New Beta Version - January 8th (1/8)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
I'll look into crime yields, but like I said, it is working as designed (unless a the city defense calculation was changed by ilteroi during the garrison overhaul). The current crime value (the one from the 1/8 beta) is actually lower in severity than the 1/6 one.
G
Enrico Swagolo
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2013
- Messages
- 2,387
Crime is really nuts - even despite building Barracks, Mission (Spain's unique +8CS castle), Wall and even the Order building (the "Order" from Faith religious belief, not ideology) in some of my 8-10 pop cities I still get 1-2 unhappy points from crime/danger despite having an unit stationed inside. I can't even imagine what will happen once they grow more.
And that's despite modifying the file as recommended on the previous page, where some value was 150 and should be 100-125.
Granted my empire is still constantly happy so it's not a big deal I suppose.
And that's despite modifying the file as recommended on the previous page, where some value was 150 and should be 100-125.
Granted my empire is still constantly happy so it's not a big deal I suppose.
I guess this is directed at me.
The simple answer is flavor, the redesign wasn't meant to give perfect yield-balance but to make the luxuries feel more unique. some gets higher base-yields, some gets more from improvements and so on. If you find anything that just seems extremely bad, feel free to bring it up (except tobacco, I made that one awful on purpose
).
Value is supposed to be pop x (150/100) (which is lower than 2 x pop), but I think there might be a quirk in defense value calculation from the latest garrison changes.
G
Enrico Swagolo
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2013
- Messages
- 2,387
It definitely isn't 2 per pop, the EUI UI said it's about 3.++ and after barracks reduction it's still at 3+. I could be mistaken so I will try to get a pic in a few minutes, if I don't find it or was mistaken I'll post too
Not so simple looking at the cityview, you should see 'modifiers' at the bottom- those modifiers are a combination of city population and tech progress. That's the value that affects the 'real' defense need of the city.
As I said, though, it it was a bug in that city-pop value we'd be seeing absurdly high values for all needs. Since it is only crime, I'm going to guess that a 100s value isn't being reduced in the defense value somewhere.
G
Deluxe
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2013
- Messages
- 249
I guess this is directed at me.
The simple answer is flavor, the redesign wasn't meant to give perfect yield-balance but to make the luxuries feel more unique. some gets higher base-yields, some gets more from improvements and so on. If you find anything that just seems extremely bad, feel free to bring it up (except tobacco, I made that one awful on purpose
Ok, will take a look. I quickly checked each resources + tile improvement + building, and I had the impression that some were ahead.
Enrico Swagolo
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2013
- Messages
- 2,387
Didn't get a picture (print screen scroll lock failed for some reason, thx Windows 10) but now with value at 100 and being in early Medieval the value is 2.74 without any reductions, around 2.53 something with Barracks, gets to 2.3 with Barracks + Order (reduces Crime need).
It's with the value being at 100 (so I must've remembered the 3+ from my playthrough with 150), I am in early Medieval with Chivalry.
It's with the value being at 100 (so I must've remembered the 3+ from my playthrough with 150), I am in early Medieval with Chivalry.
Current need per pop in my game is 3.2, and that's with baracks and Synagogues
EDIT: It actually varies per city quite a bit, with the lowest being at 2.7 and my capital being at 3.9
Needless to say it's not really sustainable, and I mostly survive on keeping all other unhappiness as low as possible.
I don't know where to post this.
Now, sheep give +1p instead of +1f
but
in AssignStartingPlot.lua, specifically between line 4534 - 4680, the resource generation script attempt to "Add food Bonus Resources to food-poor start positions" and "Adding Stone if grass count is high and plains count is low" to balance food & production at start position.
I think, if you keep the +1p on sheep, this script may be modified to remove the sheep from the "more food" section to add it in the "more production" section. Or perhaps the final yield +1f, +3p can be view as neutral for the prod/food ratio.
edit:
line 4388: -- Adjust the hammer situation, if needed.
-- If drastic shortage, attempt to add a hill to first ring.
-- If early hammers will be too short, attempt to add a small Horse or Iron to second ring. <- could add sheep here?
line 4439: -- Rate the food situation.
-- Check to see if a Grass tile needs to be added at an all-plains site with zero native 2-food tiles in first two rings.
-- Add Bonus Resources to food-poor start positions. <- remove sheep from here
line
line 4635 -- Check for heavy grass and light plains. Adding Stone if grass count is high and plains count is low. - May 2011, BT
line 10180 PlaceSexyBonusAtCivStarts() <- maybe add more sheep here (in second circle) if considered neutral?
