1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

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

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by Gazebo, Jan 12, 2020.

  1. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,513
    Immortal Difficulty. With the recent tech changes, all of the late game units (Stealth Bombers, Modern Armor, GDRs, Xcoms) come out a bit earlier. This particular game had everything except the GDRs, and I was close to getting them.
     
  2. BliTTzZ

    BliTTzZ Warlord

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    105
    In my recent game an AI (Zulu) bullies a city state and asks if this action concerns me. I choose that I don't like his bullying and... next 10 turns it happens again and again. Is it intended or should AI just ask about it once?
     
  3. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,200
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    I wasn't aware that Epona was overperforming. I don't get the impression it was.

    I still think it's really weird that Epona has no way to grow your borders faster when the base pantheon does. Couldn't Epona give 3 Border Growth Points per city or something?
    I don't think this goes far enough. It also still has that awkward scaler that rewards you for :c5science: in cities while not giving you any additional :c5science: whatsoever.
    My impression is that this makes Cernunnos even weirder. Cernunnos already makes clearing forests to connect a plantation resource iffy at best.

    If Cernunnos gets even more yields on forests without any boosts to plantations then this is functionally a camps luxury start pantheon exclusively. You're shooting yourself in the foot with a forest/jungle plantation start.
    The general consensus in the Celts thread was that Lugh needed a buff. It also desperately needs :c5food:food in some form or another.
     
  4. JamesNinelives

    JamesNinelives Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    1,188
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    I 100% agree with removing the recon line's weakness against barbarians and extending the grace period when barbs can't attack, both of those seem like great ideas! And to be clear I do agree in general that things like loosing your initial pathfinder is a real annoyance and a significant setback.
    Do you mean the starting unit is the scout and it upgrades to the pathfinder, or do you mean removing the pathfinder entirely? If the former then I strongly agree and salute you for you good idea!

    If it's the latter I find 'it's only used because we needed the art' pretty insulting. It's always annoyed me a little bit that what used to be a UU in vanilla becomes now upgrades to the scout instead. Feels kind of like European colonial arrogance (of course the native-themed unit is the weakest version). So if you want to remove a unit (which to be clear I am not suggesting but if), why not remove the scout and keep the pathfinder? It's much more interesting in terms of flavour - not just the art but the civilopedia entry and the historical relevance. The scout on the other hand is very generic.
    Personally I find this very bizarre. Given the context we've just discussed,
    Wouldn't building a warrior first be the most reasonable way to defend your capital? Building a building when all you have is a pathfinder not only means that pathfinder can't be used to scout much, but also that you risk getting swamped which sucks.

    From my point of view, not building a warrior first is essentially a high risk, high reward stategy. There is a chance nothing will happen and you get ahead in faith or culture, but there's also a chance that it will backfire in a big way.
    Frankly I'm a little annoyed if the photojournal section becomes the go-to reference for how people play. A lot of people don't post there so it's not neccesarily a reflection of how the community as a whole, rather a reflection of the meta in that group. I'm not saying we shouldn't look there because it is a great resource, just that we should be careful making generalizations on that basis.
    Similarly, if people prefer to play that way that's fine, but I don't think it should be considered the standard that the mod is balanced around.
     
  5. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,101
    Location:
    Beijing
    Building a warrior first is a high risk, no-reward strategy. In the 90% of games you don't get swarmed by barbarians he does very little and you took a big hit to culture and faith to get him out so early. It can work out okay if he manages to find ruins that another civ would have picked up otherwise, but that's very inconsistent (and it means you weren't swarmed by barbs).

    You still risk getting swamped either way, the warrior can't kill 4 brutes on his own. Look at Stalker's screenshot, warrior first there would still result in a frustrating, unfun start. On that start I think its even more important to get your monument/shrine done early.
    I never said it was standard, but it is a common way that people play. Am I not allowed to provide to feedback based on the settings I sometimes use?
    It's not the latter, want to swap, not remove, That's why I said "swap", not "remove".

    I'd appreciate if you stopped trying to take my posts offensively? There was a discussion years ago about adding another unit between scout and explorer. At the time, the Shoshone UU was the pathfinder. It got changed to the Comanche Rider, because we wanted the art assets for pathfinders as a unit available to all civs. The result is the current pathfinder-scout-explorer upgrade line. I don't know how that change is insulting to anyone.
     
