New Beta Version - August 21st (8-21b)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
SpankmyMetroid
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2016
- Messages
- 320
Do you have any evidence? That's pretty broken.
amateurgamer88
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2018
- Messages
- 1,612
I know these changes were introduced in an older version but I don't want it to get lost there. For the instant yields from buildings like Zoo and Wonders like Oracle, I don't think those scale with the gamespeed so, on Epic and Marathon, you get the same amount of yields when it clearly is worth less overall since the costs went up.
Omen of Peace
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2018
- Messages
- 404
@amateurgamer88 report on GitHub if you want to make sure it doesn't get lost
@Zuizgond You need the Railway station building in VP to get a prod bonus.
@Zuizgond You need the Railway station building in VP to get a prod bonus.
SpankmyMetroid
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2016
- Messages
- 320
I knew train stations gave a prod bonus but I thought it was on the building itself (since you can’t build the station without a railway connection to the capital), is there an additional bonus like in vanilla (a flat percentage independent of the train station)? So a city with both gets a 45(?)% boost?
Also, do seaports still give that bonus? If you’re waterlocked do you just miss out on this 20% connected to capital modifier?
LifeOfBrian
King
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
- Messages
- 757
Just checking here before I make a report on GitHub, in case it's due to errors on my computer. Can anyone check if the Enhancer that reduces policy requirement for wonders by 1 works properly? I don't think it actually grants the -1 policy, at least it didn't in my current Maya game...
I also saw this, in the last few patches. Iconography i believe it is called.
I tried my spearman/swordsman rush again this time. I've been going with a 5 city opener and failing miserably, so this time I tried a 4 city start to go into the push. I got a really good start for this one, several cities with strong production, and iron in immediate vicinity. After getting 4 tributes with my spears, I teched to swords, getting my first swordsman out of turn 67.
Ultimately was in a war with Byznatium till turn 122 (with one 10 turn peace). I bagged the statue of zeus and used the early heroic epic with Japan's GG bonus to get my first set of GA, GW, and GM. I finally got to push the capital and take, vassalizing Byzantium. So here are my thoughts:
1) The CS boost for the sword is noticeable in the field on defense. When your huddled in forest, the sword can take a good amount of punishment. Also, skirmishers definitely do less than they used to. Byzantium was using them a lot, and it was good that my swords could take some hits from them, even if they couldn't return the favor.
2) That said, the problem with swords is, cities in decent defensive positions (aka forests) with walls don't care if you have spears and swords, ultimately if you don't have cats its really hard to do enough damage to the city before you have to pull back and heal. I don't feel the new swords did anything different in that respect. A lot of my time was just dancing around the cities, because once I committed, while I didn't lose any swords, I just couldn't hold there long enough with swords alone. I still have to rely on my Catapults for damage.
3) This leads me to suggest a change I've thrown out before, change Shock I out for Drill I with swords. This will give Swords a strong anti-city niche, and combined with their normal promotion can give them enough city killing power to maaaaybe substitute for cats...maybe (probably not, but maybe). And then horses can focus on shock like they already do, and you have 2 nice clear lines.
4) I am falling in love with the new overrun, its juicy! That said, I am bouncing back and forth between it and march for my samurai so I think its balance is about right.
5) Happiness wise, the 4 city base helped a lot. I still slipped several times into crippling unhappiness, but some of that was the length of my wars and war weariness. That said, you can only realistically hold about 1 maybe 2 cities and that point in the game, otherwise your happiness craters until you get courthouses. I literally gave one of the cities I took from Byzantium back to him because of a revolt (btw, I though revolts were supposed to become CS now?)...but I took the capital immediately afterward and vassaled, so I wasn't too mad.
6) Ultimately in trying out this swords focused play...I can see some use in the hands of a melee focused player like Japan. But I still don't feel I'm getting anything more than I would have gotten going my usual military tradition / mathematics opening...and I still backfilled those techs anyway to get the cats and barracks I needed.
7) Skirmishers still beat Spears, even if the skirmishers have a little rough terrain to move around in. The fact is, the skirmisher can move in and attack the spear...with the change though they stay there after the attack. Ultimately the damaged spear does a little less damage, and the skirmisher can capitalize. So he ultimately still wins, but the difference is he takes a good amount of damage for the effort.
I think its in a much more reasonable place, and I do agree this new rough terrain penalty is superior to the last one. Skirmishers still pack a punch, but I no longer dread them (and focus on them) in my play, they are now a good unit to have, but not a dominant one to push with.
