New Beta Version - July 29th (7-29)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why is it so hard to trade luxuries? getting below -500 deal value for everyone with no diplo penalties
 
tu_79 said:
Is local unhappiness no longer limited to pop size?
Click to expand...
You can go over local pop size if you use a specialist, it was needed to make the system more playable.

On a similar note, the anti-urbanization values are a lot less important.
 
CrazyG said:
You can go over local pop size if you use a specialist, it was needed to make the system more playable.

On a similar note, the anti-urbanization values are a lot less important.
Click to expand...

That's fine, they shouldn't dominate decision-making.

Anyone who has gotten a bit into this patch, how's it feel? My glances at AI runs seemed pretty well balanced.

G
 
Doing a Japan game so far. This is an authority forest heavy start so I've definitely felt the loss of authority food, but I'm making do. I have the hammer belief + lots of triangle forests so I am swimming in hammers right now.

Its a crazy game, I am surrounded on all sides and I've been DOwed like a pinball machine. Siam declared on me with his 27 CS Elephants while I still had spearman! But I've done some crazy defense (I took goddess of protection, and yes she is smiling down on me).

I got to steel, but I have no iron, so made a desperation play at my neighbor brussels who has 18 iron. The city had 77 CS while I had trebuchets....but I had 7 of them! Even though I lost a unit every single round I took that damn CS down. Now I'm starting iron mines, and soon zealotry will bless me with an instant group of samurai, and I will have revenge!!!

The ultimate plan is to get those samurai to fusiliers and start seeing how the new promotions play out.
 
I am 150 turns in in my wide Celts game; emperor difficulty, epic gamepace, on huge tectonic map, 14 AIs standard resources, I tweaked the map settings to be a spacey pangea-like hopefully with smaller islands.
I am not feeling challenged by the happiness at all at this stage in the game and feel the need to keep building cities, to secure two extra monopolies among other things, probably capping at 11 or 12 core ones.
I came on top on a conflict with my neighbor, Sejong, over space, after forward settling him and razed two of his smaller frontier cities.
I feel my cities are extremely productive, especially with the celtic Sovereignty pantheon but I feel like the border growth is slow, so I have to buy tiles a lot, might be that I'm not paying attention to the instant yield from buildings. I'm also starved for food and the lowest pop, therefore felt it necessary to grab Mandirs and will unlock fealty next, even though I really wanted to get other things. Sucks that I missed the Hanging Gardens and the Parthenon too, though I did get Stonehenge, partially for thematic reasons. The biggest power spike by far was after the Fraternity policy, that food and science came in real handy.
It might be that the map is a bit too spacey, so 1 or 2 more AIs were needed for balance but this kind of wide game was what I wanted to play right now, generally enjoyable but I'm hoping to be challenged down the line, whether by happiness, other internal issue, or neighbors a.png unknown.png
 
Last edited:
Fieldworks & co are already proving to be a solid and "fun" buff to the Gun-Infantry line for Industrial+ warfare, as I imagine one would expect. It's a huge boon as a human player to have a more effective meatshield against the massed ranged units you can anticipate in this era, and this does it in a way that "feels" fair while also solidifying the Gun-Infantry's role as more than just "The resource-free melee unit". Didn't get to cherrypick my own religion this time so can't speak for the religion changes, and growth per happiness isn't something my brain pays too much attention to past "Am I not in unrest? Good", but I'm definitely on board with the Wonder changes.
 
Happiness feels great for me as the player (King difficulty), however I'm also noticing that literally everyone is at 100% approval right now:
Spoiler :
lPtHDmg.png


This is preferable to the alternative by a mile, but I don't imagine it's what y'all are looking for from the happiness system.

I chose to play with Authority Rome so I could test out the changes to wide happiness and late-game melee units. While I'm not at the units with the new promotions quite yet, Rome's Legions (start with Cover 1) make me optimistic.
 
Nice Patch, very interesting changes.
Iam asking me if - 1 unhappiness per city from wonders is weaker or stronger than the former 10% need reduction, was this tested?

I hope someone plays the game long enough to report something about the infantry changes. +25% ranged defense and +25 HP seems a bit much on the mechanized infantry. Effectively a power increase of 56%.

Public Works now only affecting the empire modificator is a good move. Cities with enough hammers can now contribute to the happiness of hammer-weak cities.

