New Beta Version - December 20th (12/20)

[theMisterRud]

Why does Tradition have to be the jack of all trades?

I had 3 games in which, like clockwork, the world went ballistic in a specific timeframe and holding 2 fronts and a naval assault with 18-20 Supply was quite not fun and felt cheap as hell, especially after a game in which I invested heavily into keeping one front I KNEW would get me into trouble happy through diplomacy, which was the tool I used and failed outside my control.

Given that tuning AI is much harder, and assuming that the modders want to keep the "shark smelling blood" behavior of the AI, I thought that upping the supply is a easier solution than balancing the AI.

Those are my 2 cents, whatever the modders decide is on their discretion. I hardly think asking for the ability to field an additional core makes Tradition jack-of-all-trades

 

[Recursive]

I had 3 games in which, like clockwork, the world went ballistic in a specific timeframe and holding 2 fronts and a naval assault with 18-20 Supply was quite not fun and felt cheap as hell, especially after a game in which I invested heavily into keeping one front I KNEW would get me into trouble happy through diplomacy, which was the tool I used and failed outside my control.

Given that tuning AI is much harder, and assuming that the modders want to keep the "shark smelling blood" behavior of the AI, I thought that upping the supply is a easier solution than balancing the AI.

As stated in my previous post, some AI adjustments are being made as well.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I had 3 games in which, like clockwork, the world went ballistic in a specific timeframe and holding 2 fronts and a naval assault with 18-20 Supply was quite not fun and felt cheap as hell, especially after a game in which I invested heavily into keeping one front I KNEW would get me into trouble happy through diplomacy, which was the tool I used and failed outside my control.

Given that tuning AI is much harder, and assuming that the modders want to keep the "shark smelling blood" behavior of the AI, I thought that upping the supply is a easier solution than balancing the AI.

Those are my 2 cents, whatever the modders decide is on their discretion. I hardly think asking for the ability to field an additional core makes Tradition jack-of-all-trades

I had a game were I went progress and had 12 cities, with an acceptable amount of units, and the result was the same. Starting from industrial, every 10-20 turns I got a war declaration even from people across the continent.
Its an result by the fact that everyone is allied with everyone else and this makes a war declaration to other AIs very unattractive, while in most cases the human dont have or dont have many DP.
Its also only logical, that at some point, the AI will try to stop you from winning, cause.... you as human would do it too.
And while I think a human only game would look like this too, so its a realistic behavior, its very far away from beeing funny, cause...... every AI with difficulty advantages uniting against you would make any victory condition except science or domination impossible.

You could accumulate what ever world congress votes or CS you want, the pure amount of civ with atleast some votes would sanction you, ban your luxury, vote for open doors on your allied CS or stealing them from you, making any DV impossible.
You could stack whatever tourism you want, being sanctioned, permanent at war, trade routes pillaged and travel ban online, you can forget any CV.

So, atleast me, dont want to implement a 100% human behavior in diplomacy, cause it wouldnt be funny to be played.

 

[TranceBlossom]

Authority is weak, if you didnt go to war, progress is weak, if you didnt expand much, and tradition is weak versus foreign military ambitions. Its fine.

I mean, you're admitting the issue yourself:
"Authority and Progress are weak in certain areas if you don't play to those trees' strengths. Tradition is weak in a certain area no matter what you do*"

* The suggestions people are giving to circumvent Tradition's supply issue are fair, but you're generally going way the hell out of the way to circumvent a weakness in a way Progress & Authority don't have to do. Yes you can build one of the few supply-increasing wonders or bulb a GG/GA, but both of those are hard tasks before at least the Renaissance.

I'm not saying Tradition shouldn't have drawbacks (tbh it has plenty of others in addition to Supply), but for a while now it feels like I'm playing 1 difficulty level higher going Tall Tradition, and the bully AI in the last patch is exacerbating the issue. Maybe tuning down the AI will be enough to fix the issue. I can generally win most games going wide or warmonger on emperor, but going Tall seems to be more of a coinflip, and getting attacked from multiple angles in the early eras is basically game over.

