New Beta Version - March 15th (3-15)

[General_Drax]

Last versions boosted difficulty a lot. I was playing comfortably on Emperor through the Warmongering path. Now I cannot win just one game. Planning to drop difficult to King at least for Progress and Tradition games. Even almost death AIs can pump out upgraded units at an incredible rate. Maybe I could win in the long run on Score but other kind of Victor types are out of reach for me in 3.15. About the Navy: do not even try to found on coast IF you are not prepared to invest half of your supply in ships: even triremes can destroy a city. I just did id with Denmark =).

 

[Gobbledygook5000]

Last versions boosted difficulty a lot. I was playing comfortably on Emperor through the Warmongering path. Now I cannot win just one game. Planning to drop difficult to King at least for Progress and Tradition games. Even almost death AIs can pump out upgraded units at an incredible rate. Maybe I could win in the long run on Score but other kind of Victor types are out of reach for me in 3.15. About the Navy: do not even try to found on coast IF you are not prepared to invest half of your supply in ships: even triremes can destroy a city. I just did id with Denmark =).

Is there a legacy version you can recommend that is more balanced? I do like most of the changes, and I like the AI not being completely daft like in vanilla, but this has just been an exercise in frustration so far. I want a challenge, but I don't want to feel like I'm being cheated.

And with you saying to not even try to have a coastal city if you aren't going to just spam naval units, it really seems like this mod is just broken to me.

 

[andersw]

While 2% is blatant hyperbole, I do have to agree that archers currently feel too weak. A lot of that comes down to the ample sources of terrain based defense combined with units who gain cover immediately upon creation. Archers don't really get many methods to buff their damage outside of their core promotion line, which has to compete with other units getting defense boosts from their own core promotion lines as well as all of the above. As they are countered to some extent by both horsemen and swordsmen lines for different reasons, it puts them in an awkward spot.

Probably best just to slightly increase their ranged strength as a result, or a promotion that increases damage against opponents in open terrain baseline.

Before it was far to easy to archer rush.
There is some use for archers but mostly to purchase some before mathematics so I can upgrade to crossbows without having to build a barracks,

 

[AnemoneMeer]

2% is not a blatant hyperbole. At all. Do I need to take a pic? They do the tiniest little sliver of damage. They're utterly pathetic. Meanwhile two enemy Triremes can devastate my walled city and the unit inside from full health to 0 in 4 turns, while the city + archer can't even get a single trireme in the red in the same amount of time....... Mmk. Fun.

All in all, so far my experience with VP on Emperor is that this is some kind of sick joke for masochists. Once again in my current game, like my last one, multiple Civs declared war on me in the same turn. In this game, I stayed utterly peaceful and did my best to be friendly with everyone. I went with Morocco and Progress in a (vain) attempt to stay even on tech. I was the first to a pantheon but somehow the last to a religion with like 27 faith per turn. And then my prophet didn't even spawn in my capital and I had to waste 3 turns to get it there. Awesome.
I built walls and kept my units at the max, but kept them away from enemy borders. Both Carthage and Zulu were at war with each other before, but neither prosecuted their war against each other seriously. They just had a few battles and then stopped. But of course against me they suddenly are ready to throw everything they've got to take a city. And of course, all their units are highly upgraded compared to mine. I've got Zulu spearmen attacking across the river to my spearmen fortified in a forest and their spearmen is doing more than double damage against mine..... Mmk. Fun. Fair and balanced! Meanwhile, my swordsmen attacking a horsemen in an open grassland gets a "minor victory."

I'd really love to see how this is possible on Emperor and above. It seems like the only legit strategy is just to constantly spam military units, go with Authority, and just kill everything and try to manage war weariness somehow. And not build useless archers.

Archers take a large penalty vs naval units, and naval units have higher CS than equivalent era land units. It's actually working as intended for archers to not really be able to stop them. Siege units and your own naval units are meant to be the only real way to stop a naval bombardment.

 

[Gobbledygook5000]

Archers take a large penalty vs naval units, and naval units have higher CS than equivalent era land units. It's actually working as intended for archers to not really be able to stop them. Siege units and your own naval units are meant to be the only real way to stop a naval bombardment.

Fine, but is it working as intended for 2 triremes to take a walled & garrisoned city without support in 4 turns? Also, my archers are doing the the exact same infinitesimal sliver of damage to every land unit as they are to the triremes.

