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

[CrazyG]

This is how different map sizes affect social policy cost. They affect techs too, but social policy are easier to calculate. (I used this thread for the equation: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...la-for-determining-social-policy-cost.657988/)

Here are a few plausible example cases:

Spoiler Early Game: 2 Cities, 2 Policies :

How much does policy #3 cost?

Small: 165
Standard: 160
Large: 155

At first, this seems pretty small. But as we go later in the game~

Spoiler End of Early Game, Tall (4 cities, 6 policies) :

How much does policy #7 cost?

Small: 1710
Standard: 1590
Large: 1515

Spoiler End of Early Game, Somewhat Wide (7 cities, 6 policies :

How much does policy #7 cost?

Small: 2105
Standard: 1870
Large: 1710

Social policies would be much, much slower on small maps compared to large. I do primarily play standard but occasionally go large or small. I always felt like things were slow on small sizes.

What about a later game example? Here are the numbers for getting an ideology (18th policy, assume no free policies):

Spoiler Tall, 5 Cities :

Small: 18095
Standard: 16545
Large: 15510

Spoiler Wide: 10 Cities :

Small: 24555
Standard: 21065
Large: 18740

Spoiler Very-Wide: 20 Cities :

Small: 37485
Standard: 30115
Large: 25205

Those are really big differences. There are strategic considerations, but my gut just says that we are way overcorrecting for them.

 

[CrazyG]

I made another figure for the worth of new Cities.
The x axis represents the number of Cities including the new City.
The y axis represents how good a new annexed/founded City would need to be relative to the average production of Culture/Science per City in your empire to break even.

This graph isn't right.

Additional social policy and tech costs scale additively. It doesn't matter if a new city is city #2 or city #100, it needs the same amount of culture to break even.

I'm going to make a new thread for this topic, it's getting enough discussion.

 

[Voremonger]

This graph isn't right.

Additional social policy and tech costs scale additively. It doesn't matter if a new city is city #2 or city #100, it needs the same amount of culture to break even.

I'm going to make a new thread for this topic, it's getting enough discussion.

I'm very confident that the graph I posted is correct.
You would only be correct if the Culture/Science scaling was directly proportional to the number of Cities that you have.
I'll show you a detailed example when you make the new thread.

 

[CrazyG]

I'm very confident that the graph I posted is correct.
You would only be correct if the Culture/Science scaling was directly proportional to the number of Cities that you have.
I'll show you a detailed example when you make the new thread.

You should make a thread for your own model. I'm creating one of my own, it'll take a little while and I won't post the thread until then.

 

[CrazyG]

You would only be correct if the Culture/Science scaling was directly proportional to the number of Cities that you have.

I've read this like 5 times and I'm not sure what you mean.

I used this equation to get the social policy costs:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...la-for-determining-social-policy-cost.657988/


A new city increases the cost proportionally. It's always about the same, just +5 or -5 due to rounding. Your 10th city increase the cost of your 10th social policy by 310. Same as your 2nd city.

A basic model would be just assume you want a social policy every X turns. Then divide the new cost by X, and see if that city is making enough. In my most recent game I had new policy roughly every 15 turns, so if I'm at 9 policies, that city needs about 20 culture to break even.

Tech is harder to analyze in detail, but a decent rule of thumb would just be that you want science equal to the culture. I don't think you need gold in the analysis (and your model will be flawed unless you decrease the weight of gold compared to science and culture, Stalker is right).

 

[JamesNinelives]

I agree this probably deserves a thread of it's own, if not two .

 

[Zuizgond]

This is wrong. It changed a lot more than just clustering.

Stone now appears on hills. Horses appear on tundra and desert. The overall amount of horses in the world has roughly doubled. Those are massive balance changes.

I see smaller changes (like Bananas on Marsh) too. These might be good, they might be bad, but either way they aren't clearly communicated and that is bad.

I like the new resources distribution personally. There might be more resources overall but how is it a problem? Everybody can expand to claim them.

 

[DeAnno]

There might be more resources overall but how is it a problem? Everybody can expand to claim them.

I think it's really not great for Strategics. Some people would rather play on a map where Strategics were more limited and fielding all strategic armies required more effort, and the vast proliferation of extra horses on non Communitas mapscripts is messing with that. Is there a reason Communitas has to edit the default resource allocation scripts instead of just making one specifically for itself and using that logic in a more self contained way?

 

[2506]

I have played on Communitu_79 and Continents +. I also like the new map resource distribution, particularly the way it clusters. Asking for a changelog of the new distribution struck me as asking for a lot.

