New Beta Version - March 1st (3/1)

[Crisp]

There are a number of changes that affect pantheon balance as a consequence of other design goals.

Most pantheons have had their faith yields reduced. The goal here I can infer is on the basis of having slower religious foundation and unit production, and please enlighten me if I am incorrect. But I am curious as to the why this has been executed in this fashion, rather than just increasing costs or buffing the pantheons here that have been indirectly buffed by others being nerfed. The shrine cannot be the reason behind this as the number could be just as easily 10% science from faith as 20%.

The shrine as mentioned by another poster affects the strength of global yields from things such as Goddess of festivals and God of war as they do not benefit you scientifically and are hence weaker.

As many of the changes are done in flat reductions rather than percentages (as the numbers are becoming to small for proper granular adjustments.) Many balances have changed entirely. Using the faith on improved luxury resource pantheons as the base line as they are all the most directly comparable and easy to balance against, Most have been changed to 1 faith from 2. And some more complex pantheons with yields 3 or greater have also had their yields reduced by one.

Specific examples of this concept in the spoiler.

Spoiler :

Some complex pantheons % differences in faith production vs. the improved luxury resource base line of 1 faith have changed as follows.

• Goddess of festivals was 50% greater faith now 100% per unique luxury resource
• God of Creation was 50% greater faith now 100% flat in capital
• God of Commerce was 50% greater faith per city connection now 100%
• Goddess of beauty was 100% greater faith per wonder now 300% greater.

As the above have unique metrics i.e. wonders. Rather than an improved resource they are the hardest to balance.

Similar metrics to the luxury resource

• God of Craftsman was 50% greater faith per Quarry now 100%
• Sun God was 50% greater faith per improved Wheat now 100%

Unchanged but relative power increased.

• Goddess of Purity was 0% greater faith now 100%
• God of The Open Sky was 0% greater now 100%
• Goddess of The Hunt was 0% now 100%

There are some missing here but I have run out of steam and you get the idea.

I don't personally have a strong opinions of a lot of these balance changes. Just curious the basis for them. As they seem to make the luxury resource improvement pantheons substantially inferior.

 

[hokath]

Same bonuses as before. I fixed some rather nasty quirks in the AI specialization optimization system, maybe it is that?

I'll try again on normal speed and see if I do any better. An initial thought - do the city state quest rewards scale properly with game speed? I could see that giving enough faith to found a religion so early, maybe.

 

[Funak]

Was the city range limit extended in this beta?

I was trying to liberate a CS that fell to barbarians and the city was bombarding my units resting in the 3rd ring from it.

Barb techlevel have always been iffy, I've ran into this situation a bunch of times in a lot of versions. So to answer your question, no it was not extended in this beta.

 

[tu_79]

I don't personally have a strong opinions of a lot of these balance changes. Just curious the basis for them. As they seem to make the luxury resource improvement pantheons substantially inferior.[/QUOTE]

Some changes I can explain. Science from pop size was giving too much importance on food tiles, making them more desirable than Great People Improvements. Also, a common strategy was to increase pop size over any other thing, so it was a no brainer to prioritize food.

New buildings are a way to provide for science while at the same time incite players to focus on some resources, so every game feels a little more unique.

The change in wonders is to make other play styles more viable (rigth now, only science focus is worthy).

New military upgrades are a way to keep coherence: exploration, cheap weak melee, costly heavy melee, fast and weak short ranged, slow long ranged, and city focused. You could raise an army in Classical Era and use the same tactics and keep promotions, while upgrading your units.

I suppose changes in religion are to adapt to the new system.

 

[Crisp]

Some changes I can explain.

To clarify I understand the other changes as I have been abreast the discussion that preceded the changes. It was just the pantheon changes I didn't understand.

 

[tu_79]

To clarify I understand the other changes as I have been abreast the discussion that preceded the changes. It was just the pantheon changes I didn't understand.

Ah, ok. I don't truly understand them neither. Maybe it was required for the other changes to not imbalance religions.

 

[Gazebo]

Will you also include the new VMC v73 into the next version?

I always check his DLL for fixes for his content, but the API stuff related to unit stats will not be included (too many conflicts with our changes). So bugfixes and new API events where possible, but if it conflicts too much, I don't include it.

G

 

[Tomice]

To clarify I understand the other changes as I have been abreast the discussion that preceded the changes. It was just the pantheon changes I didn't understand.

There's a thread over in the general balance subforum (Which gets overlooked by most, so posting there sometimes feels like participating in an obscure illuminati meeting ).

I didn't contribute anything meaningful, but AFAIK it was something about pantheons being too much about their faith yield - meaning that picking the pantheon most likely to earn you an early religion was always the best choice, devaluing the more interesting non-faith effects of pantheons.

There was also some consent about religions appearing too early (by design/lore/history they should be strongest during the medieval era).

