Dolen
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2018
- Messages
- 83
I kinda agree with him on this point, about instant yields when a trade route finishes being OP.
I mean, isn't that too much?
- Status
I kinda agree with him on this point, about instant yields when a trade route finishes being OP.
I mean, isn't that too much?
I want to mention a problem with AI unit production.
Playing as Byzantium I of course attack my neighbors as soon as I have some of my UUs Cataphracts.
Problem is they are still building spearmen, swordsmen, skirmishers and composite bowmen and throw them at me even when they can already build knights and have more than enough horses.
A human player would never build these obsolete old units. They have absolutely no chance against Cataphracts.
A human player would only build knights in this case and hope for the best.
So this AI production strategy weakens them alot.
Playing as Byzantium I of course attack my neighbors as soon as I have some of my UUs Cataphracts.
Problem is they are still building spearmen, swordsmen, skirmishers and composite bowmen and throw them at me even when they can already build knights and have more than enough horses.
A human player would never build these obsolete old units. They have absolutely no chance against Cataphracts.
A human player would only build knights in this case and hope for the best.
So this AI production strategy weakens them alot.
Cataphracts are a real powerhouse for its age tho.
And you sure its not unupgraded units brought from behind the lines?
I would say the AI doesn't throw much at all, sure when you know how to play very good vs the AI it can maybe look like that because you are constantly removing their spotter unit.
AI doesn't upgrade their units too often, so especially when you are using a strong offensive UU you end up feeling like they're just sending terrible units into a blender. It will pick up as old units die and they produce new ones, and also as they move their stronger units from whatever frontline they might be at, so you should notice the high-tech units soon enough.
Recently finished a game as England on emperor, went full domination until game crashed at the end of the tech tree due to science overflow, but game was almost done, only 2 caps left and all enemies vassaled.
My impression was that picking on one AI was still an easy task (if you go for the correct techs and go hard and fast), but the other 2 AIs that were on my continent pounced on me super hard as soon as they saw they could beat me. In general it seemed to me the AI will try to expoit any weakness, and if you get a bit too bold you will get punished and lose a unit more often than not. Spain and the Iroquois in the other continent completely destroyed the other AIs, 2 got eliminated, 2 got vassaled and 1 managed to more or less survive but had still lost its capital.
I think for the first time in a year playing the mod I lost a city, lost some good units, they pillaged almost all my tiles in the capital (since I had to retreat my units as they pillaged my horses and I couldn't heal), most of my city connections broken. Left me in a 45% happiness and -28 gpt during late classical, took me almost an era to get back into +80% happiness and get my economy back into a decent shape, I only survived because you can get extra gold+science with england spies once you get the white tower and start rigging elections.
Worst part for me of this domination game was playing on a huge communitas map, at some point you have so many cities it's almost impossible to sustain the happiness in your cities, even spamming projects. Your best bet (and only hope imho) is to get archeological dig sites and make landmarks, and use musician concerts too. Every +1 happiness on every city will give you a lot of leeway when it comes to playing on huge maps. Worst part was probably the distress, even my capital was unable to sustain its needs (not a problem because it had tons of happiness from other sources, but the scaling seems absurd to me).
Screenshot to illustrate what I mean:
My impression was that picking on one AI was still an easy task (if you go for the correct techs and go hard and fast), but the other 2 AIs that were on my continent pounced on me super hard as soon as they saw they could beat me. In general it seemed to me the AI will try to expoit any weakness, and if you get a bit too bold you will get punished and lose a unit more often than not. Spain and the Iroquois in the other continent completely destroyed the other AIs, 2 got eliminated, 2 got vassaled and 1 managed to more or less survive but had still lost its capital.
I think for the first time in a year playing the mod I lost a city, lost some good units, they pillaged almost all my tiles in the capital (since I had to retreat my units as they pillaged my horses and I couldn't heal), most of my city connections broken. Left me in a 45% happiness and -28 gpt during late classical, took me almost an era to get back into +80% happiness and get my economy back into a decent shape, I only survived because you can get extra gold+science with england spies once you get the white tower and start rigging elections.
