New Beta Version - December 1st (12-1)

[BiteInTheMark]

Wind Land Tiles - now +2 p/s/g to all land tiles excluding mountains

No love for the Inca?

The artistry opener is +25% GP rate in all cities

Your percentage bonus needs to be added to a base 100% for the calculation because that's how percentages work. If something is 25% faster then it's (25% / 100%) faster. ie. Your base rate is 100%, or just 1 so something being 25% faster is 125% as fast.

To avoid the diminishing effect of a GPP-modifier, the ability could be changed to a discount for all GP. This way, the discount has always the same impact, independently how many modifiers you already have stacked. IF..... this is possible codewise.

I would prefer to let the nuclear plant have its raw production power but decrease it a bit and add the process modifier, something like:

• +40% production
• +10% process conversion rate

And give the solar plant the specialist focus like:

• +10% production
  
• +3 yields to all specialists
• -15% GPP cost for all specialsts

This way, the wind and hydro plants are for big but simple tile farming cities, nuclear for industrial powerhouses with processes and the solar plant for tall specialist cities.

 

[bigcat88]

At least this mod starts to balance my favourite part of game Atomic & Information era's...

Imho: Nuclear plant is too weak to build it.
+2 base specialist yields is nothing at that stage.
I don't think that nuclear plants must be build only in traditional capitals. All other cities don't have enough specs.

If +25% from solar adds to conversation value(so 45% of production is converted into process) - than I need one game to test...

 

[crdvis16]

Regardless, my endgame tradition capital is working specialists almost exclusively; the increase to GP production is probably not relevant, but the boost to specialist yields very much is.

Careful, PAD will accuse you of contorting your gameplay just to win an argument.

I don't know the exact ratio of specialists vs land tiles in my late game tradition capitals off the top of my head but I wouldn't be surprised if it was 3 to 1. Even if it's 2 to 1 you could make the case that the +2 specialist yields and 25% GP rate are better than the +6 land yields especially when some of the land yields are food/gold and some of the specialist yields are culture.

He's probably still right that the Nuclear plant is relatively weaker (especially with the added Uranium req) but the insistence that it's ALWAYS worse is probably not true.

 

[pineappledan]

In my games, most citizens in my capital are working specialists. As in more than half. So I think that 6 yields on specialists would be much stronger than 6 yields on tiles.

I think mOsT oF uS think implicitly that yields on specialists is stronger than yields on tiles, especially at that late part of the game. This is why G made the nuclear specialist yields lower. What the ratio precisely is will depend on many factors (hilly terrain, river, policies, etc), but the ratio of specialists to tiles in your most industrialized cities is very likely less than 1:1. However, you will have to move heaven and earth to get it below 3:1. 3:1 is only reasonable with a Tradition/Freedom civ; The lower food consumption from Majesty and Civil Society are the only reason we are talking about this. The same thing is nowhere near doable for a Progress/Order civ without ITRs propping your city up. For an Order player in Information Era, each specialist is consuming 9. In a 36 capital with 3:1 specialist to tile distribution, the capital would consume 261 per turn, or 29 per non-specialist citizen.

Wherever the break even point is, I agree that it is below 1:1 parity (6 yields), but it is definitely above 1:3 (2 yields)

 

[crdvis16]

However, you will have to move heaven and earth to get it below 3:1. 3:1 is only reasonable with a Tradition/Freedom civ

Do you consider playing a normal Tradition-Freedom game 'moving heaven and earth'? That seems like a fairly common strategy when tall.

Wherever the break even point is, I agree that it is below 1:1 parity (6 yields), but it is definitely above 1:3 (2 yields)

I think we fundamentally agree in the end and we probably wouldn't be having this back and forth if there wasn't the constant use of hyperbole to try to prove points.

 

[pineappledan]

Do you consider playing a normal Tradition-Freedom game 'moving heaven and earth'? That seems like a fairly common strategy when tall.

I think that a Tradition/Freedom civ should be able to benefit inordinately from a plant that boosts specialists. I don't think those policy choices should be prerequisites for that plant to be competitive with other plants. Ideally, a Progress/Order or Authority/Autocracy player shouldn't feel like Nuclear plants are simply not for them

 

[JamesNinelives]

I think we all know implicitly that yields on specialists is stronger than yields on tiles, especially at that late part of the game.

I thought it was worth mentioning that this is not exactly true in all cases. Even if it were, stating that it is something that 'we all know implicitly' is absolutely not.

Here's a couple of examples: Great person tile improvements, Unique Improvements, and luxury resources almost always give more yields than a specialist, and many bonus resources do as well - even accounting for a weighted valuation of different yields as the kind you have used in the past (i.e. your discussion of farms w/Agribussinesses vs. UIs).

Now, it's possible that I'm overstating my case a little. Perhaps I'm focusing overmuch on a detail that isn't particularly important. Perhaps I've misunderstood the context. I've been known to have make mistakes before, for example on the subject of yields on populations increase. So I apologize for speaking so strongly. I would simply advise that you consider that the same human fallability applies to you sometimes as well.

Particularly when you are making generalisations, and especially when you are saying things that represent what other people think. There are few things that annoy me more than reading someone else talking on my behalf and saying things that I would never have said.

 

[pineappledan]

I think we fundamentally agree in the end and we probably wouldn't be having this back and forth if there wasn't the constant use of hyperbole to try to prove points.

