New Beta Version - June 14th (6/14)

[CppMaster]

If nothing is better than 10 food, of course 1 prod is better than 10 food. But I don't want nothing to be better than 10 food.
I want to be "working those unemployed slots" because I want production, not because I don't want food.

Ok, so in that case you value production much more than food. Also gold with culture could be more valuable to you so you can replace farms with villages. That way you would just better balance yields you get.

Also, though it might appear that I was saying "this is the problem in current beta", it is not what I mean, since I still didn't really have the time to play a full game. I was just reacting to the debate and saying that I don't want the balance to go toward "past a certain population, food is something you want to avoid".

For me it's more like "past a certain population, food is less valuable in regard to other yields" and that's fine.
I play about 2 games on Emperor, Standard Speed, Standard Size for each version and I don't ever have too much food. Even when I was playing tall tradition game and have filled all specialists slots and tiles in the capital and other city, I haven't replaced any farms with villages, because my happiness was high anyway. Those additional unemployed citizens also boosts buildings that scales with population and food gives science thanks to hospital.

 

[chicorbeef]

If we go for Production influencing Crime, how exactly are we going to go about rebalancing all the defense buildings?

 

[BiteInTheMark]

See my edit: I'm shifting to a linear model based on empire pop average. This, in limited testing, is showing promise.

G

Ah, didnt saw the edit. A bit hard to understand, but ok.
So, the average modifier placed on a small citiy would be higher, but cause the best spots are worked first, the small city can support more efficient worker than a big city, you can compensate the extra need better.
And the average modifier placed on a big city would be lower, helps the city cause every new worker cant generate as much as the previous one, and high modifiers would have the highest impact on very populated cities, but this counters it.
Is this correct?

Will there be notible change, if your cities have all the same size? Previous mechanic compared to the new mechanic?

Both sound interesting, though I'd be worried that the second change would help wide more than tall, especially warmongers who murder off the majority of their new city's population.

Remember, happiness by luxuries generate less happines, the more cities you have. I think this balance each other. Still the benefits from luxuries should be risen.

 

[CppMaster]

@Gazebo is it feasible if forts and citadels could increase CS of a city when worked? That way it would be much less static and it would be more reason to build them and sacrifice other yields.

 

[chicorbeef]

Obviously this is just theory at this point, but I fail to see how tying crime to production doesn’t just double-hit low production cities. Production is tied to geography, like food, so it’s very hard to make a high location comparable to a high location, if one is going to choke your empire with unhappiness and one isn’t.

If you don’t have a lot of production in a city, then you can’t build buildings to help with boredom/poverty, etc. Production is the bottleneck through which all other needs are met, so I fail to see how this isn’t just a pure knock-on mechanic.

Better, I think, to have crime’s needs calculated differently from other needs, perhaps on predetermined values for /, instead of having it float based on median. Crime is already the most static value, so perhaps it’s best to create a rigid needs curve which fluctuates based on tech?

I suppose internal trade routes will become more important. It's worth thinking about at least.
Edit: Also Diligence and Industry. Which reminds me-how are percent modifiers going to be taken into account? Will Gazebo include all-around production buffs (eg. Golden Ages) into the equation?

 

[Gazebo]

If we go for Production influencing Crime, how exactly are we going to go about rebalancing all the defense buildings?

We don't need to - they'll still be crime-reducing buildings, it's just that the 'base stat' of defense won't matter. This is fairly logical - more production = better employment for citizens = less need to turn to a life of crime to make ends meet. Barracks/walls et. al. represent civil authority, and also clamp down on crime. Walls will still be important for defense and crime, but less so for the latter.

@Gazebo is it feasible if forts and citadels could increase CS of a city when worked? That way it would be much less static and it would be more reason to build them and sacrifice other yields.

No - very expensive to calculate.

Obviously this is just theory at this point, but I fail to see how tying crime to production doesn’t just double-hit low production cities. Production is tied to geography, like food, so it’s very hard to make a high location comparable to a high location, if one is going to choke your empire with unhappiness and one isn’t.

If you don’t have a lot of production in a city, then you can’t build buildings to help with boredom/poverty, etc. Production is the bottleneck through which all other needs are met, so I fail to see how this isn’t just a pure knock-on mechanic.

Better, I think, to have crime’s needs calculated differently from other needs, perhaps on predetermined values for /, instead of having it float based on median. Crime is already the most static value, so perhaps it’s best to create a rigid needs curve which fluctuates based on tech?