Ultimately was in a war with Byznatium till turn 122 (with one 10 turn peace). I bagged the statue of zeus and used the early heroic epic with Japan's GG bonus to get my first set of GA, GW, and GM. I finally got to push the capital and take, vassalizing Byzantium. So here are my thoughts:
1) The CS boost for the sword is noticeable in the field on defense. When your huddled in forest, the sword can take a good amount of punishment. Also, skirmishers definitely do less than they used to. Byzantium was using them a lot, and it was good that my swords could take some hits from them, even if they couldn't return the favor.
2) That said, the problem with swords is, cities in decent defensive positions (aka forests) with walls don't care if you have spears and swords, ultimately if you don't have cats its really hard to do enough damage to the city before you have to pull back and heal. I don't feel the new swords did anything different in that respect. A lot of my time was just dancing around the cities, because once I committed, while I didn't lose any swords, I just couldn't hold there long enough with swords alone. I still have to rely on my Catapults for damage.
3) This leads me to suggest a change I've thrown out before, change Shock I out for Drill I with swords. This will give Swords a strong anti-city niche, and combined with their normal promotion can give them enough city killing power to maaaaybe substitute for cats...maybe (probably not, but maybe). And then horses can focus on shock like they already do, and you have 2 nice clear lines.
4) I am falling in love with the new overrun, its juicy! That said, I am bouncing back and forth between it and march for my samurai so I think its balance is about right.
5) Happiness wise, the 4 city base helped a lot. I still slipped several times into crippling unhappiness, but some of that was the length of my wars and war weariness. That said, you can only realistically hold about 1 maybe 2 cities and that point in the game, otherwise your happiness craters until you get courthouses. I literally gave one of the cities I took from Byzantium back to him because of a revolt (btw, I though revolts were supposed to become CS now?)...but I took the capital immediately afterward and vassaled, so I wasn't too mad.
6) Ultimately in trying out this swords focused play...I can see some use in the hands of a melee focused player like Japan. But I still don't feel I'm getting anything more than I would have gotten going my usual military tradition / mathematics opening...and I still backfilled those techs anyway to get the cats and barracks I needed.
7) Skirmishers still beat Spears, even if the skirmishers have a little rough terrain to move around in. The fact is, the skirmisher can move in and attack the spear...with the change though they stay there after the attack. Ultimately the damaged spear does a little less damage, and the skirmisher can capitalize. So he ultimately still wins, but the difference is he takes a good amount of damage for the effort.
I think its in a much more reasonable place, and I do agree this new rough terrain penalty is superior to the last one. Skirmishers still pack a punch, but I no longer dread them (and focus on them) in my play, they are now a good unit to have, but not a dominant one to push with.
Rekk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 2,725
Cities that you have settled become city states (because there isn't a civilization that they go back to).
If this change goes through, Alhambra should probably change from Drill to Shock.
Based on feedback, next beta will have a few changes, including (gasp!) two tech shifts.
- Reverting Heroic Epic/SoZ location swap (but keeping GG on HE)
- Construction and Military Theory will swap spots
- Catapult moves to Iron Working
- Comp. Bowman moves to Mathematics
- Catapults and Trebs gain an iron cost,but also +1CS/RCS
- Currency and Engineering swap spots, tech prereqs
- Swordsman/Longswordsman lose Shock I, gain new unique promotion: Linebreaker (+33% vs. melee units, +15% vs. cities)
Why?
Re-centering a few military units and two techs produces a better, more coherent path to unit upgrades and smoother path for early war. Skipping bronze/iron working is no longer as worthwhile. Also gets comp bowmen out earlier for better defense, and putting a SR on catapults/trebs helps the AI with cannon transitions in Renaissance. Swordsman line change gives them a niche as light-duty city assaults and heavy-duty anti-spearman/pikeman offensive units. Comparable to the role that axemen and swordsmen had in civ4.
G
- Reverting Heroic Epic/SoZ location swap (but keeping GG on HE)
- Construction and Military Theory will swap spots
- Catapult moves to Iron Working
- Comp. Bowman moves to Mathematics
- Catapults and Trebs gain an iron cost,but also +1CS/RCS
- Currency and Engineering swap spots, tech prereqs
- Swordsman/Longswordsman lose Shock I, gain new unique promotion: Linebreaker (+33% vs. melee units, +15% vs. cities)
Why?
