New Beta Version - August 31st (8/31)

[Ayana the Pale]

Yes, but for the sake of diagnosis, could you try running it without your other mods? If you want help we need to be able to identify the problem.

Yes, though I'm going to finish up my current game before I do that - I spent three hours working on getting it going and I'm not gonna ditch it now. Should only be a day or two.

 

[Dolen]

I'm still concerned about possible cheesy tactics employed by the player using free GG.

Gonna play some for a test.

 

[theMisterRud]

Returning player here. Started to play the game again after awhile.

I just to note how much of an improvement the new Happiness system is. Aside from number tweaking, the system is really responsive and it does a much better job at telling me when I screw up, reacting to my changes much more smoothly.

As for the patch itself (King Sweden Play-through):

- I love the Pyramid change. Mining Rush is a thrilling thing. I think there is a power imbalance between Pyramids and Stonehenge which might be a problem. Otherwise, the new setup is really really solid.
- Although I like it, City HP might be on the low side at the moment. This, combined with Happiness, does make warmongering really smooth, maybe too much so. I'll try a pacifist run to check how it look on the other side before passing judgement.
- Capitulation was weird in my game: on one side, England capitulates straight away after me capturing 2 cities. On the other: Byzantium and Pocatello don't budge until I leave them with 1 city only.
- Frigates are devastating against cities. making a beachhead is much easier. Again, I have to sit on the defending side to pass judgement, but it can be really scary.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I've played through the early stages of a few games. The tech changes do shake things up in an interesting way. I don't have access to my encampments as early as I would like, but in a way that means the early techs are more balanced in that choosing which path to follow is actually a difficult decision sometimes.

First, having Pyramids on Mining is a great boon to Tradition. I played a game where Venice (usually on the lower end of the competition) completed Pyramids and then another wonder to take top score at this point in the game. It may be a little too powerful as is, but it certainly makes different plays viable.

Spoiler Pyramid Scheme :

My only complaint on my recent games was something unrelated to the patch. I find it extremely vexing when my capital is less than 10 tiles away from an enemy capital. I guess this kind of thing is wonderful for warmongers, but for me these situations are just no fun at all. I don't know if anything can be done about this, but if there is I would greatly appreciate it.

Spoiler I can tell we're going to be friends :

Finally, I'd like to make the argument that Encampments should be moved from Military Theory to Trade. Firstly because the structures they represent (groups of tipis/teepees) were primarily living quarters designed to accommodate a nomadic lifestyle rather than military structures. Secondly because they were traditionally made from buffallo skin, and Buffalo unlocks on Trapping (which leads to Trade) rather than Animal Husbandry (which leads to Military Theory). This is significant because (at least to my understanding) the buffalo were hunted rather than being domesticated animals. Particularly with the current tech swap, the Shoshone need to research Mining in order to get to Military Theory (and Encampments), which feels a little odd.

 

[4CV]

Rome on Pangaea. Random AI civs. Standard size, speed, barbs. No events. Tradition. NL tradition, Brazil progress, 5 others authority.
Turn 92: Just entered Classical era with Iron working (3rd after Portugal and Brazil). 12 Tecs(found Trapping in ruins), the others know 11 or 10.
Rome has 14 pop in 3 cities, best production and worst military.
Everything's alright so far. Of course (level=warlord) I want to build some legions and cats now, then attack Brazil and conquer Sao Paulo asap.

My questions are
1. Forges: After the latest changes I need so many quarries and only a few mines for iron. Now I'm not sure what it's worth building forges.
2. Heroic Epic: Tooltip says "26 national pop needed" and "... increases with number of cities...".

Spoiler :

Is that number really intended to be so high? 14 pop is average, it will take much too long to almost double it. And 3 cities are not too many, some have even 4 atm...

EDIT: Where can I change that number needed? Thanks

 

[JamesNinelives]

1. Forges: After the latest changes I need so many quarries and only a few mines for iron. Now I'm not sure what it's worth building forges.