 

[Deljade]

Playing a game (epic, huge, emperor) with the shiniest new patch from github and I have to say that I am stunned by how well the AI is doing in techs. Being in Modern, most of the AIs are very close in tech at around 52-54 (me at 53) so overall a very balanced game (has there been a change in Tech Trading logic?). As for aggressiveness, my neighbors were two of the most peaceful AIs, a medium buildup of troops were enough to deter war when they were a bit upset. Though I feel they bribed a lot of other AIs from overseas to war me (lost Luxuries from deals). Montezuma completely conquered Dido though. Other than him though, there hasn't been a whole lot of conquest, probably because he was the only one that picked Authority.
There is also a lot of pressure coming from Morocco's tourism, the changes definitely have a big impact, it makes me genuinely afraid for the outcome of the late game.

 

[tothePAIN]

AI on this hotpatch is as good militarily as I've ever seen. Authority AIs are back to conquering cities. I can't expand without building an army. Its fantastic.

 

[General_Drax]

Morocco ... uhm ... In my last three games it performed stellar. Vassalized through brute force but still it's really an outsider. It sets far above others. Suspicious.

 

[tu_79]

I think it's really not great for Strategics. Some people would rather play on a map where Strategics were more limited and fielding all strategic armies required more effort, and the vast proliferation of extra horses on non Communitas mapscripts is messing with that. Is there a reason Communitas has to edit the default resource allocation scripts instead of just making one specifically for itself and using that logic in a more self contained way?

You can set sparse strategics on game creation, go to advanced options and check.

Edit. I also tried the containment you ask for but the function that is delivered with vp was messing with it. Bonus resources spawn is fixed to go where civiliopedia says, so it's a bug fix. The clustering was not intended to be something for all maps. Let's try it and if you all think it is better the old way, we'll try to revert this part.
About strategics, we set a reasonable value per player (amounts can be tweaked in map creation), but it is not evenly distributed (gameplay designed). Trade and conquer are needed to secure strategics. This too was intended only for our map. Anyway, give it some testing, there's more strategy involved.

 

[CrazyG]

Asking for a changelog of the new distribution struck me as asking for a lot.

No, it isn't.

Sorry, I'm going to die on this hill, the name of the mod is "Voice of the People", if they want to change resource clustering, they can propose it in the forum and generate discussion. Introducing the change is the minimum they should do.

Do people even know what got changed? So far the explanations I see all have errors.

A rough change log about resource distribution is that they now strictly follow the terrains shown in Civilopedia.

This isn't inaccurate. I downloaded an old version to check. Stone is not listed as appearing in hills in the civilopedia. Horses are not listed as appearing on tundra or desert. There were well established rules for these on the regular map scripts.

Even if this was accurate information, it's not a mandate to change anything. The better move would be to ask the forum, or just change the civilopedia entry.

I realize as modders you put a lot of work into this project, and I appreciate that, but don't act like I'm in the wrong for just asking about a change. We've got three pieces of inaccurate clarification on this in a row. Changes that are dramatically smaller than this often require consensus. How about explaining why things were changed at all? This is like the only aspect of the game without a bunch of complaints.

 

[JamesNinelives]

It's been said before, but God of the Open Sky is wildly unbalanced at the moment. Playing with 12 civs on Huge, Epic Speed, Emperor difficulty.

Ethiopia not only founded a full 35 turns before anyone else, they also converted 3 of my 4 cities including my capital. I repeat, this is before any other religions had been founded.

Specifically Ethiopia (Tradition, God of the Open Sky) founded on turn 99, the next was England (also Tradition, Goddess of the Hunt with Truffles monopoly) on turn 134. Just now was Byzantium (Goddess of the Home) on turn 140. Although I took a hit to my faith from loosing my desert pantheon, I was able to found myself on turn 149.

Edit: although... the city I founded my religion in wasn't converted to my religion :|. It does create pressure but seems it wasn't enough. I'll wait a few turns to see if it flips but otherwise it seems like my religion is dead on arrival.

Spoiler :

You can set sparse strategics on game creation, go to advanced options and check.

You can, but then everything else is reduced as well which creates it's own problems. I like there being horses in the desert, but there really are too many horses around at the moment. I have 4 horse tiles near my desert capital in this game.

Spoiler :

 

[Gazebo]

No, it isn't.

Sorry, I'm going to die on this hill, the name of the mod is "Voice of the People", if they want to change resource clustering, they can propose it in the forum and generate discussion. Introducing the change is the minimum they should do.

