New Beta Version - June 22nd (6/22)

[CrazyG]

I said it before, and repeat here. Delaying the first policy, combined with the starting pathfinder, has the benefit of letting the player know what starting policy would be better in his situation. The bad side, as many have noted, is that progress suffers.

Well said, I do really like this part of the beta. Is the pathfinder really necessary for this though? Maybe we could go back to warriors, but make pathfinders cheaper

That's what I was afraid of re: pathfinder starts. Makes a starting warrior almost mandatory, esp. at higher levels.

I really think that progress does well in its current form. Yeah you miss out on some science yields for the capital (I could add an effect to the opener that gives you x science per pop already in the capital, and x for every new citizen thereafter, though), but the new trade route mechanics makes progress a very good leech for mid-game catapulting

Progress can do well but its really inconsistent. Adding some for citizens already in the capital is an elegant way to add some consistency. 30 per , or maybe little less, seems fine. This portion of the opener should not scale with era, that way it can't be used late in the game by a tradition civ for a big science boost.

 

[Gazebo]

I join that complain about the bonus to trade routes in the progress tree. It won't be useful once you beat all the rest (if you manage to arrive there). Since progress thrive with number of cities, what if that policy gives a bonus for having more cities than the receiver, city states included.

I want to avoid snowball benefits. That's a snowball benefit.

The real problem I've had with Progress is building units. There's so little production in it that after the first settler wave it can be very difficult to juggle building priorities to take advantage of the boosts Progress has. Culture and food from buildings? Can't do that when the AI is doing early game zerg rushes. Science from city connections? Workers and roads can be extremely expensive with the number of cities Progress requires. The finisher comes late enough that I can notice the difference, but I rarely ever notice any good growth in my Progress games because production and defense tend to take priority.

How about a % boost to settlers? It would really make it a lot easier to switch the build focus to workers and buildings.

Settler stuff is authority land.

Like having a policy add an effect to some buildings, markets or whatever, that buff a city when it has incoming or departing trade routes. Just a plain bonus to the city. Like markets giving +2 culture and +2 science if there are any trade route from or to the city. This kind of encourages to spread routes out when going Progress, and that alleviates poverty.

That's what piety does.

Progress can do well but its really inconsistent. Adding some for citizens already in the capital is an elegant way to add some consistency. 30 per , or maybe little less, seems fine. This portion of the opener should not scale with era, that way it can't be used late in the game by a tradition civ for a big science boost.

\

I agree. Probably what I will do.

G

 

[Txurce]

<End of first sentence>

Ha ha!

Sorry for my english, in the future i will use google traslate xD, the reason is, english is not my mother language xD because i live in uruguay all of y life xD

Your English is good enough. Just use more periods instead of commas, the same way you would in Spanish.

I haven't touched spawning distances for camps - they don't 'cheat' but ilteroi may have enraged them. When he's back in town we'll take a look.

Great, thanks.

Progress can do well but its really inconsistent. Adding some for citizens already in the capital is an elegant way to add some consistency. 30 per , or maybe little less, seems fine. This portion of the opener should not scale with era, that way it can't be used late in the game by a tradition civ for a big science boost.

I like this idea for Progress, too, but am confused by how a Tradition civ could use it late in the game. Are you saying all branches should give x science per citizen upon founding?

 

[ElliotS]

The AI's tech level. Technically the global tech level but AIs are majority.

G

The barbarians should only have access to the tech of the lowest civ. By definition they should be less advanced. While I enjoy the extra difficulty, I'm starting to think this is the wrong place to have it.

(I could add an effect to the opener that gives you x science per pop already in the capital, and x for every new citizen thereafter, though)

I like this idea.

That's what I was afraid of re: pathfinder starts. Makes a starting warrior almost mandatory, esp. at higher levels.

I think the change to pathfinders is really good. Especially on Deity, when the AI starts with 3 scouts and you previously had none. Non-forest starts were really bad because the AIs near you would grab all of the ruins and be at a big advantage.

I think reverting this is the wrong move. I wonder if starting with both units would make sense?

I like this idea for Progress, too, but am confused by how a Tradition civ could use it late in the game. Are you saying all branches should give x science per citizen upon founding?

Tradition could open progress in industrial for two thousand science is his worry. I don't know if I'd worry about that though, given that dedicating an entire policy choice to what amounts to a great scientist with no synergies doesn't seem OP.

 

[CrazyG]

I like this idea for Progress, too, but am confused by how a Tradition civ could use it late in the game. Are you saying all branches should give x science per citizen upon founding?

If it scaled with era and you had a big capital, you could spend a policy on the progress opener for like 10,000 in the late game. Which isn't even a great social policy but its seems like a good idea to avoid gimmicks like that.

 

[Txurce]

Why were GM's nerfed as well? What else can you do with them most of the game, except use them at CS?

 

[intelli]

Not sure what the point of Volunteer Army is, completely trashes your supply cap as the kind of small nation that actually needs it,

 

[tu_79]

That's what piety does.

I think Piety gives bonuses to trade routes, and it gives bonuses to markets, so yes, in a fashion. I was talking of something related to trade routes but not scaling on number of trade routes, scaling in number of cities instead, though it's too similar to Piety bonuses. Progress tries to maximize number of cities by settling them close together, not necessarily means it's already winning because the number of cities is high.

