New Beta Version - August 16th (8/16)

[JamesNinelives]

I frequently got an offer to trade the single copy of a Luxury Resource that I had for another resource that an AI had multiple of. Since the only possible benefit I could get from this would be WLTKD in some of my Cities I almost never accept such deals.

I mean, you can always change your side of the offer. It's usually worth trading a few gpt for a luxury you don't have a copy of yet. Partly because of WLTKD as you mention, but also because trading with the AI improves your relations with them. Plus every extra happiness you have generates golden age points (and sometimes other things depending on your policies).

• Unrelated to the changes from this patch: I founded TwoKay Foods and Happiness immediately became a total non-issue because each office built reduces needs in all Cities by 5%. If it was mathematically possible I would have been at 500% approval for the rest of the game as the only Unhappiness I got at that point was from Specialists and War Weariness. It seemed kind of crazy; is this intended?

That doesn't sound intended :|. But perhaps it is and we just didn't account for having such a large number of offices. How many cities did you have?

 

[Dolen2]

While I prefer aggressive AI I don't like pointless DoWs from the other side of the world.

Probably bribed into war by your competitor.
Happened a lot in my last playthrough.

 

[azum4roll]

Regarding the default options in the Communitu_79a map, I cleared cache and suddenly it functioned as expected. Nothing was changed.

 

[Voremonger]

That doesn't sound intended :|. But perhaps it is and we just didn't account for having such a large number of offices. How many cities did you have?

I think I was at 17 or 18 Cities when I founded TwoKay Foods.
But I think even at 10 Cities the reduction is very significant: 50% needs reduction if it is additive, 40% if it is multiplicative.

 

[DaniSciB]

Interesting that you're saying this, because this seems absurdly easier than previous versions by comparison. I'm new to posting here, but yeah...my game settings are Emperor and Marathon, huge map, 16 civs and 24 city states, most recent communitas map. Playing as Russia and by turn 270 or so, I'm at like 1200 score with 11 cities (only two of which I conquered) while 2nd place is at 600 score and the 2nd most cities is just 6.

Also...everyone loves me still, though maybe it's too early for them to hate me.

For comparison, at turn 270 on the most recent game I played with the previous version (same settings), I was in 2nd place (as the Aztecs), and I had 12 cities while most cities had at least 10 and as many as 18. I wasn't number 1 in more than 1 category at once and was actually getting beat to diplo, scientific, and cultural victories by different civs.

Side note, definitely seeing more Authority but also seeing some Progress and Tradition. Not quite as one-sided as some are reporting, so that's nice.

The game is easier right now that is true, especially on lower difficulties since you can snowball so hard on early game because of the AI slow start and you having the chance of doing a flawless strategy.

That would explain the AI being more passive on mid game against you, since you are the world sole super power, a threat and a trade partner.

Mid game and late game they are doing well since I've seen the expansion is better, and their "bloom". Also diplomacy and war tactics are great.

This reaction was expected.
Removing the handicap trigger of settling the capital is an overall lost of yields for all AI that therefore leads to a weaker early game.
Instead of giving it back and repeat the loop, why don't we try increasing the value of handicapA, the one that is intended to affect the early game? This way AI that will recover some momentum once they found their second and third cities.

This. This way the religion race is still fair, and the AI recovers strength.

 

[adan_eslavo]

After last changes to happiness system there was a table added called UnhappinessNeedsFlatReduction. Is there its global counterpart? I understand that columns UnculturedHappinessChangeGlobal or IlliteracyHappinessChange etc. in Buildings are not working anymore?

 

[Gazebo]

This reaction was expected.
Removing the handicap trigger of settling the capital is an overall lost of yields for all AI that therefore leads to a weaker early game.
Instead of giving it back and repeat the loop, why don't we try increasing the value of handicapA, the one that is intended to affect the early game? This way AI that will recover some momentum once they found their second and third cities.

Also the handicap was divided by number of cities. You all asked for this and then complain about the game being relatively easier. Ya done this to yaselves

 

[Zanteogo]

Also the handicap was divided by number of cities. You all asked for this and then complain about the game being relatively easier. Ya done this to yaselves

I think it's fine.