 

[crdvis16]

I don't think others here share your experience with archers.

1v1 an archer beats a pathfinder. 1v1 an archer might even beat a warrior if the archer shoots first, but I'm not 100% sure.

Archer+warrior should beat warrior+warrior with some use of zone of control I believe.

When learning a new game (or a heavily moded version of a familiar game) you might need to take some time to familiarize yourself with it before passing judgment.

 

[pineappledan]

@Gobbledygook5000 , I share your experience with archers. I'm of a minority on these forums that was deeply unhappy with the changes to archers. My recommendation is just clench your teeth until you get to classical and can build Comp Bows, or alter the CS/RCS values for archer units in your own local files like I do. They are found in unitcombat.sql Just search for UNIT_ARCHER and set their power to whatever you want.

(I think) boat nerfs are coming. There has been a lot of discussion about how the AI has gotten much stronger at using their navy, and that the numbers for naval units had been inflated up until now to counteract the AI’s comparatively better use of land units

 

[Gobbledygook5000]

This is getting old. But of course it's the usual thing. How dare a newbie have an opinion!? Let's all dismiss him as clueless and rush to defend the status quo!
Here are the images to prove exactly what I'm saying:
https://ibb.co/DR16Hzz https://ibb.co/HHb5X4Z https://ibb.co/N12YR7P https://ibb.co/dmWX2bB https://ibb.co/Fz3Z5dw https://ibb.co/c8XgWDS https://ibb.co/0sPTc9B https://ibb.co/nfxR4GK

And @crdvis16 I have familiarized myself enough at this point, +400 turns in several different games, to decide that in its current state this mod is broken, highly unbalanced, and more frustrating than fun.

Also, I would argue that at higher difficulties VP is not a strategy game but a puzzle game. To win you don't adapt to your Civ, the map, the other Civs, and the situation. Rather, you have to figure out exactly the right steps to follow in every game and follow them exactly. Not to mention you must get extremely lucky with your map & spawn. So, congrats on making an insanely difficult puzzle game that a few hardcore people can brag about having figured out, but I was just hoping to find a better AI in one of my favorite strategy games. Also, coming into this after not playing Civ for a while, I was expecting to find the de facto mod, which is 6 years old, to be in a highly stable and finished state. Instead I'm finding a mod that seems to still be changing wildly from version to version. I'm really confused as to how a 6 year old mod in a 10 year old game is not just basically done by now?

 

[Ragic]

I often wonder how they get anything done. Everyone seems to be playing different difficulties, different maps, different sets of mod mods and then edit the files to their own tastes on top of that. But then this isn’t a game company and we aren’t their customers.

 

[pineappledan]

Archers were 67 before the round of adjustments that set them down to 45. This was done because VP sets starting city attack range to 1, and people started exploiting the fact that archers outrange cities by building 4 archers and using their starting pathfinder to capture AI capitals early.

The solution people wanted was to make Archers do zero damage. The side effect of this is that archers do zero damage, and are, as a result, useless. People on this forum will defend this decision because this is what they specifically asked for, and are now biased against a restoration to archers. This is their row to hoe now.

I recommend you set archers back up to 67, lower triremes to 12 or 13, and have yourself a good time.

 

[XplosiveLun]

I disagree. I actually welcome the change for archer. The shift on melee combat in ancient warfare feels nice. I'm not a history major but from what my heard from you guys, ancient combat is all about melee and thus the formation and placement of unit. The current state in my opinion is accurately representing this and in an interesting gamey way.

Archers does not have to be as strong as other contemporary units. They already shine in what they are supposed to do --- sustainably attacking enemies without melee. They are not supposed to be the game changer in ancient era. They are supposed to be an auxiliary of an army, providing supportive bonus like attack without retaliation and healing.

 

[pineappledan]

I disagree. I actually welcome the change for archer. The shift on melee combat in ancient warfare feels nice. I'm not a history major but from what my heard from you guys, ancient combat is all about melee and thus the formation and placement of unit. The current state in my opinion is accurately representing this and in an interesting gamey way.

Archers does not have to be as strong as other contemporary units. They already shine in what they are supposed to do --- sustainably attacking enemies without melee. They are not supposed to be the game changer in ancient era. They are supposed to be an auxiliary of an army, providing supportive bonus like attack without retaliation and healing.

