New Beta Version - February 18th (2-18)

[Stalker0]

I've tried a number of Immortal Starts. Pyramids/Stonehenge is normally taken from Turns 25-30, with the occasional Turn 22-23 anomaly. I don't think its a viable play anymore unless you have a really strong start or don't mind gambling.

To give an example of what I consider a "strong start", in this last game I had a really good start. A hill start (2f 2p) next to a lake (3f 1p), a salt (1f 2p), and a forest dye (1f 2p 1g).

I get three strong ruins. A pop, extra borders (which lets me access all those resources), and a gold one. I was able to quickly rush a worker because of the gold, so I got to improve 1 salt before the pyramid finished. Got up to Pop 3 while building my monument, went right to work on the pyramid (working 1 salt, the dye, and the lake). That was a Turn 26 pyramid (using progress)...which I would consider a good odds gamble in the current setup. If I had taken tradition I would have shaved a few turns off of that, and would probably guarantee it in all but the most crazy AI pushes (like a Washington with good ruins).

So that's what it takes to get a pyramid on Immortal now

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

started another immortal game as Poland on epic speed with full settling bonuses, gave up on turn 100 after getting horseman and chariot rushed losing a city within the first turn of war by both Rome & Egypt who were not really giving up on anything to get a massive army that fast; Rome had 5 cities by Turn 90 on epic speed in addition to Pyramids and Statue of Zeus, Egypt had 4 cities and a wonder by that time too .... i was beelining mathematics to get composites but i got rushed before i could build a single one, i did not build any wonder I was halfway though hanging gardens when i got 2 DOWs.
I have no idea if Immortal is playable with full settling bonuses or am i doing something extremely wrong to just lose the game before it even starts.

 

[Stalker0]

Kinda curious what this would actually do if tribute were available...

Yeah I do think there needs to be a threshold before tributes are allowed.

1) Its weird that the locals go running in fear of my pathfinder.
2) Depending on conditions, its weirdly lucrative. I bagged 23 gold once with a pathfinder scout, I guess just the right conditions, but that is nothing to sneeze at!

 

[AndreyK]

Have anybody seen that missionaires don't stack on water? They move like military units 1 per1 tile

 

[Recursive]

I think I'm much in favor of changing the AI bonuses from being driven by these events to something that is less prone to create feedback loops that lead to run aways.

The bonuses could just be delivered every X turns which would presumably be agnostic toward how well an AI civ is doing and keep AI clustered more in power. It might also not tilt the bonuses so much toward certain AI playstyles.

Bonuses on trade route completion might favor AI that use internal or CS routes, for instance (could help explain Ottoman's run and Statecraft being the preferred Renaissance tree for Ottoman and Austria in my games). Meanwhile, civs those go to war where routes get pillaged are missing those bonuses. Bonuses on city settling might artificially favor wide.

Edit: though I'm still interested to see if others are seeing the return of runaways like dear leader and I are (and maybe you as well Vore?).

I find I'm agreeing with this, reading the recent feedback. In addition to preventing this kind of runaway feedback loop, it'd be easier to balance AI bonuses if they were more consistent rather than event-driven, as well.

 

[Stalker0]

Have anybody seen that missionaires don't stack on water? They move like military units 1 per1 tile

I just noticed that myself and thought that was weird.....that is a change isn't it?

 

[Gazebo]

I just noticed that myself and thought that was weird.....that is a change isn't it?

I'd let @ilteroi know.

 

[Bromar1]

It seems like maybe the bonus on wonders/historical events is the common culprit? Maybe that bonus should be dropped or greatly reduced?

Drop it altogether.

Difficulty bonuses should be normalized by number of turns, not irregular events like building wonders or finishing TRs

 

[Stalker0]

Drop it altogether.

Difficulty bonuses should be normalized by number of turns, not irregular events like building wonders or finishing TRs

I think its a better system overall. That said, I have no issue with the idea of quadratic bonuses, so it may make sense for the duration to go down the longer the game goes.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

Drop it altogether.

Difficulty bonuses should be normalized by number of turns, not irregular events like building wonders or finishing TRs

I agree that there should probably be more consistency, but if it's a set number of turns it might become too easy to anticipate and see it manifest onto the playing field - obviously this is not much fun either.

 

[tu_79]

Drop it altogether.

Difficulty bonuses should be normalized by number of turns, not irregular events like building wonders or finishing TRs

This is a recurring discussion.

Gazebo wants bonuses to be driven by events so there's a story. This way you see some civs that are performing well becoming scary runaways. It's more personal to care for a couple of civs than juggling with all of them.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a mix of per turn and per event handicap bonuses. It will retain the epic, but won't throw the loser civs away.

 

[RankLord123]

I’m having an issue playing as Mongolia. I have all mods but I can’t heavy tribute from city states. I can only regular tribute for like 10 gold

 

[Acaerus]

Well, i don`t know what to do anymore. I constantly experience crashes to desktop now, it started with last beta build. Everything working fine at home where i have steam licensed version. I tried like 5-6 different versions now, tried to install on brand new clean PC and even tried to move Assets folder from steam licensed version. Nothing helps. Game just crashed at random turn and loading save does not help.

P.S. Never had crash to desktop with VP before...

 

[Voremonger]

Drop it altogether.

Difficulty bonuses should be normalized by number of turns, not irregular events like building wonders or finishing TRs

I personally don't care if AI snowballing mechanics are changed.
Since the snowballing AI is almost always on another continent than me they are not a serious threat in terms of military.
Since such AI are also heavy on the top side of the tech tree while I'm typically heavy on the bottom side it's also possible for me to still get some wonders.
I usually just disable Science Victories; I don't like the idea of a victory condition that requires no interaction with the other players anyways.