Late game growth will be still worse than specialist spam, but atleast that population modifier is a nice help. I feel now prepared for the 10 cities 1k population challenge :lol:.
 
Something I've noticed in the last two patches: Playing domination, I'm getting denounced by civs the turn after I meet them:

Spoiler :
Woi7iL9.jpg


I can *kinda* see him getting cranky with me about warmongering, since he could theoretically have the knowledge that I have three capitals, but the "building new cities too aggressively" feels pretty bogus, since he has no idea how I've been building my cities.

And either way, being denounced for things he wasn't around for always feels crappy.
 
So far, happiness feels easy. King Korea 5 cities never was difficult. I just dropped to 88% following a 3 settling wave. Curiously, most of my unhappiness disappeared when the cities grew. Not by improving the tiles or by getting some buildings, but just by growing. There are people working on 2 food tiles and the city is still happy.
Current neighbors, Brazil and Carthage, both took Tradition. Carthage even fought Brazil for some island city...
 
ridjack said:
Something I've noticed in the last two patches: Playing domination, I'm getting denounced by civs the turn after I meet them:

I can *kinda* see him getting cranky with me about warmongering, since he could theoretically have the knowledge that I have three capitals, but the "building new cities too aggressively" feels pretty bogus, since he has no idea how I've been building my cities.

And either way, being denounced for things he wasn't around for always feels crappy.
Click to expand...

Here's the code for reckless expansion:

Code: 
/// Is ePlayer expanding recklessly?
bool CvDiplomacyAI::IsPlayerRecklessExpander(PlayerTypes ePlayer)
{
    // If the player is too far away from us, we don't care
    if(GetPlayer()->GetProximityToPlayer(ePlayer) < PLAYER_PROXIMITY_CLOSE)
        return false;

    // If the player has too few cities, don't worry about it
    int iNumCities = GET_PLAYER(ePlayer).getNumCities();
    if(iNumCities < 4)
        return false;

    double fAverageNumCities = 0;
    int iNumPlayers = 0;

    // Find out what the average is (minus the player we're looking at)
    PlayerTypes eLoopPlayer;
    CvPlayer* pPlayer;
    for(int iPlayerLoop = 0; iPlayerLoop < MAX_MAJOR_CIVS; iPlayerLoop++)
    {
        eLoopPlayer = (PlayerTypes) iPlayerLoop;
        pPlayer = &GET_PLAYER(eLoopPlayer);

        // Not alive
        if(!pPlayer->isAlive())
            continue;

        // Not the guy we're looking at
        if(eLoopPlayer == ePlayer)
            continue;

        iNumPlayers++;
        fAverageNumCities += pPlayer->getNumCities();
    }

    // Not sure how this would happen, but we'll be safe anyways since we'll be dividing by this value
    if(iNumPlayers == 0)
    {
        CvAssertMsg(false, "0 players to evaluate when trying to identify if someone is a reckless expander. Not sure how this would happen without the game being over yet.");
        return false;
    }

    fAverageNumCities /= iNumPlayers;

    // Must have way more cities than the average player in the game
    if(iNumCities < fAverageNumCities * 1.5)
        return false;

    // If this guy's military is as big as ours, then it probably means he's just stronger than us
    if(GetPlayerMilitaryStrengthComparedToUs(ePlayer) >= STRENGTH_AVERAGE)
        return false;

    return true;
}

Reckless expansion doesn't factor in whether they know the other players they're using for the average, or the cities being visible, and increases WAR and HOSTILE scores; weight is not added for possessing multiple capitals unless you have at least 75% of the world's capitals under your control. I do believe anyone can see how many cities another player has, though; as you can see in that screenshot, the Inca have 9.

I don't believe you're supposed to get warmongering opinion penalties when a player hasn't met you; I haven't altered this, either. Potential bug.
 
