Pentagon (-33%) + Imperialism (-35%) + Autocracy's Military Industrial Complex (33%) = -101% cost to upgrade units. I made a thread about it in Strategy because I discovered the same in my game last night after finishing Pentagon, and 1 gold upgrade costs alongside some of the gold savings/generation that warmongering gets leaves you with a ton of gold for some insane infrastructure investment.
New Beta Version - August 16th (8-16)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
Pentagon (-33%) + Imperialism (-35%) + Autocracy's Military Industrial Complex (33%) = -101% cost to upgrade units. I made a thread about it in Strategy because I discovered the same in my game last night after finishing Pentagon, and 1 gold upgrade costs alongside some of the gold savings/generation that warmongering gets leaves you with a ton of gold for some insane infrastructure investment.
pineappledan
Deity
Can you actually make money from upgrades if it’s -101%??? 
JamesNinelives
Emperor
Well, marsh is a minor case. I'll admit I don't actually know, not using chariots very often anyway.
That's not really true. Comanche riders are very worthwhile - they are cheap and very mobile. They excel at hit-and-run attacks and pillaging, and their promotions persist when upgraded. The current rules inhibit them functioning well in that role though.
So I had noticed a few happiness swings, but this one takes the cake. I was looking for a good city to send a food ITR to. My best happiness city was 7 happy, 1 unhappy.
I switch over the TR. next turn when I go to commit, the city is at 8, 9
I switch over the TR. next turn when I go to commit, the city is at 8, 9
Here is my big problem with the happiness system. Number constantly displaying false values. This happens ALL THE TIME through the early game.
It happenend constantly in the last beta patch as well. Can other players check their own games? In my experience it usually behaves by like medieval, though I still get instances when I import a luxury and the happiness value doesn't change (I'm not at my population limit)
Spoiler Screenshots :
It happenend constantly in the last beta patch as well. Can other players check their own games? In my experience it usually behaves by like medieval, though I still get instances when I import a luxury and the happiness value doesn't change (I'm not at my population limit)
Rekk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 2,603
Have you made a bug report yet?
No. I would need a savegame file on the turn of the error, right?
Empire happiness total is the total incoming, but remember happiness in each city is capped at city happiness. So you can have higher empire happiness than 'real' happiness because of the pop cap.
G
I am not at the population cap in those screenshots with the red circles, I have 22 happiness and 26 population, but is says I have should have 26 happiness.
Also, why do I have a growth penalty at 9/9?
Txurce
Deity
Speaking of happiness, I'm keeping it in the 40s during war, 50s out of war mid-Industrial, with the highest pop and number of cities in the game. The AI generally does better than me (I'm at 40 vs China and destroying it, China is at 86 getting killed). AI handicap aside, the point is that with better play I could have more happiness. It also doesn't swing wildly for me. So bottom line, I think the current system is working, and needs only tweaks or nothing at all (from a borad perspective).
Because the 'average' value listed is the amount parcel'd out to each city - it functions like a deck of cards, cities can receive more empire unhappiness than they can 'support' because of this.
9/9 is a bug with <=
G
Okay, I understand. Thank you.
Each of my cities gets shuffled 5 happiness cards. The cities with 5 or more population get 5 happiness as a result. A city with 1 population gets dealt 5 cards, but can only play 1 card, so that city produces just 1 happiness. I thought the cards would distribute more favorably to me, I understand. It looks like keeping your cities at similar populations is a good move now.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,199
Sure, I'll work on one and put it up next week. I'll keep you posted.
Interesting, what makes you feel tradition is the best?
I find it to be the worst, just because the culture and science is the slowest, even if it is really good at grabbing land.
This sort of depends on map settings a lot though, and even on position. If you're in the middle of everyone and don't feel like warring for whatever reason using Tradition to spam out three quick settlers and get three prime defensible spots can have huge compounding benefits. I also think a lot of Tradition's power right now (sort of brokenly) comes from how the border/faith policy is not only really good but goes bonkers earlygame with the Expanse pantheon (which iirc is a combo so broken you don't even use it anymore, but still, it's relevant.)
Dolen
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2018
- Messages
- 83
Free 2 pop.
ridjack
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 1,000
I don't think this patch has really done anything to move the needle on my policy selection.
Default policy tree is Progress; that is, if nothing pushes me towards one of the other two trees, Progress is the most consistent. It's not always the BEST choice, but it absolutely is always a SAFE choice.
If I'm a civ that's got a hard war focus (Aztecs, Huns, Zulus), it's almost always Authority even if I can't find anyone nearby to kill. If I'm close to a juicy target or someone that's hyper aggressive in the early game, I'm probably looking at Authority unless it's bad for some other reason. If the game looks crowded in my immediate area, also Authority.
Tradition is still my least-picked tree, as it has been even since Vanilla where it was supposedly top pick for everyone else. I only go for it if I'm a civ with a hard Great Person focus (Arabia, Korea), if my terrain looks too weak to support Progress cities and there's nobody nearby to feed Authority, or if I'm relatively isolated but with minimal land like a crappy little island or something. All it can do better now is grab land with the two settlers from +2 pop; it immediately loses its +1 culture for doing so, proceeds to fall behind both of the other policies in culture generation when it's on top otherwise, and those cities do nothing to make up for their existence for quite a long time. It's still strong, but it has more of a ramp-up time than ever before, and to me that means it usually needs a good reason for me to even look at it.
Default policy tree is Progress; that is, if nothing pushes me towards one of the other two trees, Progress is the most consistent. It's not always the BEST choice, but it absolutely is always a SAFE choice.
If I'm a civ that's got a hard war focus (Aztecs, Huns, Zulus), it's almost always Authority even if I can't find anyone nearby to kill. If I'm close to a juicy target or someone that's hyper aggressive in the early game, I'm probably looking at Authority unless it's bad for some other reason. If the game looks crowded in my immediate area, also Authority.
Tradition is still my least-picked tree, as it has been even since Vanilla where it was supposedly top pick for everyone else. I only go for it if I'm a civ with a hard Great Person focus (Arabia, Korea), if my terrain looks too weak to support Progress cities and there's nobody nearby to feed Authority, or if I'm relatively isolated but with minimal land like a crappy little island or something. All it can do better now is grab land with the two settlers from +2 pop; it immediately loses its +1 culture for doing so, proceeds to fall behind both of the other policies in culture generation when it's on top otherwise, and those cities do nothing to make up for their existence for quite a long time. It's still strong, but it has more of a ramp-up time than ever before, and to me that means it usually needs a good reason for me to even look at it.
- Status