I'm not aware of the changes affecting the number of quarries required vs. the number of mines required?

I tend not to build forges straight away - but if your city is working Iron or even just hills with mines on them it's usually a good investment! Especially if you already have an arena in that city. (Edited for clarity.)

2. Heroic Epic: Tooltip says "26 national pop needed" and "... increases with number of cities...".

Spoiler :

View attachment 534018

Is that number really intended to be so high? 14 pop is average, it will take much too long to almost double it. And 3 cities are not too many, some have even 4 atm...

If your goal is to increase your population, I would recommend building more cities anyway. Other options would be improving the food resources in your smaller cities, building granaries in them, and sending internal trade routes to them.

As for if it's intended to be that high, the pop requirement for all national wonders was increased by 5. Perhaps that's too much? I can't really say yet myself. For comparison, the base pop requirement (at 1 city) for National Epic is 22, for Scrivener's Office it's 20, and for National Monument it's 27.

 

[4CV]

I'm not aware of the changes affecting the number of quarries required vs. the number of mines required? Forge isn't just for iron though - it's also for mines you build on regular hills, for the science, and for the engineer slot it provides. Plus it gets production if you have an arena in the same city .

If your goal is to increase your population, I would recommend building more cities anyway. Other options would be improving the food resources in your smaller cities, building granaries in them, and sending internal trade routes to them.

As for if it's intended to be that high, the pop requirement for all national wonders was increased by 5. Perhaps that's too much? I can't really say yet myself. For comparison, the base pop requirment (at 1 city) for National Epic is 22, for Scrivener's Office it's 20, and for National Monument it's 27.

Thx for your quick answers. Regarding forges I meant, is it really worth now to build them early?

I didn't know NW pop requirements had been increased. Civilopedia says, HE needs start at 20, I don't know, if it has been updated already. Does that mean each new city will increase nat pop needs for HE by another 3?
Of course I need more cities, being Cesar I'd rather conquer some nice places.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Thx for your quick answers. Regarding forges I meant, is it really worth now to build them early?

I didn't know NW pop requirements had been increased. Civilopedia says, HE needs start at 20, I don't know, if it has been updated already. Does that mean each new city will increase nat pop needs for HE by another 3?
Of course I need more cities, being Cesar I'd rather conquer some nice places.

I mean, generally you probably want to build other things before you build a forge. So I guess it depends what you mean by early?

You want one in your capital because it will increase your production output. I wouldn't worry about it in your other cities right now though, you might want workers first to improve the rest of the tiles around them. Build a shrine/well/monument if you don't have them already. Then market for the income, or a barracks for the supply cap .

Then forge in the cities that have either iron or copper. You might want a granary first though, because you have deer there too. Cities without iron or copper don't need forges until they are working hills with mines on them (at least that's how I play).

This version of the game is a beta, so it's going to be different from some of the things in the Civilopedia. Also, I'm not sure how up to date the Civilopedia is generally, unfortunately.

Based on the screenshot you provided, I think the pop requirement increases by 2 per city.

 

[tu_79]

My only complaint on my recent games was something unrelated to the patch. I find it extremely vexing when my capital is less than 10 tiles away from an enemy capital. I guess this kind of thing is wonderful for warmongers, but for me these situations are just no fun at all. I don't know if anything can be done about this, but if there is I would greatly appreciate it.

Other than playing bigger maps, you could play your usual map with fewer civs.

Finally, I'd like to make the argument that Encampments should be moved from Military Theory to Trade. Firstly because the structures they represent (groups of tipis/teepees) were primarily living quarters designed to accommodate a nomadic lifestyle rather than military structures. Secondly because they were traditionally made from buffallo skin, and Buffalo unlocks on Trapping (which leads to Trade) rather than Animal Husbandry (which leads to Military Theory). This is significant because (at least to my understanding) the buffalo were hunted rather than being domesticated animals. Particularly with the current tech swap, the Shoshone need to research Mining in order to get to Military Theory (and Encampments), which feels a little odd.