A building much beloved by Progress is the council, buff that with any progress policy then. Or if by 'avoid snowballing' you mean buffing something that's not in the playstyle, then granaries. I'm always avoiding granaries when going Progress.

 

[Gazebo]

Why were GM's nerfed as well? What else can you do with them most of the game, except use them at CS?

The gold was reduced, but the WLTKD remains the same.

G

 

[Txurce]

The gold was reduced, but the WLTKD remains the same.

G

Yeah, I knew the gold as reduced. But my assumption was that the other GP were reduced to discourage popping them, as opposed to creating Great Works. That wouldn't apply with GM's, hence my confusion. (Apologies if I'm being thick.)

 

[CrazyG]

Yeah, I knew the gold as reduced. But my assumption was that the other GP were reduced to discourage popping them, as opposed to creating Great Works. That wouldn't apply with GM's, hence my confusion. (Apologies if I'm being thick.)

I would have rather seen the gold increased, or maybe scaled. Its a nice boost early on, but by the late game its barely enough to upgrade 1 unit

 

[Misaka]

i test with my friends this version in mp. Map:Continent(largue) 24 civ states, 10 civ, with barbarian (not raggin) Simultanius. We only get 1 desync aprox in turn 60 and one time, we try to continue later and see what happen, in the case a will upload the logs, with the one desync.
Seeing with 2 player its stable for the moment. we play with 3 player, and in this case with 3 player we got desync near every 3 turn, we in case try to run the game again and happend again, Logs(1) correspond the game with 2 player, Logs(2) correspond the game with 3 player(with a lot of desync)

 

[Gazebo]

i test with my friends this version in mp. Map:Continent(largue) 24 civ states, 10 civ, with barbarian (not raggin) Simultanius. We only get 1 desync aprox in turn 60 and one time, we try to continue later and see what happen, in the case a will upload the logs, with the one desync.
Seeing with 2 player its stable for the moment. we play with 3 player, and in this case with 3 player we got desync near every 3 turn, we in case try to run the game again and happend again, Logs(1) correspond the game with 2 player, Logs(2) correspond the game with 3 player(with a lot of desync)

I tested the MP with this DLL and had no desync issues. Unfortunately civ is very sensitive to ping. High ping = desyncs.

G

 

[zeofig]

I really like the retroactive science for progress idea. It's super annoying atm playing a start with lots of food, or getting +pop from ruins.

 

[norburger]

.. Progress tries to maximize number of cities by settling them close together, not necessarily means it's already winning because the number of cities is high. ..

So a wide progress gets the opportunity, teritorry and production from going wide and gets to recover from increased science/culture costs with leech mechanic and tall progress which tries to not fall behind in an uphill battle against bonus AI gets nothing.

.. Since progress thrive with number of cities, what if that policy gives a bonus for having more cities than the receiver, city states included.

There is a science penalty per city reduction in rationalism. There is a flat policy cost redution in progress. Maybe progress policy cost reduction could be per trade route (or city?) like -2%?

 

[Moi Magnus]

Sorry for my english, in the future i will use google traslate xD, the reason is, english is not my mother language xD because i live in uruguay all of y life xD

Your English is easily understandable when you make short sentences. When a language is not your mother language, you should use every tool you have in order to be understood. Short sentences are easier to write and understand (in your big message, every "if" could have been a new sentence). Moreover, adding structure ("then", "moreover", ...) and line break also help.

 

[norburger]

.. I really think that progress does well in its current form. Yeah you miss out on some science yields for the capital (I could add an effect to the opener that gives you x science per pop already in the capital, and x for every new citizen thereafter, though), but the new trade route mechanics makes progress a very good leech for mid-game catapulting.

G

While it will be nice to not be restricted in early game play by trying to squeeze the most bonuses out of opener effects, it was fairly limited in effect if inconvenient early game handicap.

I want to avoid snowball benefits. That's a snowball benefit.

G

The objective to avoid snowball is a given, but then it's only fair to ask for tradition and authority snowball limiting policy effects too.

 

[Zarrk]

Not sure what the point of Volunteer Army is, completely trashes your supply cap as the kind of small nation that actually needs it,

You still can sell your obsolete units when going over the limit but it will be nice if it act like the Terracota and also increase the army cap (also maybe reducing the number of unit given to balance things).

 

[bigcat88]

You still can sell your obsolete units when going over the limit but it will be nice if it act like the Terracota and also increase the army cap (also maybe reducing the number of unit given to balance things).

This policy now is already nerfed, cause now u can get that ideology much later then before, so that 6 units are not so good. So add to that policy an increased supply cup by 6-8 is a nice idea.
But it will be better to create a separate thread about ideologies and speak about their rework. Some of that policies are really bad.

 

[Stalker0]

If it scaled with era and you had a big capital, you could spend a policy on the progress opener for like 10,000 in the late game. Which isn't even a great social policy but its seems like a good idea to avoid gimmicks like that.

As you said though, at that point it's still not even that great of a policy. Can't really be a gimmick if it's not that useful.

I think this is way to go with progress for now. We can add more if needed but this is a solid bump to start