Agree, unhappiness from distress seems to be hard to handle in this version.
\Skodkim
New Beta Version - May 24th (5-24)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
\Skodkim
youngsteve
King
One thing I find pretty underwhelming in the mod, any version, seems to be how lacklustre the first golden age you receive is. It always comes very early on, probably from CS quests, then appears, but the yields gained are miniscule & just a waste of the golden age. Couldn't they be delayed somehow, like until you reach Classical age, with points still building up as normal so might actually mean something when they appear.
The other thing I would be happy to know about is what bonuses do the AI get in the mod & at various difficulties, or point me to where i might find details.
The other thing I would be happy to know about is what bonuses do the AI get in the mod & at various difficulties, or point me to where i might find details.
I've noticed this too, a CS quest for finding a natural wonder can be a disadvantage. It's because the first golden age is extremely cheap compared to the later ones.
This new feature where cities can receive more happiness than their population means when you plant a city it often soaks up 2 or 3
and your other cities go unhappy. It's not too bad (thank god that military unit penalty was removed) but it can be disruptive, especially to settler production.
My distress is also extremely high. I'm not sure if I understand how it works though.
Looking at Stalker's example (which is similar to my cities around turn 160ish), he has about 120 combined
and 100 deficit. That means he is expected to have 220 combined in a 12 pop city. That seems impossible without multiple internal trade routes, even if you gave him every / building in the game right now the city wouldn't meet that goal.
Another way to view it is an average of 18.33 per citizen. A 1
city on a hill (22), with a watermill (23.25), working a copper mine (4), and 6 from having authority would still only have 18.25 combined . Sure if you add a workshop or forge you get there, but you'd be way behind again once you grow to 2.
and your other cities go unhappy. It's not too bad (thank god that military unit penalty was removed) but it can be disruptive, especially to settler production.My distress is also extremely high. I'm not sure if I understand how it works though.
Looking at Stalker's example (which is similar to my cities around turn 160ish), he has about 120 combined
and 100 deficit. That means he is expected to have 220 combined in a 12 pop city. That seems impossible without multiple internal trade routes, even if you gave him every / building in the game right now the city wouldn't meet that goal.Another way to view it is an average of 18.33
per citizen. A 1 city on a hill (22), with a watermill (23.25), working a copper mine (4), and 6 from having authority would still only have 18.25 combined . Sure if you add a workshop or forge you get there, but you'd be way behind again once you grow to 2.Its so weird that as I'm playing a new game I was thinking the exact same thing. The first GA is easy to get, but the second takes a CRAZY amount of GAP in comparison.
General_Drax
Warlord
Agree on Emperor difficulty about distress: very high and spikes a lot from modern era onward.
Hard to keep even Capital happy. My current game with Rome I have monopoly on Furs (+6 happiness), Auth/Statecraft/Imperialism (6/6/1) and 8 CS allies/15 (one conquered by Mongolia), leader in tech and production and still on 58 % overall even with constabulary + grocers built.
Since my economy is immense (5000+ gold in modern, +400 gpt) I bought any Luxury AIs would sell. Just waiting 15 turns to get Field cannons and going for the final war (Mongolia + his vassal France + DP with Byzantium vs Rome and my vassals Zulus and Siam).
Hard to keep even Capital happy. My current game with Rome I have monopoly on Furs (+6 happiness), Auth/Statecraft/Imperialism (6/6/1) and 8 CS allies/15 (one conquered by Mongolia), leader in tech and production and still on 58 % overall even with constabulary + grocers built.
Since my economy is immense (5000+ gold in modern, +400 gpt) I bought any Luxury AIs would sell. Just waiting 15 turns to get Field cannons and going for the final war (Mongolia + his vassal France + DP with Byzantium vs Rome and my vassals Zulus and Siam).
LifeOfBrian
King
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
- Messages
- 757
I agree with Golden age comments.
Also, in my current game (VP + Milae's difficulty mod) India enhanced with Inquisition, yet around turn 240 none of its 7 cities, including the capital/holy city, followed its religion any more.
Also, in my current game (VP + Milae's difficulty mod) India enhanced with Inquisition, yet around turn 240 none of its 7 cities, including the capital/holy city, followed its religion any more.
There have been games where I intentionally grow cities faster to reduce happiness and delay that first GA by a few turns. Probably not super optimal on Emperor and above though
youngsteve
King
I keep seeing this in my game, where religious civs suddenly have no cities with their religion anymore, yet at the same time there are missionaries going around foreign lands. The AI should do like me & prioritise Inquisitors to revert back cities, instead of keep building missionaries.
youngsteve
King
Trouble is they usually come about through discovering wonders for CS or other missions.