Makes sense. You should defend your idea also in gameplay terms. In the Shoshone thread, if posible.

1. Forges: After the latest changes I need so many quarries and only a few mines for iron. Now I'm not sure what it's worth building forges.

The real changes to quarries were castles giving a little boost to quarries. The rearrange of this release hasn't changed anything really. The forge is in the same place as always, following the mines and the iron.

 

[CrazyG]

Regarding forges I meant, is it really worth now to build them early?

Which changes would make the forge bad?

In my opinion, forges are stronger than libraries or arenas if you have at least one mine, and stronger than a lighthouse unless you need the city connection. Lots of production, a point of science, and a useful specialist on a building that has key synergy with the Arena.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Other than playing bigger maps, you could play your usual map with fewer civs.

I play on the Huge map size. I have tried games with fewer civs (and city-states), which does help. It's not really that there's not enough space overall though - it's just that the distance between capitals varies wildly. Sometimes you have a whole chunk of land to yourself, other times you are crammed in together. Even when there is a lot of space in the other direction and your neighbours are peaceable, if your capital begins next to theirs they are going to settle next to you, and want your land - so diplomacy feels like a waste of time. I find that frustrating. Especially when they say stuff like 'don't settle near me' when I'm literally going in the other direction.

Makes sense. You should defend your idea also in gameplay terms. In the Shoshone thread, if posible.

I've made a post sharing my thoughts in the Shoshone thread. Edit: have just made another post about this specifically . The way you've phrased that does me a bit anxious though. I'm not looking for a debate - I was hoping we could just talk about it as a group.

 

[tu_79]

The way you've phrased that does me a bit anxious though.

Why so?
If you want something to be changed you have to convince many people that just don't want change for change sake. This means convincing why it makes more real life sense, and why it will improve the gameplay (or at least don't make it worse).

Other than that, you could practice what I call seeding. You seed an idea now, then another, it won't achieve anything now. But in a few months, maybe one of the players who read your idea, will think it twice, maybe under a recent change in game mechanics. And without need of arguments you find people sharing your ideas, enough to give them some credit and throughful thought. The result might not be exactly what you had in mind, but probably it will please you more.

I agree with you that tipis are made of hunted buffalo skins, by a hunter-gathered civilization. But gameplay trumps realism, you know. The encampment comes so early that it influeces strongly Shoshone early research. If you put it away from Military Tradition and its horseman, then encampments are likely to be available later than now. Shoshone are aggressive expansionists, and an early clash is very likely; something that's going to be harder if you beeline Trade. It ends up being a nerf. If we ever need a Shoshone nerf, we could try this.

 

[amateurgamer88]

I'm not sure how other people feel about the new version but I feel that warmongers tend to have a big advantage with their techs so nicely organized. A warmonger can research 5 techs to get access to Horsemen, Swordsmen and Catapult. Meanwhile, peaceful playstyle struggles to get Composite Bowmen due to Mathematics being so difficult to beeline for. Even those going for Archers and Walls find themselves struggling to defend against foes with only Walls, Archers and Warriors.

 

[4CV]

Which changes would make the forge bad?

In my opinion, forges are stronger than libraries or arenas if you have at least one mine, and stronger than a lighthouse unless you need the city connection. Lots of production, a point of science, and a useful specialist on a building that has key synergy with the Arena.

Agreed. I didn't mean to say forges were bad. It was meant situationally: On the hills around my cities there are some luxuries that reqire quarries (amber, lapis, marble). Of course nothing to complain about, but you can't build mines on it. Under that conditions I wondered, if to build forges right now, or better wait.

 

[4CV]

I'm not sure how other people feel about the new version but I feel that warmongers tend to have a big advantage with their techs so nicely organized. A warmonger can research 5 techs to get access to Horsemen, Swordsmen and Catapult. Meanwhile, peaceful playstyle struggles to get Composite Bowmen due to Mathematics being so difficult to beeline for. Even those going for Archers and Walls find themselves struggling to defend against foes with only Walls, Archers and Warriors.