Worst part for me of this domination game was playing on a huge communitas map, at some point you have so many cities it's almost impossible to sustain the happiness in your cities, even spamming projects. Your best bet (and only hope imho) is to get archeological dig sites and make landmarks, and use musician concerts too. Every +1 happiness on every city will give you a lot of leeway when it comes to playing on huge maps. Worst part was probably the distress, even my capital was unable to sustain its needs (not a problem because it had tons of happiness from other sources, but the scaling seems absurd to me).
Screenshot to illustrate what I mean:
Spoiler Happiness breakdown :
Spoiler Capital :
Spoiler Early city :
BiteInTheMark
Deity
A lot of people seems to be happy about the new happiness system, but the current rules are not really a step forward in my opinion. (I think, they are not happier about the system, but simply happier cause its in most cases easier to handle)Recently finished a game as England on emperor, went full domination until game crashed at the end of the tech tree due to science overflow, but game was almost done, only 2 caps left and all enemies vassaled.
My impression was that picking on one AI was still an easy task (if you go for the correct techs and go hard and fast), but the other 2 AIs that were on my continent pounced on me super hard as soon as they saw they could beat me. In general it seemed to me the AI will try to expoit any weakness, and if you get a bit too bold you will get punished and lose a unit more often than not. Spain and the Iroquois in the other continent completely destroyed the other AIs, 2 got eliminated, 2 got vassaled and 1 managed to more or less survive but had still lost its capital.
I think for the first time in a year playing the mod I lost a city, lost some good units, they pillaged almost all my tiles in the capital (since I had to retreat my units as they pillaged my horses and I couldn't heal), most of my city connections broken. Left me in a 45% happiness and -28 gpt during late classical, took me almost an era to get back into +80% happiness and get my economy back into a decent shape, I only survived because you can get extra gold+science with england spies once you get the white tower and start rigging elections.
Worst part for me of this domination game was playing on a huge communitas map, at some point you have so many cities it's almost impossible to sustain the happiness in your cities, even spamming projects. Your best bet (and only hope imho) is to get archeological dig sites and make landmarks, and use musician concerts too. Every +1 happiness on every city will give you a lot of leeway when it comes to playing on huge maps. Worst part was probably the distress, even my capital was unable to sustain its needs (not a problem because it had tons of happiness from other sources, but the scaling seems absurd to me).
Screenshot to illustrate what I mean:
Spoiler Happiness breakdown :
Spoiler Capital :
Spoiler Early city :
+1 happiness for EVERY city for a archelogical dig site is insane. Creating one site with a 20 city empire generates the same amount of happiness as 10 luxuries or a lof of social policies which have a +1 happiness per city/building. Thats absurd. With more cities, you automatically have more chances to have dig sites, creating an exponential function. Its literally the same mechanic as the UB from Demark or Rome, something we have abandoned cause of its imbalanced exponential effect. It was already a bit irritating for me, when the flat happiness was introduced, but the influence of it wasnt that big and sometimes it was needed, so I was fine. But happiness for every city is far too much.
The base system of unhappiness by needs and modifiers is somewhat eroded, you could delete it completly and simply say "you get 2 unhappiness for every 3 population". It wouldnt make any difference.
The modifiers rise to such absurd high amounts, that in the end (end is actually already in industrial age or maybe even earlier), every city will reach its unhappiness cap anyway. I stopped bothering with any -needs modifiers, cause it doesnt make any difference. I spend like 8000 production into public works for my capital, just for fun, and nothing changed. In previous versions, the unhappiness came from lacking infrastructure, which need hammers to get build, if I have really problems with unhappiness, why should I waste my hammers into public works, if I can spend those hammers into useful infrastructure? Working science process instead of public works would have pushed me 2 turns in research, unlocking useful infrastructure and benefits earlier than any effect public works ever would have.
So I'm turn 260 on an Emperor Standard Spain game (this is the one I mentioned in the other thread that I am starting to get beaten by the AI militarily).
So I'm noticing something on the happiness front. I have 10 cities and 9 of them are unhappy. There is no real buildings to build at this point to adjust it. However, due to my large happiness pools I am maintaining 62-65% Global Happiness, so no penalties there.