Do people even know what got changed? So far the explanations I see all have errors.

This isn't inaccurate. I downloaded an old version to check. Stone is not listed as appearing in hills in the civilopedia. Horses are not listed as appearing on tundra or desert. There were well established rules for these on the regular map scripts.

Even if this was accurate information, it's not a mandate to change anything. The better move would be to ask the forum, or just change the civilopedia entry.

I realize as modders you put a lot of work into this project, and I appreciate that, but don't act like I'm in the wrong for just asking about a change. We've got three pieces of inaccurate clarification on this in a row. Changes that are dramatically smaller than this often require consensus. How about explaining why things were changed at all? This is like the only aspect of the game without a bunch of complaints.

The inclusion was green-lit by me after discussions with @azum4roll and @tu_79. I included it, the buck stops with me, so if there is a general outcry against it, I'll take point and address it. I'm not going to throw anyone under the bus or anything, no need. The proposed changes to the assignstartingplots.lua (which I did not analyze beyond checking for compatibility with vanilla mapscripts) did not appear to alter much at first glance, however they seem to do so. I'll leave @azum4roll and @tu_79 to address if these larger changes were intentional or if they are oversights. Either way, nothing is set in stone.

G

 

[tu_79]

No, it isn't.

Sorry, I'm going to die on this hill, the name of the mod is "Voice of the People", if they want to change resource clustering, they can propose it in the forum and generate discussion. Introducing the change is the minimum they should do.

Do people even know what got changed? So far the explanations I see all have errors.

This isn't inaccurate. I downloaded an old version to check. Stone is not listed as appearing in hills in the civilopedia. Horses are not listed as appearing on tundra or desert. There were well established rules for these on the regular map scripts.

Even if this was accurate information, it's not a mandate to change anything. The better move would be to ask the forum, or just change the civilopedia entry.

I realize as modders you put a lot of work into this project, and I appreciate that, but don't act like I'm in the wrong for just asking about a change. We've got three pieces of inaccurate clarification on this in a row. Changes that are dramatically smaller than this often require consensus. How about explaining why things were changed at all? This is like the only aspect of the game without a bunch of complaints.

Some of these changes were not supposed to happen for all maps. You are right, we did not want to impose design changes that way. About stones, I'll check.

 

[CrazyG]

I'm not going to throw anyone under the bus or anything, no need.

Sorry if I was harsh. I don't want anyone under the bus.

 

[pineappledan]

No, it isn't.

Sorry, I'm going to die on this hill, the name of the mod is "Voice of the People", if they want to change resource clustering, they can propose it in the forum and generate discussion. Introducing the change is the minimum they should do.

Do people even know what got changed? So far the explanations I see all have errors.

This isn't inaccurate. I downloaded an old version to check. Stone is not listed as appearing in hills in the civilopedia. Horses are not listed as appearing on tundra or desert. There were well established rules for these on the regular map scripts.

Even if this was accurate information, it's not a mandate to change anything. The better move would be to ask the forum, or just change the civilopedia entry.

I realize as modders you put a lot of work into this project, and I appreciate that, but don't act like I'm in the wrong for just asking about a change. We've got three pieces of inaccurate clarification on this in a row. Changes that are dramatically smaller than this often require consensus. How about explaining why things were changed at all? This is like the only aspect of the game without a bunch of complaints.

Started a new game, didn’t become aware of the new resource distribution during my first. Unwittingly decided to roll Russia. I am now cognizant if the changes.

sweet Jesus, I had both a horse and iron strategic monopoly by turn 100, and a global horse monopoly by 150, and I didn’t conquer anyone to do it. I have >50 horses and 38 iron; I am hulking out. I couldn’t use all my strategics if I tried due to the supply cap. Combine this with the new AI trade logic that will happily pay 50+ GPT for 10 copies of strategics at a time, and I can’t spend money as fast as I make it. The resource clustering is bonkers, and playing a resource-dependent civ feels like cheating.

edit: I’m also going to have to post a picture of my regular continents map. I have never seen a map generated like this one except using weird map scripts. My continent is a donut with a 6 tile long, 1 tile wide strait in and out of, by my estimate, a 400+ tile internal sea. The donut hole is the size of most “Atlantic” oceans on a standard map, it’s enormous.

 

[tu_79]

Well, Civilopedia says stones can appear over hills. If you don't want that, we can revert it, but Civilopedia must be changed accordingly.