IMHO AI bonues should be discounts in total cost of things we want to AI to have more of to compete with humans and not hard raw resources. That way it prevents issues with the AI always getting things like religions and wonders on the higher levels. If it was scaled to era it would be even better. (Not sayings it's not already)

But I don't have a horse in the high difficulty race so either way.

 

[Drakle]

I think the handicap is in a good spot.

I just think the AI needs to slightly reduce it weighting for building units, and up the weighting for buildings. In my most recent game, Greece and I were the solo major nations in a section of map surrounded by deep ocean. We had a declaration of friendship, positive relations, lots of trade, etc. And in terms of defence, I was the Shoshone, with three cities along the northern coast of his continent (the rest of my cities were on a continent north of him) which were protected by a mountain range, my units fortified in the passes, with forts and encampments in my territory, and Legions given to me by a AI city state.

He still builds a absolute carpet of units, which just sit there for the entire game, as he slips down the rankings.

The human has a advantage, in being able to secure their territory with a small number of units, and if not planning a military victory, focusing strongly on buildings, city state alliances and wonders. When war is at hand, then a build up can happen. But the AI will build immense armies even when they don't use them. I was easily able to secure every city state in the region as a ally, despite being fealty, while he went Statecraft. Because he never invested strongly in diplomatic units.

Also Authority civs need to be better at realising they shouldn't ally their only target of expansion.

 

[2506]

I think it's fine.

IMHO AI bonues should be discounts in total cost of things we want to AI to have more of to compete with humans and not hard raw resources. That way it prevents issues with the AI always getting things like religions and wonders on the higher levels. If it was scaled to era it would be even better. (Not sayings it's not already)

But I don't have a horse in the high difficulty race so either way.

If you're out-settling and out-founding it significantly in the early game, it's not fine in my book.

Also the handicap was divided by number of cities. You all asked for this and then complain about the game being relatively easier. Ya done this to yaselves

The Deity players did it to all of us. I had no problem with the prior founding balance playing at Emperor.

 

[Zanteogo]

The Deity players did it to all of us. I had no problem with the prior founding balance playing at Emperor.

I have said before my annoyance with Deity players complaining about any aspect of the game being "hard".

I don't "mind" the current change. Though I agree with what you are saying.

 

[Bromar1]

Anyone else seeing AI neglecting courthouses in annexed cities? My recent game had a monstrous Authority Persia (with some golden age bonuses from monopoly for extra spice) wreaking havoc on Poland but he let the Polish capitol sit in the occupied state for the last 60-80 turns. This is really bonkers considering Persia literally has a courthouse UB

 

[Zanteogo]

Anyone else seeing AI neglecting courthouses in annexed cities? My recent game had a monstrous Authority Persia (with some golden age bonuses from monopoly for extra spice) wreaking havoc on Poland but he let the Polish capitol sit in the occupied state for the last 60-80 turns. This is really bonkers considering Persia literally has a courthouse UB

Notice the AI struggling to keep happiness up mid game. This could be why. Though I think it's more to due to them trading all their gold away. (Or a mix of both maybe?)

Actually saw repeated spawn of rebel units in AI lands. Haven't seen that in ages.

 

[Bromar1]

If you're out-settling and out-founding it significantly in the early game, it's not fine in my book.



The Deity players did it to all of us. I had no problem with the prior founding balance playing at Emperor.

IDK I usually play emperor, and I was still getting last pantheon 90% of the time even when going shrine first before this change.

 

[Valvts]

Playing the new communitas map. Is it supped to be like that? One region empty while another full?

 

[Gidoza]

OK so I'm not sure if this is part of this version or was always there (but I don't remember seeing it before) - my Workers that are on Auto are busy building Roads and Railroads everywhere, even when city connections already exist by road. It's buggering up my trade routes over villages because the AI is trying to "fix" things even though nothing is broken.

 

[chihualuigi]

The game is easier right now that is true, especially on lower difficulties since you can snowball so hard on early game because of the AI slow start and you having the chance of doing a flawless strategy.

That would explain the AI being more passive on mid game against you, since you are the world sole super power, a threat and a trade partner.

Mid game and late game they are doing well since I've seen the expansion is better, and their "bloom". Also diplomacy and war tactics are great.

This. This way the religion race is still fair, and the AI recovers strength.

No doubt, I'm loving the diplomacy and war tactics, and the religion race does feel much fairer. I hope this wasn't taken as me horsehockyting on VP, because I absolutely love most of the changes. And I will step the difficulty up one (though I don't really feel like Emperor is a "low" difficulty), just because it might feel better then.