HeathcliffWarriors said:
Here's the code for reckless expansion:

Code: 
/// Is ePlayer expanding recklessly?
bool CvDiplomacyAI::IsPlayerRecklessExpander(PlayerTypes ePlayer)
{
    // If the player is too far away from us, we don't care
    if(GetPlayer()->GetProximityToPlayer(ePlayer) < PLAYER_PROXIMITY_CLOSE)
        return false;

    // If the player has too few cities, don't worry about it
    int iNumCities = GET_PLAYER(ePlayer).getNumCities();
    if(iNumCities < 4)
        return false;

    double fAverageNumCities = 0;
    int iNumPlayers = 0;

    // Find out what the average is (minus the player we're looking at)
    PlayerTypes eLoopPlayer;
    CvPlayer* pPlayer;
    for(int iPlayerLoop = 0; iPlayerLoop < MAX_MAJOR_CIVS; iPlayerLoop++)
    {
        eLoopPlayer = (PlayerTypes) iPlayerLoop;
        pPlayer = &GET_PLAYER(eLoopPlayer);

        // Not alive
        if(!pPlayer->isAlive())
            continue;

        // Not the guy we're looking at
        if(eLoopPlayer == ePlayer)
            continue;

        iNumPlayers++;
        fAverageNumCities += pPlayer->getNumCities();
    }

    // Not sure how this would happen, but we'll be safe anyways since we'll be dividing by this value
    if(iNumPlayers == 0)
    {
        CvAssertMsg(false, "0 players to evaluate when trying to identify if someone is a reckless expander. Not sure how this would happen without the game being over yet.");
        return false;
    }

    fAverageNumCities /= iNumPlayers;

    // Must have way more cities than the average player in the game
    if(iNumCities < fAverageNumCities * 1.5)
        return false;

    // If this guy's military is as big as ours, then it probably means he's just stronger than us
    if(GetPlayerMilitaryStrengthComparedToUs(ePlayer) >= STRENGTH_AVERAGE)
        return false;

    return true;
}

Reckless expansion doesn't factor in whether they know the other players they're using for the average, or the cities being visible, and increases WAR and HOSTILE scores; weight is not added for possessing multiple capitals unless you have at least 75% of the world's capitals under your control. I do believe anyone can see how many cities another player has, though; as you can see in that screenshot, the Inca have 9.

I don't believe you're supposed to get warmongering opinion penalties when a player hasn't met you; I haven't altered this, either. Potential bug.
Click to expand...

So if I understand that formula correctly ( if(iNumCities < fAverageNumCities * 1.5) ), average should be ~6 - 7 cities for me to be to be getting that modifier. I have ten; however, only four of those are cities I built myself. Am I getting this "reckless expansion" for conquered cities, too? And if so, isn't that getting double-dinged on diplomacy for warmongering, which is already inherently going to be bad in that department?

Also, not every civ I know has that modifier; is this determined by the civs' flavor? I don't see that factored into the above code anywhere, but admittedly I have only the most basic understanding of any kind of code.
 
I had mentioned in the previous version's thread that the AI was handling navies and embarked units badly. Here's an example of Attila sacrificing his units into my meatgrinder for no discernible advantage:

Spoiler :
aRfY0P0.jpg


He's already lost five or six units this way, has not landed a single unit on my shores (aside from a single Horse Archer immediately after his first declaration. It also died instantly.) and I have not seen even a hint of an actual ship.
 
ridjack said:
I had mentioned in the previous version's thread that the AI was handling navies and embarked units badly. Here's an example of Attila sacrificing his units into my meatgrinder for no discernible advantage:

Spoiler :
aRfY0P0.jpg


He's already lost five or six units this way, has not landed a single unit on my shores (aside from a single Horse Archer immediately after his first declaration. It also died instantly.) and I have not seen even a hint of an actual ship.
Click to expand...

Everyone agrees that amphibious invasions are tough, and the AI isn't as good at it as humans. The alternative is to have the AI avoid large amphibious actions, since it's easy for humans to flash waiting defenders. I think that would make for a worse game.

But also keep in mind that in your example, the Huns can't see the "meat grinder" to the rear. I think they see a city with a ballista and a bowman. If I have units to spare — which I'm guessing Attila does — then I might think it's worth heavy losses to establish a beachhead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Eddie Verdde
A new concept: totems – choose your favourites.
Replies
6
Views
932
Ryansinbela
Ryansinbela
Recursive
  • Locked
New BETA Version - 4.17.8 (December 16, 2024)
5 6 7
Replies
131
Views
28K
Recursive
Recursive
Recursive
  • Locked
New BETA Version - 4.12.1 (July 10, 2024)
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
19K
Recursive
Recursive
Z
A Wonders4Civs Mod: looking for partners and modders willing to help!
Replies
0
Views
313
Zapotec92
Z
jarcast2
[Custom Civ] Jarcast's The Navajo for VP
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
jarcast2
jarcast2
Back
Top Bottom