A flat value would just turn 'Crime' into an unhappiness tax. Shifting to production as the median model isn't as drastic as you think - it's easier for a player to control/modify through improvements/specialists, and, because it is a median, only extremely low cities would suffer.

G

 

[CrazyG]

I don't know if we really want to look at rebalancing all of the defense buildings, and all the production buildings, and the production UAs.........like this is a really big change.

Could we do something with forts or citadels? I think the issue is just that the exponential curve is making the 30th citizen a negative anywhere but a tradition capital which kills a lot of strategies (30 population isn't even that big).

 

[pineappledan]

The two primary yield from tiles are and .

Increases , which increases needs
Allows you to build things which alleviate needs

If also directly affects a needs, then is dead. Production is king.

Taking crime from creates way more issues than it solves:

• Throws defence building line into limbo
• Affects all policies which give
• Garrisons have no use outside of wartime or policies which directly modify garrisons
• Double-punishes high starting locations (RIP flood plains)
• Buildings that reduce crime are all tied to military, and provide no , so it looks janky

Walls will still be important for defense and crime, but less so for the latter

I do not see how that is a true statement unless is added to walls. Walls only increase , , and city HP; they would have no effect on crime if this change were made

A flat value would just turn 'Crime' into an unhappiness tax.

... isn't that what crime basically is already? A happiness tax is pretty much exactly what crime is. It takes , a fairly static stat which only increases at very specific techs and policy unlocks, and divides it by in a city.
If you make a predetermined / curve which scales with city pop and tech level, it's hardly different from the system we already have, except you would have complete control over how that curve behaves.

 

[tu_79]

Laborers yield production. Laborers is the only thing citizens can be once every slot is being worked.

Have laborers not count for unhappiness. If you have too much unhappiness, work more laborers and get your buildings built.

This way overgrowing is not punished but it is not too good either.

 

[CppMaster]

Barracks/walls et. al. represent civil authority, and also clamp down on crime. Walls will still be important for defense and crime, but less so for the latter

So in that case, walls, castles, arsenals and military bases would also reduce defence need?

 

[chicorbeef]

We don't need to - they'll still be crime-reducing buildings, it's just that the 'base stat' of defense won't matter. This is fairly logical - more production = better employment for citizens = less need to turn to a life of crime to make ends meet. Barracks/walls et. al. represent civil authority, and also clamp down on crime. Walls will still be important for defense and crime, but less so for the latter.
G

I don't understand. Walls/Castles don't reduce Crime, they increase defense, right? So how will they affect Crime in any way if Defense is not taken into account?
Edit: Are you planning to add Productivity reductions to this line of buildings? Make it so less production is needed?

 

[John.B.C]

Remember, happiness by luxuries generate less happines, the more cities you have. I think this balance each other. Still the benefits from luxuries should be risen.

On the other hand, a wide player has much more land and resources available for himself. Therefor I don't think "luxuries" ever can be a solving factor for a Tall play; a contribution and very small part of the solution, yes. But the lack of land connected with tall play, will never make it a solving factor and a solution for Tall play.

 

[Gazebo]

I don't know if we really want to look at rebalancing all of the defense buildings, and all the production buildings, and the production UAs.........like this is a really big change.

Could we do something with forts or citadels? I think the issue is just that the exponential curve is making the 30th citizen a negative anywhere but a tradition capital which kills a lot of strategies (30 population isn't even that big).

I know it is big, but it's a glaring problem. It really is. I've been staring at it for a long time, knowing that it was causing problems. Heck, I've had to build special loopholes into the model just to get crime to behave. It's not elegant. I like elegance. And I don't think that it's going to break that much to make this change - it's a healthy move.

The two primary yield from tiles are and .

Increases , which increases needs
Allows you to build things which alleviate needs

If also directly affects a needs, then is dead. Production is king.

Taking crime from creates way more issues than it solves:

• Throws defence building line into limbo
• Affects all policies which give
• Garrisons have no use outside of wartime or policies which directly modify garrisons
• Double-punishes high starting locations (RIP flood plains)
• Buildings that reduce crime are all tied to military, and provide no , so it looks janky

I do not see how that is a true statement unless is added to walls. Walls only increase , , and city HP; they would have no effect on crime if this change were made

This is an exaggeration. Science and culture are easily the two most important yields, and they affect needs, yet we don't claim all other yields are moot because of this. Food is still critically important because you need food for citizens to work tiles and specialists (which, mind you, are the biggest sources of production).

