New Beta Version - January 8th (1-8)

[Gothic_Empire]

After having played multiple games since the change I really hate the distance scaling on TRs. Nerf the yields a bit if needed, but distance scaling is a terrible mechanic. It's unfun, unrealistic, annoying, hurts mostly based on RNG beyond your control and actually reduces the skill cap. (Because it almost always results in a clear and easy choice.)

I think the one trade-route to a city is enough to encourage diversity in TRs.

I'm not a big fan of it as it exists. It makes early trade routes bad investments. I think I like the IDEA though, but want the minimum yields to be higher, and the reward for distances longer than the base distance to be higher.

 

[Gidoza]

http://civ-5-cbp.wikia.com/wiki/Creating_a_Modpack

Whatever ElliotS was describing seemed less complicated than this looks. O_o

 

[Moi Magnus]

Whatever ElliotS was describing seemed less complicated than this looks. O_o

It is simple. And take 5~10 minutes. It is a 4 step operations, just a lot of little sub-steps (you need to disable your antivirus at some point, ...).

STEP 1 : Downloading stuffs
STEP 2 : Take the .dll out of VP
STEP 3 : Run the game, run firetuner, and use the CreateMP function
STEP 4 : Put the .dll of step 2 into the modpack

 

[ElliotS]

It is simple. And take 5~10 minutes. It is a 4 step operations, just a lot of little sub-steps (you need to disable your antivirus at some point, ...).

My antivirus works just fine with it. (Webroot) Most of them do slow it down enough that it takes 2 hours.

 

[Gidoza]

It is simple. And take 5~10 minutes. It is a 4 step operations, just a lot of little sub-steps (you need to disable your antivirus at some point, ...).

STEP 1 : Downloading stuffs
STEP 2 : Take the .dll out of VP
STEP 3 : Run the game, run firetuner, and use the CreateMP function
STEP 4 : Put the .dll of step 2 into the modpack

So this is what the forum member was doing back in the day when he posted the multiplayer pack all the time? All I remember having to do was click and drag the files into a folder, and it was done.

 

[ElliotS]

So this is what the forum member was doing back in the day when he posted the multiplayer pack all the time? All I remember having to do was click and drag the files into a folder, and it was done.

The guide is a bit off. I'm going to change it. Step 2 and 4 are unneeded.

 

[Gidoza]

The guide is a bit off. I'm going to change it. Step 2 and 4 are unneeded.

OK Thank you.

 

[ElliotS]

The guide is a bit off. I'm going to change it. Step 2 and 4 are unneeded.

Updated with newest information and best practices. Added to homepage. Great idea adding it there @Moi Magnus!

Also seriously. It's always related to installation. Seriously.

 

[Vortok]

What if Cothon gave +25-50% or more to trade unit production? A small addition, but it would be in keeping with the Cothon being one of the earliest examples of a drydock.

I don't know if that's all that helpful. There's only so many trade units that you need to have.

I've ran into this a few time as Venice. Especially if war breaks out and trade routes get destroyed (by the DoW) or pillaged. It can take awhile to get them all back online again.

 

[Gazebo]

After having played multiple games since the change I really hate the distance scaling on TRs. Nerf the yields a bit if needed, but distance scaling is a terrible mechanic. It's unfun, unrealistic, annoying, hurts mostly based on RNG beyond your control and actually reduces the skill cap. (Because it almost always results in a clear and easy choice.)

I think the one trade-route to a city is enough to encourage diversity in TRs.

You're free to dislike it, or even disable it if you want. I like it, and it works well at nerfing yields dynamically without nerfing yields statically. Safety v. Higher Yields is a more interesting dynamic than just going for the best yields every time.

G

 

[ElliotS]

You're free to dislike it, or even disable it if you want. I like it, and it works well at nerfing yields dynamically without nerfing yields statically. Safety v. Higher Yields is a more interesting dynamic than just going for the best yields every time.

G

But you still go for the best yields at every time. This changes nothing on that front. This only means that a tiny city trading with a tiny city is often more valuable than your capital trading with another capital.

