Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by Gazebo, Aug 6, 2019.
Those two sentences are contradictory.
- Population -1 when settler is built, basically a scaling food cost since you'll have to build settlers in a more developed city with the scaling production cost in mind
- Scaling production cost
What I want:
- Scaling food cost (to number of cities)
- Fixed production cost
I think empire size increase are already doing what scaling settler cost is doing right now. Of course they aren't exclusive. The implication behind this system is that expansion slow down science, culture AND also production quite significantly. The thing is during gameplay, the map (Communitas for example) is really empty. Lots of fertile lands are uncontested and its not a pretty sight.
As someone mentioned in other threads, colonization in VP isn't as incentive as it is in real world. And with my limited knowledge on history, I understand that European nations seek for oversea colonization because the Ottoman Empire threatened the trade between Europe and Asia, thus forcing the European to search the other way around to circumference and accidentally hitting on America continents.
So back to CBP, all in all, I think it is acceptable to have "empty land" situation in pre-renaissance era but it should slowly be colonized with the introduction of pioneer, and colonist. Conflicts can be the a factor in the incentives for colonization.
I think it's worth reiterating at this point that the current system seems to have improved on areas the previous beta has issues with, it's just a matter of figuring out which of those methods do that in a way still keeps gameplay fun and moving forward.
I'm playing another game as Shoshone and had much more of a challenge when I wasn't able to contact the other half of the world (to trade for luxuries and meet city-states). I was really working to stay above 50% happiness despite doing everything within my power to do so. Once I was able to get the payoff for my investments (build Hagia Sophia and enhance my religion) thing got much better and gameplay was much smoother.
Having settlers require 1 pop to build does slow down the game significantly, which is not nessecarily desirable. I founded a religion on turn 140 (about 10-15 turns later than usual), and there were still four slots left available at this point. Normally more civs would have founded before then. On the other hand, it does feel like every part of the system has meaningful value at this point. I want food for growth, and granaries are quite valuable to me - but I also want luxuries to keep my people happy and am incentivised to aquire them by whatever means.
At what point in the game? I mean the entire point of this change is for their to be uncontested land for a larger portion of the game.
As I mentioned before, many lands were left behind in Renaissance Era (From start to finish), when Pioneer is available. I even hesitate to build colonist when it is available. Lots of strategic resources, new luxurious resources, Hilly city spots that can support a modest population size and can potentially become industrial powerhouses. As a side note, while we may have different opinions on the treatment of uncontested land, I still want to express my affection on expansion. These are juicy colony spots yet it is not incentive to even attempt to colonize these lands, for a long time even in Industrial Era. We're talking about an era-length period of no new cities. Also, a pioneer 1) cost twice to quadruple the cost of contemporary buildings, and 2) increase your empire size that affect your unhappiness level that eventually 3) flips your cities and 4) stagnate the growth of main cities. And 5) estimating happiness level impact of new cities is hard.
While this is only merely a speculation of mine and I may have exaggerated some aspects, at this stage settling after Classical or Medieval Eras are not quite viable.
It seems like we can all agree that pioneers need to be made cheaper.
I just kind of accepted -25% growth as a feature of the game, I had it constantly until the Renaissance with 6 city progress.
One thing about happiness is the way social policies work. Tradition can't get any happiness (or science) until its 4th policy. Authority won't have happiness until the 5th policy with a standard opening. Progress probably doesn't get any happiness until its 6th policy if you take the tree conventionally, you could take it earlier but it will hardly do anything when your cities are tiny.
You can take the right side Authority tree first. I think the right side is a long-term expansion path in general. While the left-side makes landgrabbing more productive and give science/culture, the right-side make sure you can settle more smaller cities (good for religion rush) and makes standing army produce help produce something.
Progress is a good expansion tree. I get all the raw yields policies so that settling become more lucrative. And then I take the the happiness policy.
What do you do if you go right side first? You miss out on the 40 culture and 40 science every time you settle a city. And you will get that free settler extremely late in the game. If you don't build settlers, you conquer cities? But you still miss that bonus. You also miss 30 culture every time you demand tribute from a city state, I just don't see how left doesn't finish tree must faster than right side does. Is it even worth putting garrisons in your cities? I need my military units to fight. And your cities will be too small in population to use conscription.
Yep agree with everything here. Don’t forget the extra production and gold from border expands as well.
If you're starting civilization has early UU or abilities that benefits from simply killing units then the right side tree might be a more preferable choice. You get both science and culture from killing barbarian units or raiding neighbours. For example, Egyptian War Chariot is so good at combat and give production to your capital. Celtic Pictish Warrior also gives faith. Songhai Mandekalu crushes everything and eat cities for breakfast.
While I do take left and right tree alternatively, I'll explain in favour of the right tree here. My reasoning is that the free settler policy require 2 policy choices (including starting policy) before available, and only give one-time bonus. This policy and the garrison policy presumably cost the same.
The garrison bonus provide equally powerful bonus. It will return the same amount of culture in 20 turns and more afterwards. It also provide 1 precious happiness that is crucial to rapid expansion. With more cities you can build shrines and monuments or something else that benefit wide empire. Also, you may use outdated or cheap units to garrison your city. An archer protecting the city is also a good defensive choice. Ancient city provide 1 military cap so it does not drain your military supply. Gold isn't issue if you research Trade later on. Just build markets in your numerous cities and make trade routes.
