New Beta Version - 1-11 (1/11)

[pineappledan]

Israel has animations. The only thing it is missing is voices. A bit surprised to hear 3D leader screens and voice work is a sticking point; I thought most people turned that off for performance reasons. If someone knows a guy that can speak Hebrew, maybe voices can be added though?

It was chosen for addition (as a separate, easilly deactivated component) because it is a fairly polished custom civ that has some unique characteristics. Much of the early power comes from the UB instead of the UA, which fuses both the temple and the grand temple, which is a fairly unique thing for VP

Until then, you can download Israel here

Re: other custom civs -- I can only speak to the ones I have worked on.

• Timurids UA has never worked the way I wanted it to and has bugs coming out its ears.
• Sumer is stacked up on Assyria and Babylon, and has a unique temple, same as Byzantium
• Tlingit isn't balanced and their UA is very complex (though working as intended)
• Inuit are actually pretty close to balanced and very unique... I dunno, push for more civs
• Canada... Yeah, Canada's pretty awesome, but I just figured that was my own bias
• Khmer is Sukritact's civ. end of discussion because I can almost guarantee he'll say no.
• Macedon is buggy and is a 2nd unique barracks. I think people don't want another Euro civ anyways
• Nubia is great, but their UI isn't very unique re: placement and people are complaining so much already about archer rushes without a civ designed entirely around them
• Philippines tentatively has the other slot for induction, but we will see how people like them first

 

[andersw]

Great, AI seems a lot more keen on city capture, Portugal getting the squeeze here by Denmark and Austria, its not just a war on paper.

I eradicated Russia which made most AIs very unhappy, Denmark however didnt seem to care at all.

 

[hokath]

Or at least that's what he wants you to think!

 

[Recursive]

Great, AI seems a lot more keen on city capture, Portugal getting the squeeze here by Denmark and Austria, its not just a war on paper.

View attachment 543058

I eradicated Russia which made most AIs very unhappy, Denmark however didnt seem to care at all.

View attachment 543060​

Warmonger penalty is not shown there if his visible approach is FRIENDLY.

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Does anyone else find that the religious pressure (passive) seems to be working differently in this version? I'm not sure if it's a bug, but I'm not receiving any pressure in my second city that is between my holy city and the holy city of the neighbouring AI, and there's only about 6-8 tiles the distance.

 

[Recursive]

Does anyone else find that the religious pressure (passive) seems to be working differently in this version? I'm not sure if it's a bug, but I'm not receiving any pressure in my second city that is between my holy city and the holy city of the neighbouring AI, and there's only about 6-8 tiles the distance.

Are either of you playing as the Celts?

 

[hokath]

I like Sumer the most, but I still haven't given up on the events system <3

 

[andersw]

Are either of you playing as the Celts?

I agree, all the cities I (sweden) took from Russia had zero followers of my religion, my 7 cities had orders, Russia had no religious buildings in its beliefs.
Didnt really think much of it until I saw "LifeOfBrian"s post, but yes something is maybe a bit fishy.

 

[Gazebo]

In general, looks like some good changes. Only two things stood out for me:

1) Reduce GW culture +1.

Not sure why the need for that is. We don't want GW to be just about tourism, but still useful for people getting culture but not going CV.

2) Gunship +1 move, +5 RCS.

A step in the right direction but not close to enough. The gunship will still be weaker than the light tank it replaces on open ground....which any good player will always keep their skirmishers in the open terrain.

Reducing GW culture means that the 'positive' tourism impact of GWs is higher, which is a balance issue. In short, if two civs happen to both go towards a tourism victory, its almost impossible for them to best each other if they're GW-heavy. This helps with that, somewhat.

G

 

[CrazyG]

1) Reduce GW culture +1.

Not sure why the need for that is. We don't want GW to be just about tourism, but still useful for people getting culture but not going CV.

It nerfs tradition, artistry, and the Parthenon too. Parth probably needed it, artistry is still awesome, and losing a few points of culture won't kill tradition. I think its alright. I prefered 3/3 just for the elegance though.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I really like all the changes, but have only a little problem with those 2 changes:

Zoo - bumped instant tourism to 1000 (was 400), now +2 tourism +1 culture per forest/jungle tile (was +1 tourism)

You have made a lot of changes to give the CV a greater need for following an active playstile, which is really great.
But in the next second you give the Zoo the power to easily overwhelm any GW by simply working forests/jungles? Working only 10 forest tiles gives as much tourism as 4 GW in the mid game.
I was really hoping for something like +1// for every 2 worked forest/jungle tiles, like the herbalist, but it changed in the complete opposite direction?

Trade Confederacy - removed 'science/culture if behind' bonus. Tweaked influence per turn to generate +x influence to city states, where x is the total number of city-state trade routes you have at that time (so 5 routes = +5 influence on each CS TR route)

Sorry, this is insane. Nothing else than insane. Venice will blow up the moon with this change.
In a time you only get around 60 influence by a very expenisve diplomat, you would have to compete with someone who is able to earn 5 influence per turn for 5 CS.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

Tons of bugfixes and AI tweaks

My friends and I have been trying to wrestle VP into a playable state for online games for quite some time. Are any of these aimed at multiplayer? =)

 

[Snipergw]

I'll chip in again since I've seen a few topics I want to chip in on, although not strictly relevant to 1-11.

