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

[Enrico Swagolo]

My initial opinion of the Aztecs right now is that everything changed, and nothing changed, but something changed. I mean it's respective parts, that is.

• It's neat to get a free GA and not have the cost and progress of a new one wiped. Base FG +10% Food/Production during GA seems to wreck Distress as I don't think I saw any then
  
• 150% per kill falls off as I get wider, but not as as hard. I'm feeling it helps me getting religious stuff more now, and thats's nice
• Jag as an UU is not really worth upgrading to Pikeman on it's own merit, I just use Knights + Trebs + Crossbows + Landsknechts, those promotions are way too situational to not just switch to Landsknechts for more comfort of usage unless I have really high level Jags which likely won't do anything impressive anyway
  
• the warmongering CS% penalty hurts, I cannot go full apocalypto
• Mel Gibzebo why

I honestly don't think they are as good as most of the civs I play as warmongerers and I'd rather be playing Oda or Napoleon anyway

Spoiler :

that or William, not many seem to know what a sick warmongerer he is, with a UA that stays strong even if you expand as long as you get a vassal or five to trade with, that also has a potentially great UI and best naval uu in the game

, but it's okay.

 

[ElliotS]

Thank you for doing the math. I'm burned out on doing Byzantium faith math at this point.

I maintain that if the civ is going to have strong faith generation, then it should be strong enough to avoid being given a second faith bonus like a purchase discount. This does a few things:

• reduces the amount of feature overlap (not synergy, overlap) on Byzantium, having the UA and UB do the same thing
• reduces overlap with India, which gets a discount on Prophets
• reduces clutter with the UA description

It is true that 1/3 per with 15% purchase discount is stronger than 1/2 per without (unless your average city on empire has >30). If that is a serious concern, then you could increase the base yield on Basilica to 4 as well.

There's a line between synergy and repetition, and I would say that Byzantium crosses it. I think the faith discount needs to go, and Byz's faith generation can be made however strong it needs to be to compensate.

I disagree with you on this as well for reasons already stated. The combo of UA + UB feels right.

 

[Gazebo]

My initial opinion of the Aztecs right now is that everything changed, and nothing changed, but something changed. I mean it's respective parts, that is.

• It's neat to get a free GA and not have the cost and progress of a new one wiped. Base FG +10% Food/Production during GA seems to wreck Distress as I don't think I saw any then
  
• 150% per kill falls off as I get wider, but not as as hard. I'm feeling it helps me getting religious stuff more now, and thats's nice
• Jag as an UU is not really worth upgrading to Pikeman on it's own merit, I just use Knights + Trebs + Crossbows + Landsknechts, those promotions are way too situational to not just switch to Landsknechts for more comfort of usage unless I have really high level Jags which likely won't do anything impressive anyway
  
• the warmongering CS% penalty hurts, I cannot go full apocalypto
• Mel Gibzebo why

I honestly don't think they are as good as most of the civs I play as warmongerers and I'd rather be playing Oda or Napoleon anyway

Spoiler :

that or William, not many seem to know what a sick warmongerer he is, with a UA that stays strong even if you expand as long as you get a vassal or five to trade with, that also has a potentially great UI and best naval uu in the game

, but it's okay.

They're objectively stronger, but I'd like to note that if you're playing the Aztecs solely as world-conquerors you're kinda missing the point. They're a hybrid warmonger, and - with looser happiness penalties for growth in this version - they can do quite well through their small war + golden age + tall power cities strat. At least, that's how the AI likes to play them (and the Aztecs have risen palpably in my tests).

G

 

[pineappledan]

The last time you fought this fervently over (what I'd consider to be) minutiae you later admitted it was because you wanted to use the attribute for a custom civ of yours. Is that the case here?

No ulterior motive, and that's just minimizing again.

Byzantium just went from 1/2 ==> 1/2 and 15% discount ==> 1/3 and 15% discount. People complained that Byz had too much faith, so instead of axing fiddly new mechanics, old mechanics were nerfed. Why?

If there was a legitimate concern over power spike then maybe that would be a reasonable counterargument, but it's just patently false here. Basilica comes late classical, maybe only slightly later than your first prophet, and at about the same time as anything you can purchase with faith comes up. There's no adjustment to power curve, because the UA comes online at the same time as the UB. Nothing changes.

You might consider it to be overlap over synergy but the difference is arbitrary. [...] Clutter with UA description is really not a relevant problem.

