New Beta Version - January 3rd (1/3)

[Deadstarre]

Buildings scale off of tech and empire size, units off of tech. I did this because many units also have building requirements for purchases in the later-game.

G

I understand now why it was implemented this way, and at the same time that was probly awhile ago now. If there is a goal in mind to reduce wide purchasing power, the malus should be applied somewhat uniformly across all available purchases, otherwise it'll wind up creating a skew towards one thing or the other. I've always considered that units require buildings to be purchased just a game enhancing flavor piece (although it occasionally stymies me, I like it), it never occurred to me as part of the gold balancing act.

 

[lunker]

Reporting in that Oracle is kind of bad.

Policy Cost: 1985
Golden Age Cost: 2620

6 Tradition 1 Fealty
6 Cities
Build time: 8 turns.

I think it'd be okay if Oracle gave a TON of culture. The problem with the old version wasn't the instant policy, but the fact that it did not raise policy cost for the policy.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

This is the most fun I've had with Civ in a long time. I feel like these changes are on-point.

 

[Gazebo]

I think we should consider the empire size also affecting the military, after such a long discussion about buying units being superior to investing (but early on it isn't) it just seems like this itself could be the problem.

Perhaps - let's see how this beta plays out before we touch the formula again.

G

 

[Deadstarre]

Also progress and authority get a lot of food as a bonus yield, so they will grow even if the city thinks its stagnating.

beyond my annoyance at the micro this creates for me, i'm sure it has AI implications as well. without looking at the code I can tell governor gives the heaviest weight to choose food until a city is not starving, and then continues giving more weight to food until city reaches a comfy growth rate (let just assume that is +2 food for a second) at which point, it then starts choosing normally the best tiles without a specific food bias. but if the governor stopped weighting food at the instant it crossed over to not-starving, I wonder if the AI who picked progress/authority wouldn't suddenly be performing better overall. I have no idea where that leaves tradition though, and it probably doesn't apply to very very early in the game; I could almost imagine an AI gets stuck at 6 pop for example because it had a few really nice non-food tiles which took priority, but then if growth was at a halt couldn't it choose to work the food focus instead of default? ... tricky dicky stuff, I'm sure i'll be continuing to micro lmao

 

[CrazyG]

beyond my annoyance at the micro this creates for me, i'm sure it has AI implications as well. without looking at the code I can tell governor gives the heaviest weight to choose food until a city is not starving, and then continues giving more weight to food until city reaches a comfy growth rate (let just assume that is +2 food for a second) at which point, it then starts choosing normally the best tiles without a specific food bias. but if the governor stopped weighting food at the instant it crossed over to not-starving, I wonder if the AI who picked progress/authority wouldn't suddenly be performing better overall. I have no idea where that leaves tradition though, and it probably doesn't apply to very very early in the game; I could almost imagine an AI gets stuck at 6 pop for example because it had a few really nice non-food tiles which took priority, but then if growth was at a halt couldn't it choose to work the food focus instead of default? ... tricky dicky stuff, I'm sure i'll be continuing to micro lmao

If the bonus yield tracking get tuned a little bit more (currently lots of stuff is missing), you could in theory have the AI factor that as well when growing. This is absolutely true though, I cringe when I see my puppet city working a 2 food tile instead of a 4 hammer 1 science iron. Granted, I full expect G to quote this comment and response with only three words (no new code)

This is the most fun I've had with Civ in a long time. I feel like these changes are on-point.

I completely agree, its always fun to re-solve the puzzle after big balance shake up. My questions and suggestions are always for the mod.

 

[Gazebo]

If the bonus yield tracking get tuned a little bit more (currently lots of stuff is missing), you could in theory have the AI factor that as well when growing. This is absolutely true though, I cringe when I see my puppet city working a 2 food tile instead of a 4 hammer 1 science iron. Granted, I full expect G to quote this comment and response with only three words (no new code)


I completely agree, its always fun to re-solve the puzzle after big balance shake up. My questions and suggestions are always for the mod.

No new code

What's missing from the bonus yield tracking, specifically?

The problem is that instant yields aren't stored city-by-city, but rather at the player level (just a simple cache of data). There's no way to really track that data without a ton of new variables. Theoretically I could tell the governor to deemphasize food if the city can get instant yields from food, but I fear it might lead to slow growth in some situations.

G

 

[notque]

Theoretically I could tell the governor to deemphasize food if the city can get instant yields from food, but I fear it might lead to slow growth in some situations.

