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

[arthurF]

Bug? Cannot capture enemy worker in war.
Also cannot capture diplo units.
Erratic. Same enemy AI, but sometimes can and sometimes can't capture those types of units, while at war.

 

[Deljade]

Bug? Cannot capture enemy worker in war.

Is the unit part of the mounted unit line? If it has attacked already it cannot capture a worker during the same turn.

I played a wide militaristic game where I reduced the needs increase per City from 9% to 3% and it made the game much more enjoyable for me.
I was spending less time worrying about Happiness and more time worrying about which territory I should try to secure.
When I was sanctioned by the World Congress it meant reduced Growth and Production going towards Public Works instead of a death sentence.
For now I'll probably just keep this change as a band-aid fix for wide Happiness.

Should continuous warmonger not have an effect on internal stability? What's the point to ever play peacefully?

 

[2506]

Bug? Cannot capture enemy worker in war.

I think it's already reported on GitHib. I mentioned it a page or so back. Others have, too. The problem is capturing any civilian unit. One workaround I've found is to first hit them with range. Then a melee unit can take them.

I've also noticed that sometimes it seems to work normally, like in taking a GP. But it doesn't work right away. It just hit me that maybe they all become vulnerable once some war damage has been done anywhere. That would explain the GP thing.

 

[arthurF]

I played a wide militaristic game where I reduced the needs increase per City from 9% to 3% and it made the game much more enjoyable for me.
I was spending less time worrying about Happiness and more time worrying about which territory I should try to secure.
When I was sanctioned by the World Congress it meant reduced Growth and Production going towards Public Works instead of a death sentence.
For now I'll probably just keep this change as a band-aid fix for wide Happiness.

Cool. Where is that located in the XML's ?

 

[DaniSciB]

Is the unit part of the mounted unit line? If it has attacked already it cannot capture a worker during the same turn.



Should continuous warmonger not have an effect on internal stability? What's the point to ever play peacefully?

Well, yes... But actually Warmongers can bypass a large amount of Unhappiness anyways.

Usually I only have 4-6 Cities, and puppet everything else.

Is not THAT problematic... Except when you are warring for too long and conquer 5 cities in 3 turns xd. In my experience at least.

 

[pineappledan]

The newest hotfix seemed to have fixed whatever was affecting the WC proposals.

Thanks G and crew! This hotfix is a definite improvement

 

[tothePAIN]

So far I still think the overall difficulty has gone down, though the recent hotfixes improved it. I am comfortably winning immortal games now, whereas I've been playing more Emperor before the patch.

The game is easier in the early game. I still find it challenging in the mid - late game

 

[azum4roll]

The newest hotfix seemed to have fixed whatever was affecting the WC proposals.

Thanks G and crew! This hotfix is a definite improvement

What was wrong about the WC proposals?

 

[JamesNinelives]

On game difficulty, the AI does well in tech but it's not insurmountable, at least in my games. I had an exceptionally strong start in my last game and over time shot ahead of the AI. Mostly luck with ancient ruins and nearby city-states, helped by my early UA and UU. In other games I'm able to compete but it takes longer to catch up and it feels challenging which is good. Feels a bit strange to have AI tech so high early on, but overall OK. There were actually a lot of tradition civs in this game and religion was quite competitive which is also good.

Spoiler :

I think it's already reported on GitHib. I mentioned it a page or so back. Others have, too. The problem is capturing any civilian unit. One workaround I've found is to first hit them with range. Then a melee unit can take them.

I've also noticed that sometimes it seems to work normally, like in taking a GP. But it doesn't work right away. It just hit me that maybe they all become vulnerable once some war damage has been done anywhere. That would explain the GP thing.

Another workaround I've noticed is that some units can't seem to take it but others can. Not sure exactly why but one of my composite bows (adjacent to the unit) couldn't move into the square, but another (2 tiles away) could move into the tile and captured it. Neither had fired.

 

[arthurF]

Another bug: In a war, and I have 1 puppeted city. My happiness was 57 and my income was net positive 45. I took "martial law" from the imperialism policy tree. Instantly, my happiness dropped to 45 and my income to minus 22.
Unless i am really reading things wrong, there is NO way that should happen. Right?

 

[Voremonger]

Should continuous warmonger not have an effect on internal stability? What's the point to ever play peacefully?