First, re: the animations/voicelines for Civs thing. I'm going to assume by animations we mean leaderscreens, not unit animations. Myself, and almost everyone I've seen play VP (rather limited number, but still) play with animations off and skip through voicelines. It's just flavor, and although Civilization's strongest selling point is flavor, it's nowhere near VP's. I'd be perfectly happy with a static image and no voiceacting. I also assume that most people (but my experience may be skewed) even plays with unit animations disabled. But I fully agree that it should be an option in the installer.

Next, events. I like events. Although I just said I don't think VP's strong point is flavor, and it shouldn't be either (as there are so many mods that focus purely on flavor and do it so well), events are still a good way to bring it. However, the events system as is isn't very good. It does help somewhat with runaways, but it just doesn't feel good to play with. I disable it every time because of the incredibly obnoxious negative events lategame, and my impression is that that's a common sentiment. If it is, I strongly believe the "Enable Events system" option should be unchecked by default, so new players don't run face first into it and get a sour first impression of the mod.

Finally, any multiplayer bugfixes and improvements would be incredibly welcome. But didn't the guy who was working on those disappear?

 

[civplayer33]

I'll just post a friendly reminder to everyone to vote on my proposal for adding Tributing information to City State Banners...once the poll reaches 20 or so votes, as long as it's still overwhelmingly positive in result, I shall make the pull request for the next version.

You'll also find a suggestion by pineappledan inside the thread that may be of interest to any modders regarding a possible implementation.

 

[Gazebo]

I really like all the changes, but have only a little problem with those 2 changes:

You have made a lot of changes to give the CV a greater need for following an active playstile, which is really great.
But in the next second you give the Zoo the power to easily overwhelm any GW by simply working forests/jungles? Working only 10 forest tiles gives as much tourism as 4 GW in the mid game.
I was really hoping for something like +1// for every 2 worked forest/jungle tiles, like the herbalist, but it changed in the complete opposite direction?

Sorry, this is insane. Nothing else than insane. Venice will blow up the moon with this change.
In a time you only get around 60 influence by a very expenisve diplomat, you would have to compete with someone who is able to earn 5 influence per turn for 5 CS.

the cost of sending all routes to CSs has consequences as well. It’s not a cut and dry decision.

 

[pineappledan]

Reducing GW culture means that the 'positive' tourism impact of GWs is higher, which is a balance issue. In short, if two civs happen to both go towards a tourism victory, its almost impossible for them to best each other if they're GW-heavy. This helps with that, somewhat.

This is pretty well-addressed by your changes to Museum and Broadcast tower. If I understand, your aim was to overcorrect and get player feedback anyways, but it does seem like it was nudged a bit too far.

the cost of sending all routes to CSs has consequences as well. It’s not a cut and dry decision.

Well it kind of is... This is more than the power of a lvl 3 ideology tenet. It's a totally dynamite perk, and I can't imagine ever trying to compete for city-state favor with any civ with this on the board. This pushes Statecraft way up in power.

@Stalker0 did the math in a previous thread trying to convert the approximate value of 1influence via diplomatic action and he came to a squishy 5-7 in value. That's 5-7hammers worth of influence growing arithmetically. 1/4/9/16/25, every turn. There's no other option for your TRs that could possibly hold a candle to that.

 

[Gazebo]

This is pretty well-addressed by your changes to Museum and Broadcast tower. If I understand, your aim was to overcorrect and get player feedback anyways, but it does seem like it was nudged a bit too far.

Well it kind of is... This is more than the power of a lvl 3 ideology tenet. It's a totally dynamite perk, and I can't imagine ever trying to compete for city-state favor with any civ with this on the board. This pushes Statecraft way up in power.

@Stalker0 did the math in a previous thread trying to convert the approximate value of 1influence via diplomatic action and he came to a squishy 5-7 in value. That's 5-7hammers worth of influence growing arithmetically. 1/4/9/16/25, every turn. There's no other option for your TRs that could possibly hold a candle to that.

Overcorrecting and nerfing is far, far easier (I find, after years of doing this) than trying to incrementally hit balance via buffs.

CS routes are hard to protect, and can be shut down by a single WC vote. They're also generally less lucrative than routes to major civs.

G

 

[Teholb]

I'm personally against adding more civs. Personal preference. I like the polished nature of the official civs. Their voices, animations, ect.

Adding my two cents, for me it's more about the difficulty of balancing an additional civ. We already have so many variables, I'm not sure the idea of adding an another is good/necessary. There are so many options to choose from, I just don't see the value in adding another which will add more development load. If it is optional, sure, but I wouldn't want any other aspect to be balanced around it, or in observance of it.

 

[bigcat88]

Don't be scare. pineappledan's civs are really great.

 

[CrazyG]

I declared war on Siam, he had 1% warmonger bonus. I've now captured two cities with an archer rush, and its up to 4%. He and Ethiopia dislike my aggression, but Rome does not. Currently the values seem reasonable.