This seems like a self-own. I'm the one that actually cites numbers from the game and has calculated marginal GPP rate increase and food consumption rates on the situations you have concocted.

I thought it was worth mentioning that this is not exactly true in all cases. Even if it were, stating that is something that is something that 'we all know implicitly' is definitely not.

Are you proposing then that we give nuclear plants >6 yields per specialist? I've merely been advocating that nuclear plant's yields per specialist be increased to 4 while crdvis has been arguing that 2 is reasonable. It seems you are arguing for something else from the two of us.

 

[crdvis16]

I think that a Tradition/Freedom civ should be able to benefit inordinately from a plant that boosts specialists. I don't think those policy choices should be prerequisites for that plant to be competitive with other plants. Ideally, a Progress/Order or Authority/Autocracy player shouldn't feel like Nuclear plants are simply not for them

That's fair and I agree. Maybe +3 to specialist yields would be the right number to try first.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Are you proposing then that we give nuclear plants >6 yields per specialist? I've merely been advocating that nuclear plant's yields per specialist be increased to 4 while crdvis has been arguing that 2 is reasonable. It seems you are arguing for something else from the two of us.

I don't even care about the subject you are discussing. I am literally only objecting to you talking as if you represent the entire community when you clearly do not.

 

[crdvis16]

This seems like a self-own. I'm the one that actually cites numbers from the game and has calculated food consumption on the situations you have concocted.

By hyperbole I mean exaggeration and over generalization. "Nuclear is NEVER the right choice", etc. Using actual data is of course welcome and useful. I was sort of using hyperbole to also mean your jumping to conclusions- saying that I'm just contorting my game play to win an argument, etc. These things all come across as arguing in bad faith and trying to bulldoze over other opinions.

Are you proposing then that we give nuclear plants >6 yields per specialist? I've merely been advocating that nuclear plant's yields per specialist be increased to 4 while crdvis has been arguing that 2 is reasonable. It seems you are arguing for something else from the two of us.

I've only argued that there are situations where the +2 Nuclear plant could be the right choice (and have admitted that those situations are probably too niche). I think you're right that it should probably go up (I just stated +3 might be best) or maybe the GP rate should go up. Do you think it's weird that someone that fundamentally agrees with your analysis still finds the need to push back on your arguments for being over bearing? It's perfectly possible that I'm just being difficult and pedantic but it's also possible that your method of discussion in this thread has rubbed people the wrong way (seems like I might not be the only one). I don't think you always do it but I think you're doing it in this thread. And to be conciliatory- I think you're generally an excellent source of analysis for this game.

 

[pineappledan]

Do you think it's weird that someone that fundamentally agrees with your analysis still finds the need to push back on your arguments for being over bearing?

As iron sharpens iron,
so one person sharpens another.

 

[Stalker0]

I think numbers aside, the buckets for the 4 power plants laid out make sense for me. They seem to cover solid niches that show up in the game, so I can see wanting to build each plant for a different purpose. Whether the numbers are right for balance of course remains up for debate.

I'm also kind of interested to see if Order can now serve as a means for a culture rich, production light civ to bulk up in infrastructure through the various free buildings. Its an interesting tactic I may want to try.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I'm also kind of interested to see if Order can now serve as a means for a culture rich, production light civ to bulk up in infrastructure through the various free buildings. Its an interesting tactic I may want to try.

Iam not sure why every ideology has to have good tenets for each victory condition. I think its totally fine if each of those ideologies completly lack boosting abilities for 1 victory condition.
Theres absolutly no reason why I should pick Order for CV, even with the comming buff, an external trade route and specialist orientated ideology like Freedom is always better.

 

[pineappledan]

Iam not sure why every ideology has to have good tenets for each victory condition. I think its totally fine if each of those ideologies completly lack boosting abilities for 1 victory condition.
Theres absolutly no reason why I should pick Order for CV, even with the comming buff, an external trade route and specialist orientated ideology like Freedom is always better.

Order has 0 policies that go directly towards a DiploV. If you take out all the CV policies then Order has 2 VCs which it doesn't boost.
This is why I was advocating for Order to have more Happiness => Tourism type policy boosts. Order actually has a tenet that removes a normal civ's tourism tools (nationalization) and they have no boosts to external TRs, so they need to find Influence some other ways.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Order has 0 policies that go directly towards a DiploV. If you take out all the CV policies then Order has 2 VCs which it doesn't boost.
This is why I was advocating for Order to have more Happiness => Tourism type policy boosts. Order actually has a tenet that removes a normal civ's tourism tools (nationalization) and they have no boosts to external TRs, so they need to find Influence some other ways.

Historically and game play wise it would in my eyes make more sense that Order ignore CV and head mostly for SV and DV, and in minor way for a DomV.
Not using your overpowered trade units for the internal trade would be a waste, but tourism from external trade units has such a big impact, that you definitly need them.
If Order already has such a penalty with its internal trade units, why then pressing CV tenets into this ideology at all costs?
I also dont think that pressing 5 free buildings and giving other buildings some flat yields into a tenet is really something useful. You only save some little time and money for 5 cities and thats it.

 

[andersw]

Well I learned that you need (again in this patch) to be extremely prepared if you are neighbour to the persians, his first early push with immortals and possibly catapults usually with golden age can be very rough to defend with new lower city strength.