Is the determination of what is, or is not, a "relevant problem" not a bit arbitrary?

All in all, I think this is, "a solution looking for a problem".

That's funny. I would argue the 15% discount is the solution looking for a problem. There were no complaints about how Byzantium had too much faith, until they were given that discount.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

They're objectively stronger, but I'd like to note that if you're playing the Aztecs solely as world-conquerors you're kinda missing the point. They're a hybrid warmonger, and - with looser happiness penalties for growth in this version - they can do quite well through their small war + golden age + tall power cities strat. At least, that's how the AI likes to play them (and the Aztecs have risen palpably in my tests).

G

That's also what I do with small wars, I could've vassaled France but I opted to instead take some gold and leave them with enough cities to farm them more later. I did the same with India, and Austria, they're kept to give me more GA stacks (I have like 60 turns of GA guaranteed right now). This is similar to Denmark, Japan, France, you don't want to have no enemies around you - you want to farm them. You can exterminate someone once you get bored of them and find a bigger fish as the Danish/Japanese/French, but the same applies here. I have many turns of guaranteed GA, and seeing at accumulation just after it comes - another, natural one will proc, so if I feel someone needs to die, they can die.

 

[chicorbeef]

That's also what I do with small wars, I could've vassaled France but I opted to instead take some gold and leave them with enough cities to farm them more later. I did the same with India, and Austria, they're kept to give me more GA stacks (I have like 60 turns of GA guaranteed right now). This is similar as Denmark, Japan, France, you don't want to have no enemies around you - you want to farm them. You can exterminate someone once you get bored of them and find a bigger fish as the Danish/Japanese/French, but the same applies here. I have many turns of guaranteed GA, and seeing at accumulation just after it comes - another, natural one will proc, so if I feel someone needs to die, they can die.

Civs have many subtle differences between them that distinguish them and comparing like this is not the most accurate representation. Denmark, Japan and France all have close to nothing in the early game and getting boxed in, rushed or failing an offensive war, etc. can mean the end of your game. A nearby AI choosing a bad religion if you don't get one or being unlucky with an unobtainable Holy City can screw your game over too. And if you happen to overexpand Aztecs are more secure happiness-wise.

The Aztecs builder benefits also reinforce this-you just can't go wrong with them, they'll always provide good consistent benefits and keep your happiness relatively secure. Aztecs are guaranteed to have a good early game and virtually guaranteed a religion and that means playing Aztecs is more secure and is overall more versatile than other civs that can potentially get more and scale better in the late game but are more vulnerable in the early game and have a smaller scope of bonuses.

It's like comparing Carthage and Austria in terms of Diplomacy-while Austria obviously has better bonuses for Diplo, Carthage's secure early game means you're less likely to fall over and die if something goes wrong and they are ultimately just as capable at going Diplo.

Ultimately you're comparing a feast/famine mid-game type civ with a more secure early-game one. You can certainly play Aztecs full warmonger too in my opinion, it's just that they don't have the scaling bonuses that others do but make up for it in a secure early game.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

That's funny. I would argue the 15% discount is the solution looking for a problem. There were no complaints about how Byzantium had too much faith, until they were given that discount.

Ive never heard any complains about too much faith.
The only thing what was mentioned, was the insane combo you can do with them. And I agree, cause I made such combo too and reached 20.000 faith with a small 6 city empire. And it wasnt the faith from basilica what made that amount, it was the beliefs I picked and the faith I gained in return after purchasing GPs. Sure, you can do other combos, with direct tourismn by spreading or science, everything is legit.
In real, the change to TtGoG hurts Byzanz much more than that decreased faith generation, cause your ability to stomp GP after GP is greatly decreased.

BTW, I really hope that GP purchase countdown will be decreased, cause I didnt really see any sense in making such a countdown.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

Was there a change previously in how workers are handled in war? I just moved my scout onto an enemy worker, only to find out I didn't capture it. Is this a bug? I'm pretty sure I'd see others mentioning this if something were wrong.

 

[chicorbeef]

Was there a change previously in how workers are handled in war? I just moved my scout onto an enemy worker, only to find out I didn't capture it. Is this a bug? I'm pretty sure I'd see others mentioning this if something were wrong.

Wasn't in the last version. I'd say double-check the worker was from the right civ etc. and if nothing slipped by you then report it to Github

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

Was there a change previously in how workers are handled in war? I just moved my scout onto an enemy worker, only to find out I didn't capture it. Is this a bug? I'm pretty sure I'd see others mentioning this if something were wrong.

