New Beta Version - April 17th (4-17)

Status
Not open for further replies.
What I said is that, like archers who have penalties versus cities, naval units could retain their current strength but gain a penalty versus cities, and get rid of the extra defense in lighthouses and harbors.
I agree with having discussion on naval melee - I'm just about to hit ironclads in my game so I'll have a better idea - but I don't necessarily agree ranged naval should have a penalty vs cities considering they have an entire main promo line (Bombardment) dedicated to taking down cities.
 
Is it the new normal for resources to only be able to be traded in single increments or is that a bug? I can only offer one resource at a time, ex. if I try to sell 4 iron to the AI it will automatically only input the #1. so I have to input 1 iron and trade it 4 separate times
 
I upgraded a city state resource (coal) and now getting double of it (14 coal ftom that city state instead of 7, got imperialism but no statecraft) not complaining but is that a bug?
Oh and reinstalling my mod fixed the crash I dont even want to begin inagining what was wrong
 
I'm convinced that is the problem with naval units atm. There was even a post in this same thread about city assault being too good, and that is basically just a worse vanguard promotion too. So if 50/50 is already too strong when stacked with 2-3 drills, then it probably means naval siege + vanguard is overboard? That's using the logic of whoever made that post since I forgot who made it.

I also want to clarify that I've yet to play this new patch yet, unless it got enough hotfixes to be stable and not miss anything? Idk yet.

Gonna go ahead and add one more thing to this since I feel showing the numbers and comparing matters when trying to make a valid argument and I feel this is something I can actually clarify on and share a meaningful opinion.

Drill line into city assault vs. Dreadnought line into vanguard + naval siege:

Drill 1: 10% CS and 25% CS to cities
Drill 2: 10% CS and 25% CS to cities
Drill 3: 10% CS and 25% CS to cities
City Assault: 50% CS to cities and 50% less damage from them.

Total: 155% bonus combat strength to cities without enhanced hp but you get instant access to city attack bonuses, albeit they're not as blown up in values compared to the naval melees. Without defensive embarkation which I don't believe melee/gunpowder units get access to you're not likely to unless in the ancient era to actually put units in the water to attack said city since they'll just get blown up by their RCS the next turn and basically waste the effort put into them getting said promotions. Definitely a moot argument towards the end of the game though cause of XP bonuses on producing units.

Dreadnought 1: 10 hp and 10% CS
Dreadnought 2: 10 hp and 10% CS
Dreadnought 3: 15 hp and 10% CS
Naval Siege: 75% bonus to cities and heal outside friendly lands. (Basically drills 1, 2, and 3 without the extra CS but you might as well be getting that from dreadnought)
Vanguard: 125% bonus to cities and 50% damage reduction

Total: 230% bonus combat strength to cities with some extra hp at the cost of needing to get 2 extra promotions (Dreadnoughts 1 and 2) to really lay it down on cities. Definitely becomes overkill by Vanguard since you just take 50% less damage, though at least now siege machines can actually hit naval units for good damage, a change I approve of and even i did myself in my own personal tweaks. That effort basically doesn't matter later in the game though since xp bonuses from buildings get you to said promotions with ease.

Conclusion: Drills definitely just a much better city capture promotion line in the early game but that starts to change fast since navies become more important starting in the medieval, and by then you've probably gotten some CS quests, or enough exp on a naval melee to get naval siege which is basically drills 1, 2, and 3 in one package without the extra CS. Though I feel Vanguard is the big bad one anyway. City Assault is already pretty good, and is about just as difficult to get to as Vanguard. It only needs one less level to reach compared to Vanguard for reference if I am not mistaken. It makes me wonder if the city damage reduction on the promotions should be split 25 and 25 between the city and the unit garrisoned in it that way you can't just blow up defenseless cities as easily but can still handle both the city and the unit attacking you? I don't really know but just something to look at.

P.S. not a fan of the field promotion changes and like everyone else not enjoying the coastal city changes. Played the patch for a bit things are coming along more nicely. Great job team! Gonna go ahead and explain my reasoning in regards to the field promotions.

My issue with the field changes basically boil down to it being more of a nerf compared to the previous field in terms of utility since now you have to rely on there being enough empty terrain, which while yes it applies to ocean tiles which is in turn great with the naval penalty removed, it removes the the overall area you want to use siege machines against land units. Granted a 5% RCS bonus and a 10% wounded modifier isn't exactly amazing, all it really needed imo to not be overshadowed by sieges 1, 2, and 3 was 10% RCS instead of 5 on each field promotion and having sieges 1, 2, and 3 get nerfed to 5% RCS and have that 5% for each moved to the city damage portion of their promotion buffs. I think someone else mentioned in this thread trebuchets and catapults weren't really used all that much against ships compared to hitting people on land during their time but having consistency in the unit line does matter, but the field changes don't reflect it as well as it did before in my own view. If anything the new field promotions feel like something that should be on the skirm line (which speaking of) how do you separate those skirm promotions from the standard ranged unit promotions? I would like to know please. Thank you again for your time and of course the effort you guys and the community put in!
 