So what I have been doing is just shifting as many people to specialists as I can. Food doesn't matter anyway since my growth is already in the toilet, so I adjust my specialists to keep right above the 60%. What this means is that I effectively only have 1 city that can build military, all other cities have a -20/30/40 penalty to military production. Honestly, thank god for Zealotry right now (and naval buying for Spain). If I didn't have the faith buys to keep my army up I think I would have been in big trouble a while ago.
So ultimately I am managing the system but at this point in the game something feels off. Its one thing that I can't get true "happiness" in my cities, but I can't even break even. It should be noted that I have not gone toward Archeology due to the prolonged wars I've been a part of, so I haven't activated the "landmark powaa" yet.
So I'm noticing something on the happiness front. I have 10 cities and 9 of them are unhappy. There is no real buildings to build at this point to adjust it. However, due to my large happiness pools I am maintaining 62-65% Global Happiness, so no penalties there.
So what I have been doing is just shifting as many people to specialists as I can. Food doesn't matter anyway since my growth is already in the toilet, so I adjust my specialists to keep right above the 60%. What this means is that I effectively only have 1 city that can build military, all other cities have a -20/30/40 penalty to military production. Honestly, thank god for Zealotry right now (and naval buying for Spain). If I didn't have the faith buys to keep my army up I think I would have been in big trouble a while ago.
So ultimately I am managing the system but at this point in the game something feels off. Its one thing that I can't get true "happiness" in my cities, but I can't even break even. It should be noted that I have not gone toward Archeology due to the prolonged wars I've been a part of, so I haven't activated the "landmark powaa" yet.
While Landmarks are strong, I don't think they need to be adjusted too much. Sure they give +1 per city, but that is local happiness so in effect they maybe let you have 1 pop per extra Landmark, which usually translates to 1 specialist per 2 Landmarks. I'm seeing this right now in my 24 city Mongolia game where I have 9 Landmarks already, and they've let my cities grow on average about 4 pop.
BiteInTheMark
Deity
I would like to know, how many of your cities are already at their unhappiness maximum? Do you noticed a point, based on numbers of techs for example, when most of your cities have reached that point?
Iam pretty sure some people will atleast think, "its your fault, you havnt focused enough on archeology", but I think you think the same.... it isnt the duty of landmarks to put you out of unhappiness. Right?
I mean, this isnt really a decision. Do you create an artifact with some culture and tourismn. Or do you create a landmark, wich has to be worked, but generate culture and tourismn like an artifact AND gives ALL your cities happiness, making you more resistant to global unappiness penalty AND reduce probably production penalties AND increase growth in ALL your cities. If that tile can be worked, I create a landmark, if not, I pick an artifact. Theres no real decision making.
Iam fine if doing an archelogical dig creates +1 flat happiness. For artifacts and for landmarks. A nice addition but nothing game changing and a sweet buff for Artristry.
But look how fast this can get out of hand. Take a typical 6 city Tradition/Artistry empire. Maybe 3 landmark-workable archelogical digs appear, Artistry reveals another 3. 6 happiness in 6 cities is the same as collecting 18 unique (!) luxuries for the price of 6 archeologists! The difference in necessary effort for both is gigantic.
Turn 300, 5/11 cities have maximum unhappiness (1 though was recently conquered). A few are close. Currently no single city is happy. I have 52% Global, but that's because of an annexed city that hasn't built its courthouse yet so I expect that to rectify soon.
Here is a breakdown to show where I am at, population in (). First number is happy, second is unhappy.
Turn: 300
Happy/Unhappy: 86/163 (52%)
1) Madrid (27): 14/15
2) Barcelona (18): 9/18
3) Seville (16): 10/16
4) Cordoba (16): 8/10
5) Toledo (21): 8/19
6) Santiago (18): 8/17
7) Salmanaca (17): 8/14
8) Murcia (17): 8/17
9) Valencia (18): 8/15
10) London (10): 5/10 [recently conquered)
11) Kaesong (12): 0/12 (no courthouse yet)
I agree that it isn't much of a decision, although I think you're undervaluing how strong artifacts are at themeing. I'm just saying I don't think Landmarks are overbearing on a per-city basis. They absolutely produce more than luxuries, but... so what? At this point in the game I have 25 unique luxuries, which are not only giving monopoly bonuses, yield bonuses, happiness per improvement, and money from being traded, but also give that global happiness on top. The question is whether Landmarks themselves produce too much happiness at the point in the game they exist, and invalidate the happiness mechanic and what it seeks to balance, and I don't think they do. Landmarks provide a significant boost to happiness, but I don't think they completely undermine the system or balance in general. I have +10 happiness from Landmarks in my current game, but my cities have grown by about 4 pop as a result, which has had an almost completely unnoticeable affect on my empire as a whole.