Sounds like a feature if it means civilian meat shields can't absorb the attack action of marauding infantry and ships anymore.

 

[John.B.C]

I feel like drowning in happiness now

I don't. This relatively new built city even has an manunfactory, a couple of great farms and still distress is in the negative:

 

[chicorbeef]

I don't. This relatively new built city even has an manunfactory, a couple of great farms and still distress is in the negative:
View attachment 499906

It's a new city with no Distress reducing buildings working a handful of crappy tiles and a couple of great ones and has very minimal infrastructure, having just one Distress seems fair.
I'd be more alarmed by the Poverty.

 

[Gazebo]

I don't. This relatively new built city even has an manunfactory, a couple of great farms and still distress is in the negative:

View attachment 499906

Friendly reminder that some amount of unhappiness from yields is intended, even if you are maxed on buildings etc.

G

 

[arthurF]

Can anyone help me in setting the starting number of scouts for the AI to ONE and not two? I don't mind that they seem to start with several warriors on Deity, but two scouts is annoying the heck out of me.

 

[pineappledan]

I'd be more alarmed by the Poverty.

He's got 9 citizens, no gold buildings, no poverty reduction, and 4 total from worked tiles. It's not altogether unexpected

 

[chicorbeef]

He's got 9 citizens, no gold buildings, no poverty reduction, and 4 total from worked tiles. It's not altogether unexpected

Yes, it's to be expected, but it is more significant to his empire than that one Distress.

Can anyone help me in setting the starting number of scouts for the AI to ONE and not two? I don't mind that they seem to start with several warriors on Deity, but two scouts is annoying the heck out of me.

The AI apparently only starts with one pathfinder even on Deity, unless I'm misinterpreting something. Go into MODS-->Community Balance Overhaul (2) ---> Balance Changes ----> Difficulty ----> Difficulty Mod (XML).You should see this line near the bottom for the Deity handicap.
<AIStartingExploreUnits>1</AIStartingExploreUnits>
I suppose you could set that to 0 if you want.

 

[John.B.C]

It's a new city with no Distress reducing buildings working a handful of crappy tiles and a couple of great ones and has very minimal infrastructure, having just one Distress seems fair.
I'd be more alarmed by the Poverty.

Yes, it's to be expected, but it is more significant to his empire than that one Distress.

Yes, of course and this kind of poverty was expected. That's not the point in this example. The point is that I'm producing quite a good amount of food/production and I'm still in the negative. It's not like this city is "drowning" in happiness.

How is it that new cities produce this kind of unhappiness, when my early cities didn't? Why is that so?

 

[tu_79]

Yes, of course and this kind of poverty was expected. That's not the point in this example. The point is that I'm producing quite a good amount of food/production and I'm still in the negative. It's not like this city is "drowning" in happiness.

How is it that new cities produce this kind of unhappiness, when my early cities didn't? Why is that so?

You might be missing production buildings, or someone has a follower belief granting extra food/production, and is spreading that religion. There could be many other things, including unlikely bugs.

 

[Stalker0]

How is it that new cities produce this kind of unhappiness, when my early cities didn't? Why is that so?

A few reasons:

1) Cities later in the game grow faster because you have more workers getting those farms working quicker, and you have more buildings like granaries and aqueducts helping to fuel your growth. So they grow quicker compared to the infrastructure they are able to build. At least initially, after a little while the growth slows down and the infrastructure starts to catch up.

2) The bar is higher. The needs of all cities is comparative to the median, and the median of city yields increases as the game goes on. So your new city has a higher goal to meet when it gets started compared to when your original cities were growing. Again, as it starts to put infrastructure in place it can begin to stabilize.

 

[arthurF]

Yes, it's to be expected, but it is more significant to his empire than that one Distress.

The AI apparently only starts with one pathfinder even on Deity, unless I'm misinterpreting something. Go into MODS-->Community Balance Overhaul (2) ---> Balance Changes ----> Difficulty ----> Difficulty Mod (XML).You should see this line near the bottom for the Deity handicap.
<AIStartingExploreUnits>1</AIStartingExploreUnits>
I suppose you could set that to 0 if you want.

Well the AI are definitely starting with 2 scouts...either that or they are getting the second scout up 4 times as fast as a human can. Is there some other place in the settings this would be referenced? I agree with you that in that place, it certainly states "1".