Unless you're playing on a difficulty where you're going to win like 99% of the time you need to invest a lot of resources to actually conquer enemy territory.
This is not only the Production going towards Units but also the opportunity cost associated with picking Civs/Policies/Beliefs that give you military benefits.
For example, on the current patch Authority gets clearly outscaled by Progress unless you can kill a lot of Barbarians early on and spend the rest of the game at war.
If you're strictly minmaxing I would say Progress is better than Authority in most games, even if you're playing aggressively; the reason I like to play Authority is mostly because it requires me to be proactive to get meaningful benefits.
If there is a hard limit on how many Cities you can have things like Authority automatically become much worse once you can no longer gain new Cities without crippling your empire.
Puppets can help to some degree but the inability to purchase/gain Tiles is oftentimes really inconvenient.
(Also the AI governor likes to build things like Baths instead of Walls and likes to wreck your Happiness by using Merchants/Engineers if you have a Food Monopoly.)

I would also argue that if you have more Happiness it promotes a more proactive playstyle while the optimal playstyle if you have a low amount of Happiness is more reactive and conservative.
If you cannot afford to lose any more Happiness it drastically limits your options: you cannot declare war on some player because you need their luxury resources, you cannot afford to lose your CS alliances, you cannot settle a new City as a bridgehead/to get access to a Strategic Resource, you have to use Production Trade Routes to build Public Works.
Let's say for example that you research Steam Power and you find that there is barely any Coal in your territory.
However, on a small island near your core Cities there are 7 Coal.
If you have a lot of Happiness the optimal strategy is usually to settle the island yourself.
If you can't afford another regular City the optimal strategy is instead to wait around until someone else settles the island and gains access to the Tile with Coal; after that you try to conquer and puppet the City.
I think the first case is simply more fun to play.

I would turn your question around: why should playing peacefully where you can safely get predictable benefits with relatively low amounts of investment give you as many benefits as playing aggressively where you need to invest a lot of resources for uncertain benefits?
I am not arguing that there should be no mechanisms to reduce snowballing at all.
I merely think that the penalties imposed by the current mechanisms are too steep to reasonably overcome, especially when so many of the tools available to warmongers revolve around conquering Cities.

Cool. Where is that located in the XML's ?

In the file (2) Community Balance Overhaul/Modular Elements/Happiness Mod/CityHappiness.sql you need to edit the following section:

        -- Per non-puppet city % modifier for unhappiness thresholds (i.e. # cities * value below = % modifier).
        INSERT INTO Defines (
        Name, Value)
        SELECT 'BALANCE_HAPPINESS_EMPIRE_MULTIPLIER', '9'
        WHERE EXISTS (SELECT * FROM COMMUNITY WHERE Type='COMMUNITY_CORE_BALANCE_CITY_HAPPINESS' AND Value= 1 );

 

[glider1]

...I would also argue that if you have more Happiness it promotes a more proactive playstyle while the optimal playstyle if you have a low amount of Happiness is more reactive and conservative. If you cannot afford to lose any more Happiness it drastically limits your options: you cannot declare war on some player because you need their luxury resources, you cannot afford to lose your CS alliances, you cannot settle a new City as a bridgehead/to get access to a Strategic Resource, you have to use Production Trade Routes to build Public Works.

Good point but there is a problem with your argument. It assumes that happiness is the cause of conservative game play. The real cause for conservative game play is the game design. Even without a happiness system turtling with a last minute dash to the finish line is the optimal game play. Civ has always been plagued by the problem of stalemate.

I think the happiness system is getting all the blame for that when it is actually a problem with the game itself not the happiness system which is just a question of "fun-ness". In a silly childish way Civ6 is trying to introduce external events into the game like meteor showers etc which is an attempt to break the stalemate logic inherent in the optimal game play and if it were properly done is actually a good idea.

That is why I cry every time people say "me wants more happiness" because it doesn't fix the problem. A dynamic happiness system that promotes the rise and fall of empires is actually an intelligent system for breaking the stalemate problem of civ.

 

[CrazyG]

For example, on the current patch Authority gets clearly outscaled by Progress unless you can kill a lot of Barbarians early on and spend the rest of the game at war.

I don't see how you figure this. Authority absolutely crushes progress in early culture this patch.

 

[General_Drax]

I don't see how you figure this. Authority absolutely crushes progress in early culture this patch.

Playing as Morocco on King I can confirm. Iroquais, my Authority/Fealty neighbour, are ahead in culture vs a Progress/Statecraft Morocco. We are in late Renaissance and slowly catching up.