Is it the new normal for resources to only be able to be traded in single increments or is that a bug? I can only offer one resource at a time, ex. if I try to sell 4 iron to the AI it will automatically only input the #1. so I have to input 1 iron and trade it 4 separate times
Yes, it seems like a bug, but for the record, it is working fine for me. I could sell 2 horses to AI in my game. Please mention it when you report on GitHub.
 
I don't really like how religion has played out in my current game. Russia, Portugal, and myself are on a continent and all founded. America and Byzantium founded on the other (5 civ) continent.

150 turns or so later, Byzantium's religion is down to just her capital while America has nearly every city. On my continent my religion is down to just my capital, Russia's religion is relegated to just half of her cities, and Portugal has everything else. Another 100 turns and I imagine it will just be America and Portugal benefiting from being founders.

Once a religion gets rolling with an early start it seems difficult for other religions to survive let alone spread themselves. Missionaries can barely stay ahead of passive pressure. Inquisitors can undo active foreign missionary spread but at great cost. At some point it becomes obvious that using all your faith and/or giving yourself pop loss and rebellions is not worth trying to keep your religion and you're better off just adopting a foreign one.

I hope this is just a one-off and not the new normal. I wonder if things might be even worse on Pangaea where there isn't an ocean to at least isolate two dominant religions.
 
Once a religion gets rolling with an early start it seems difficult for other religions to survive let alone spread themselves. Missionaries can barely stay ahead of passive pressure. Inquisitors can undo active foreign missionary spread but at great cost. At some point it becomes obvious that using all your faith and/or giving yourself pop loss and rebellions is not worth trying to keep your religion and you're better off just adopting a foreign one.
What was America's enhancer, and did he have any religious buildings?

Something was changed and now passive pressure seems to be working well. A little too well maybe? If America went Orthodoxy then you have your answer; I think the passive pressure modifying buildings relied on passive pressure being poopy and anemic, and they weren't modified down for a passive pressure system that is actually useful.
 
Last edited:
Gonna go ahead and add one more thing to this since I feel showing the numbers and comparing matters when trying to make a valid argument and I feel this is something I can actually clarify on and share a meaningful opinion.

Drill line into city assault vs. Dreadnought line into vanguard + naval siege:

Drill 1: 10% CS and 25% CS to cities
Drill 2: 10% CS and 25% CS to cities
Drill 3: 10% CS and 25% CS to cities
City Assault: 50% CS to cities and 50% less damage from them.

Total: 155% bonus combat strength to cities without enhanced hp but you get instant access to city attack bonuses, albeit they're not as blown up in values compared to the naval melees. Without defensive embarkation which I don't believe melee/gunpowder units get access to you're not likely to unless in the ancient era to actually put units in the water to attack said city since they'll just get blown up by their RCS the next turn and basically waste the effort put into them getting said promotions. Definitely a moot argument towards the end of the game though cause of XP bonuses on producing units.

Dreadnought 1: 10 hp and 10% CS
Dreadnought 2: 10 hp and 10% CS
Dreadnought 3: 15 hp and 10% CS
Naval Siege: 75% bonus to cities and heal outside friendly lands. (Basically drills 1, 2, and 3 without the extra CS but you might as well be getting that from dreadnought)
Vanguard: 125% bonus to cities and 50% damage reduction

Total: 230% bonus combat strength to cities with some extra hp at the cost of needing to get 2 extra promotions (Dreadnoughts 1 and 2) to really lay it down on cities. Definitely becomes overkill by Vanguard since you just take 50% less damage, though at least now siege machines can actually hit naval units for good damage, a change I approve of and even i did myself in my own personal tweaks. That effort basically doesn't matter later in the game though since xp bonuses from buildings get you to said promotions with ease.

Conclusion: Drills definitely just a much better city capture promotion line in the early game but that starts to change fast since navies become more important starting in the medieval, and by then you've probably gotten some CS quests, or enough exp on a naval melee to get naval siege which is basically drills 1, 2, and 3 in one package without the extra CS. Though I feel Vanguard is the big bad one anyway. City Assault is already pretty good, and is about just as difficult to get to as Vanguard. It only needs one less level to reach compared to Vanguard for reference if I am not mistaken. It makes me wonder if the city damage reduction on the promotions should be split 25 and 25 between the city and the unit garrisoned in it that way you can't just blow up defenseless cities as easily but can still handle both the city and the unit attacking you? I don't really know but just something to look at.