Do the people who disagree think that Tradition is balanced or even overpowered relative to the other trees? My experience is the opposite, but if people think human Tradition is in a good place then it could just be my playstyle that needs work.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

@Recursive , I think now would be a good time to further advertise your recently added option that disables AI victory block aggressiveness towards players in the lead (I forget what exact file, but you know what I'm referencing). I deal with diplomacy just fine in a lot of recent games. Instances where dipo breaks down and I have to "fight everybody" usually only occurs when I'm positioning for victory, which should be the case if playing default (without the above mentioned tweak that makes AI "more realistic" and not play to win, so to speak).

I've also personally been winning Emperor games consistently, when I was only a King player until recently, so I'd say difficulty doesn't need to be made easier; players should first move to higher/lower difficulties before coming to certain conclusions.

 

[Recursive]

@Recursive , I think now would be a good time to further advertise your recently added option that disables AI victory block aggressiveness towards players in the lead (I forget what exact file, but you know what I'm referencing). I deal with diplomacy just fine in a lot of recent games. Instances where dipo breaks down and I have to "fight everybody" usually only occurs when I'm positioning for victory, which should be the case if playing default (without the above mentioned tweak that makes AI "more realistic" and not play to win, so to speak).

I've also personally been winning Emperor games consistently, when I was only a King player until recently, so I'd say difficulty doesn't need to be made easier; players should first move to higher/lower difficulties before coming to certain conclusions.

An excuse for shameless self-advertising? Why not?

By default, the AI plays to win. However, for players who don't want to play this way, (1) Community Patch > Core Changes > Core Files > DiploAIOptions.sql includes an option to disable victory competition. If this is enabled, all AI diplo penalties caused by the other player being too successful are disabled; this also goes for the endgame aggression boost (which adds a lot of aggression weight towards players who are getting close to winning the game). This allows for a more realistic "empire building"/"simulator" type game.

@Kim Dong Un, part of the problem, I suspect, is that the AI is too aggressive about punishing weakness, and victory competition (which starts to really take effect in the Industrial Era or so) is the tipping point that causes an avalanche of war declarations, which isn't necessarily fun or in the AI's best interests. As such, I've adjusted certain conditions for next version - my hopeful prediction is that next version's diplomacy should be fairly stable and in good shape.

 

[CrazyG]

By default, the AI plays to win.

Your changes in this department have done a really great job and ruining some of my favorite moves. I've lost two games in a row, and I suspect it was your work that caused that meddling AI to sucker punch me at just the right moment.

Which is all to say, you've done a great job.

 

[civplayer33]

Part of the problem, I think, is that tall vs. wide needs to be balanced not just for human vs. AI but also AI vs. AI (since for most games, especially single player, obviously, there will be more AIs than humans); this is an issue because the human will always be better at waging war (potentially, at least, if he has spent time on "getting gud"). So while I would agree that an aggressive play style for someone who knows how to wage war effectively is going to make for an easier game on the same difficulty as a peaceful, tall, Tradition game, I don't think that's a flaw, but rather a consequence of the AI being better geared for competing with such a (human) player and of the aggressive player making a greater effort (in time, for example...lots of conquests means turns are longer and the empire is larger).
There is also a paradox here in that there are complaints about Warmonger Score increasing too quickly...this is exactly the mechanism that is supposed to punish the aggressive player over the peaceful player, after all, to reach more of a balance; if anything I'd advocate for aggressive expansion being penalized more through the happiness system, like making Puppets contribute a bit more Unhappiness (maybe go back to 1 Unhappy per 4 or maybe even 3 Citizens) or introducing a mechanic that makes warmonger score increase more rapidly for players who already have warmonger score (so scale added warmonger score according to existing warmonger score) or increasing the warmonger reduction from defensive wars as mentioned in another thread.
Artificially increasing the Supply of Tradition feels wrong, because the tools are already available for them to do so themselves (even early on: go for Terracotta, Great Wall, later Himeji...); if you skip those options and other options like defensive Pantheon/Beliefs and don't prioritize military infrastructure and units and expect to just ride the game out on the top of the Tech Tree all game long and think everyone else needs to just accept that you'll be peacefully taking the lead and snagging all the nice Science, Culture, Food, Religion and Diplomacy Wonders, then you can simply lower the difficulty, turn off victory competition and maybe even AI aggressiveness in general (I believe Recursive added such options, as well) and enjoy that kind of game that way. But in a normal game on a competitive difficulty level this kind of play style is supposed to cause significant problems for you.