Add some minor imbalancies brought up in the thread plus some adaptation towards the other changes - voila, you have the patch notes above

 

[notque]

I ended up having my first game ever that went entirely peaceful, great expands, great land, get totally destroyed by happiness and lack of gold. Doing every option in my power, immediately as possible to try and address it.

Not upset at all that was the outcome, but that was the most amazing game I've had devolve into an unsaveable mess.

The real thing that destroyed the game was missionaries. I built missionaries very often, spread my religion, had good faith production.

Missionaries converted a few cities on the same turn, and i went into massive unhappiness with rebels, which spawned 3 guys on the first turn, and another guy on the next.

That is a pretty huge swing of things, I'd rather have been attacked by an army or something, would have been way less impactful than a few missionaries.

Science balance was hard to understand, I had to keep checking the infoaddict because there's no way to really figure out where you should be in relevance to everyone else.

Had no chances for wonders, but wasn't even going to try it after the Egypt game, and that was for good reason.

But essentially, I had a great start, and tanked hard out of my own choices + missionaries. I might replay the game and expand less aggressively next time. I don't think I shouldn't have lost, instead I wonder how I was leading or close to leading in so many things and it all went to craziness horribleness so quickly over a few missionaries.

 

[Daya]

Does anyone else feel like the 'OR-System' regarding wonders (have either tech or #policies) makes everything a little too wild? Every policy you get a bunch of buildable wonders; distinct teching for wonders seems mostly pointless.
There doesnt have to be put much thought into a sophisticated tech path when trying to play 'cultural-wonderous', which feels kinda sad (Played as culture-& produktion heavy siam + wonder pantheon on immortal)

I would rather prefer an 'AND-System' (specific tech AND #policies). This would certainly be more favourable for tech leaders (at least if they can still manage to do well culture wise), but would feel much more 'controllable' and therefore strategic. Would possibly be more fun in my opinion.

 

[notque]

Does anyone else feel like the 'OR-System' regarding wonders (have either tech or #policies) makes everything a little too wild? Every policy you get a bunch of buildable wonders; distinct teching for wonders seems mostly pointless.
There doesnt have to be put much thought into a sophisticated tech path when trying to play 'cultural-wonderous', which feels kinda sad (Played as culture-& produktion heavy siam + wonder pantheon on immortal)

I would rather prefer an 'AND-System' (specific tech AND #policies). This would certainly be more favourable for tech leaders (at least if they can still manage to do well culture wise), but would feel much more 'controllable' and therefore strategic. Would possibly be more fun in my opinion.

Agree entirely, it should be an AND System, not an OR system. There is no point in 2 games I've played with the beta to even attempt a wonder because all Civs open them at roughly the same time.

Teching for them is also completely irrelevant with the OR system.

I don't know how you did so well getting wonders though in your game, the second we all open them at about the same time, they all come off the board in rapid succession.

 

[Dunkah]

I have not started playing the new system yet, but from what I am reading this AND system sounds like a better approach.
After all Civs should have both the tech and the clout to be able to build one of these.

 

[grmagne]

I have not started playing the new system yet, but from what I am reading this AND system sounds like a better approach.
After all Civs should have both the tech and the clout to be able to build one of these.

I'd like to have an announcement that some unknown civ has begun constructing Wonder X. Then I'd know which ones I'm racing for or maybe choose not to build at all. It's not realistic, but I'm fine with that because it's also not realistic that the Ancient Egyptians would have to cancel their Pyramid of Giza project because some unknown civ on another continent just built their own pyramid.

 

[BenchBreaker]

seems that from the games so far, AI civs that take progress are usually way ahead tech-wise.

authority have to constantly kill barbs to keep up which is inconsistent and tradition need 4 policies to get 1 science specialist were as progress can get a lot more science from city connections at 3 policies, not to mention the pop growth in gives a significant amount of science compared to the lowered cost of ancient techs.

early on the other trees are stuck on 4 science per turn for ages whilst progress rush ahead through capital pop growth. short while later connect cap first expansion city connection and god of commerce pantheon will give 10 science which is likely to triples science, so techs goes from 15 turns to 5 turns

 

[Gazebo]

Does anyone else feel like the 'OR-System' regarding wonders (have either tech or #policies) makes everything a little too wild? Every policy you get a bunch of buildable wonders; distinct teching for wonders seems mostly pointless.
There doesnt have to be put much thought into a sophisticated tech path when trying to play 'cultural-wonderous', which feels kinda sad (Played as culture-& produktion heavy siam + wonder pantheon on immortal)

I would rather prefer an 'AND-System' (specific tech AND #policies). This would certainly be more favourable for tech leaders (at least if they can still manage to do well culture wise), but would feel much more 'controllable' and therefore strategic. Would possibly be more fun in my opinion.

I'm leaning this way as well. I love that culture players get a chance to snipe wonders, but it is a bit harder to follow (and penalizes science a little too much). I'll address this in the next version.

 

[Atlas627]

You could also adjust it so that only some wonders are unlocked with policies, say 2 with each tier of policies.

So, for example, 1 policy unlocks nothing...

2 policies (assuming openers don't count?) unlock the Pyramids (strong tech even without Pyramids but a pain to rush so big benefit but doesn't make avoiding Calendar in the future a no-brainer) and the Temple of Artemis (grow tall not wide, Military Theory still a good tech if you want to do any military at all or go for Writing, but this lets civs who don't want either to still get the Temple of Artemis)

3 policies unlocks the Roman Forum (again, Mathematics has plenty going for it but is a pain to get to) and Mausoleum of Halicarnassus (the tech is weak so you might have already been avoiding it and want to get it late from policies, but you can choose to tech it earlier than this and build it)

4 policies unlocks the Great Library (Writing still a great tech and this lets civs who invest into culture still have a shot at it...I hope. Haven't tested tech rates enough yet) and the Great Wall (impossible to reach tech for non-science defensive civs, still good tech due to Bowmen)

5 policies unlocks the Colossus (pita tech to research if you'll make best use of the Colossus but still worthwhile if you need to defend yourself in the future) and the Hagia Sophia (this is about the time when the Hagia Sophia should be competing to found a religion, right?)

And so on. Better than an AND system in my opinion, but then again I also think that the opener and finisher wonders with no tech requirements is better than the AND system.

 

[notque]

You could also adjust it so that only some wonders are unlocked with policies, say 2 with each tier of policies.

Certainly another option, one of my biggest issues is every wonder gets unlocked at the same time. This all guess and check territory though, I have no idea how it will play out.

And it does make looking at the tech tree for wonders meaningless. You'd have to set the policy numbers much harsher to give you even the ability to beeline and pick up a wonder before the policy kicks in in the early game.

 

[Taikavarpu]

Hi, I have been strolling around these forums for a quite a while now, and finally to open my mouth. I absolutely love the CPP and it is more or less the only reason why I’m still playing CiV. I was testing the current beta, and thought I would comment on couple of changes. All my games are played on immortal, standard speed.

About the pantheon nerf, in the two games I started, the AI founded all available religions between turns 50 and 90 (standard speed, immortal). This is nothing new, but the new pantheons make it really hard for human players to get a religion that fast. I have no idea how the AI is still capable of such faith production, despite the pantheon nerfs.

It is also worth noting that the pantheon nerf indirectly buffs all civs who have the ability to generate extra early game faith. (The Maya, the Celts, Ethiopia, Spain etc.) With the way early game science is now, all civs that can generate extra early game science are also significantly stronger. The Maya feel especially powerful with their Kuna, as it produces both faith and science.

About the wonder requirement change, I think the idea of imposing additional requirements to wonders is a great, but I am not sure if I like the current system. Wonders unlocking through the policy count diminishes the need to plan your playing regarding wonders, because simply having a lot of policies gives you all the wonders you want. Even with a tech lead, unless you had completely overtaken everyone else technologically, the old system still required you to navigate the tech tree in a way that you get quickly to the wonders you want or someone else might steal them. In the same way, if you were not leading in techs, you could still bee line certain wonders effectively. Now even the lead of a single policy in the culture race gives you a chance to build any wonder before anyone else. Because of this, comeback mechanisms like bee lining are no longer very viable. The policy lead is absolute, while tech lead neccessarly wasn’t/isn’t.

In my opinion the best idea would be to have different requirements for different wonders, like we already have for policy tree finishers and some other wonders (Petra, Machu Pichu etc.). This way all kinds of civs would have a chance to build certain wonders. Which wonders you get to build varies with playstyle. It makes the game more interesting, and actually guides the AI to choose wonders that are most benefitting for its play. If this is too complicated, then the AND-system (wonders require tech and n policies) already mentioned here seems like the best choice to me.

Also, barbarian galleys were already a pain to deal with, because you have absolutely no counter to them during the ancient era. Now on top of that their combat strength got now buffed. I don’t think it makes sense in the first place for barbarians to get naval units before civilizations do. Would it be possible to change it so that they start spawning a bit later?

If you think I am babbling complete nonsense, feel free to disagree with anything

 

[Wario Mario]

Yeah, I like the idea of some wonders being purely culture based and others being scientific, rather than all of them sharing one universal system. I wonder if gold wonders and faith wonders could be locked behind religious (a few already are) or economic requirements as well.

 

[notque]

Yeah, I like the idea of some wonders being purely culture based and others being scientific, rather than all of them sharing one universal system. I wonder if gold wonders and faith wonders could be locked behind religious (a few already are) or economic requirements as well.

That sounds like a far better system. The only issue is, often you use a wonder to get a thing. I use a wonder, to get faith.

In this type of system, you would have to have faith, so you'd get a wonder to increase your lead on it. Not to get it.

Not a bad thing, but a nuance that needs to be considered.