New Beta Version - July 15th (7/15)

[glider1]

C-R-A-Z-Y im still getting used to this as I often get my unhappiness to a stable whooping 40-60 if in war. revolt here and there, barbarians everywhere. i love it. the harder, the better.

I love it too nothing worse than nothing to do but click next turn. What sort of strategy and map conditions are you playing to get that level of instability?

 

[SpankmyMetroid]

Regarding defensive buildings being less useful now, maybe we can introduce a small incentive to having a higher supply cap without actually using all if it’s slots... offhand maybe a reduction in unit maintenance (for example, using only half of the supply cap given reduces global costs by 10%. Don’t want to cannabilize some of the war heavy policies). This also introduces a high risk/high reward scenario for peaceful players, where they want to maximize the money saved on army maintenance to use for other victories but still need enough to defend from a surprise invasion. Another option is for walls and castles to give tourism after archeology if built before then (though that mostly benefits culture civs, and begs the question why other ancient era buildings don’t provide tourism or something similar). Maybe if they’re only built in their respective eras so people don’t rush easy defensive buildings in the the industrial age (though this probably requires too much effort to integrate).

 

[Enginseer]

Defensive buildings will always be useful. If you don't build walls or castles and the AI bumrush you for this. That's all on you.

There's always an irony behind security.

When you have it, you don't want it.
When you want it, you don't have it.

 

[SpankmyMetroid]

Defensive buildings will always be useful. If you don't build walls or castles and the AI bumrush you for this. That's all on you.

There's always an irony behind security.

When you have it, you don't need it.
When you don't have it, you need it.

Like it or not any experienced human will always have better unit tactics than the AI. Playing tall it's pretty easy for a small standing army to take on invaders without them even getting close to sieging you, especially if you only have one or two neighbors.

Wide on the other hand I agree, since you need some turns to spare to get the bulk of your forces to where you're getting attacked. But there still isn't a good reason to build defensive buildings in your inner, core cities.

 

[ryanmusante]

Wide on the other hand I agree, since you need some turns to spare to get the bulk of your forces to where you're getting attacked. But there still isn't a good reason to build defensive buildings in your inner, core cities.

Barbarian uprisings, cities being flipped, espionage, cities close enough to be attacked by aerial raids. There are always reasons for defense even in places that seem to be safe.

 

[ofmiciv5]

I love it too nothing worse than nothing to do but click next turn. What sort of strategy and map conditions are you playing to get that level of instability?

communitas, large, defualt # of civ/cs
with additional mods (EE, MUC and MUCfVP)
authority to (fealty/artistry) then imperialism to autocracy
kill kill kill, annexing all cities, total domination, war war war!!
no boring moments like next turning without having to do

i tried tradition, progress, rationalism, freedom though. pretty much worse than being a warmonger.

i noticed that it was only me who has this insane problem compared to other major warmonger civs who have conquered more cities... maybe it has something to do with EE... dont know. i always finish my game win or lose.

 

[CppMaster]

communitas, large, defualt # of civ/cs
with additional mods (EE, MUC and MUCfVP)
authority to (fealty/artistry) then imperialism to autocracy
kill kill kill, annexing all cities, total domination, war war war!!
no boring moments like next turning without having to do

i tried tradition, progress, rationalism, freedom though. pretty much worse than being a warmonger.

i noticed that it was only me who has this insane problem compared to other major warmonger civs who have conquered more cities... maybe it has something to do with EE... dont know. i always finish my game win or lose.

It could be interesting photojournal

 

[randomnub]

I just wanted to share an aborted photojournal attempt with this patch.

Nearby civ: Carthage with Coral monopoly, rushing Stonehenge. Pretty much the definition of snowballing.

They have some barbarian problems though:

Spoiler :

I don't fight the besieging barbarians but lure them toward Carthage waiting for an opportunity. A few turns later:

Spoiler :

GG. Time to roll a new game I guess

Random request: the GUI should show the opening policy (in my case, I had 1 Progress not showing).

 

[CrazyG]

Nearby civ: Carthage with Coral monopoly, rushing Stonehenge. Pretty much the definition of snowballing.