 

[a3kov]

I would turn your question around: why should playing peacefully where you can safely get predictable benefits with relatively low amounts of investment give you as many benefits as playing aggressively where you need to invest a lot of resources for uncertain benefits?

Playing peacefully doesn't give near as much as warmongering. Also what is predictable ? Settling cities and building buildings ? Cause wonders are not guaranteed or predictable.
Even if you build all world wonders peacefully you can't get as high culture and science as a warmonger with half the world as his Vassals.
Want free land, strategics and lux ? Pick Lebensraum. Also Lebensraum denies whatever warmonger penalty you have.
Diplomacy ? Pledge of protection + statecraft is the strongest diplo you can have. Also your Vassals are you allies forever, who love you and will vote for whatever you ask.
Warmongering is already strongest play style, and has been for a very long time. It doesn't need any more buffs.

 

[Voremonger]

Good point but there is a problem with your argument. It assumes that happiness is the cause of conservative game play. The real cause for conservative game play is the game design. Even without a happiness system turtling with a last minute dash to the finish line is the optimal game play. Civ has always been plagued by the problem of stalemate.

I think the happiness system is getting all the blame for that when it is actually a problem with the game itself not the happiness system which is just a question of "fun-ness". In a silly childish way Civ6 is trying to introduce external events into the game like meteor showers etc which is an attempt to break the stalemate logic inherent in the optimal game play and if it were properly done is actually a good idea.

That is why I cry every time people say "me wants more happiness" because it doesn't fix the problem. A dynamic happiness system that promotes the rise and fall of empires is actually an intelligent system for breaking the stalemate problem of civ.

To be clear: when I was talking about "conservative" playstyles I meant only in the larger context of a wide militaristic game plan.
I was not making claims about a game plan where you would only turtle for at least 80% of the game being caused by the Happiness system.
I agree that if one wanted to prevent turtling there would need to be fundamental changes (I personally don't care about how good turtling is; I never do it because I think it's boring).

I don't see how you figure this. Authority absolutely crushes progress in early culture this patch.

The amount of Culture per turn that you get from Authority is not as high as it may seem; the only reliable source is Discipline.
On most maps there are not that many Barbarians to kill.
City States can only be bullied once every 30 turns.
Imperium is just not very good at all because you either get it too late or because you have to delay Discipline.
Also consider that a lead in Culture automatically decays as the game goes on; once you're in the Medieval Era the lack of good scaling sources of Culture becomes very noticeable.

Disclaimer: the above considerations were made for militaristic Civs that do not peak in the Ancient Era (Denmark, Rome).
If you are playing as a Civ that gets a good Unique Unit in the Ancient Era (Persia, Songhai, the Aztecs) then going Tribute -> Imperium is more viable.

Playing as Morocco on King I can confirm. Iroquais, my Authority/Fealty neighbour, are ahead in culture vs a Progress/Statecraft Morocco. We are in late Renaissance and slowly catching up.

Progress vs. Authority for AI players is not directly comparable to Progress vs. Authority for human players.
I think the biggest weakness of Authority is its lack of reliable Science and to a lesser degree its lack of reliable Culture.
The AI get a lot of Science/Culture for free so they are less impacted by a lack of Science/Culture from Policies.

Also there is somewhat of a correlation vs. causation problem: just because AI that pick Authority are successful that does not necessarily mean that they are successful because they pick Authority.
The AI have gotten much better at conquering Cities.
I would argue that an aggressive AI is more likely to conquer Cities and get the associated bonuses and that such AI are also more likely to pick Authority (of course there is still a synergy between picking Authority and conquering Cities).
This would also more closely align with my observations: about 30% of the AI picking Authority are doing very well while the rest are doing not so well.

 

[Deljade]

Unless you're playing on a difficulty where you're going to win like 99% of the time you need to invest a lot of resources to actually conquer enemy territory.
This is not only the Production going towards Units but also the opportunity cost associated with picking Civs/Policies/Beliefs that give you military benefits.

I agree that investing into policies and resources is necessary to make conquests, both due to the tactical AI and the defensiveness of cities, I said the same in my post in the previous page and sort of analysed the way I think about policies. I would also add the diplomatic penalty to the various opportunity costs of warmongering as losing your traded luxuries and traded techs, getting sanctioned etc etc all hurt.
It's also important to assess your situation. Certain civs or kinds of starts do not really incentivise warring, or incentivise warring after a certain point in the game.