 

[TranceBlossom]

I know Tradition civs can compensate for their low supply cap with early supply wonders (both of which are hard to get) or somehow spawning and planting early GG/GAs.

My issue is, if I DON'T do one of those things, even if I have barracks/walls in every city and have filled my supply cap with the latest military units, I'll still be seen as weak and have constant war with the AI (in the latest patch especially). Like CrazyG said, sometimes the best choice is to actually just go past my military supply cap and eat the growth/production malus.

I'm not looking for strategy help, and I'm not trying to remove all difficulty to the game. I'm not referring to cheese games where I blatantly ignore military. These are games where I wish I could build more military, but my options to do so are extremely limited. Progress and Authority have weaknesses too, but supply cap is particularly hard to work around when you only have 4 cities. Heck, Venice still gets +5 supply cap from Piazza San Marco, and no one is claiming that's making them overpowered.

This weakness alone, in my experience, makes playing Tradition a difficulty level harder for the human in the early game.

I'm basically just repeating my points in my previous post, but I feel like we're just talking past each other at this point...

 

[Recursive]

Your changes in this department have done a really great job and ruining some of my favorite moves. I've lost two games in a row, and I suspect it was your work that caused that meddling AI to sucker punch me at just the right moment.

Which is all to say, you've done a great job.

I'm glad you think so. It's quite possible that was the case, diplomacy wise, although some credit should definitely be given to the tactical AI improvements ilteroi has been making.

Part of the problem, I think, is that tall vs. wide needs to be balanced not just for human vs. AI but also AI vs. AI (since for most games, especially single player, obviously, there will be more AIs than humans); this is an issue because the human will always be better at waging war (potentially, at least, if he has spent time on "getting gud"). So while I would agree that an aggressive play style for someone who knows how to wage war effectively is going to make for an easier game on the same difficulty as a peaceful, tall, Tradition game, I don't think that's a flaw, but rather a consequence of the AI being better geared for competing with such a (human) player and of the aggressive player making a greater effort (in time, for example...lots of conquests means turns are longer and the empire is larger).
There is also a paradox here in that there are complaints about Warmonger Score increasing too quickly...this is exactly the mechanism that is supposed to punish the aggressive player over the peaceful player, after all, to reach more of a balance; if anything I'd advocate for aggressive expansion being penalized more through the happiness system, like making Puppets contribute a bit more Unhappiness (maybe go back to 1 Unhappy per 4 or maybe even 3 Citizens) or introducing a mechanic that makes warmonger score increase more rapidly for players who already have warmonger score (so scale added warmonger score according to existing warmonger score) or increasing the warmonger reduction from defensive wars as mentioned in another thread.
Artificially increasing the Supply of Tradition feels wrong, because the tools are already available for them to do so themselves (even early on: go for Terracotta, Great Wall, later Himeji...); if you skip those options and other options like defensive Pantheon/Beliefs and don't prioritize military infrastructure and units and expect to just ride the game out on the top of the Tech Tree all game long and think everyone else needs to just accept that you'll be peacefully taking the lead and snagging all the nice Science, Culture, Food, Religion and Diplomacy Wonders, then you can simply lower the difficulty, turn off victory competition and maybe even AI aggressiveness in general (I believe Recursive added such options, as well) and enjoy that kind of game that way. But in a normal game on a competitive difficulty level this kind of play style is supposed to cause significant problems for you.

I know Tradition civs can compensate for their low supply cap with early supply wonders (both of which are hard to get) or somehow spawning and planting early GG/GAs.