Re-centering a few military units and two techs produces a better, more coherent path to unit upgrades and smoother path for early war. Skipping bronze/iron working is no longer as worthwhile. Also gets comp bowmen out earlier for better defense, and putting a SR on catapults/trebs helps the AI with cannon transitions in Renaissance. Swordsman line change gives them a niche as light-duty city assaults and heavy-duty anti-spearman/pikeman offensive units. Comparable to the role that axemen and swordsmen had in civ4.
G
Last edited:
chicorbeef
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,561
Wait, so are there going to be two techs with 3 prereqs now (Calendar/Construction)? This is gonna change a lot of stuff not related to war as well...timing of Plantations or Quarries is gonna be different etc. We should at least stick to the second tier techs having 2 prereqs I think (I still don't know if that's what you're proposing?). Also, why change Currency/Engineering?
I like the Catapult/Sword changes but I think the amount of drastic tech shifts otherwise are a little too much.
I like the Catapult/Sword changes but I think the amount of drastic tech shifts otherwise are a little too much.
Sorry, my point was confusing. I was trying to note the new prereqs but wasn't being clear. It'll look like this:
Edit: the only awkward part of this change is that mining and construction aren't linked, but I think it's fine. Technically mining and quarrying are different enough techniques that they aren't evolutionary variants, like bronze->iron.
G
Its a role they don't need though. Just noting that Longswords have no issue with pikes, because you rarely build pikes. You build longswords, knights, and crossbows. All this does is make pikes even crappier, because now longswords also counter knights better than they do.
Haven't we already been saying that the spear is a better on the weak side, and now the sword will crush it into the dirt. The spear is not really my issue with Swords, the city is the issue, not the spears. And this new promotion only gives an extra +5% against cities compared to the shock I that is lost.
At least the shock I gives faster access to a promotion line, so you do get some fun builds when you push that side. Compared to this, I would rather just keep the Shock I
I'd rather see the sword niche tightened and spearmen and pikemen modified (production cost drop, etc.) than pretend that people will ever realistically use swordsmen exclusively for city attack. Also keep in mind that since Linebreakers is free, you can get Drill etc.if you really wanna smash cities.
G
amateurgamer88
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2018
- Messages
- 1,612
Looking at the new tech tree with the changes, I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of it. The way it's setup makes the decisions quite easy.
If you want to be a warmonger, you can go for Bronze Working first to get the SoZ and then Military Theory for the highly mobile Horsemen. Afterwards, you can research Iron Working for Swordsmen and Catapults. All this does is make it very straightforward with what techs you go for and it's nicely put together in 5 techs only. Before, you either go for Spearmen and Swordsmen or Horsemen but never both. Therefore, you have to make a decision which route to go as wanting everything will take too long and hurt your chances of having a massive advantage.
If you want to be a peaceful player aiming to get more Wonders, then your research path is relatively straightforward as well. You want Trapping for Archers followed by Construction for the Walls that can neutralize everything until your enemy gets Iron Working. Mathematics just seems to pack a lot of good defensive tools as Composite Bowmen hit pretty hard while Skirmishers thrive more defensively than offensively now. In the past, Mathematics is risky since you won't get Walls along the way as Construction requires a different path. Now, it's all bundled nicely together. You can ignore Trapping to get Composite Bowmen faster but it leaves you pretty defenseless until then.
However, the peaceful approach does require 7 techs compared to the warmonger's 5 and that seems to lean everything in favor of warmongers. Given how much is done to slow down warmongers, are we really going to make things that has the opposite effect?
What I would prefer would look something like this:
Archers and Spearmen stay where they are at. Military Theory and Construction return to where they were but Barracks get moved to Construction. Composite Bowmen gets moved to Writing and Catapults stay with Iron Working. Effectively, you have one route where you get ranged 2 defensive units but risk not having walls or decent melee units to protect them. Another route is where you have the mobility of Horsemen and Skirmishers but, without barracks, they won't get the extra experience and require a good supply of Horses. Finally, you have the slow moving core of melee units escorting Catapults to enemy cities to help speed up the fall of cities. It's not perfect but I want there to be decisions to be made as opposed to two simple paths with one clearly superior than the other.
If you want to be a warmonger, you can go for Bronze Working first to get the SoZ and then Military Theory for the highly mobile Horsemen. Afterwards, you can research Iron Working for Swordsmen and Catapults. All this does is make it very straightforward with what techs you go for and it's nicely put together in 5 techs only. Before, you either go for Spearmen and Swordsmen or Horsemen but never both. Therefore, you have to make a decision which route to go as wanting everything will take too long and hurt your chances of having a massive advantage.