Puppets can help to some degree but the inability to purchase/gain Tiles is oftentimes really inconvenient.

Well, usually the rule is to puppet a city and the exception is to annex it. There is even a policy that makes puppets better and that playstyle was successful enough to warrant nerfing that policy. Vassalising is also another way to workaround many of the warmongering problems, including happiness, vassals give a ton of yields and benefits. I like to take the prime land and the capital then let the civ become a vassal.

I merely think that the penalties imposed by the current mechanisms are too steep to reasonably overcome, especially when so many of the tools available to warmongers revolve around conquering Cities.

My impression is that they are not. Late game warmongering ie. getting established and then pushing to the lead by conquering with Imperialism or Autocracy is definitely in good place and feels to me to be one of the strongest strategies as you will not get outpaced by the AI if you conquer it. Early game warmongering is also good, conquering your neighbor has been a staple strategy.
Worth noting that I play with raging barbs and on Epic speed ever since vanilla, to make war and the associated policies more of a viable strategy.

I agree with many things you said but I personally do not think warmongering is in a bad place as a strategy.

 

[Voremonger]

Playing peacefully doesn't give near as much as warmongering. Also what is predictable ? Settling cities and building buildings ? Cause wonders are not guaranteed or predictable.
Even if you build all world wonders peacefully you can't get as high culture and science as a warmonger with half the world as his Vassals.
Want free land, strategics and lux ? Pick Lebensraum. Also Lebensraum denies whatever warmonger penalty you have.
Diplomacy ? Pledge of protection + statecraft is the strongest diplo you can have. Also your Vassals are you allies forever, who love you and will vote for whatever you ask.
Warmongering is already strongest play style, and has been for a very long time. It doesn't need any more buffs.

I was talking mostly about settling vs. conquering in the early mid game (late Classical, Medieval, Renaissance).
This is where a difference in wide Happiness would make the biggest difference because you would be able to benefit from a larger empire for a much longer time.
At that point in the game you will not have multiple Vassals or Lebensraum.

I feel like we are talking with different assumptions in mind.
I am playing on Immortal difficulty with standard speed where I think warmongering is not so easy with most Civs.

As an aside, competing for World Wonders is going to add unpredictability to all play styles, not just to peaceful play.
I think whether you suffer the unpredictability is mostly caused by whether you are able to compete in the first place.

Worth noting that I play with raging barbs and on Epic speed ever since vanilla, to make war and the associated policies more of a viable strategy.

I agree with many things you said but I personally do not think warmongering is in a bad place as a strategy.

It's been a long time since I last compared it but I think playing with epic speed has a greater effect than lowering the difficulty by two levels when it comes to warmongering.
At epic speed warmongering is usually the best strategy; at marathon speed it's a cakewalk.

 

[Deljade]

It's been a long time since I last compared it but I think playing with epic speed has a greater effect than lowering the difficulty by two levels when it comes to warmongering.
At epic speed warmongering is usually the best strategy; at marathon speed it's a cakewalk.

What do you mean "by two levels"? There's more time to make war and utilise each era's units, how is making war itself any easier though? The tactical AI is the same and they will have the same or very similar number of units, the Unhappiness also is there and policy and science cost is increased so you have to kill more units to get the same yields, if you have a relevant policy. I don't think you can make that comparison.

 

[Voremonger]

What do you mean "by two levels"? There's more time to make war and utilise each era's units, how is making war itself any easier though? The tactical AI is the same and they will have the same or very similar number of units, the Unhappiness also is there and policy and science cost is increased so you have to kill more units to get the same yields, if you have a relevant policy. I don't think you can make that comparison.

The main difference comes from how humans compete against the AI militarily: humans are much better at using their Units while the AI will simply cheat to get more Units that they don't use as effectively.
This means a very large difference in attrition: the AI player will lose and replace much more Units than the human player who will more often be able to pull back wounded Units to heal them back up.
If you play with epic speed the production cost of Units is increased by 50% which hits the AI player much more severely than the human player: the rate at which Units are replaced is 33% slower.
Meanwhile the healing of Units is not affected at all.

Also consider that the Instant Yields you get from killing Units or conquering Cities are scaled up with game speed as well: at epic speed you are getting 50% more Instant Yields than at standard speed.
However, because the Eras are longer you will also be able to kill more Units per Era compared to standard speed.
Therefore you will effectively get 50% more Instant Yields from killing Units/conquering Cities if you switch from standard speed to epic speed.