What I'm saying is, I totally agree they are super powerful, but I think its fine. And I am in a pretty uniquely super-wide game right now but they still don't seem that overbearing.
FaarmAnimal
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2019
- Messages
- 67
You have made this point before that it is late game, it doesn't matter and you are fine with it. This is despite recognizing it as 'super powerful'.
I can't agree with this thinking. Some people like an extended late game and these kind of tweaks are important.
The question is, in a standard game with standard settings where everyone is trying to win as fast as possible, are Landmarks providing too much happiness to the point of unbalancing the game? The game isn't and won't be balanced towards extending the end game, it will be balanced towards the game ending approximately when it is designed to. Extended end games require mods or non-standard game settings and thus are by definition not up to VP's base patch to balance. OTOH, if I am totally wrong and Landmarks are producing too much happiness and are, in fact, unbalancing the game under standard conditions, then they definitely need adjustments.
FaarmAnimal
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2019
- Messages
- 67
That's what you always say.
Nobody is suggesting balancing the game towards the end game and I haven't seen anyone suggesting it shouldn't be balanced against the standard default conditions.
The game (and mod) should have flexibility. It is part of the appeal of the whole civ series that there is a myriad of options.
I'm quoting myself in another post. In 40 turns my per city happiness increased almost 100% because of landmarks. My Global happiness increased 30%, at a time when my unhappiness actually got worse.
So either landmarks are too powerful, or happiness is so weak that getting tons of happiness isn't important.
I always say it because it is true, the game is balanced toward standard setting, not an extended late game. Extending the late game by definition means you are not winning when you could if you were optimizing your gameplay. There is nothing wrong with that, because games are meant to be fun, but we can't expect the mod to be balanced around suboptimal gameplay.
If you can make a case towards Landmarks being unbalanced in standard gameplay that is absolutely valid. I'm not saying I am necessarily right. But the entire concept of balancing the game around an "extended late game" will not happen.
If you can make a case towards Landmarks being unbalanced in standard gameplay that is absolutely valid. I'm not saying I am necessarily right. But the entire concept of balancing the game around an "extended late game" will not happen.
FaarmAnimal
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2019
- Messages
- 67
Once again, I repeat that nobody is suggesting balancing the game around the late game.
I just don't think I will ever be on your wavelength when you use such terms as 'suboptimal gameplay'. It makes me wonder if I'm talking to a machine.
I'd like to point out, landmarks don't need to be in your territory to receive the bonus, but there is also the factor that new cities (either built or conquered) weren't benefiting from past landmarks/concerts, so that is what made (for me) late game domination so hard, because when you start going really wide (30++ cities), at that point the projects won't be enough, and you will have to rely on other sources to stay afloat, as every new city is a big burden on your whole empire. Looking back, I think I should have just puppeted more cities, and kept some key ones annexed, puppets do have some happiness negatives but its way lower than what an annexed city gives, unless you starve it off to low pop.
Landmarks are advantageous to wide play, but because wide play is the one that suffer the most from the needs increase, so for me that part seemed balanced. Artifacts from archeologists seemed to be a thing I would get for tall empires, as +1 on 5-8 cities isn't such a big deal, but theming is useful if you want to go for culture win.
I understand the system can't be balanced everywhere, but I think some values could be revised for huge maps.
Landmarks are advantageous to wide play, but because wide play is the one that suffer the most from the needs increase, so for me that part seemed balanced. Artifacts from archeologists seemed to be a thing I would get for tall empires, as +1 on 5-8 cities isn't such a big deal, but theming is useful if you want to go for culture win.
I understand the system can't be balanced everywhere, but I think some values could be revised for huge maps.
- Status