Historicity would never be the deciding factor over gameplay anyways. However, an appeal to history that archery wasn't militarily valuable is so silly-on-its-face that I haven't bothered to respond to it until now, but here it goes:

Archery was a mainstay of human combat from pre-agricultural times until the invention of reliable matchlock guns. They have been a relatively unmodified military technology for at least ten thousand years; even crossbows failed to replace them completely. The idea that they weren't extremely useful in combat is so obviously untrue that it should be self-evident to anyone. The only explanation I can come up for this is a level of Philhellenism that borders on obsession, because Greeks were a rare breed of ancient people who barely used archery at all. Countless people enjoyed incredible success and built vast empires with the bow and arrow as a mainstay of their militaries. The Nubians were renowned for their use of the bow, and they conquered the entire Nile Delta. Indians value archery as the highest martial discipline, on par with swordplay, and skill with a bow has taken on mythical, religious value for them. The Mongols would rely mainly on archers in the 14th century to create the largest land empire the world has ever seen.

The fact that a single backwards Mediterranean people hammered bronze armour that resisted arrows, and it helped them lose slightly less badly against a Persian invasion does not close the book on the use of archery in the ancient world. Need I remind people that the Greeks lost their war with those archery-loving Persians, and that Xerxes burned Athens to the ground?

 

[Stalker0]

I use archers, they are still useful...just not the automatic go to unit, and they need melee support. As it should be.

 

[XplosiveLun]

self-evident. Philhellenism.

I highly appreciate your explanation on why archers are historically good. But blatantly calling someone Philhellenism and assuming others already know about history is rude, not all people were as educated as you on the matter of ancient warfare and Greco-Roman history. No need to use strong language to label someone. As far as I know about history, it is from basic elementary school history, video games, hearsay and perhaps more legitimate ways like CrashCourse World History, and maybe Invicta. Not that I was authoritative in interpreting history. I definitely do need factual input.

Not that I'm biased towards Greco-Roman culture. From what I heard, Roman army focuses on melee combat, archers are auxiliary and I referenced that. I do know that archers become more important in later periods. This makes the major decision to weaken archers and slowly empowering archery line appealing and "historical".

Historicity would never be the deciding factor over gameplay anyways.

What I was proposing is drawing historical examples to inspire game design. Whether gameplay design or historicity should be more emphasized, I don't know. We have to start somewhere and some people prefer that over another. But the thing is we must choose the lesser of two evil. Don't be half-hearted. In this case, it is clear that melee army is going to be the bulk of VP warfare and ranged units gaining more presence in later periods.

 

[pineappledan]

Greece and the Italian peninsula were functionally backwaters in the Ancient era. Roman and Greeks would be Classical armies by definition, because the boundaries of classical antiquity are defined by the rise of Greek Culture in the 8th century BC and the fall of the Western Roman Empire between the 4th and 6th centuries AD. Once again, a lot of unproductive, Eurocentrism defines a lot of these game concepts. Rome didn't gain independence from the Etruscans, and couldn't really be said to exist as a political entity, until some time in the 6th century BC.

If you were basing your opinions off of Grecco-Roman army compositions and tactics then you should be calling for a nerf to Comp Bows.

 

[AnemoneMeer]

I recommend you set archers back up to 67, lower triremes to 12 or 13, and have yourself a good time.

Personally, I think archers would be better at 56, stronger than they are now, but worse than they were before. They're a bit too weak atm relative to other units of the era.

 

[Stalker0]

Personally, I think archers would be better at 56, stronger than they are now, but worse than they were before. They're a bit too weak atm relative to other units of the era.

I definitely would support a +1 CS at the very least, I think it would give them a touch more survivability, and warriors would still do plenty of damage as well.

A +1 RCS is probably fine, I'm good either way on that one.

 

[LarryAR]

I love history and have a archery target in the backyard with a bow hanging in my study.
I love games and have Civilization 5 Vox Populi in my study also. The game is the abstraction.

Vox Populi is constantly evolving, improving, learning.
Back a step in one area while going forward two steps in other areas.

Often new versions require adjusting or learning new tactics and strategy.
That’s part of the pleasure / pain.