Just disabling it will make trade-routes a bit too strong, but better than keeping it.

Consider adding an option that removes it and nerfs yields slightly like chill barbarians?

 

[Gazebo]

But you still go for the best yields at every time. This changes nothing on that front. This only means that a tiny city trading with a tiny city is often more valuable than your capital trading with another capital.

Just disabling it will make trade-routes a bit too strong, but better than keeping it.

Consider adding an option that removes it and nerfs yields slightly like chill barbarians?

Disabling it does leave TRs too powerful, yep. But the problem is that TR culture/science yields (the real issue) are already 'bottomed out' at an integral value of 1. Moving to floats would leave the values rounding down so often (esp. for culture) that you'd only have 1-2 options if you want these yields (or you'd only get the yields from players way ahead of you in policies). Same for science, to a certain extent. It'd also make City-States much weaker targets. Dynamic yields from distance minimizes this problem by naturally scaling things. Self-balancing systems are easier to manage.

If you want to go for the best yields every time that's fine, but the best yields are the furthest away, (in real life, too, more lucrative-yet-risky routes were always the longest ones) you risk pillaging. That's a trade-off, even if you don't acknowledge it.

G

 

[ElliotS]

Disabling it does leave TRs too powerful, yep. But the problem is that TR culture/science yields (the real issue) are already 'bottomed out' at an integral value of 1. Moving to floats would leave the values rounding down so often (esp. for culture) that you'd only have 1-2 options if you want these yields (or you'd only get the yields from players way ahead of you in policies). Same for science, to a certain extent. It'd also make City-States much weaker targets. Dynamic yields from distance minimizes this problem by naturally scaling things. Self-balancing systems are easier to manage.

If you want to go for the best yields every time that's fine, but the best yields are the furthest away, (in real life, too, more lucrative-yet-risky routes were always the longest ones) you risk pillaging. That's a trade-off, even if you don't acknowledge it.

G

I think it was only the cases where trade routes were giving 5+ culture that it was seen as a problem. (I've had TRs giving over 40 culture each even currently.) Is there no way to do reverse scaling? (so routes that offered 2 culture still give 2, 5 now give 4 and 40 now give 10. Something like that.)

 

[BiteInTheMark]

But the problem is that TR culture/science yields (the real issue) are already 'bottomed out' at an integral value of 1. Moving to floats would leave the values rounding down so often (esp. for culture) that you'd only have 1-2 options if you want these yields (or you'd only get the yields from players way ahead of you in policies).

Trade routes worked, before you integrated those tech and policy based yields. I see no problem, if you have to make a trade off, prefering more science or culture against gold/influence/tourismn.

Self-balancing systems are easier to manage.

I fully agree with ElliotS. You can still send trade routes to the best locations and get the maximum yields that you yourself say are too high. I do not see any auto-adjustment in it, only an irritation.

If you want to go for the best yields every time that's fine, but the best yields are the furthest away, (in real life, too, more lucrative-yet-risky routes were always the longest ones) you risk pillaging. That's a trade-off, even if you don't acknowledge it.

G

That's what you say. Perhaps the most dangerous routes are sometimes the most lucrative ones. But the longest distances are not automatically the most lucrative ones. If I send a ship from the east coast of the USA to the west coast, the distance over South America is longer, but less lucrative than the abbreviation over the Panama Canal.
If I send a ship from South Africa to West Africa, it's less dangerous on the same distance than if I send a ship from South Africa to East Africa, the hotspot for pirates. The comparision with the distance lags.

Anyway, one question, does the distance modifier get changed by the size of the map? Playing on a tiny map would make it necessary to round the earth 2 times before approaching to the target, if you are trading with ships in lategame, to get the maximum yields.

 

[ElliotS]

(in real life, too, more lucrative-yet-risky routes were always the longest ones) you risk pillaging. That's a trade-off, even if you don't acknowledge it.

I can think of a few things I could run a few miles over a border that would make a lot more money than trucking random stuff across the world. I think resource diversity is much more important than distance.