P.S. not a fan of the field promotion changes and like everyone else not enjoying the coastal city changes. Played the patch for a bit things are coming along more nicely. Great job team! Gonna go ahead and explain my reasoning in regards to the field promotions.

My issue with the field changes basically boil down to it being more of a nerf compared to the previous field in terms of utility since now you have to rely on there being enough empty terrain, which while yes it applies to ocean tiles which is in turn great with the naval penalty removed, it removes the the overall area you want to use siege machines against land units. Granted a 5% RCS bonus and a 10% wounded modifier isn't exactly amazing, all it really needed imo to not be overshadowed by sieges 1, 2, and 3 was 10% RCS instead of 5 on each field promotion and having sieges 1, 2, and 3 get nerfed to 5% RCS and have that 5% for each moved to the city damage portion of their promotion buffs. I think someone else mentioned in this thread trebuchets and catapults weren't really used all that much against ships compared to hitting people on land during their time but having consistency in the unit line does matter, but the field changes don't reflect it as well as it did before in my own view. If anything the new field promotions feel like something that should be on the skirm line (which speaking of) how do you separate those skirm promotions from the standard ranged unit promotions? I would like to know please. Thank you again for your time and of course the effort you guys and the community put in!

Just as a quick counterpoint, not everyone has high-level promoted units. I know a lot of people here are good at strategy but frankly in most of my wars my units are at either level 2 or 3 (if that). Sure they can be higher later on, but it's far from a guarantee for me to get Naval Siege on my Ironclads. Not saying that it's not relevant or that a change isn't needed. Just that I often hear people talking about promotions like Range, Parthian Tactics etc. for ranged units whereas I'm happy if I get as far as Cover. Playing on Emperor difficulty it's not unusual for me to be fighting against an army of units that have more promotions than mine (especially if they take Authority or have Orders).
 
I'm surprised to be the only one pointing out that it results on a bonus between -90% to +50% applied to Range Units.
I have doubts that AI is "aware" and "smart" enough to handle that. Tell me if I'm wrong.

The AI evaluates its strength based on the bonuses it gains from being on a tile, including adjacency bonuses/penalties.

G
 
What was America's enhancer, and did he have any religious buildings?

Something was changed and now passive pressure seems to be working well. A little too well maybe? If America went Orthodoxy then you have your answer; I think the passive pressure modifying buildings relied on passive pressure being poopy and anemic, and they weren't modified down for a passive pressure system that is actually useful.

I don't think it was Orthodoxy- I checked his religious beliefs at one point and nothing jumped out to me as a ready explanation for how dominant he was over Byzantium. I'll get a snapshot of the religious game the next chance I get to play and maybe Portugal and America's choices will reveal something.
 
Something went wrong with the logistics promotion this patch. Its no longer available after barrage 3 for ranged land units (non siege). It's saying I need infiltrators first.
 
So one issue I have thats not specifically with this patch but a general balance is that if you play on diety, world wonders are pretty much out of the questions assuming you dont play with the more wonders mod. Unless im just bad, even when im winning I generally am behind on culture and tech so even if I can build a wonder from tech, I cant build it from lack of culture requirements. I wish there was a way to keep the overall difficulty curve without never being able to access wonders.
 
Ok I checked the religion status of my game. First, the city conversion count is as follows:

America = 40
Portugal = 14
Russia = 6 (her own 6 she's managed to hold onto for now)
Byzantium = 1
Korea(me) = 0 (my capital just got prophet bombed and passive pressure got my other cities)

So essentially- America dominated Byzantium as well as the rest of their 5 person continent while Portugal is slowly going to take over our continent unless Russia decides to inquisitor herself repeatedly.

As for beliefs:

America = Ancestor Worship, Way of the Pilgrim, Cathedrals/Veneration, Syncretism, and Defender of the Faith. There's really nothing here that explains how he was so dominant. Ancestor Worship is decently high faith wise so that helps. Syncretism was an awful Enhancer- his cities have hardly any followers of Byzantium's faith. Maybe he just founded super early and got a good head start on Byzantium?

Portugal = Tutelary Gods, Theocratic Rule, Orders/Cooperation, Orthodoxy, and Global Commandments. Tutelary and Orders/Cooperation aren't particularly good for spreading. Orthodoxy certainly does help- her passive pressure is the strongest in my cities. Global Commandments is currently a waste, though- America is the host of the WC.

