My take on stuff

[Toffer90]

Don't we already have the Inquisitor that does this?

Is he available at mysticism?


Edit: v1.5.3.

removes +1 unit cost, maintains +1 military unit cost (tribal warfare).

Keeping animals, captives, GP and workers will not cripple your economy the way it previously did.


Edit2: v1.5.4

Charity:


Banditry now have +10 crime in all cities and 20% in capital (was 15%).

Edit3: Something seems broken in my test game, all the AIs are going bankrupt and loose their units one by one in early ancient era. Maybe they don't build the buildings that give cash because of the large -% that affect them. I'm doing great economically (well I have to produce wealth in one of the smaller cities) with 4 cities that are further apart than the AI build them, most of the AI's have 4 cities as well.
So... perhaps I'll have to find a new balance with a lot less - percentage but higher maintenance costs.

What do you experience in this area?

 

[MacCoise]

Some good work here. Civics should be more important choices than they are currently are and that means making them more "extreme"

One thing that I wonder about is why I need to go through turns of Anarchy because I change from burning waste to Waste at Sea for example.

It's hardly a revolution! Maybe it's not possible to make some changes anarchy free....??

 

[Toffer90]

Some good work here. Civics should be more important choices than they are currently are and that means making them more "extreme"

One thing that I wonder about is why I need to go through turns of Anarchy because I change from burning waste to Waste at Sea for example.

It's hardly a revolution! Maybe it's not possible to make some changes anarchy free....??

It is fully possible but there should also be something that stops you from changing forth and back too much.
I could add an one time revolution index penalty every time you switch between the waste civics, and remove the anarchy time; but not everyone play with the revolution option on.

 

[Toffer90]

Edit3: Something seems broken in my test game, all the AIs are going bankrupt and loose their units one by one in early ancient era. Maybe they don't build the buildings that give cash because of the large -% that affect them. I'm doing great economically (well I have to produce wealth in one of the smaller cities) with 4 cities that are further apart than the AI build them, most of the AI's have 4 cities as well.
So... perhaps I'll have to find a new balance with a lot less - percentage but higher maintenance costs.

Question to team:

In what manner is maintenance cost considered by the AI before they decide to found a new city?
Would a high -% in all cities make the AI consider money making buildings useless and build units/other instead?
Would it be possible to teach the AI to demolish buildings with maintenance cost if their economy is bad? (Currently they do not at all)

 

[JosEPh_II]

@Toffer,
I'm sure you know that when you change Civics and have an anarchy period you must wait 5 turns (after the anarchy is over) to change Civics again. So flip flopping Civics takes time. No real need for more penalties "from changing back and forth".

@MacCoise,

1.Civics should be more important choices than they are currently are and 2. that means making them more "extreme"

Agree with #1, but don't agree on 2.

Part of the problem with Civics is they can get overly complicated very quickly. This has happened every time C2C has had a New Set. Some simplified strong alternatives are what Civics should be. Not complicated nor extreme.

JosEPh

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Some simplified strong alternatives are what Civics should be. Not complicated nor extreme.

I agree. It should not take 30 minutes to figure out which civic is the one you want at this point in the game. The problem I have is dyslexia, with so much text I am bound to misread something.

 

[Rwn]

Also agree here (and I don't have dyslexia ). If a civic property only has a limited effect in-game, it's probably worth just removing it so the main features of the civic stand out.

 

[Arakhor]

I agree. The end-game civics should also not be simply better in every way than earlier civics - they should be better in some ways, certainly, but if there's no reason not to take that civic, then you're doing some wrong.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

BtW The Language civic is a no brainer but it was the only way of implementing what Hydro wanted.

 

[Arakhor]

Perhaps that's a definite one to look at then. You have loads of auto-builds and city properties and the like. You could even try an instant wonder that grants various bonuses to each of your cities.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

The bonus is the between nations one. The only way to do it on buildings is to write some python code which hides the effect from the AI.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, if it was an auto-building, which C2C has in spades, then it shouldn't matter if the AI don't know about it, as it would happen anyway given a specific tech gain, era transition or what-have-you.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Except that the change in value required is not easily done in python because the relationship values that python can change is at the x=1 level where as the attitude is at the 10**x level, sort of.

 

[Arakhor]

Oh well. The relationship value might be worth dropping altogether then, especially if it cleans up the civic categories and makes things more transparent.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

The relationship is the reason for that civic. If war is what you want remove it, if you are more peaceable it needs to stay.

 

[Arakhor]

Why would that be? If there is no relationship modifier either way, why would war break out over a higher education, especially if there is no civic altogether and just auto-buildings?

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

(I was talking about your play style.)

Most of the things in BtS are about making war happen between nations. Almost everything adds to the tension between nations. Religion was added for just this reason.

Diplomacy, making trades and agreements, was the only counter to this. The language civic was added in C2C to help with such diplomacy.

I have no idea what education has to do with the topic.

 

[Arakhor]

Err, you're quite right. Language, not education.

 

[Toffer90]

@Toffer,
I'm sure you know that when you change Civics and have an anarchy period you must wait 5 turns (after the anarchy is over) to change Civics again. So flip flopping Civics takes time. No real need for more penalties "from changing back and forth".

Have you ever had anarchy when switching between closed borders and open borders, well I haven't. I can adjust the length of anarchy for every civic change to the point of turning anarchy completely off. But I will most likely keep anarchy time for every civics, even add it for the "Border" civics.

@MacCoise,


Agree with #1, but don't agree on 2.

Part of the problem with Civics is they can get overly complicated very quickly. This has happened every time C2C has had a New Set. Some simplified strong alternatives are what Civics should be. Not complicated nor extreme.

JosEPh

We're in agreement here, I'm aiming for game balance and easier to differentiate civics. I might have made some extreme changes till now as experimentation is needed before I can find something that works for both the player, the AI and for game balance generally.

Right now I've decided to start a new test game (#3) as I think all the constant economical changes I made during my last test game confused the AI a lot.

 

[Faustmouse]

Maybe we should limit civic effects to 3-5 different effects to make them not too complicated at all; then add a discription text that only tells you the main benefit(s).