    Kim Dong Un, Bromar1 and vyyt like this.
  6. JamesNinelives

    JamesNinelives Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    1,188
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    This seems inconsistent with what is being proposed though? If there's no reward to building a warrior why would you want to start with one? To be clear, I'm not arguing the we shouldn't start with a warrior and a pathfinder. I would be fine with that. It just seems to me that such a thing implies there is value in having a warrior from the start.

    Barbarians are not 'all or nothing'. There is often a case where you have one, two, or three rather than four. Obviously one warrior cannot defend against four brutes, but it can kill one, and defend against two and sometimes three. Even with four barbarians, you take fewer losses because having a unit stationed in your city means the attackers die sooner and steal fewer yields. And if there are no barbarians, having a military unit who can see outside your borders means camps cannot spawn in that area, and you are less likely to be swarmed.
    You are welcome to say what you like, as am I. I'm not trying to stop you from talking, I am simply providing a counterpoint.
    I am confused. I am not doing it on purpose to annoy you. What would be the point? I'm sorry that we have had misunderstandings.
    Thank you for clarifying! In that case I very much support your idea :).
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2020
    vyyt likes this.
  7. SuperNoobCamper

    SuperNoobCamper Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2017
    Messages:
    355
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Egypt
    Communitas Map, Immortal Difficulty, Standard size, Epic speed playing as the Celts.
    It was a pretty good game until renaissance era; playing a wide-ish peaceful game with a good military score but not the strongest one, an overall score fluctuating between 2nd and 3rd place... slightly behind in tech compared to the leader, the Maya but managed to catch up in terms of social policies... got like 5 wonders which is also less than the Maya and the Inca, the wonder spammers with positive modifiers with almost everyone besides Denmark, my immediate neighbor who just keeps DOW on me.
    I only captured two cities in the classical era and the -ve modifier for warmonger is reset to zero with everyone besides Denmark.
    Everything was fine until the renaissance era .... the score leader, the Inca who was friendly to me the entire game managed to secure an alliance with 7 CS had SIX defensive pacts .... yes, Six and not once has he declared war on any of his neighbors or the closest one in terms of score but he just chose to DOW me from the opposite side of the world.
    And then the rest of the world just followed him, Denmark with a pathetic army that could not even defend their city, India that is still using horsemen in renaissance era, Korea that for some reason decided to say hello, i made some ships and i'll just DOW.
    It's not like it's gonna be game over or anything but it's damn annoying that every AI does not seem to be behaving rationally or trying to win or advance it's own interests but it acts like it's a 7 VS 1; a hive mind that has no purpose but to specifically target the human player no matter how many positive modifiers you have with them.
    Even spying on me with a capital score 6/10; 4 techs behind the Maya and 2 behind the Inca instead of trying to steal something from the leader whose cities scores are much higher than mine.
    It's not like i'm going to win the game anytime soon or my behavior angers or infuriates anyone, they just seem to completely ignore the positive modifiers and go on full laser eye mode to execute eliminate_human_player.exe
    I have no idea what i'm supposed to do ... every single match i don't go on a conquering spree it ends up like this.
     
    Heinz_Guderian likes this.
  8. civplayer33

    civplayer33 King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    965
    The repo is on 2-9 now, so update is imminent...looks like everyone now gets a Warrior and a Pathfinder on start as well as increased Barbarian grace periods (where they won't enter your lands)...also, while the Warrior has been bumped to Strength 8, the Barbarian Brute is still at 7 and the Barbarian Maluses for Pathfinders and Scouts have been reduced.