Sometimes I ease the pain by adjusting a mod file or simply playing a version or level I’m comfortable with.
And I keep playing one more turn.

 

[Omen of Peace]

I would keep Archers at CS 4 so they remain fragile, but raise RCS to 6, as an experiment.

I have familiarized myself enough at this point, +400 turns in several different games, to decide that in its current state this mod is broken, highly unbalanced, and more frustrating than fun.

That is your prerogative.
To be heard it's better however to present your arguments as factually as possible, though the way the game "feels" can also be receivable.
Not to say you haven't done that! (I haven't gone back and re-read all your posts...) But as you may imagine we get newcomers from time to time who barge in, call the mod "broken", and... well, extreme qualifiers like this tend to get one's viewpoint dismissed, which can be a shame. A fresh point of view often brings value - up to you to decide what you want to bring to the community.

Also, I would argue that at higher difficulties VP is not a strategy game but a puzzle game. To win you don't adapt to your Civ, the map, the other Civs, and the situation. Rather, you have to figure out exactly the right steps to follow in every game and follow them exactly. Not to mention you must get extremely lucky with your map & spawn. So, congrats on making an insanely difficult puzzle game that a few hardcore people can brag about having figured out, but I was just hoping to find a better AI in one of my favorite strategy games.

Then lower the difficulty? You'll still get a great AI.

Also, coming into this after not playing Civ for a while, I was expecting to find the de facto mod, which is 6 years old, to be in a highly stable and finished state. Instead I'm finding a mod that seems to still be changing wildly from version to version. I'm really confused as to how a 6 year old mod in a 10 year old game is not just basically done by now?

Lots of reason...
Some subsystems like Happiness have proven really hard to get just right.
The AI continually gets better, which sometimes exposes issues with some mechanics.
And balance in such a complex, diverse, asymmetric game is quite hard to "finalize". Every nudge has ripple effects elsewhere.

 

[tu_79]

Is there a legacy version you can recommend that is more balanced? I do like most of the changes, and I like the AI not being completely daft like in vanilla, but this has just been an exercise in frustration so far. I want a challenge, but I don't want to feel like I'm being cheated.

And with you saying to not even try to have a coastal city if you aren't going to just spam naval units, it really seems like this mod is just broken to me.

You are playing an experimental beta. Last stable release is from July 2019.

Currently we are testing changes on city defense and in AI diplomacy. The changes in city defense led to lowering archers strength to prevent the unstoppable archer rush tactic.
There were two currents, one asked for weaker archers, the other asked for archers not able to do significant city damage. I'm on the second side.

I still produce archers. You may promote them to medic and hide behind two warriors, so you keep doing damage with the archer while healing your melee. They are less useful than before, but not useless.

And, sorry to debunk your rant, but the game is fairly playable if you know what you are doing. Clearly you do not yet. If every AI is taking on you before time, it's either that you did not care about diplomacy, or the diplomacy changes still need some tweaks.
I'm no masochist, I just downgraded to King difficulty because I enjoy being the leader of the pack. Emperor is still possible to win without serious thought, but it start being tedious for me, with too long-lasting wars for my taste.

I accept the current difficulty so some very skilled players can get their challenge game in deity. I'm no skilled player, so that means Emperor is my ceiling. And I'm happy with that.

PS. Really, the only serious problem with the current beta is how weak coastal cities have become.

 

[MIS]

The solution people wanted was to make Archers do zero damage. The side effect of this is that archers do zero damage,

LOL.

Also, I don't get the "VP is too difficult" theory from others on the thread. It has different balance structure, with some completely new mechanics (many Civ6-inspired, it would appear) than non-VP, so takes a while to get used to and see what works. Drop a few levels. I dropped from Deity (non-VP) to settler, and worked my way up. Have I crushed Settler/Chieftain/Warlord? Yes. Is Prince (what I'm playing now) too easy? Yes. I have three wars going on and I'm winning all of them. But I gain exposure to the new mechanics while the game forgives me for my many mistakes. Excellent players, experienced with this mod, should feel challenged on Deity. And that won't happen if I can come over from non-VP and crush it first time.

 

[ashendashin]

Civ6-inspired

This hurts me. Please do not speak such heresy in this holy sub-forum ever again.

There are mechanics inspired from Civ4 but stuff like diplomats* were around before Civ6 unless I missed something in my absence from gameplay,