New Beta Version - June 9th (6/9)

[Gazebo]

Switching the pathfinder at start is actually harder than it sounds, a lot of startup stuff is hardcoded (or harder coded, if that makes sense). I'm pushing another beta now.

Changes:

• Reworked policy cost model a bit, should scale in the inverse (more early, fewer late).
• Adjusted wonder policy cost
• Adjusted Epic/Marathon tech speed back down to vanilla values (200%/300%). Should help AI GPT issues and balance policy rates a bit more.
• Fixed some github issues that were posted

Doing some final testing, will push soonish.

Edit: and here's the link:
https://mega.nz/#!XEth0TbA!Eb-OvXhEq3fKgesWS01KblEqO7c_9Mt0nPABQ2wz4zs

CP/43 CP is savegame compatible, CBO is not (as the values won't update). You can install it all but no CBO changes will carry over.

G

 

[Rolaran]

Just installed the very newest version, getting some serious weirdness though. None of the Civs with unique buildings have them available, half the Civilopedia is blank (everything after the buildings tab, I don't know if that's useful in diagnosing the problem).

EDIT: Double checked, the buildings not in the base game (Well, Council, Herbalist etc.) are not on the tech tree at all. Strangely, the new wonders and the diplomacy buildings (Chancery etc.) do seem to be appearing.

 

[CrazyG]

I don't think there should be an unlimited cap for barbarian experience. Jaguars or Picts with march or blitz that early would be too strong, and it would be easy to get on Pangea

I've always liked that the Zulu can get a medic just from barbarians, maybe upping it to 60 experience, so you can get a 3rd promotion, could be considered.this would let others do the same

If you're in a high barb area and get terrorized 3 times that's like max 3 turns of hammers worst case scenario. (More than that is avoidable in 99.9% of cases.)

I'd trade 3 turns of hammers for a training ground for my early warriors. I think seeing your position, getting some leveled troops and using them for an early war advantage could work pretty well.

Would I make that trade off with some civs? Sure, but there a bunch of civs and strategies that really want those early yields and don't care much about experience on warriors.

I find going warrior first and getting terrorized before the warrior finishes extremely infuriating. Maybe there could be a 15 turn window where barbs don't terrorize? This gives you time to build a second unit and do very basic scouting before you risk losing yields. After that its either build a unit or explore at your own risk.

The other thing that could be done, lower the opportunity cost for leaving your warrior home. This means addressing culture ruins and culture CS.

 

[tu_79]

I don't think there should be an unlimited cap for barbarian experience. Jaguars or Picts with march or blitz that early would be too strong, and it would be easy to get on Pangea

I've always liked that the Zulu can get a medic just from barbarians, maybe upping it to 60 experience, so you can get a 3rd promotion, could be considered.this would let others do the same

Would I make that trade off with some civs? Sure, but there a bunch of civs and strategies that really want those early yields and don't care much about experience on warriors.

I find going warrior first and getting terrorized before the warrior finishes extremely infuriating. Maybe there could be a 15 turn window where barbs don't terrorize? This gives you time to build a second unit and do very basic scouting before you risk losing yields. After that its either build a unit or explore at your own risk.

The other thing that could be done, lower the opportunity cost for leaving your warrior home. This means addressing culture ruins and culture CS.

Removing xp barb cap just on scout line is not posible?

 

[FoxOfWar]

Curious about the Marathon tech speed change, will have to give it a spin as I've been lately trying to get that tall science victory without having a really obvious chance to win culture two eras before that. (On King, at any rate.) Assuming I remember right and Marathon was 325%?

 

[Zarrk]

Switching the pathfinder at start is actually harder than it sounds, a lot of startup stuff is hardcoded (or harder coded, if that makes sense). I'm pushing another beta now.

I play with this starting unit swap since before BNW, it's true the Shoshones messed things a little but I found a way to make it work.

Spoiler Feel free to use :

--Remove AI extra units based on difficulty (personal preference)
UPDATE HandicapInfos SET StartingMinorDefenseUnits = '1';
UPDATE HandicapInfos SET AIStartingDefenseUnits = '0';
UPDATE HandicapInfos SET AIStartingExploreUnits = '0';
UPDATE HandicapInfos SET AIStartingWorkerUnits = '0';
--Replace Starting Warrior with a Pathfinder
UPDATE Eras SET StartingDefenseUnits='0' Where Type='ERA_ANCIENT';
UPDATE Eras SET StartingExploreUnits='1' Where Type='ERA_ANCIENT';
--Dirty Fix to remove extra (harcoded?) initial scout
DELETE FROM Civilization_FreeUnits WHERE CivilizationType = 'CIVILIZATION_SHOSHONE' AND NOT UnitClassType = 'UNITCLASS_SETTLER';

 

[LucidAPs]

I had a crash with the new patch at the first turns playing with Egypt. I am using tectonic map script and FullVP.