If we want to bridge the gap it's feasible to add defense and production together to make up the 'crime' median, but I'm not sure it'll be necessary.

G

 

[BiteInTheMark]

On the other hand, a wide player has much more land and resources available for himself. Therefor I don't think "luxuries" ever can be a solving factor for a Tall play; a contribution and very small part of the solution, yes. But the lack of land connected with tall play, will never make it a solving factor and a solution for Tall play.

I never said it should be the main factor, but something you should notice.
The difference in gained luxuries by a 5 city empire isnt that much to a 10 city empire. Often you only get luxuries you already have. I dont think you get double as much luxuries if you double your number of cities.
Additional, you can trade a lot luxuries by the big amount of your monopoly ressources. Something you can do also with double the number of cities, but the effect is halfed, and the amount of traded luxuries isnt doubled.

 

[Txurce]

I don't understand. Walls/Castles don't reduce Crime, they increase defense, right? So how will they affect Crime in any way if Defense is not taken into account?
Edit: Are you planning to add Productivity reductions to this line of buildings? Make it so less production is needed?

As far as I know, walls and castles have always reduced crime -- just not as much as barracks and armories.

 

[pineappledan]

If we want to bridge the gap it's feasible to add defense and production together to make up the 'crime' median, but I'm not sure it'll be necessary.

If a harmonized metric for +(X) were to be made that would completely allay my fears, yes.

My biggest issue with this change is that in the current system, garrisons help crime. a -only approach would take away the use of garrisons outside of combat, unless you created new code, like making the presence of a garrison reduce crime by a certain percent. The current system also makes garrisons with stronger units more useful for crime reduction, which makes sense. It would be difficult to do anything similar with a -centric crime.

Your example of / seems like a red herring to me.

• Your primary sources of / are buildings, specialists, and GPT
• Since GPT are the product of working specialists, you can simplify that to buildings and specialists
• Since you can only work specialists if you have the slots, then / generation becomes a function of buildings and tech level
• Since tech level is a function of production, which is dependent on buildings and specialists, it all comes back to buildings.
• Buildings are made with .

So, boredom + literacy = f( ), and crime = . Ergo is king, only poverty manages to stay somewhat free of .
used to be , based on defensive buildings, but also garrisons and policy choices, making it -only will take a lot of re-working to make it not a direct knock-on to illiteracy and boredom.

 

[chicorbeef]

As far as I know, walls and castles have always reduced crime -- just not as much as barracks and armories.

That's not how I recall it.

 

[Gazebo]

If a harmonized metric for +(X) were to be made that would completely allay my fears, yes.

My biggest issue with this change is that in the current system, garrisons help crime. a -only approach would take away the use of garrisons outside of combat, unless you created new code, like making the presence of a garrison reduce crime by a certain percent. The current system also makes garrisons with stronger units more useful for crime reduction, which makes sense. It would be difficult to do anything similar with a -centric crime.

Your example of / seems like a red herring to me.

• Your primary sources of / are buildings, specialists, and GPT
• Since GPT are the product of working specialists, you can simplify that to buildings and specialists
• Since you can only work specialists if you have the slots, then / generation becomes a function of buildings and tech level
• Since tech level is a function of production, which is dependent on buildings and specialists, it all comes back to buildings.
• Buildings are made with .

So, boredom + literacy = f( ), and crime = . Ergo is king, only poverty manages to stay somewhat free of .
used to be , based on defensive buildings, but also garrisons and policy choices, making it -only will take a lot of re-working to make it not a direct knock-on to illiteracy and boredom.

Not a red herring, no - my point is that if we're going to have a 'unhappiness tax' (which is what crime is right now, as it's very hard to actually ameliorate in-between building unlocks), I'd rather it be a tax on something that players can more readily modify. There are many, many more ways to get production than defense.

G

 

[Txurce]

That's not how I recall it.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/countering-crime-in-the-early-eras.561313/

 

[pineappledan]

I think giving some way to "terra-form" your cities' surroundings to ease crime, like how you could put academies/towns near a city with illiteracy/poverty problems, is not a bad idea.

However, I think the system should still consider first and foremost. Perhaps have 1=3 or 4 for crime calculation.

It's fairly easy to boost with trade routes, and most cities will be around 25-50 for most of the game. finding a balance between and is a simple matter of finding the right constant.