Now, sheep give +1p instead of +1f
but
in AssignStartingPlot.lua, specifically between line 4534 - 4680, the resource generation script attempt to "Add food Bonus Resources to food-poor start positions" and "Adding Stone if grass count is high and plains count is low" to balance food & production at start position.
I think, if you keep the +1p on sheep, this script may be modified to remove the sheep from the "more food" section to add it in the "more production" section. Or perhaps the final yield +1f, +3p can be view as neutral for the prod/food ratio.
edit:
line 4388: -- Adjust the hammer situation, if needed.
-- If drastic shortage, attempt to add a hill to first ring.
-- If early hammers will be too short, attempt to add a small Horse or Iron to second ring. <- could add sheep here?
line 4439: -- Rate the food situation.
-- Check to see if a Grass tile needs to be added at an all-plains site with zero native 2-food tiles in first two rings.
-- Add Bonus Resources to food-poor start positions. <- remove sheep from here
line
line 4635 -- Check for heavy grass and light plains. Adding Stone if grass count is high and plains count is low. - May 2011, BT
line 10180 PlaceSexyBonusAtCivStarts() <- maybe add more sheep here (in second circle) if considered neutral?
Wow, someone is feeling smart today.
On a more serious note I'm still not a big fan of the yield-balance on the sheep, it got a point of gold in the last version, so it now ends up on 1f 3p 1g, but I think it should be reverted back to 3f 2p or possibly 2f 3p hill-starts just aren't very good in general, made even worse by this.
I'm sorry if didn't understand well all English idioms, but i think i should fell ashamed here. If not, ignore the rest of this post.
edit: sorry, bad translation/interpretation from my part.
It was meant as a compliment, I just didn't understand any of your post, but it sounded really smart. Anyways I'm sorry if it sounded like an insult, it was not meant as one.
Moderator Action: Let's leave it there, guys in terms of the comment. I can understand why it was misinterpreted (I didn't like it myself on first read), but am pleased that you have clarified matters.
One post modified also - if any post causes a forum member concerns, they should report it and allow the moderator to step in. Please do not try taking matters into your own hands.
One post modified also - if any post causes a forum member concerns, they should report it and allow the moderator to step in. Please do not try taking matters into your own hands.
(Quoting this would not be an infraction, right? If it is, I'm sorry
. Edit: Not taking any chances ^^)Yeah, totally my bad, I was half asleep when I wrote it and I can see how it could be misinterpreted. Again sorry about that.
Sorry.
I will try to make more simple sentences, i'm really not a good writer. (nor a good english speaker)
back to the topic.
Speaking about the algorithm which balance the starting resources.
Some data:
FOOD:
- grass with fresh water (and flood plain ) : considered as 4f
- oasis, plains&tundra with fresh water or grass : considered as 3f
- jungle, plain : considered as 2f
- other tiles are considered as bad tile for food generation.
note: forest are not here because we can chop them to add .
The script add food-bonus resource as a 2f improvement, trying to give you at least 10f.
PROD (it's much more complicated than that):
- hills : considered as 2p
- forest, plains: considered as 1p
- horse, iron as 4p
The algorithm is messy. It give you at least ~8p.
After the changes in yields for bonus & luxuries, maybe it's a good idea to revisit the "NormalizeStartLocation" function.
I think we should have at least something like:
(it's an example)
sheep: +f on hills
stone: +p on hills
cow: +p on land
weat: +f on land
to have an easier time re-writing it.
?
I will try to make more simple sentences, i'm really not a good writer. (nor a good english speaker)
back to the topic.
Speaking about the algorithm which balance the starting resources.
Some data:
FOOD:
- grass with fresh water (and flood plain ) : considered as 4f
- oasis, plains&tundra with fresh water or grass : considered as 3f
- jungle, plain : considered as 2f
- other tiles are considered as bad tile for food generation.
note: forest are not here because we can chop them to add .
The script add food-bonus resource as a 2f improvement, trying to give you at least 10f.
PROD (it's much more complicated than that):
- hills : considered as 2p
- forest, plains: considered as 1p
- horse, iron as 4p
The algorithm is messy. It give you at least ~8p.
Spoiler :
After the changes in yields for bonus & luxuries, maybe it's a good idea to revisit the "NormalizeStartLocation" function.
I think we should have at least something like:
(it's an example)
sheep: +f on hills
stone: +p on hills
cow: +p on land
weat: +f on land
to have an easier time re-writing it.
?
- Status