 

[Funak]

Switching the pathfinder at start is actually harder than it sounds, a lot of startup stuff is hardcoded (or harder coded, if that makes sense). I'm pushing another beta now.

Well, sorry for not being programming savvy .

How about just adding a pathfinder to ever human player (and adjusting the AI handicaps accordingly). Yeah you'd end up starting with 2 units at that point, but maybe that's fine?

 

[Sekisetsu]

I had a crash with the new patch at the first turns playing with Egypt. I am using tectonic map script and FullVP.

same with the Celts

Gazebo said: ↑
Switching the pathfinder at start is actually harder than it sounds, a lot of startup stuff is hardcoded (or harder coded, if that makes sense). I'm pushing another beta now.

Well, sorry for not being programming savvy .

How about just adding a pathfinder to ever human player (and adjusting the AI handicaps accordingly). Yeah you'd end up starting with 2 units at that point, but maybe that's fine?

With really advanced setup you can start with a pathfinder instead a warrior. So the ai starts only with one warrior more than you.

 

[PapaRockett]

I had a crash with the new patch at the first turns playing with Egypt. I am using tectonic map script and FullVP.

same with the Celts.

Yup, same here as Celts. This is the message I got in FireTuner before it crashed:

PlotHelpManager: GameInfo.PolicyBranchTypes[-1] is undefined

 

[Gazebo]

I had a crash with the new patch at the first turns playing with Egypt. I am using tectonic map script and FullVP.

I'll look.

Edit: my release merge duplicated a line it shouldn't have. Line removed, will reupload now.

Link: https://mega.nz/#!XEth0TbA!Eb-OvXhEq3fKgesWS01KblEqO7c_9Mt0nPABQ2wz4zs

G

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Switching the pathfinder at start is actually harder than it sounds, a lot of startup stuff is hardcoded (or harder coded, if that makes sense). I'm pushing another beta now.

Changes:

• Reworked policy cost model a bit, should scale in the inverse (more early, fewer late).
• Adjusted wonder policy cost
• Adjusted Epic/Marathon tech speed back down to vanilla values (200%/300%). Should help AI GPT issues and balance policy rates a bit more.
• Fixed some github issues that were posted

Doing some final testing, will push soonish.

Edit: and here's the link: https://mega.nz/#!vNNzwaYS!i6Oy_mSRWOXAsupva9tsBM0zebAhikcFuBTCwiUFb6c

CP/43 CP is savegame compatible, CBO is not (as the values won't update). You can install it all but no CBO changes will carry over.

G

Nice changes, but if I read it right isn't the policy cost model going to achieve the opposite of what you wanted it to do in the first place? Early culture sources such as ruins, right resources and culture UA/UBs will only increase in worth and allow those with them to ball faster.
Does this patch make AI settle cities less weirdly? All never made more than 2-4 before like 100+-200+ turns in before a point when they all suddenly made 4-5 more cities (if space was available) in a very short timespan. I know expanding in 9th June version is very ill-advised, but the AI doesn't seem to really care for that as it still makes 10 cities in Classical with Tradition just like it did before, it just does them in irratical waves, not consistently adding new territory if space is available as it more-or-less did before, but waiting a seemingly set amount of time before sending another wave of settlers.

 

[Gazebo]

Nice changes, but if I read it right isn't the policy cost model going to achieve the opposite of what you wanted it to do in the first place? Early culture sources such as ruins, right resources and culture UA/UBs will only increase in worth and allow those with them to ball faster.
Does this patch make AI settle cities less weirdly? All never made more than 2-4 before like 100+-200+ turns in before a point when they all suddenly made 4-5 more cities (if space was available) in a very short timespan. I know expanding in 9th June version is very ill-advised, but the AI doesn't seem to really care for that as it still makes 10 cities in Classical with Tradition just like it did before, it just does them in irratical waves, not consistently adding new territory if space is available as it more-or-less did before, but waiting a seemingly set amount of time before sending another wave of settlers.

That scale model is relative to the other model (i.e. more early and fewer late compared to beta 1). Overall your first policy will be a little faster, but all policies should come a little bit slower. The culture from trade routes element balances things out a bit as well.

Edit: no real changes to city settlement logic, no. Mapsize or gamespeed do play a factor (and I can't really control for that).

G

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

That scale model is relative to the other model (i.e. more early and fewer late compared to beta 1). Overall your first policy will be a little faster, but all policies should come a little bit slower. The culture from trade routes element balances things out a bit as well.

Edit: no real changes to city settlement logic, no. Mapsize or gamespeed do play a factor (and I can't really control for that).