    @Gazebo: there's a duplication in Community Balance Patch/Balance Changes/Text/en_US/UIText.sql

    Code:
    UPDATE Language_en_US
    SET Text = 'Can Air Sweep to clear intercepting Units. If no interceptors found, it will deal 10% of it''s [ICON_RANGE_STRENGTH] Ranged Combat Strength to all enemy Air Units within 3 tiles of the target Tile.'
    WHERE Tag = 'TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_AIR_SWEEP_HELP';
    
    UPDATE Language_en_US
    SET Text = 'Can Air Sweep to clear intercepting Units. If no interceptors found, it will deal 10% of it''s [ICON_RANGE_STRENGTH] Ranged Combat Strength to all enemy Air and Anti-Air Units in and adjacent to the target Tile.'
    WHERE Tag = 'TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_AIR_SWEEP_HELP';
    
     
    JamesNinelives likes this.
  9. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,869
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Tonight, hopefully. I pushed my WIP repo for HCW and ilteroi.
     
  10. Recursive

    Recursive Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,575
    Gender:
    Male
    Intended by Firaxis, but I can see why that'd be annoying. I'll be working on diplo AI interaction logic in the future; the Firaxis version is IMO, steaming garbage.
     
  11. Recursive

    Recursive Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,575
    Gender:
    Male
    Quick adjustments made for next version:
    Code:
    Fixed endless war bug
    
    Removed wonder spammer modifier temporarily
    
    AI aggression reduced a bit overall
    
    AI should value friendship history and positive actions towards them significantly more
    
    Will do more work after the next version is posted, but this should fix the issues people have reported with the AI ganging up like a hive mind and warring forever. :)
     
  12. 76ers

    76ers Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2016
    Messages:
    46
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    One other thing you mentioned which I also have a problem with is how the barbarians leave the camps to attack. I'd like to see them stop doing that so the camps stop getting pillaged by scouts with trailblazer II. One other thing that would be beneficial, at least to games on deity, is that the camps spawn with Spearman instead of brutes so the camps are harder to take.
     
  13. civplayer33

    civplayer33 King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    965
    I definitely saw improvements to camp protection logic and preference in the changes, so it should be better in the upcoming beta.
     
    JamesNinelives likes this.
  14. JamesNinelives

    JamesNinelives Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    1,188
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    Eh. Clearing camps near your cities would be a real pain if they started with Spearmen IMO.
     
    Erikose and Heinz_Guderian like this.
  15. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,101
    Location:
    Beijing
    That's why starting with a warrior is different than taking several turns to build one. He might have enough time to kill a barb and heal up. Currently the barbs just build up until turn X, then they like to all come at once. That means sometimes a single camp contributes two at once.
    I don't know about spearmen in camps so early. I think trailblazer II is an OP promotion though, avoiding ZoC is so good.
     
    Rhys DeAnno likes this.
  16. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,513
    In the current version I would not agree, just because survivalist I is a good promotion to keep pathfinders alive. As you noted, pathfinders are very squishy at the moment, and I find survivalist's helps them a lot. So its always been a back and forth to me. But since in the next version we are discussion removing that penalty...I think it will be Trailblazer II all the way.
     
    JamesNinelives likes this.
  17. JamesNinelives

    JamesNinelives Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    1,188
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    That's kind of how I feel. I would really love for ignoring ZOC to be part of the promotion tree somewhere - the promotions available to recon units are kind of limited already, would love to see more promotions in that tree. It's too strong early on maybe have it unlock later on? At the moment it seems well balanced anyway though. Maybe in the next version when pathfinders aren't so squishy it'll be more relevant.

    Exploration is one of my favourite aspects of the game, and I am often inclined to go Trailblazer I, Survivalism I, Survivalism II for my first three promotions. Sometimes my pathfinder gets hit early in though, and in those cases I tend to go Survivalism I, Trailblazer I and then one of Trailblazer II or Survivalism II. Those extra hit points on heal especially make it much easier to keep them alive.

    It's true that ideally I always want to go Trailblazer I, Trailblazer II then the extra sight I, extra sight II, then Survivalism I, II and III (and that's always my plan eventually), but it's does very much depend on the circumstances :).
     
  18. azum4roll

    azum4roll King

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    830
    Gender:
    Male
    Can human players ask the AI the same thing? If not it's not balanced.
     
  19. civplayer33

    civplayer33 King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    965
    The AI will approach you after you bullied a CS under their protection and give you a choice of promising to stop or not, which will affect your relationship.
     
    JamesNinelives likes this.
  20. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,200
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    I always skip trailblazer III right now. Maybe the ZOC ignore could be on TRIII?
     

Share This Page