New Beta Version - November 8th

[General_Drax]

I think my actual game is truly one of a kind. That's very good tbh.

Anyway: Sweden, Planet Simulator, islands few and large (boy this map script i s amazing with strategic balance, tested about 30 times with reseed and maps are really balanced, no more 89 iron in Industrial, you need to squeeze every tiny bit), Emperor, Epic. I went Progress/Statecraft (because almost alla AIs went Scraft as well and I won't be shut down by Congress and CS dominance), planning Rationalism.

Vs me: on my continents Shoshone (runner, top dog, Auth/SCraft), Inca (Progress/SCraft), Venice (Progress/SCraft). The other one: Portugal (2nd powerhouse, Progress/Artistry), Babylon, England. Polynesia got one small continent per se and expanded a lot on his neighbours.

AI suicidal/annoying forward settling: Inca and Shoshone placed one city each on my flank with my whole mainland between, razing material. I declared on Venice (def pact with Inca) to spice things up (had no wars in whole game but a CS affair) and getting a much needed port on south ocean. AI entrenched a lot leaving all the forest vs my salient: had to use point blank cannons to take the city. Interesting. Shoshone declared in the late stage of war sending his whole fleet vs my north bastion. Pocatello damaged the city a bit but cannons are keeping Frigates and Corvettes in check. Land units cannot reach my lands due a Citadel fortified pass through mountains.

I think AIs are evaluating a lot more positioning and ground forces before declaring now. It seems way less prone to lose units on an hopeless attack.

Diplomatic competion is fierce over city states with GDiplomats and Envoys all over the place.

Shoshone are going CV (?) building Uffizi and anything with culture inside. Venice very slow and handicapped in AI playing.

War weariness is taking a toll.

 

[nmb93]

I'm just over 100 turns into my game (Standard/Emperor), but everything seems fine, so far. Inca is sandwiched between me and England; Lizzy asked if I wanted to declare (I told her to give me 10 turns of prep), and then we went to work on Pacha.

Also, I have a unique idea for Terracotta: What if on unit death there was a %chance to spawn another unit of the same type in the city which houses the wonder (the current +10 culture scaling could be incorporated into these units if successfully respawned)?

It was a mausoleum for one of the most menacing tyrants in history - there was a staggering amount of people of all ages, from peasants to nobles, who had to just drop what they were doing and go with him into the tomb when he suddenly died - so I think having units "come back from the dead" is a thematic and fun feature that'd be a nice touch on the myriad of warrior clones and figures that to this day are still being unearthed.

I realize that nobody, including myself, likes incentives revolving around getting your units killed, but it would allow warmongers to take more risk and keep applying pressure in situations where the player might not normally push in, knowing that there's a chance the unit is replaced instantly. It saves hammers/gold and makes wars a bit more efficient for the owner, while representing the waves of warriors that line the site in Xi'an. All that would be lost is the dead unit's exp that it'd gained; less impactful of a loss when another clone is potentially ready to be thrown into battle. You couldn't just suicide units though, as you wouldn't be guaranteed to have a killed unit respawn; the %chance to respawn is debatable, but 50% might be a good place to start.There's even neat synergy with authority as you'd have a chance of culture on death to go with the culture on kill. The AI would be able to utilize it perfectly fine and it might not even need new code; a new unit respawning on unit death used to be an old AI handicap, if I'm not mistaken.

That'd pair very well with the Hunnic capture on kill UA mechanic. Maybe too well haha.

 

[Recursive]

The AI would be able to utilize it perfectly fine and it might not even need new code; a new unit respawning on unit death used to be an old AI handicap, if I'm not mistaken.

The AI used to receive small amounts of Production in the origin city if one of their combat units was killed by a human; not the same.

 

[ofmiciv5]

Pretty much the entire mod. City state diplomacy is bad, most of the civ 4 features are bad, vassalage is bad and buggy, the corporation system is bad and should be removed, the military AI is terrible and vanilla military AI is much much better, the new buildings are stupid, the changes to the old buildings are stupid, the happiness system is stupid, the policies are. The entire mod is just toooooo clunky and bogged down to the point a single turn in the modern era takes 5 minutes even with a good CPU.

The only good things about CP is basically just the mods from Whoward, the simple event system, the ability for ancient era boats to cross ocean tiles, other things like the AI actively trying to compete over city states, and a few minor diplomacy things, and the AI does better city management and tech progression plus tries to get wonders.