I intentionally lower happiness too, I think stalling for a few turns can be very optimal.
Ah...THAT's what I've been doing all this time
Speaking of happiness, just learned from G that there is a stealth change in the notes (this is from 5/17 version). We know that local unhappiness does not affect unit production anymore, but the change ALSO made it where global unhappiness does not either.
Now everyone knows how much I like to complain about happiness....but I do think the global production unit production hit serves an important purpose in giving happiness its weight. I think it was unfair that often satellites go unhappy at the times you needed units most, so the local change was very very VERY welcome....but I think if a civ doesn't work to keep their global happiness up there should be good penalties for that.
I "think" they are changing that back for the next version (the Github notes were a little unclear), but just noting it here for those who didn't know.
Absolutely, I cannot praise this change enough.
I'm not sure what is up with the path finding but the russkies seems to have some issue with the path finding, to much vodka or they think it's just scary that they have their army on the wrong side of the mountains. There is a gap below and they could run around even tho that is choke-pointed with more or less my entire army at this moment but besides that.
Ah...THAT's what I've been doing all this time
Speaking of happiness, just learned from G that there is a stealth change in the notes (this is from 5/17 version). We know that local unhappiness does not affect unit production anymore, but the change ALSO made it where global unhappiness does not either.
Now everyone knows how much I like to complain about happiness....but I do think the global production unit production hit serves an important purpose in giving happiness its weight. I think it was unfair that often satellites go unhappy at the times you needed units most, so the local change was very very VERY welcome....but I think if a civ doesn't work to keep their global happiness up there should be good penalties for that.
I "think" they are changing that back for the next version (the Github notes were a little unclear), but just noting it here for those who didn't know.
I fixed the top panel TT so that the unhappiness mechanic no longer references military units. May change this back later, but for now, that's the rule.
G
Probably didn't know there was a mountain there until they got close.
This is probably an unnecessary idea that would end up affecting other aspects of balance, but what if GA were changed to bring the most impact at the beginning of the game rather than at the end? Usually the boon comes from achieving perma GA's throughout the late game, when you're already generating massive yields -- a reason that largely contributes to the final eras feeling the fastest -- but at the first occurrence in the Ancient era, those % bonuses are trivial and practically wasted.
I think it'd be interesting (and better mouthfeel, to avoid situations where a player is actively avoiding GA in the early game) thematically and gameplay wise, to have GA operate with maybe some kind of era scaling or diminishing returns. Historically, I'd say we naturally envision a GA bringing more presence, prestige and 'unph' the earlier it was in the timeline of events, e.g., the Romans, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, etc, have such impressive and glorified regimes in comparison to others over recorded history, in part due to how much longer ago their respective GA's occurred.
If GA currently grant 20%
+ , we could possibly try something simple like:- Ancient / Classical = 40% +
- Medieval / Renaissance = 30%
- Industrial / Modern = 20%
- Atomic / Information = 10%
Even with this adjusted new system in place, the % bonuses would still bring ample impact for civs with large base yields in the late game. Late game is also when other modifiers that extend GA length (Ivory monopoly, certain policies, etc.) will have already been established, so although the GA's would not have as high base % modifier as the early eras, their increased lengths of turns while active would still keep them formidable.
They have been hanging around for 20ish turns so far moving left and tight, so they seem to be kinda stuck. They do know about the gap as some other units made it out that way.
Here's a datapoint for Historical Event Tourism vs Base.
So this is a good "unoptimized" scenario. My Ottomans don't have a particularly high tourism or culture, other than a few holy sites boosted by Prophecy. So it looks like War Ending HE is ~2 turns of my base tourism all said and done. Is that good, bad....I don't know honestly, but that's what it is.
Spoiler :
So this is a good "unoptimized" scenario. My Ottomans don't have a particularly high tourism or culture, other than a few holy sites boosted by Prophecy. So it looks like War Ending HE is ~2 turns of my base tourism all said and done. Is that good, bad....I don't know honestly, but that's what it is.
Spoiler :
Take a look at those distress numbers. Then notice that my capital has built every building there is to build....still massive unhappiness (and none of that is urbanization). Now we can argue whether this paradigm is good or not (maybe capital happiness was too easy before)....but clearly the change in distress was not a net zero change.....distress is a much bigger deal now.
- Status