I don't see the value in Stonehenge for Carthage. You can invest the monument and the shrine.

edit: sorry I thought you were Carthage and were attacked by the Maya, misread. Very funny situation you have there.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Just finished a Deity game (as Inca, won a Science Victory on turn 372). I noticed that despite selecting Order, I could still purchase SS parts. Is this intended, was there a change I missed? Also, when I purchased an Atomic bomb, I couldn't purchase certain units for 13 or 14 turns in that city. Was that also changed?

Other than that, it was just brutal, especially in the late game where I was sanctioned and despite having running processes in all my cities except the capital, I had lots and lots of unhappiness from unmet needs, so the last 30 or so turns were just extremely hard, with the Incas coming after me with Modern Armor, X-Coms etc. Still, my first win on Deity after a long time, worth the "wasted" Saturday

 

[CrazyG]

Is there an official response about this barbarian thing yet? I've lost 59 twice now. I have 7 per turn. Its turn 18 and my only tech is farming. Its okay for bugs or unexpected behavior to occur. However this patch has been out for two weeks with no change or comment. Is it a bug or what? I'm altering my version of the game now, I really prefer to play the official version but this is not an okay feature.

Just finished a Deity game (as Inca, won a Science Victory on turn 372)
with the Incas coming after me

You were playing Inca and got attacked by Inca?

 

[ofmiciv5]

Is there an official response about this barbarian thing yet? I've lost 59 twice now. I have 7 per turn. Its turn 18 and my only tech is farming. Its okay for bugs or unexpected behavior to occur. However this patch has been out for two weeks with no change or comment. Is it a bug or what? I'm altering my version of the game now, I really prefer to play the official version but this is not an okay feature.

You were playing Inca and got attacked by Inca?

i think this was intended so that the early units such as warriors would be viable. to me its a welcome change. got to kill the barbs before making it close to your cities.

 

[Omen of Peace]

Is there an official response about this barbarian thing yet? I've lost 59 twice now. I have 7 per turn. Its turn 18 and my only tech is farming. Its okay for bugs or unexpected behavior to occur. However this patch has been out for two weeks with no change or comment. Is it a bug or what? I'm altering my version of the game now, I really prefer to play the official version but this is not an okay feature.

It'll be fixed in the next version, as per the (now closed) bug report on Github.

But I agree, it's been quite annoying. I've restarted games because of it.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

The Barbarian Bug is quite annoying. What I've done is tweaked the Difficulty file to change the "release" turn of Barbarians to 150 and to reduce the "range". It still doesn't stop things completely, but it works decent enough for the games to be viable. That said, I do hope a new version comes out very soon.

CrazyG, re: Incas: Yes, I never know what "lineup" of AIs is "normal" for a Deity game, so I manually selected all the AIs you had in your Aztecs game. I selected the Incas to play as, because I've been enjoying their UA.

 

[John.B.C]

got to kill the barbs before making it close to your cities.

The problem is that you can't always avoid this no matter how you play. But I think a lot of people had to step up their game to handle it better than before (like me). Anyways, it will be fixed in next patch.

 

[Stalker0]

It'll be fixed in the next version, as per the (now closed) bug report on Github.

As already stated, so no reason to keep talking about it. Its a bug, its getting fixed.

 

[CrazyG]

What I've done is tweaked the Difficulty file to change the "release" turn of Barbarians to 150

Is this supposed to be turn 15? 150 turns seems like a bit too long.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

No, I meant turn 150, so that the AI would have enough time to grow their borders sufficiently to not be subjected to the bug. It's a way to play "without Barbarians", but still with Barbarians for Authority purposes etc.

 

[CrazyG]

No, I meant turn 150, so that the AI would have enough time to grow their borders sufficiently to not be subjected to the bug. It's a way to play "without Barbarians", but still with Barbarians for Authority purposes etc.

What is the "release" turn? I though you meant the turn they appear, it must be something else? Or am I misunderstanding?

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

The "release" turn is, if I understand correctly, the turn where the barbarians can enter a city's territory and pillage the city itself. Before that, they don't enter the territory (so for example your workers are safe inside your borders).

I've seen someone suggest this "fix" when we first started talking about the barbarian bug. I've tried it out and while it isn't 100% working (in the sense that I've had a very few examples of barbarians pillaging my cities before that turn number was up), it makes the current version bearable.