I know you are going to hate this post but it really is the truth. It's the simple things that get people hooked on CBP all these other complexities are just annoyances. Me personally I wish I never knew about this mod at least I could enjoy civ then and not spend weeks trying to get a decent game and then after a few hundred turns have the entire game crash or bug out in some stupid way.

the only stupid and bad i see here is you spouting nonsense about this mod. get the hell out of here!!!

 

[Kim Dong Un]

The AI used to receive small amounts of Production in the origin city if one of their combat units was killed by a human; not the same.

Cool, so it's even more unique of a feature! But in all seriousness, I just thought I'd throw it out there because it's a cool idea IMO.

Also, I associate Terracotta with offense and Great Wall with defense, yet the GWall is the one with the free GG. It's not that a GG isn't helpful defensively, but they are more crucial to offense; I'd swap the GG over to Terracotta to replace the early GG that was just dropped from the Heroic Epic. This would enable civs to still have access to a relatively early GG, but you'd have to build Terracotta now instead, so only one civ can reap that early GG instead of how everyone just received an early GG previously by default. Paired with my initial proposal, I feel it would be a unique and satisfactory wonder for wide civs to build. Pyramids could get the worker improvement back, or some tweak to it so it's not overpowered again; I'd already suggested Pyramid have something like "spawns additional worker for every worker built/bought", or something along those lines. The GWall's mechanic is powerful enough, and losing the GG wouldn't deter players or AI from still chasing it.

I realize all this would probably require new code, but it's fun to brainstorm! Hah, maybe I'll try my hand at a modmod! I can see it now, "Dong's Wonder Shuffle"...

Pyramid: Free settler, +1 GE point, gain +1 worker every time a worker is built/bought

Terracotta: Free Great General, +3 supply, 50% chance to respawn land unit (of same type) on death; gain +10 culture (era scaling) every time a killed unit successfully respawns

Great Wall: Free wall and build walls twice as fast, +1 GE point, land units expend all movement when entering your territory (becomes obsolete when enemies research Dynamite)

 

[Bromar1]

Pyramid: Free settler, +1 GE point, gain +1 worker every time a worker is built/bought

If you really want "double" workers think it makes more sense to say +100% production towards workers, -50% gold needed to purchase workers. Effectively the same idea of "2 workers for the price of 1" without new code (I think)

 

[Moi Magnus]

If you really want "double" workers think it makes more sense to say +100% production towards workers, -50% gold needed to purchase workers. Effectively the same idea of "2 workers for the price of 1" without new code (I think)

Small remark "+100%" and "double" are not equivalent, as they don't stack with other bonuses. So for example if you have a +20% production bonus in your city, you will end up at +120%, which is less than "+20% and double" (which would be +140%).

But yes, if G were to implement such an idea, he would probably prefer a solution that doesn't require new code, rather than a slightly different solution that require new code

 

[Stalker0]

Honestly I think the double workers would be crazy. That's an enormous amount of early game hammers saved...that's like 3 free buildings worth to me.

 

[ridjack]

@Recursive I don't want to make an official bug report because I didn't document any of it, but I think the AI are coming back to me after their "Request Help" deals expired, and asking to renew a slightly different deal than we originally agreed.

Example:

• Monte comes to me asking for a 7 GPT gift. I accept.
• 50 turns (or w/e it is) later, the deal expires.
• Monte comes to me with "Deal renewal" dialogue in the chatbox, with 7 GPT on my side, but now his side has a luxury for offer. I never bought that luxury from him, and thus am thoroughly confused until I think about it later and realize he was renewing the gift.

Had the same thing happen with different numbers with Genghis, as well.

 

[Recursive]

@Recursive I don't want to make an official bug report because I didn't document any of it, but I think the AI are coming back to me after their "Request Help" deals expired, and asking to renew a slightly different deal than we originally agreed.

Example:

• Monte comes to me asking for a 7 GPT gift. I accept.
• 50 turns (or w/e it is) later, the deal expires.
• Monte comes to me with "Deal renewal" dialogue in the chatbox, with 7 GPT on my side, but now his side has a luxury for offer. I never bought that luxury from him, and thus am thoroughly confused until I think about it later and realize he was renewing the gift.

Had the same thing happen with different numbers with Genghis, as well.