It might also relate to map differences...I had the rift width as narrow and sea level as shallow last time I played, and I'm not sure I did it this time, so there may have simply been less land this time. Good start for me in a "corner" where I only had to expand up instead of worrying about civs on either side. But yeah - we'll see. I'm trying an Immortal game now with "better" settings.

 

[Stalker0]

Also the handicap was divided by number of cities. You all asked for this and then complain about the game being relatively easier. Ya done this to yaselves

Before we blame the handicap change too much, let’s consider something.

from my understanding of the feedback, it’s not just that the AI is expanding slower than before, but it’s expanding slower than the player...even on the second city.

considering that the AI still get production and growth discounts, and humans don’t really yet have a way to optimize over the AI yet...that shouldn’t be Happening. Later cities I could understand as the humans superior gameplay starts to take over...but the second city is practically just pure yield.

The only explanation then to me would be issues in the AI build order. Is it focusing on buildings and workers over the initial settler? Is it delaying pottery too much?


That said, if it really comes down to the yields, we can tweak to a middle ground in a few ways:

1) The pantheon idea, aka give the AI city founding bonuses when it gets it pantheon...which gives it back its original overall yields, but just delayed enough to help the religion game. I think this is far superior to the “tweak A” idea, because the overall math remains just as it did before, just shifted slightly. Changes to the A handicap will have compounded effects for the entire game.

2) keep the new per city prod change for era changes, but revert it for city founding.

The desire for this change was mainly due to world projects. Therefore, most of the time it’s the era bonuses that you get later that will often give the crazy last push that puts AIs over the top.

This isn’t perfect as there is still some new city founding when WC projects are happening, but the issue would at least be reduced.

3) alternate idea from 2. Revert the per city change for eras ancient - renaissance, retain the change from then on.

This idea attempts to be more of a scalpel compared to idea 2. We give back the AI normal bonuses for the early game, but change it later in the game when world projects become a thing. This way the AI still gets the bonus for most of its expansion phase, and we fully reduce the risk that a late game city found can disrupt a world project

 

[2506]

View attachment 566889Playing the new communitas map. Is it supped to be like that? One region empty while another full?

They vary all the time, which I like, but I've never seen one that looks like that. What settings did you use?

Before we blame the handicap change too much, let’s consider something.

from my understanding of the feedback, it’s not just that the AI is expanding slower than before, but it’s expanding slower than the player...even on the second city.

considering that the AI still get production and growth discounts, and humans don’t really yet have a way to optimize over the AI yet...that shouldn’t be Happening. Later cities I could understand as the humans superior gameplay starts to take over...but the second city is practically just pure yield.

The only explanation then to me would be issues in the AI build order. Is it focusing on buildings and workers over the initial settler? Is it delaying pottery too much?


That said, if it really comes down to the yields, we can tweak to a middle ground in a few ways:

1) The pantheon idea, aka give the AI city founding bonuses when it gets it pantheon...which gives it back its original overall yields, but just delayed enough to help the religion game.

2) keep the new per city prod change for era changes, but revert it for city founding.

The desire for this change was mainly due to world projects. Therefore, most of the time it’s the era bonuses that you get later that will often give the crazy last push that puts AIs over the top.

This isn’t perfect as there is still some new city founding when WC projects are happening, but the issue would at least be reduced.

3) alternate idea from 2. Revert the per city change for eras ancient - renaissance, retain the change from then on.

This idea attempts to be more of a scalpel compared to idea 2. We give back the AI normal bonuses for the early game, but change it later in the game when world projects become a thing. This way the AI still gets the bonus for most of its expansion phase, and we fully reduce the risk that a late game city found can disrupt a world project

Great post.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

Emperor difficulty Epic speed standard size playing Progress Zulus.
Haile Selassie went progress this game on an amazing desert start with incense as the primary luxury but was one of the last players to grab a pantheon, founded the second city (first satellite) at turn 160, got eliminated like tunrs later by Denmark.

Spoiler Ethiopia's very first settler produced at around turn 150 :

Edit: Ethiopia spent most of it's hammers on wonders, they built the Petra, Mausoleum and Temple of Artemis ..... They had no army what so ever.