Also, for the AI building wonders is a zero-sum game: any bonus that one AI gets for building a wonder is a bonus that all other AI are not getting.
Therefore, if an AI on another continent is stacking wonders they are denying the accompanying instant yields to the AI that I have already weakened.
I think if the instant yields the AI are getting were distributed evenly it would make the mid game harder and the late game easier (at least for warmongers).

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

This is a recurring discussion.

Gazebo wants bonuses to be driven by events so there's a story. This way you see some civs that are performing well becoming scary runaways. It's more personal to care for a couple of civs than juggling with all of them.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a mix of per turn and per event handicap bonuses. It will retain the epic, but won't throw the loser civs away.

I thought there was some sort of agreement that fun and balance trumps realism; the presence of a story is cool if it does not -unfortunately it does- mess with the game balance ... a player getting +20 wonders built while the rest get none because that player was the first to build one is not ideal imo.

 

[Asterix Rage]

2x (F-22)Jet Fighter come up with Pentagon WWonder !
Looks like a bug to me

 

[Tugboatspotter]

I thought there was some sort of agreement that fun and balance trumps realism; the presence of a story is cool if it does not -unfortunately it does- mess with the game balance ... a player getting +20 wonders built while the rest get none because that player was the first to build one is not ideal imo.

Yes.

How does the wonder production penalty work? is it civ or city based? Either way, it seems the penalty should be higher, and if it is civ based, then would not a city based penalty make more sense?

Perhaps it could be both. A smaller civ penalty and a larger city penalty.

 

[Roamy]

Hello friends. I'm a bit at my wit's end with the beta (emphasis for dramatic comedy, not actually at my wit's end).

Playing with the newest hotfix, long time civ deity player but relatively new to the more recent Vox Populi versions (which are awesome, entirely reinvigorated civ for me and makes for the best 4x experience I've ever had so far, major kudos).

Couple of things I've noticed in my most recent game on emperor:

-For some reason barbarians seemed to be more akin to raging barbarians than what I'm used to with the more recent versions. I was getting utterly decimated by hordes of them and my warrior archer combo were getting slammed by a single camp that kept spamming warriors/spearmen (it was on a forested hill, so they had extra CS).

-Managed to JUST snag a stonehenge, Ai managed to grab every other wonder in quick succession. No chance at hanging garden or mausoleum even though I had a pretty strong start.

-Ai was several techs ahead, but I had a weak early game (ottomans tradition, for the record) due to barbarian issues and losing out on two wonders I tried to get).

-This is unrelated to feedback, but definitely noticing just how little I know about optimized Vox Populi play, especially in terms of early build order. AI is just a lot stronger than in last beta, it feels like, and I fall behind quickly. Perhaps building too many buildings, or getting too many superfluous techs at the start, but they all seem so useful and strong! I went monument/(shrine)/switch to stonehenge/settler (buy warrior/archer)/worker/granary/council/settler in my capitol. I wish I could find a high level VP streamer to watch and learn from to better evaluate the opportunity cost of things I'm doing, but hey.

For the record, much love for all the work, big fan. <3

 

[Edaka]

I've tried a number of Immortal Starts. Pyramids/Stonehenge is normally taken from Turns 25-30, with the occasional Turn 22-23 anomaly. I don't think its a viable play anymore unless you have a really strong start or don't mind gambling.

To give an example of what I consider a "strong start", in this last game I had a really good start. A hill start (2f 2p) next to a lake (3f 1p), a salt (1f 2p), and a forest dye (1f 2p 1g).

I get three strong ruins. A pop, extra borders (which lets me access all those resources), and a gold one. I was able to quickly rush a worker because of the gold, so I got to improve 1 salt before the pyramid finished. Got up to Pop 3 while building my monument, went right to work on the pyramid (working 1 salt, the dye, and the lake). That was a Turn 26 pyramid (using progress)...which I would consider a good odds gamble in the current setup. If I had taken tradition I would have shaved a few turns off of that, and would probably guarantee it in all but the most crazy AI pushes (like a Washington with good ruins).

So that's what it takes to get a pyramid on Immortal now

started another immortal game as Poland on epic speed with full settling bonuses, gave up on turn 100 after getting horseman and chariot rushed losing a city within the first turn of war by both Rome & Egypt who were not really giving up on anything to get a massive army that fast; Rome had 5 cities by Turn 90 on epic speed in addition to Pyramids and Statue of Zeus, Egypt had 4 cities and a wonder by that time too .... i was beelining mathematics to get composites but i got rushed before i could build a single one, i did not build any wonder I was halfway though hanging gardens when i got 2 DOWs.
I have no idea if Immortal is playable with full settling bonuses or am i doing something extremely wrong to just lose the game before it even starts.

I think Immortal and Deity being super hard, even harder than before, is fine, as long as the difficulty is consistent throughout different eras, playstyles, civs, etc (which may not be the case right now). I wanted to say that because I think we should aim to eliminate inconsistency, not overall dificulty. If somebody's usual difficulty level has recently become too hard, it should be perfectly fine to step down a level or two. I mean, Deity is supposed to be near impossible, right? (Again, as long as there's consistency). Not long ago there were complaints about Deity being too easy. Just a thing to keep in mind.

 

[Bromar1]

I agree that there should probably be more consistency, but if it's a set number of turns it might become too easy to anticipate and see it manifest onto the playing field - obviously this is not much fun either.

I feel like it's pretty easy to predict the snowballers though. If an AI gets early wonders, I automatically know that they are going to snowball harder than the rest. This goes double for Petra because I know whoever has it is going to start completing trade routes earlier which gives them more difficulty bonuses earlier which let's them snipe more wonders which gives more difficulty bonuses, etc etc.