My issue is, if I DON'T do one of those things, even if I have barracks/walls in every city and have filled my supply cap with the latest military units, I'll still be seen as weak and have constant war with the AI (in the latest patch especially). Like CrazyG said, sometimes the best choice is to actually just go past my military supply cap and eat the growth/production malus.

I'm not looking for strategy help, and I'm not trying to remove all difficulty to the game. I'm not referring to cheese games where I blatantly ignore military. These are games where I wish I could build more military, but my options to do so are extremely limited. Progress and Authority have weaknesses too, but supply cap is particularly hard to work around when you only have 4 cities.

This weakness alone, in my experience, makes playing Tradition a difficulty level harder for the human in the early game.

I'm basically just repeating my points in my previous post, but I feel like we're just talking past each other at this point...

The AI is programmed to strategically target players who are doing very well and players who they view as weak, and especially likes to target players who are weak but otherwise doing very well.

It was oversensitive to weakness in this version (both in determining weakness and adding hostility weight); that's been adjusted for next version, and a few other issues have been fixed as well. The proximity multiplier goes into effect next version too, which should make friendships with neighbors easier to maintain if you behave well; and there's also Gazebo's changes to the warmongering penalties.

 

[TranceBlossom]

I'm glad you think so. It's quite possible that was the case, diplomacy wise, although some credit should definitely be given to the tactical AI improvements ilteroi has been making.





The AI is programmed to strategically target players who are doing very well and players who they view as weak, and especially likes to target players who are weak but otherwise doing very well.

It was oversensitive to weakness in this version (both in determining weakness and adding hostility weight); that's been adjusted for next version, and a few other issues have been fixed as well. The proximity multiplier goes into effect next version too, which should make friendships with neighbors easier to maintain if you behave well; and there's also Gazebo's changes to the warmongering penalties.

I hope so, I think especially diplomatic means such as trading at a loss to the AI should be one strategy to keep them on your good side.

 

[General_Drax]

Using free Great people option for Generals or Admirals to get +2 supply would be also an option.

It's fine if you can get them. Waging war in Tradition is seldom an option so you have to rely on wonders to get them or from defensive wars.

Beside I prefer not to split supply between navy and army. Those are few already.

 

[ryanmusante]

The VP community when they learn a new version is on the horizon:
Me immediately after Zebo posts new versions:
Also, me after @Recursive came onto the scene a few months back to devote countless hours as the diplo guru:]

I second that

 

[Voremonger]

Regarding tall military supply:
Maybe you could add a repeatable project similar to Public Works?
Something like a Conscription Center that gives you +1 Military Supply but also +1 Unhappiness?

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Regarding tall military supply:
Maybe you could add a repeatable project similar to Public Works?

I first liked this idea, cause it would be a good thing to adjust flexible to the situation and help tall Tradition empires.
But remember, big Progress empires and AIs would be able to do it too. And they would be more efficiant in using this project than a Tall huma empire.
In the end, this could lead to the same situation, but on a much higher level of units. Maybe, the AI is unable to handle the pure amount of units and also is unable to pay the maintenance and get bancrupt.
This has to be considered.

 

[Voremonger]

But remember, big Progress empires and AIs would be able to do it too. And they would be more efficiant in using this project than a Tall huma empire.

Would they really?
My experience is that when I go wide Happiness is a much bigger problem than Unit Supply.
So I don't know if wide empires would really benefit from this project.
Maybe you could up the Unhappiness penalty to 2 in order to really discourage wide empires from building it?

 

[bigcat88]

Move this to tradition discussion thread, pls.
P.s.: I don’t think that Tradition needs buff, but writing here more will be offtop

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I really cant wait for that next version.
Not even have entered industrial age and I got after a 150 turns peaceful time 5 war declarations in 10 turns. 30 turns later, one peace out and 2 other join in.

 

[amateurgamer88]

Now that the Chinese and Incan UU no longer have Logistics, what are people's thoughts on the English Ship of the Line?

 

[KittyKat3120]

Now that the Chinese and Incan UU no longer have Logistics

I actually do not like the change for China's unique unit as the Chu-Ko-Nu means a repeating crossbow. So the promotion of being able to shoot twice makes more sense than the promotion it has currently