G

That would be a challenging approach that I doubt would lead to more benefits than the effort.

 

[CrazyG]

What's missing from the bonus yield tracking, specifically?

I know that faith for kills is missing. Next game I'll pay more attention.

 

[tu_79]

No new code

What's missing from the bonus yield tracking, specifically?

The problem is that instant yields aren't stored city-by-city, but rather at the player level (just a simple cache of data). There's no way to really track that data without a ton of new variables. Theoretically I could tell the governor to deemphasize food if the city can get instant yields from food, but I fear it might lead to slow growth in some situations.

G

But it only needs to keep track of food instant yields, isn't it? Mostly an authority thing.

 

[Infixo]

The problem is that instant yields aren't stored city-by-city, but rather at the player level (just a simple cache of data). There's no way to really track that data without a ton of new variables. Theoretically I could tell the governor to deemphasize food if the city can get instant yields from food, but I fear it might lead to slow growth in some situations.
G

How do they end up in the city? If they are stored on player level, how are they distributed into cities?

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Two free techs and military academies in every city is pretty darn powerful

I find the half food thing really underwhelming to be honest. ......

In information age, you have to pay now 9 food for one specialist. A 30 pop city works easily 20 specialists ( my cities have more pop in information age, but lets ignore this now).
20 specialists = 180 food. With the policy, you save 90 food. NINETY FOOD. An easy farm on grassland, improved by the freedom tenet would produce 6 food. This is a HUGE benefit, in my opinion one of the strongest tenets of all ideologies.
Also, everyone agrees, one hospital for free, even you dont have unlocked hospitals by tech, is a big advantage too. Also 2 additional traderoutes, the unhappiness of 12 specialists in every city is negated.
And with +4 influence to CS for every traderoute, its hard to keep pace as non-freedom nation. This ability alone is like sending every turn a lategame diplomatic unit to the CS.

Short sentence: the freedom ideology is as good as industry is. Its too good for every playstyle, while autocraty is mainly for military civs and the industrial increase by order is comparible low. The strongly reduced need for food in freedom leeds to more production, cause working tiles for food isnt that necessary.

 

[Ziad]

The thing you are forgetting is the the point of Freedom is to boost these specialists either directly or indirectly (such as buffs to food). What you're doing here is comparing only that one facet while ignoring all other properties.

 

[Infixo]

An easy change would be not 50% food bonus, but flat yield. Like each specialist consumes 2 food less. Still good, but not OP. Also, probably could be achieved by setting -2 yield. Game handles negative yields, but ofc need to be tested to be sure.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

The thing you are forgetting is the the point of Freedom is to boost these specialists either directly or indirectly (such as buffs to food). What you're doing here is comparing only that one facet while ignoring all other properties.

The point is, this reduced food consumption is so strong, making it a strong choice, no matter which VC you go. No matter which VC your heading for, your working mainly specialists in the lategame due to their superiority in yields, while you have plenty of extra food by buildings, social policies, beliefs. If i had picked freedom in my current game as germany (older version), most of my cities would not need to work on any or only a few fields to feed all my specialists.
The one extra food by this update is a big nerf for early specialits, which doesnt deserve or need this nerf.
And with the plenty food by buildings and other stuff, the one extra food dont have that much impact on later ages, while this would be the time, the specialists need a nerf.

Granary +1, Herbalist +2, Well/Watermill +1/+2 (+1 for every 5 pop), aqueduct +3, grocer +3, windmill +4, agribuisness +5, hospital +5.
Without any bonuses by beliefs, UA, social policies, you can get a 15 population city, only by buildings in modern age. That feels wrong. Together with the strength of specialists, this feels we are getting away from the basics of civilization.

 

[IcyAngel]

In information age, you have to pay now 9 food for one specialist. A 30 pop city works easily 20 specialists ( my cities have more pop in information age, but lets ignore this now).
20 specialists = 180 food. With the policy, you save 90 food. NINETY FOOD. An easy farm on grassland, improved by the freedom tenet would produce 6 food. This is a HUGE benefit, in my opinion one of the strongest tenets of all ideologies.
Also, everyone agrees, one hospital for free, even you dont have unlocked hospitals by tech, is a big advantage too. Also 2 additional traderoutes, the unhappiness of 12 specialists in every city is negated.
And with +4 influence to CS for every traderoute, its hard to keep pace as non-freedom nation. This ability alone is like sending every turn a lategame diplomatic unit to the CS.