Do you think of MP?

 

[ridjack]

I'm not sure how other people feel about the new version but I feel that warmongers tend to have a big advantage with their techs so nicely organized. A warmonger can research 5 techs to get access to Horsemen, Swordsmen and Catapult. Meanwhile, peaceful playstyle struggles to get Composite Bowmen due to Mathematics being so difficult to beeline for. Even those going for Archers and Walls find themselves struggling to defend against foes with only Walls, Archers and Warriors.

Yeah, I felt the same thing in a recent game. Only on King, where the AI usually doesn't hold a candle to me in war. I had Attila come at me so incredibly hard that I just ended up having to abandon the game, despite doing my best to prepare (read: build a big military.) I had Chariots; I did not end up with Spearmen because I thought the Chariots would be enough to defend myself while I continued working on my cities.

It seems like the only way I would've been able to take him on would have to hard focus on military and plan on playing a Domination game after that. Nothing else in the 'peaceful' parts of the tree provided me with the tools to defend myself; and I personally consider myself to be an above-average warmonger. I feel pretty comfortable saying that most other players in my position would have found it basically impossible.

 

[amateurgamer88]

Do you think of MP?

Even in SP, I noticed that focusing on the military techs gives me a huge advantage that the AI just lacks tools to deal with.

 

[andersw]

Yeah, I felt the same thing in a recent game. Only on King, where the AI usually doesn't hold a candle to me in war. I had Attila come at me so incredibly hard that I just ended up having to abandon the game, despite doing my best to prepare (read: build a big military.) I had Chariots; I did not end up with Spearmen because I thought the Chariots would be enough to defend myself while I continued working on my cities.

It seems like the only way I would've been able to take him on would have to hard focus on military and plan on playing a Domination game after that. Nothing else in the 'peaceful' parts of the tree provided me with the tools to defend myself; and I personally consider myself to be an above-average warmonger. I feel pretty comfortable saying that most other players in my position would have found it basically impossible.

Just finished my game (king/epic) Polynesia went Temple of Artemis -> Great Library -> Oracle and had a hole sludge of wonders in his cap, tech and policy leader all the way until about gunpowder where I began catching up.
Songhai got terracotta and snagged great wall right under my nose took one American and one Danish city.
Ramses tradition got really shafted.
Denmark couldnt really stand up vs Songhai/Polynesia.
Authority America build up well and look ok but he was wedged between me and Songhai.
Shoshone did some big land grab ... most in the desert, poor lands and he never got that strong.
Korea was wedged and never got anywhere.

 

[cerk]

Did the happiness system change again? I have <100% approval despite my happiness = unhappiness in all cities except rome, where it happiness = 6 >unhappiness=2

Spoiler :

 

[crdvis16]

Yeah, I felt the same thing in a recent game. Only on King, where the AI usually doesn't hold a candle to me in war. I had Attila come at me so incredibly hard that I just ended up having to abandon the game, despite doing my best to prepare (read: build a big military.) I had Chariots; I did not end up with Spearmen because I thought the Chariots would be enough to defend myself while I continued working on my cities.

It seems like the only way I would've been able to take him on would have to hard focus on military and plan on playing a Domination game after that. Nothing else in the 'peaceful' parts of the tree provided me with the tools to defend myself; and I personally consider myself to be an above-average warmonger. I feel pretty comfortable saying that most other players in my position would have found it basically impossible.

I've found that surviving as a peaceful player next to a warmonger like Attila has more to do with terrain than anything else. If my border cities are settled with good defensive terrain features then I should be good to go as long as I don't completely neglect military and defensive buildings. If I get overwhelmed by an aggressor the reason is almost always that I settled greedily when I should have settled defensively. The AI's larger army just doesn't matter in the face of chokepoints, favorable terrain, and well placed citadels.