 

[Gazebo]

I can think of a few things I could run a few miles over a border that would make a lot more money than trucking random stuff across the world. I think resource diversity is much more important than distance.

I didn't realize cocaine was grown and processed directly on the Mexican-American border. TIL.

The system works perfectly fine as-is. I don't expect full love for everything all the time.

G

 

[ElliotS]

I didn't realize cocaine was grown and processed directly on the Mexican-American border. TIL.

The system works perfectly fine as-is. I don't expect full love for everything all the time.

G

Intellectual honesty is about being able to recognize problems in your case, even while believing it's the best solution. I think we both have it in spades.

I'm not denying that the trade route distance scaling is better than overpowered trade routes, or removing the features that were added for a reason.

However don't you admit that it's silly that my most profitable trade routes are often not from my capital or even a city I've built east india company in?

The idea of building cities that focus on offering superior trade-value to attract trade routes was real before, but now distance and basically RNG determines which cities get trade routes more than player-choice.

I think the current situation has problems. I think looking for a solution is worthwhile.

Could various buildings decrease distance scaling modifier cap? (AKA East India company decreases max reduction from 75% to 25%. Other trade buildings reduce it by 20% each. (Numbers subject to change.)

This makes trade-focused towns better choices to trade to and from, but because of the one-route per city rule still not an instant solution.

Thoughts?

 

[tu_79]

Longer trade routes with higher yields also takes longer to finish. So now we must choose between more yields and more tourism/growth. This is not a bad thing.

But trade routes looks a bit underwhelming, compared to a few releases ago.

 

[tu_79]

Intellectual honesty is about being able to recognize problems in your case, even while believing it's the best solution. I think we both have it in spades.

I'm not denying that the trade route distance scaling is better than overpowered trade routes, or removing the features that were added for a reason.

However don't you admit that it's silly that my most profitable trade routes are often not from my capital or even a city I've built east india company in?

The idea of building cities that focus on offering superior trade-value to attract trade routes was real before, but now distance and basically RNG determines which cities get trade routes more than player-choice.

I think the current situation has problems. I think looking for a solution is worthwhile.

Could various buildings decrease distance scaling modifier cap? (AKA East India company decreases max reduction from 75% to 25%. Other trade buildings reduce it by 20% each. (Numbers subject to change.)

This makes trade-focused towns better choices to trade to and from, but because of the one-route per city rule still not an instant solution.

Thoughts?

Caravansary adds +3 gold to trade routes in addition to the extra range. So, at least for gold, it's compensated. A little bit. If you feel like it, maybe this added gold to trade routes can be increased until it makes up completely for the increased ranged, so trade routes to the same nearby cities don't lose value (but lose science and culture), but new trade routes to cities farther away are more profitable.

 

[Gazebo]

Intellectual honesty is about being able to recognize problems in your case, even while believing it's the best solution. I think we both have it in spades.

I'm not denying that the trade route distance scaling is better than overpowered trade routes, or removing the features that were added for a reason.

However don't you admit that it's silly that my most profitable trade routes are often not from my capital or even a city I've built east india company in?

The idea of building cities that focus on offering superior trade-value to attract trade routes was real before, but now distance and basically RNG determines which cities get trade routes more than player-choice.

I think the current situation has problems. I think looking for a solution is worthwhile.

Could various buildings decrease distance scaling modifier cap? (AKA East India company decreases max reduction from 75% to 25%. Other trade buildings reduce it by 20% each. (Numbers subject to change.)

This makes trade-focused towns better choices to trade to and from, but because of the one-route per city rule still not an instant solution.

Thoughts?

Thing is, I arrived at the distance scaler after much gnashing and gnawing of teeth w/ regards to deflating trade route yields. It was not my first choice, even though - now - I like it most. I'm a generous man, though, so I think a distance scaler modifier makes sense for some buildings, like the EIC and the Customs House. Perhaps if I throw it on the EIC and take away its TR the Carthaginians will stop nipping my heels.

G