Short sentence: the freedom ideology is as good as industry is. Its too good for every playstyle, while autocraty is mainly for military civs and the industrial increase by order is comparible low. The strongly reduced need for food in freedom leeds to more production, cause working tiles for food isnt that necessary.

That tenet isn't particularly interesting to me; in the Information age you're basically counting turns until the game ends - 90 food (your best case scenario, really) will net you what, 2 more pop in each major city by the end of the game? It's sort of marginal. That population will largely benefit production, too, since all your specialist spots are filled and you have a lot of food - but presumably you already had enough production to build everything important already if you were working all specialists (otherwise you were making a mistake).

The other tenets you speak of are good but nothing overpowered (especially +4 influence, which I find mediocre at this point in the game).

 

[BiteInTheMark]

That tenet isn't particularly interesting to me; in the Information age you're basically counting turns until the game ends - 90 food (your best case scenario, really) will net you what, 2 more pop in each major city by the end of the game? It's sort of marginal. That population will largely benefit production, too, since all your specialist spots are filled and you have a lot of food - but presumably you already had enough production to build everything important already if you were working all specialists (otherwise you were making a mistake).

The other tenets you speak of are good but nothing overpowered (especially +4 influence, which I find mediocre at this point in the game).

20 specialist slots are not my best case scenario. Iam in modern age, my 28 pop second city is already working 20 specialists.
Iam not sure, how many specialists are now possible at maximum. I think, its more than 20, even with the reduction of specialist slots, iam still finishing my old game, so be unable to check it.
You ignore complety the fact, you dont need citizen to work on strong food tiles. Lets say you have farms, which produce very high 8 food (grassland 2 + farm 2 + tenet 2 + 4 other farms around it). You still need 11 people working that tiles, that only produce food, while in the other case, you can work 11 hills with mines, pastures, villages, holy sites. Getting a lot more hammer, gold, culture. That is a huge difference.

An easy change would be not 50% food bonus, but flat yield. Like each specialist consumes 2 food less. Still good, but not OP. Also, probably could be achieved by setting -2 yield. Game handles negative yields, but ofc need to be tested to be sure.

I like the idea of the flat food consumption. This would lead to a reduced food consumption around 25%. Effectivly halfing the value, but the additional yield reduction for specialits is a bit too much. This way, its still a strong tenet, working with the intended relation to its ideology.

 

[Gidoza]

Maybe give post rennaisance ships the ability to shot at range of 2, if they havent moved, and lose this ability this turn, if they move.
Ships would be still vulnerable to land arty fire, but once established, they can hold a beachhead.

I think that this is a very elegant solution. Would the AI be able to handle it, though?

 

[Gazebo]

In information age, you have to pay now 9 food for one specialist. A 30 pop city works easily 20 specialists ( my cities have more pop in information age, but lets ignore this now).
20 specialists = 180 food. With the policy, you save 90 food. NINETY FOOD. An easy farm on grassland, improved by the freedom tenet would produce 6 food. This is a HUGE benefit, in my opinion one of the strongest tenets of all ideologies.
Also, everyone agrees, one hospital for free, even you dont have unlocked hospitals by tech, is a big advantage too. Also 2 additional traderoutes, the unhappiness of 12 specialists in every city is negated.
And with +4 influence to CS for every traderoute, its hard to keep pace as non-freedom nation. This ability alone is like sending every turn a lategame diplomatic unit to the CS.

Short sentence: the freedom ideology is as good as industry is. Its too good for every playstyle, while autocraty is mainly for military civs and the industrial increase by order is comparible low. The strongly reduced need for food in freedom leeds to more production, cause working tiles for food isnt that necessary.

90 food compared to what is needed for growth, though? One number is irrelevant.

G

 

[Workerspam]

Lets say you have farms, which produce very high 8 food (grassland 2 + farm 2 + tenet 2 + 4 other farms around it). You still need 11 people working that tiles, that only produce food, while in the other case, you can work 11 hills with mines, pastures, villages, holy sites. Getting a lot more hammer, gold, culture. That is a huge difference.

I personally love the 1/2 food specialist tenet and some games get good mileage out of it. But in this case using a comparison of an 8 food farm doesn't seem appropriate. It's at least 8 base food + whatever your modifiers are, which by the time you are comparing yields to a 2nd tier ideology are significant.