Neither America or Portugal got Petra or Collosus so no help there with extra trade routes.

Byzantium's religion looks unremarkable other than she chose two pantheons instead of doubling up on founders. I feel like founders are just so much stronger that Byz should probably be hardcoded to go with 2 founders for simplicity.

Russia and my religion are also relatively unremarkable. I went for Symbolism as my enhancer hoping that my missionaries could erode opposing pressure well enough to not need inquisitors but was sadly mistaken. I wish I had tried Inquisition to see if that could have saved me- reforming was probably out of the question but keeping my own religion would have been nice.

I personally dislike the hegemony that seems to be occurring in this game especially when it's two non-religion focused civs that are dominating. It's only turn 217 and the religion game feels like it's over. I could see hegemony like this leading to bigger runaways and less meaningful competition from multiple civs lategame which is also a big negative for me personally (maybe others are OK with more frequent, single runaways). I hope this isn't the new normal or if it is that we maybe scale back the inquisitor changes and/or look at passive spread to try to tone it down.
 

Attachments

  • religion status.png
    religion status.png
    2.8 MB · Views: 38
Ok I checked the religion status of my game. First, the city conversion count is as follows:

America = 40
Portugal = 14
Russia = 6 (her own 6 she's managed to hold onto for now)
Byzantium = 1
Korea(me) = 0 (my capital just got prophet bombed and passive pressure got my other cities)

So essentially- America dominated Byzantium as well as the rest of their 5 person continent while Portugal is slowly going to take over our continent unless Russia decides to inquisitor herself repeatedly.

As for beliefs:

America = Ancestor Worship, Way of the Pilgrim, Cathedrals/Veneration, Syncretism, and Defender of the Faith. There's really nothing here that explains how he was so dominant. Ancestor Worship is decently high faith wise so that helps. Syncretism was an awful Enhancer- his cities have hardly any followers of Byzantium's faith. Maybe he just founded super early and got a good head start on Byzantium?

Portugal = Tutelary Gods, Theocratic Rule, Orders/Cooperation, Orthodoxy, and Global Commandments. Tutelary and Orders/Cooperation aren't particularly good for spreading. Orthodoxy certainly does help- her passive pressure is the strongest in my cities. Global Commandments is currently a waste, though- America is the host of the WC.

Neither America or Portugal got Petra or Collosus so no help there with extra trade routes.

Byzantium's religion looks unremarkable other than she chose two pantheons instead of doubling up on founders. I feel like founders are just so much stronger that Byz should probably be hardcoded to go with 2 founders for simplicity.

Russia and my religion are also relatively unremarkable. I went for Symbolism as my enhancer hoping that my missionaries could erode opposing pressure well enough to not need inquisitors but was sadly mistaken. I wish I had tried Inquisition to see if that could have saved me- reforming was probably out of the question but keeping my own religion would have been nice.

I personally dislike the hegemony that seems to be occurring in this game especially when it's two non-religion focused civs that are dominating. It's only turn 217 and the religion game feels like it's over. I could see hegemony like this leading to bigger runaways and less meaningful competition from multiple civs lategame which is also a big negative for me personally (maybe others are OK with more frequent, single runaways). I hope this isn't the new normal or if it is that we maybe scale back the inquisitor changes and/or look at passive spread to try to tone it down.

You're maybe playing on a higher diff than me but I've founds starting with a religious building helps a lot for passive spread.
This means I get the religious building and spread before enhancer, this ofc requires good faith gen.
 
You're maybe playing on a higher diff than me but I've founds starting with a religious building helps a lot for passive spread.
This means I get the religious building and spread before enhancer, this ofc requires good faith gen.

I actually went that route myself this game (Immortal difficulty). I picked a building first, spread to my cities with 2 missionaries, then bought the building in each city before enhancing. I did it because I knew I was a small religion and needed a defensive buffer of pressure ASAP at the cost of not enhancing for a while. I also went for temples a bit sooner than normal, too. It didn't help this time. I think enhancing with Inquisition was my only hope.
 
I actually went that route myself this game (Immortal difficulty). I picked a building first, spread to my cities with 2 missionaries, then bought the building in each city before enhancing. I did it because I knew I was a small religion and needed a defensive buffer of pressure ASAP at the cost of not enhancing for a while. I also went for temples a bit sooner than normal, too. It didn't help this time. I think enhancing with Inquisition was my only hope.

was it a small 5-6 city tradition empire?
 
crdavis I haven't seen this. Especially from washington! Are you maybe using random personalities?
 
Strange behavior by Babylon. AI was able to vassalize 2 equal size nations without having taken any of their cities. Any ideas if this is normal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom