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

Status
Not open for further replies.
As mentioned one post before, I can now play past 70 turns and want to say something about the balance.
I find this version extremly ridicoulus. Progress AI are able to spam settlers before the human with a tradition capital is able to. The AI seems to switch to settler as fast as the capital reach 4 citizen.
Pantheons are picked between turn 25-30. This happens, even ruins are disabled and not one religious CS is available. This means the AI is able to construct its shrine in under 5 turns and pick what ever pantheon it likes and the human have to take what is left.
AIs founding new cities seems to give enough food and hammer to the capital to grow and rush the next settler, making it difficult to keep the same pace as the AI is able to.
Even going for a cultural heavy pantheon and approach, other AIs are at same level or even higher than me in policies.
Maybe some people like a hard game in higher difficulty, but seeing AIs simply running away cause of artificial bonuses is odd.

The major question is:
Does this event driven system make any sense?
Constructing a wonder or settling a city is a big reward for it self, does it really need to give extra yields to the initiator? Others have said, they dont want a rubberbanding mechanic, thats ok, but the current system is a snowball system. If one AI is able to settle a bit more than others and/or get a bit more wonders in the initial phase, the bonuses might lead to an advantage, which lead to another wonder, another city, even more advantages. And in the end, there is a monster a human cant beat, except by early warmongering or using exploits.

I am now more than ever in favor of a simple per-turn-driven advantage mechanic for the AI, replacing the historic event driven mechanic.
My suggestion for a self regulating and wide-vs-tall balancing function I have mentioned in the previous version posts:
:c5food:/:c5production:/:c5gold:/:c5faith:
MedianYield * AverageGlobalCitySize * DifficultyModifier * ( 0.9 + 0.1 * Era) * ( 1 + 0.1 * NumberOwnCities) / NumberOwnCities
:c5culture:/:c5science:
MedianYield * AverageGlobalCitySize * DifficultyModifier * ( 0.9 + 0.1 * Era) * ( 1 + [CostIncrease / 2] * NumberOwnCities) / NumberOwnCities
 
BiteInTheMark said:
As mentioned one post before, I can now play past 70 turns and want to say something about the balance.
I find this version extremly ridicoulus. Progress AI are able to spam settlers before the human with a tradition capital is able to. The AI seems to switch to settler as fast as the capital reach 4 citizen.
Pantheons are picked between turn 25-30. This happens, even ruins are disabled and not one religious CS is available. This means the AI is able to construct its shrine in under 5 turns and pick what ever pantheon it likes and the human have to take what is left.
AIs founding new cities seems to give enough food and hammer to the capital to grow and rush the next settler, making it difficult to keep the same pace as the AI is able to.
Even going for a cultural heavy pantheon and approach, other AIs are at same level or even higher than me in policies.
Maybe some people like a hard game in higher difficulty, but seeing AIs simply running away cause of artificial bonuses is odd.

The major question is:
Does this event driven system make any sense?
Constructing a wonder or settling a city is a big reward for it self, does it really need to give extra yields to the initiator? Others have said, they dont want a rubberbanding mechanic, thats ok, but the current system is a snowball system. If one AI is able to settle a bit more than others and/or get a bit more wonders in the initial phase, the bonuses might lead to an advantage, which lead to another wonder, another city, even more advantages. And in the end, there is a monster a human cant beat, except by early warmongering or using exploits.

I am now more than ever in favor of a simple per-turn-driven advantage mechanic for the AI, replacing the historic event driven mechanic.
My suggestion for a self regulating and wide-vs-tall balancing function I have mentioned in the previous version posts:
:c5food:/:c5production:/:c5gold:/:c5faith:
MedianYield * AverageGlobalCitySize * DifficultyModifier * ( 0.9 + 0.1 * Era) * ( 1 + 0.1 * NumberOwnCities) / NumberOwnCities
:c5culture:/:c5science:
MedianYield * AverageGlobalCitySize * DifficultyModifier * ( 0.9 + 0.1 * Era) * ( 1 + [CostIncrease / 2] * NumberOwnCities) / NumberOwnCities
Click to expand...

The handicap system has worked virtually the same way for a long time. What you’re seeing is my improved builder/city AI, not a handicap thing.
 
Gazebo said:
The handicap system has worked virtually the same way for a long time. What you’re seeing is my improved builder/city AI, not a handicap thing.
Click to expand...
So you tell me the AI was getting already the same amount of yields by founding a city, entering an era, building a wonder?
I know you have reintroduced the yields for founding the capital, which wasnt there for a long time now. If the AI is now more cappable at decision making and didnt get more yields than before..... then its obviosly the capital founding bonus which lead to sometimes ridicoulus snowball chains. And I think this is not a good design decision.

We have talked a lot about the strategy to go very fast for conquest and overrun the AI before they can get an advantage from their bonuses. But this is a human decision problem, not a balance one. I think everyone knows, that rushing that early is some kind of exploit and accepts, that he is using that exploit. Going then to the forum and claiming, the game is not balanced, cause this is possible is for me irrational.
 
BiteInTheMark said:
So you tell me the AI was getting already the same amount of yields by founding a city, entering an era, building a wonder?
I know you have reintroduced the yields for founding the capital, which wasnt there for a long time now. If the AI is now more cappable at decision making and didnt get more yields than before..... then its obviosly the capital founding bonus which lead to sometimes ridicoulus snowball chains. And I think this is not a good design decision.

We have talked a lot about the strategy to go very fast for conquest and overrun the AI before they can get an advantage from their bonuses. But this is a human decision problem, not a balance one. I think everyone knows, that rushing that early is some kind of exploit and accepts, that he is using that exploit. Going then to the forum and claiming, the game is not balanced, cause this is possible is for me irrational.
Click to expand...

I just posted a similar point elsewhere, but without concrete numbers, 'feels' isn't a strong argument. AI bonuses from events are actually lower now than they were a few versions ago, as only a couple of events each game actually provide production/food to cities.

I also posted the code and logging info elsewhere, so there's abundant and transparent data for all players to discuss.

G
 
tu_79 said:
In some maps, it could be even better to produce a second Pathfinder for a few more ancient huts.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I do this 100% of the time when playing Shoshone.
crdvis16 said:
I often go shrine first, personally. Especially if I have a specific pantheon in mind.
Click to expand...
Same. Shrine is my current first build generally.

I like when there are different viable options for build order. I actually kind of liked when there was no starting warrior because it meant that warrior first could actually be a worthwhile strat in some cases. Not that I'm calling for that change to be reverted, just thought it might be relevant to this discussion.
 
Last edited:
JamesNinelives said:
I actually kind of liked when there was no starting warrior because it meant that warrior first could actually be a worthwhile strat in some cases. Not that I'm calling for that change to be reverted, just thought it might be relevant to this discussion.
Click to expand...
The option still remains to build a warrior first; two warriors out of the gate is nothing to scoff at, especially since they got buffed.
 
Just made a quick test with the Goddess of Home on Carthage's free lighthouse. No :c5food: :c5faith: proc, no hidden synergy with the UA. My stored faith remained the same before and after founding a city with that pantheon.
 
Stalker0 said:
Playing an interesting game on Emperor that I wanted to highlight. For the first time in a long while, I am truly being contested by a warmongering player from another continent. While I have air superiority, the Zulus have recently come in with this crazy navy (shown below is 1 of the two big navies he has working right now), and the mass destroyers have shut down my ability to air bombard. The Zulus have an incredibly large force and he is managing to snipe coastal cities and CS around my area. I remain the tech and policy leader, and so far no critical damage is done. But he has been landing troops on the shore, and if he manages to push a large army force to go along with this navy (which strategically should be the plan, we will see what he does), I would be in serious trouble.

There is one current exploit right now. I can retake Fes and liberate it. It instant kills the ship inside, and pushes the enemy forces to the edge of the border. For the ships that's not a big deal, but it will often push the land forces into the water, which makes them vulnerable to my air bombardment.



Update
I had to sue for peace due to war weariness, and so this is what the Zulus have now. Not as many land troops as I would like but he has put in solid air power in his coastal cities. Not too shabby Shaka, your actually looking scary



Update
I managed to get in a three way coalition with the Iroquois and Incas, and figured it was the best chance to make a dent in the Zulus. And dent I did...at least I thought. I got 8 ships with a couple of A bombs, and took out 11 planes (one issue the AI still has is it will stuff a newly taked city with planes before the city is fortified or healed up, which makes it easy to keep killing planes on the retake).

But the Zulu warmachine maybe invincible. He kept pushing like the loses didn't even happen. He has swept north to take out the Iroquois, and with those cities falling now I face his troops into my vulnerable core cities. My production is just not keeping up with the attrition. I am now about to conduct a full retreat from my outer lines, my only chance now is to whole up in my core big cities and tried to ride my science glut to victory. Also Stealth and Robotics are on the way, and may give me the weapons of war I need to turn the tide.





I am notably impressed by the AI in this campaign in a number of ways:

1) Pushing out not in. He hasn't thrown too much into the meat grinder of my inner cities, instead moving outwards to vulnerable coastal cities that his invincible navy can control. He is surrounding me before pushing.

2) Good combined arms. Strong naval push followed by a good mix of fighters and bombers. My air force is completely locked down. And then now the land forces pushing into the core.

Update
Looks like old Shaka has had enough of the song and dance, and has gone nuclear. He has nuked 3 cities, and still has 3 A bombs ready to go. I have positioned the last of my very meager forces into the mountains leading to my core cities, accepting that the fringe cities are lost. Twilight has come for Babylon.



Update
Shaka has taken my fringe cities, and given me peace. I was pretty surprised by this, and with such a high warscore (86) he should have asked me for some kind of tribute.

But still, my strong empire has now been pushed back to this...



Final Update
So as Shaka and I have a tense peace, he is proceeds to send a citadel with Lebensaum that cuts off 2 of my cities from the rest (well played Shaka). Askia comes out me from the east. Its a small fleet, except for one carrier....with 3 ATOMIC BOMBS!!! I send my fleet to destroy that carrier. I lose several ships, but the carrier is taken out before it fires. Fortunately between a strong CS and some helicopters I hold off his navy. He takes one of my last CS to the east...but I hold for now.

I use the time to get the hubble and rocket ahead to the last key bits of science. My scientists agree that there is only one hope left for salvation, a program so terrifying that it makes atomic bombs look like push pops. The final weapon of war....The Jaegar!!! (aka GDR).

So I proceed to put a GDR into every city I can. It gives a massive CS boost to my cities, they won't be so easy to take. I build units when I can. No one can trade with me, but I snag the order policy with 200% ITRs (Order is made for these no one likes me scenarios). My 5 cities send ITRS to each other, and my hammers start to skyrocket.

I build shelters in all of my bases, and now its just the waiting game. I await for the hammer to drop, while furiously teching and building space ship parts.

Shaka's tech starts to get near mine....and then matches! Then he builds the SS Engine! Shaka is also going for SV. But he is a fool if he thinks he can match the raw power of an Order capital with 5 200% ITRs running through it. I build the 6th part on Turn 443, just as he has built his 4th part.

Science Victory!!!!

Ultimately, I was actually disappointed that Shaka did not attack, I know my position was much better defended than before, but I am quite sure he could have sent in his ridiculous army and still built SS parts. It seemed quite strange that he wouldn't at least try to distract me with some war.
Click to expand...

Awesome story! Competition right to the end, as it should be.

I am a bit confused about the screenshot of Shaka taking cities like Borsippa and Akad though, with 19CS. Did they not have castles in?
Stalker0 said:
SV on Turn 443!

A hell of a game, first time in a long time I saw a warmonger truly take out the world and come breathing on my neck in the late game (I sometimes lose militarily early, but not usually once I "hit the stride"). I won SV as the AI had gotten 4 of the 6 parts, so you know he wasn't far away. You can see some of my notes on the AI's great war play in this post: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-beta-version-march-1st-3-1.655679/page-8#post-15694097

This was a good example of "it ain't over until its over". If you looked at the midgame you would have thought I had a very comfortable lead. I was first place with a dominant tech advantage, and a small policy advantage, a ton of wonders, and pretty good strategic resources. But Shaka kept conquering one city after another, and went from a threat across the ocean to a juggarnaut on my front door step. Really well played by the AI, I honestly didn't know who was going to take it until the very last turn.
Click to expand...

Congratulations on a battle well fought! Sounds like the AI competition is in a good place at the moment :D.
Legen said:
Mendicancy has been a strong enhancer regardless of the path I want to take for the civ and the religion. Baseline culture and faith are decent on their own, and the faith from gold comes very easily by Medieval. It's actually hard to justify choosing Syncretism over Mendicancy, even as Babylon. I think Syncretism needs adjustments, and I'm still wondering about Mendicancy's potency compared to other enhancers.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Just played a game with Syncretism and feel it could still use a bit of a buff myself.
 
Last edited:
Legen said:
Just made a quick test with the Goddess of Home on Carthage's free lighthouse. No :c5food: :c5faith: proc, no hidden synergy with the UA. My stored faith remained the same before and after founding a city with that pantheon.
Click to expand...

I think you need to research The Wheel first in order for city connections to be established, even as Carthage/Songhai/Iroquois.
 
Just played up to turn 362 on Emperor, epic speed, huge map, continents plus, Byzantium.

It was interesting and challenging. I grabbed Temple of Artemis as I usually do to go with my plantation start. I have to say I love not having to worry about being beat to the pantheon I want or founding a religion. Took Springtime, again to go with the full plantation start, and I've been very happy with it. Went Progress because I like to play wide. Founded later than I'm used to (from playing civs with strong early-game) and I was beaten to a number of wonders (Hanging Gardens, Oracle, Angkor Wat, Machu Picchu) I was going for before I realised I really needed to push myself to stay in the game. For most of the Classical Era I was in last place score wise. My UA and UB were starting to really kick in though, slowly at first but gave me a bit of momentum. I took Way of Transendance as by founder and Creativity and Co-operation as my follower belief and extra belief which gave me some nice yields both on the regular and upon entering the Medieval and then the Renaissance eras.

Actually I didn't get all that much for enterting the Medieval Era because I had spawned with the Maya as my nearest neighbour. The Maya had founded first (well before even Gandhi) and were waging a relentless war to convert me to their religion. I didn't mind this entirely because that did allow me to purchase cathdrals in my cities. At one point in spite of my effort to fight back they had converted every one of my cities except my capital. So I thought, what the hell I may as well get their religious building while I'm here. What really annoyed me is that the Maya's religion gave me next to zero faith from my cities because they had chosen Purity as their pantheon and I had zero lakes or marshes in my territory. It took both my basilicas and my new cathedrals to earn enough faith to eventually push them away and establish my own territory. Then I finally enhanced my religion, took Syncretism and Pagodas and happily started building my new faith building.

Now my cities were starting to look decent and I was moving up the rankings. I spent most of the Medieval in the lower tiers and the Renaissance in the middle jostling for place. Something notable about this period as well as the game as whole was that while there were clearly leaders (The Maya at first, then the Songhai, then the Huns and Assyria jumped into the top and ahead of everyone), the highest score still wasn't double the lowest score. India obviously had their own religion and also build the Great Library and University of Sankore. Austria had built the Terracotta Army and had allied three city-states, married at least one of them. Polynesia has no wonders but also has three CS allies and settled fairly widely including an island near me that I had assumed would be safe.

I probably would have fallen well before then if not for the good luck that I spawned within grabbing distance of not one but two natural wonders (El Dorado and King Solomon's Mines). I that gave me the edge that I needed to stay in the game. Funnily enough I later managed to settle near a third natural wonder - Rock of Gibraltar. It was on ice so it was kind of still a terrible city but there was some iron and some fish nearby and I certainly didn't want anyone else settling there so I claimed it for myself.

Byzantium's discount on all faith purchases is really nice and I soon had a holy site near my city and was converting as many nearby city-states and neutral AI island cities (which are harder to send inquisitors to) as I could. I had settled fairly agressively but was still a good 3% short of reformation. Eventually I managed to sway enough people to build the Sacred Garden and take Inspired Works which made the great-person tile improvements around my capital powerhouses! I had also taken Artistry as my second policy tree so I was starting to produce a good number of great works which now gave extra culture. Fealty might have been more optimal for a faith-based civ but I like the flavour of Artistry better.

At this point I was trying to snag city-states and I noticed one of them wanted me to declare war on the Iroquois as revenge for bullying them so much. The only problem was that the Iroquois has like 8 defensive pacts in place (no joke). So I tried to figure out which of their defensive buddies I could declare war on without pissing off half the world. Had to wait a little while to avoid fighting three civs at once but eventually picked Assyria which worked out well because they were one of the leaders and I wanted to annoy them a little if nothing else. Niether of those civs were in my part of the world so the combat amounted to a bit of naval skirmishing here and there. One of my allied city-states was near to Assyria so I sent them a bunch of units in support. Assyria actually killed one of my super-levelled recon units who had been trapped in foreign lands and had almost made it hope when their caravel one-shotted it. Sad day.

Spoiler Let's do this! :
20200306044954_1.jpg

More notable though I realised my happiness was below 50%. I hadn't been paying a lot of attention to happiness because I'm used to it being a non-issue. But then, I'm also used to being near the top and having build several more wonders. So I moved a bunch of specialists around to worm my way above 50% and focused on building infrastructure. I also found that a number of my cities had more citizens than tiles they could work, so would have to have at least one specialist. In my earlier expansion (partly to get my religion reformed) I had settled a number of island cities and two desert cities that were pretty low on yields. I ended up having to buy a number of tiles at 200+ gp each to get my cities overall back to a healthy state. I had bought numerous tiles up to that point just to improve my cities but I hadn't needed to go to this extent before. I think in terms of balance it's probably OK because it's punishing me for settling poor locations. It's also the first time I've had actual happiness issues (even with war weariness) for some time so it's good to know that over-expansiion and neglecting development does have consequences.

I managed to get back to a comfortable level (75%ish) and let the war with Assyria draw out as long as I could because they were had just take first stop with a new World Wonder. It was very interesting for me to see that in this game it wasn't the tradition capitals who were grabbing whatever they wanted - it was the Authority civs who were ahead in techs and were now racing ahead in wonder count. At the point where I finished up Assyria was at 7 wonders and the Huns were at 8. Both had taken Fealty as their second policy tree. I was clawed my way past Progress Songhai with 3 wonders into third place score-wise with 5 wonders myself. I'm even with Assyria (the tech leader) on techs and actually ahead on policies. Partly thanks to policies (Progress, Artistry, Rationalism), party due to my religious choices (Inspiration, Syncretism, Inspired Works), and partly from wonders (Sistene Chapel, Porcelain Tower). My Basilicas and El Dorado granting culture certainly didn't hurt either.

I was pretty dissapointed when I took Steam Power as my Rationalism free tech and found a grand total of 0 coal in my territory. There's a fair amount to the South in Austrian territory but I don't really want to invade the civ currently in last place, especially because it would make then easy picking for either the Songhai or the Huns, both of whom are strong competitors already. There's also coal in the Huns Territory, but defensive pacts mean I would also be at war with Assyria and either the Iroquois or Austria anyway. Frankly, I would struggle with that. Guess I could keep going until I have a tech advantage, grab a few more wonders, but I think the warfare is still going to be a slog. I'm pretty happy with how far I've got anyway and feel like I learn a lot in this game. So I'm going to try some other starts with Byzantium and see if I can put those lessons in practise :).

Bug-wise I'm very happy that civilian and religious units can stack again! I did experienced inquisitors not working at times, as noted. I also saw people valuing my strategics at 0 early-game and then at a very large amount later on. Finally, as noted agressiveness early-on was pretty low. I didn't earn a single great general in this game. I go out of my way to make friends with people and the diplo AI seemed really good there (people want to have allies but are discering about it). I expected to be attacked at a number of points though, first by the Maya (religious differences) and then by the Huns (because religious differences and because I denounced them). Both were ahead of me in tech for much of the game and my military was a pretty weak (I was in last place at one point in terms of military score). I did actually have the Maya's religious as majority in my cities for a while which might have placated them but the Huns would have lost nothing from at least pillaging my lands and killing my units. I think the dev team is aware of that issue already though. I look forward to the next version eagerly!

Spoiler When the horses are just right :
20200306053146_1.jpg

Spoiler Queendom :
20200307120833_1.jpg
 
Late game city strength is too low. Cities are like leaves that are just blown over by the enemy attacking.
 
Finishing up a Portugal Deity game, standard settings, Oval map, AIs were Siam, Egypt, Russia, China, Carthage, Mongolia and Sweden.

Started with an Ivory monopoly and on the coast, with ocean to the east, Russia to the south and Siam to the west. Decided to not pursue Petra in favour of grabbing a bit more land. Went monument, shrine (invested) and granary, then settler, then well, then settler. With my first settler I planted a city towards Siam, beating the Siamese settler (would have been Siam's third city already even without Pyramids!) in the nick of time, if I hadn't settled that turn, Siam would most likely have on the next turn. Picked God of all creation because I wanted to see the viability of a peaceful game without religion on this version, especially since the AIs got their pantheons very quickly.

When the early game dust had settled, I had 8 cities, two of which non-coastal and almost all very underdeveloped. My plan was to slowly catch up with spies, Portugal's UA, buying great writers and great scientists etc. So I went Progress, then Artistry, then Rationalism, then Freedom. Religion went to Siam, Egypt, China, Russia and Carthage. I again saw a couple of AI founders not defending their cities with inquisitors and eventually falling to the passive spread by the AI that enhanced with Orthodoxy (until that's fixed, I think Orthodoxy is too strong). First DoW on turn 86 by Egypt on China, and I was first DoWed when Siam bribed Russia against me around turn 110. So while there were no Aztec-level early DoWs, I still had to invest a lot into a defensive army early on.

I eventually lost the game to a SV by a runaway 9-city Siam empire. I think I would/could have won if a few things were a bit more fine-tuned/balanced and/or would have fallen my way by chance..

1.) With the spy system I have noticed that the spy promotions are very erratic - I had a spy rig two CS elections without being promoted and a spy as a diplomat in Beijing for around 30 turns without being promoted, even though I shared intrigue from him to other AIs. Because it took so long to promote a spy to the 3rd level, I missed quite a few attempts at stealing a technology and eventually it added to quite a few techs fewer stolen throughout the game, which consequently led to a lot of other missed things that could have nudged me ahead. Anyway, I wish spy promotions were a bit more predictable and reliable, i.e. a spy gets promoted with every successful CS election rigging, with every xy turns spent as a diplomat in an AI's capital etc.

2.) I wish no yields were given to the AI for completing a wonder and I wish the bonuses for entering a new era would have been given to AIs at the same time (perhaps make it work like the world congress era changes). In my game Siam built around 80% of all the wonders and was building wonders at such a rate even before taking 4 cities from Mongolia. Mongolia DoWed Siam in the late Renaissance era and proceeded to lose 4 cities in around 35 turns, so that wasn't great given my self-imposed pacifism.

3.) Given what I've written about the AI's religion management, that also "helps" runaways appear since the early game leaders spread & ehance their religions the quickest and that eventually becomes the most dominant (two) religion(s), leading to more yields, WC votes etc. Getting a religion is also too greatly influenced by coincidence, i.e. how many civs start with a faith-monopoly resource, how many religious city states are near you and when/which quests those CS give early on. For example there's a big difference between games where I meet a religious CS within the first 45 turns or not and there's a big difference if that CS gives me an "easy" first quest (discover lands, connect an easy resource etc.) and if it gives me a hard first quest (conquer a city, connect Jewelry/Glass/Porcelain). I also noticed quite a big variation in when you get the first CS quests, some CS give it me even 5-12 turns later than the earliest. All of that is a problem in general for the early game because yields from CS have the biggest influence in the earliest stage of the game, but it's particularly problematic with religious CS (because of religion's importance for the game) and cultural CS. So my proposal would be to have a much more standardized set of ancient era CS quests (which appear and when/how often) and I'd also propose either no CS gives any yields in the ancient era or they all only give gold in the ancient era (we can perhaps "simply" convert their usual yields to gold output until the classical era). I don't wish to eliminate/reduce all early-game randomness, only the few most impactful and/or controllable ones.

4.) Hidden artifacts are unbalanced. Some give oodles of culture, some give only an artifact. I wish it were the same for all hidden artifacts, so that they'd all give an artifact AND a (smaller than now) amount of culture. I try (as much as possible) to time excavating hidden artifacts with my golden ages/culture progress periods so to boost my culture output. And my game is greatly influenced by randomness, i.e. whether the hidden artifacts I excavate give me instant culture or not. In my current game, I had 4 hidden artifacts in my territory and 3 in Chinese territory, only one gave me instant culture.

5.) Late game wonders should not have a social policy requirement. At that point in the game I think the requirements only serve to help the best AIs and not the human player/other AIs trying to catch up by beelining for a few crucial wonders (Hubble, CERN, ...).

There's lots more to write, but that's it from me for now. I think a peaceful Deity is quite possible and doable even in this version, but it's made needlessly harder/rarer by the above mentioned (and some other) factors and pure coincidence.

Having said all of the above, I have greatly enjoyed the improvements to the AI in this version, the mod is really making big progress in how well the AI is playing, so again my congratulations and gratitude to all involved!
 
LifeOfBrian said:
In my game Siam built around 80% of all the wonders
Click to expand...

Is this common on Deity? It's very different from my experiences on the lower difficulties. Granted playing with more civs (i.e. on a larger map) probably helps, but even so I am surprised.
LifeOfBrian said:
So my proposal would be to have a much more standardized set of ancient era CS quests (which appear and when/how often) and I'd also propose either no CS gives any yields in the ancient era or they all only give gold in the ancient era (we can perhaps "simply" convert their usual yields to gold output until the classical era). I don't wish to eliminate/reduce all early-game randomness, only the few most impactful and/or controllable ones.
Click to expand...

No CS yields in the ancient era would be a nerf to civs that have strong early exploration (The Shoshone, Polynesia, and to a lesser degree America, Inca, and The Iroquois). After most of the ancient ruins are gone (say first 30 turns), meeting city-states is the main reward for looking beyond your immediate environment.
 
There are games where there's no real runaway (or at least not until late game when a civ warmongers its way ahead), but I think more often than not I see an AI runaway, which usually manifests itself also in wonder-hoarding. Perhaps its confirmation bias, but that's my impression. That's why I prefer to play on maps with single landmasses, less chance of a runaway and if there is one, it's easier to address that as a human player through war.

As for CS yields, I personally prefer that they keep their yields converted to gold in the ancient era, so that it would still reward early friendships/alliances. I'd also keep CS quests giving culture, faith, food etc. in the ancient era, but I'd "standardize" those a bit more than they are now. Currently there's simply such a big difference between various types of city states you ally/become friends with in the ancient era and that can make my games considerably harder or easier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

jarcast2
[Custom Civ] [Ladies in Charge, vol. 2: Anacaona] Jarcast and KaoticKanine's Taino for VP
Replies
4
Views
906
jarcast2
jarcast2
jarcast2
[Custom Civ] Jarcast's The Navajo for VP
Replies
17
Views
3K
Relatyve Mind
R
hokath
[Extension] Enlightenment Era for VP (4.22)
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
8K
hokath
hokath
T
Tier 2 social policies: Fealty a must-have in most situations?
Replies
6
Views
1K
randomnub
R
jarcast2
[Custom Civ] JFD's Prussia for VP
Replies
14
Views
683
Shah_Afshar
S
Back
Top Bottom