Not sure that's intended, but is that really undesirable?

Might be that your DoF expired?

 

[ridjack]

Not sure that's intended, but is that really undesirable?

Might be that your DoF expired?

Mostly it just confused the crap outta me. Otherwise, yeah, not a particularly big deal.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

If you really want "double" workers think it makes more sense to say +100% production towards workers, -50% gold needed to purchase workers. Effectively the same idea of "2 workers for the price of 1" without new code (I think)

Small remark "+100%" and "double" are not equivalent, as they don't stack with other bonuses. So for example if you have a +20% production bonus in your city, you will end up at +120%, which is less than "+20% and double" (which would be +140%).

But yes, if G were to implement such an idea, he would probably prefer a solution that doesn't require new code, rather than a slightly different solution that require new code

Honestly I think the double workers would be crazy. That's an enormous amount of early game hammers saved...that's like 3 free buildings worth to me.

The specific numbers would be up for debate, but you all get the general idea. My initial proposal actually had it just simply receiving 2-3 workers (along with the settler and GE point) on construction. It would keep the worker theme for Pyramid without giving it back the exact same worker improvement speed mechanic that made it previously overpowered.

Regardless, the current setup with GA points at the beginning of the game is not ideal, and I thought my Terracotta idea was interesting and thematic enough to synergize with authority in a unique way while also addressing GWall and allowing the worker aspect to drop back to Pyramid.

 

[Bromar1]

The specific numbers would be up for debate, but you all get the general idea. My initial proposal actually had it just simply receiving 2-3 workers (along with the settler and GE point) on construction. It would keep the worker theme for Pyramid without giving it back the exact same worker improvement speed mechanic that made it previously overpowered.

Regardless, the current setup with GA points at the beginning of the game is not ideal, and I thought my Terracotta idea was interesting and thematic enough to synergize with authority in a unique way while also addressing GWall and allowing the worker aspect to drop back to Pyramid.

What about +1 free worker and +1science +1gold on the wonder itself. Then it sorta matches Stonehenge impact in terms of instant bonus and flat yields

 

[saamohod]

What about +1 free worker and +1science +1gold on the wonder itself.

Not really.
Do you mean it makes sense to build a wonder for the sake of one worker? (+1 science and gold are minuscule even in Ancient era)

 

[Bromar1]

Not really.
Do you mean it makes sense to build a wonder for the sake of one worker? (+1 science and gold are minuscule even in Ancient era)

+1 settler, +1 worker, +1 GE point, +1 science and +1 gold total,
I think that's a pretty good balance. More front loaded and less snowbally

 

[amateurgamer88]

I thought the Pyramids giving a Settler is already very powerful. Why are we buffing this Wonder more by adding more benefits?

 

[azum4roll]

We're removing the worker improvement speed which is a long-term benefit, so we need to give it some short-term ones.

 

[amateurgamer88]

A free Settler isn't a big enough short term benefit? That's a city gained without losing a pop and a single pop that early on is massive. I seem to recall that the reason worker improvement speed is removed due to a free Settler being very strong in itself.

Terracotta: Free Great General, +3 supply, 50% chance to respawn land unit (of same type) on death; gain +10 culture (era scaling) every time a killed unit successfully respawns

If an AI on Immortal or higher gets this Wonder, not only does the player have to kill tons of enemy units to begin with but there's a coin flip to see if the AI actually loses the unit or not. The wars are already grindy and require the human players to do a lot to get to cities. Your Wonder will now make wars a nightmare since bad rolls means that your enemy's force will diminish at a much slower rate even if you play optimally.

 

[saamohod]

+1 settler, +1 worker, +1 GE point, +1 science and +1 gold total,
I think that's a pretty good balance. More front loaded and less snowbally

I'd rather give it 2-3 workers plus some extra yield you've mentioned (maybe culture instead of science). Seems more thematically appropriate.

 

[amateurgamer88]

I'd rather give it 2-3 workers plus some extra yield. Seems more thematically appropriate.

The issue I have with 2 or 3 Workers is that you usually don't have enough tiles and/or pop to take advantage of more than 1 Worker. 1 Worker can already do a lot, especially when you take into account the number of the techs you have and what you can and cannot improve. 1 free Worker and decent yields with faster improvement rate is honestly good enough in making it a tougher decision between this and Stonehenge. The current Pyramids is almost always better than Stonehenge.