I don't want: Anything similar to civ3's corruption which made an otherwise great game actually unplayable for me.

 

[aatami]

Any official release date yet?

 

[PieceOfMind]

No, except that 2K Greg said it will be released in February.

 

[Mustakrakish]

8 days left till the end of February, so I'm kinda worried about no release date yet...