If you want to be a peaceful player aiming to get more Wonders, then your research path is relatively straightforward as well. You want Trapping for Archers followed by Construction for the Walls that can neutralize everything until your enemy gets Iron Working. Mathematics just seems to pack a lot of good defensive tools as Composite Bowmen hit pretty hard while Skirmishers thrive more defensively than offensively now. In the past, Mathematics is risky since you won't get Walls along the way as Construction requires a different path. Now, it's all bundled nicely together. You can ignore Trapping to get Composite Bowmen faster but it leaves you pretty defenseless until then.
However, the peaceful approach does require 7 techs compared to the warmonger's 5 and that seems to lean everything in favor of warmongers. Given how much is done to slow down warmongers, are we really going to make things that has the opposite effect?
What I would prefer would look something like this:
Archers and Spearmen stay where they are at. Military Theory and Construction return to where they were but Barracks get moved to Construction. Composite Bowmen gets moved to Writing and Catapults stay with Iron Working. Effectively, you have one route where you get ranged 2 defensive units but risk not having walls or decent melee units to protect them. Another route is where you have the mobility of Horsemen and Skirmishers but, without barracks, they won't get the extra experience and require a good supply of Horses. Finally, you have the slow moving core of melee units escorting Catapults to enemy cities to help speed up the fall of cities. It's not perfect but I want there to be decisions to be made as opposed to two simple paths with one clearly superior than the other.
I don't know about this one. You no longer reveal stone on the path to quarries. Quarries can be tough to play already. You really don't need mining to get a quarry? IDK exactly what the goal is but I think there are other ways to achieve it.
I like this change, it means you need iron/bronze working to be successful when conquering.
This makes it even easier for someone to skip bronze working/military theory and defend themselves, which I'm guessing is something you want to prevent? If comp bows do end up here they at least need to be weaker. The AI won't crack a city with walls and comp bows very easily.
This is just a bad change. If you get a low iron start you can no longer use swordsmen at all, if you get a 0 iron start I guess you either rush cities before walls or built or just never conquer? It is good or the game is some units don't require strategic resources. Catapults are made of wood.
Great change. The Great Wall is the strongest military wonder, it should require you to research military techs to get it.
Moving catapults to iron working addresses the issue swords have against cities. What does this address? This promotion is basically a giant middle finger to spears and pikes. Oh, and ranged units will be better against swords, especially because swords with reach promotions like cover or amphibious a lot more slowly.
There are 3 melee units types, this promotion is dumb against all of them.
Against swords, the promotion just cancels itself out
Against spearmen, the promotion just emasculates them. Has anyone suggested swords are too weak compared to spears?
Against horsemen, it just further emasculates spearmen.
Last edited:
LifeOfBrian
King
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
- Messages
- 757
Like others, I too have some concerns.
If the changes stick, I think The Wheel and Mining should swap resources they uncover. Revealing stone must be on path to construction, otherwise the Quarry pantheon becomes irrelevant unless you're Ethiopia etc. Bananas not being in the Calendar's path isn't such a big problem because usually improving them is very low on the totem pole. Alternatively, we could simply have the Wheel uncover both bananas and stone, with Mining keeping just mines&wells, because even that is very strong and the tech is on the path to important warring techs.
I like that SoZ goes back to where it was. No strong opinions on HE's GG.
I like that Catapults going to Iron working, but I strongly dislike Catapults and Trebs needing Iron. Like CrazyG said, it makes low-iron starts much much more difficult.
Will Trapping be a tech requirement for Mathematics?
If the changes stick, I think The Wheel and Mining should swap resources they uncover. Revealing stone must be on path to construction, otherwise the Quarry pantheon becomes irrelevant unless you're Ethiopia etc. Bananas not being in the Calendar's path isn't such a big problem because usually improving them is very low on the totem pole. Alternatively, we could simply have the Wheel uncover both bananas and stone, with Mining keeping just mines&wells, because even that is very strong and the tech is on the path to important warring techs.
I like that SoZ goes back to where it was. No strong opinions on HE's GG.
I like that Catapults going to Iron working, but I strongly dislike Catapults and Trebs needing Iron. Like CrazyG said, it makes low-iron starts much much more difficult.
Will Trapping be a tech requirement for Mathematics?
- Status