G

I still think it would've been way better to inflate the base numbers to fix the culture imbalance. As it is, it's still 2 Culture for Gustavus with Tobaccos, Palace and a Monument, whereas Celts with 3 Fur at that point can get more than 8 (2 from Palace+Monument, 3 from Fur, 3 from religion), so four times more. If the base policy costs were kept the same as previously or slightly increased but the culture/science cost per city was lowered compared to beta and Monuments gave 2 Culture and Palace gave 2, it'd be a less steep difference. It'd be 4 vs 10 - not 4 times the difference as previously, but 2,5, so the impact of RNG and uniques would be lowered as the basic sources of culture everyone has would be strengthened. Having them at a flimsy
1 Culture is the case of all the problems because every external source you have is going to double what you have.

 

[kawyua]

I wouldn't mind reverting industry, imperialism and rationalism unlocks to renaissance. Then, ideologies unlocks modern. This is considering the idea of making early policies more expensive... What happened back then to make it to how it is?

That would considerably lessen the blow, since a lot of the stronger policies come later on. Also, it takes a while for a normal civ to get the infrastructure for culture! Being locked out of later policy trees sucks pretty bad

 

[tu_79]

Turn 2. I met a mayan scout. Even in the hipothetic case that it found a level up goody hut before turn 2, it's been always the case that I always meet first a scout. And I only ever see pathfinders after turn 30, when they could have been produced in cities.

 

[Gazebo]

I still think it would've been way better to inflate the base numbers to fix the culture imbalance. As it is, it's still 2 Culture for Gustavus with Tobaccos, Palace and a Monument, whereas Celts with 3 Fur at that point can get more than 8 (2 from Palace+Monument, 3 from Fur, 3 from religion), so four times more. If the base policy costs were kept the same as previously or slightly increased but the culture/science cost per city was lowered compared to beta and Monuments gave 2 Culture and Palace gave 2, it'd be a less steep difference. It'd be 4 vs 10 - not 4 times the difference as previously, but 2,5, so the impact of RNG and uniques would be lowered as the basic sources of culture everyone has would be strengthened. Having them at a flimsy
1 Culture is the case of all the problems because every external source you have is going to double what you have.

I hear you, definitely. The version linked above is still in flux, mainly because I'm trying to find this magical middle ground. It is more complicated than you might think, trying to find an algorithm that works for all varieties of game speed and style.

G

 

[ElliotS]

I hear you, definitely. The version linked above is still in flux, mainly because I'm trying to find this magical middle ground. It is more complicated than you might think, trying to find an algorithm that works for all varieties of game speed and style.

G

Current question: What's the winrate between tall and wide in your testing?

I think the winrate needs to be higher for wide because of the ease of going tall. If you're equally likely towi n going tall vs going wide, then what's the point of all the hassle of war or expansion when you can get insane consistency in tall civs?

The difficulty of going tall should be making your cities efficient enough to overcome the advantage gained by wide players having many more cities, and leveraging the lead you get by not spending resources expanding to snowball ahead of the sprawling empires of your opponents.

My sample size is small and player-biased, so I'm wondering what your data says.

 

[Gazebo]

Current question: What's the winrate between tall and wide in your testing?

I think the winrate needs to be higher for wide because of the ease of going tall. If you're equally likely towi n going tall vs going wide, then what's the point of all the hassle of war or expansion when you can get insane consistency in tall civs?

The difficulty of going tall should be making your cities efficient enough to overcome the advantage gained by wide players having many more cities, and leveraging the lead you get by not spending resources expanding to snowball ahead of the sprawling empires of your opponents.

My sample size is small and player-biased, so I'm wondering what your data says.

Overall? Wide still has an advantage. It is more slight, however, than before.

 

[josephrandall]

I play with this starting unit swap since before BNW, it's true the Shoshones messed things a little but I found a way to make it work.

Spoiler Feel free to use :

--Remove AI extra units based on difficulty (personal preference)
UPDATE HandicapInfos SET StartingMinorDefenseUnits = '1';
UPDATE HandicapInfos SET AIStartingDefenseUnits = '0';
UPDATE HandicapInfos SET AIStartingExploreUnits = '0';
UPDATE HandicapInfos SET AIStartingWorkerUnits = '0';
--Replace Starting Warrior with a Pathfinder
UPDATE Eras SET StartingDefenseUnits='0' Where Type='ERA_ANCIENT';
UPDATE Eras SET StartingExploreUnits='1' Where Type='ERA_ANCIENT';
--Dirty Fix to remove extra (harcoded?) initial scout
DELETE FROM Civilization_FreeUnits WHERE CivilizationType = 'CIVILIZATION_SHOSHONE' AND NOT UnitClassType = 'UNITCLASS_SETTLER';

Where does this get applied ?