I still produce settlers on my own. The +1 production from each Authority policy also increase building speed. In fact, the industry power of Authority is very strong. Capital city is capable to churn out settlers and providing some military units at all time. Small cities are still capable to produce structures quickly. You can spend excess gold to buy units in the capital. It is cheaper than other cities because of higher happiness level.
The free settler is still nice for the 4th choice because it is free stuff that might have needed production. Besides, the cost of settler increases gradually it'll never be too late.
I don't finish the whole right side tree, I usually stop at the garrison bonus and back to the left tree . I usually take conscription as the last policy.
I seldom demand tributes from city-state. I do agree I'm missing a huge bonus from not doing that but city-states aren't easily intimidated either. Sometimes doing quest or even befriending them is equally beneficial.
@CrazyG do you still see issues with the deity AI being weak? In my current game there are a bunch of wonders just sitting around not getting built for some reason. I'm also easily keeping up in culture/science without really having some stellar start. I'm still in the early game but it already feels like an easy win whereas I usually have a few AI that I'm trailing at this point.
I don't have a ton of time to play so I'm relying on you or others to be the guinea pigs
The major problem right now for the AI is precisely the early game culture. Since the settler expansion phase is so slow and the AI isn't that good when it comes to micromanaging citizens for settler production, their initial bonus of monuments from cities come a little bit later; a right focus in culture in the early game can give you a huge advantage using key wonders for the rest of the game.
It isn't equally beneficial to pursue those weak early game quests (some quests remain after tribute anyways, such as barbarian camps). 3 spears + pathfinder or 3 horsemen are enough to get tribute on Deity, on lower difficulties you need even less. Opening the left side was already a lot stronger overall before those yields got buffed in this beta.
Better than before, but the AI just falls behind in culture/science by the mid-game. But I easily took a tech lead and now the war is spearmen against jannisaries. No AI took progress, the tradition AI just have tiny cities, and the authority AI fall behind like they always do on Deity. I'm noticing that culture is much slower for everyone, I researched gunpowder before I got my 9th policy. Korea, my neighbor, still hasn't finished tradition on turn 150.
I mean some quest are opportunistic. Some quest you can do nothing and get reward, like declaring war, denouncing, building things that you need anyway, pursuing a wonder you want etc.
So complete the quest, and then demand tribute, best of both worlds.
In VP, heavy tribute is absurdly strong and if you rarely bully city states you are just making the game harder for yourself. 40 culture is a huge amount when you only have 2 social policies. Authority that begins the game this way just has such a stronger early game. The problem with rushing the garrison policy is that garrisons aren't free, your units should be moving around to kill units or bully city states, you shouldn't a military unit in every city just sitting, the opportunity cost is crippling.
You should really shouldn't intentionally be putting down cities without imperium in play, its a very good bonus. If you put two settlers before imperium you basically give up an entire technology. With heavy tribute you can reach your 4th policy quickly, so you won't miss out on much science for kills.
It’s 30c for normal tribute. Is the reward larger for heavy tribute?
Welp. It's time to nerf bullying... Joke aside...
What you have said are some very interesting ideas. I've learnt a lot from you. FYI, just to let you have a basic idea of my skill level, I have no trouble in King but sometimes struggle in Emperor. Difference between experience and skill level can really differ perceptions.
Okay, back to the topic, garrisons aren't free, but they can provide slight protection to cities. I don't need more soldiers than it is needed to destroy barbarian camps or travel to far away land and leave my cities behind. Also sometimes it is just too far away and it is better to leave the camp for others, which can be nuisance for them.
It is difficult to say as I had only a few games start with the left side. The production from border expansion seems to synergize better with settling culture bonus. Still, yes, you don't get the juicy bonus before Imperium, but the first couple of settled city can make a monument, a shrine, and a whole bunch of other things. I don't mind missing one or two technology if I didn't have the time to start up my production engine. I just simply can't afford the production cost.
Also, the right side aren't doing nothing either. First, you send out raiding parties killing camps, after a while, when there is no more camp, some of them go back to cities and become garrison. Meanwhile some of them will continue their job, I build units that I needed to defend my cities, to become garrison.
EDIT: @pineappledan You can bully multiple city-states. I have to admit it, rewards from cultural City-states are no kidding. It is around 150 cultures when you unlock the 3rd policy.
No just a typo (I'll edit).
But you can get culture from heavy tribute. Its possible to get your second and third social policies on the same turn. If you don't have culture CS, you just have to do boring things like get free techs, free population, or production for free wonders.
Now I know why I suffer so much in early games...In my history with civ5 I've never used tribute option on CS, I'm serious, never. I dont know why but, I've just focused on civ4-kind-of-beggining-style (rush few buildings to have some hammers and gold and avoind military units cos of cost). Well, I'm gonna change it now then.
About settler eating pop thing, I like it, makes u think more about early expansion.
Also I'm in my 400-ish turn and map looks well balanced, no white spots apart some lonely islands and tundra/snow terrain. But its true, pioniers are way too expensive atm to even consider settling in mid game. I've just produced few settlers before and saved them, when I uncover nice spots missed by AI i just pay 1k to upgrade and settle.
Happines was a nasty problem few times, when u are down to 20% nasty rebels plunder your countryside but after a while it stabilize especially with trading luxuries.
I have one question, is it possible to do sthm with Golden Age infinite loop thing? Almost every game after industrial you produce so much GAP + spamming artists that u have constant GA for the rest of the game, seems cheese but I cannot resist doing this (I would have to sabotage my GAP production, which is even worse). Playing mostly emperor btw.
Separate names with a comma.