New Beta Version - October 10th (10/10)

[BiteInTheMark]

Imagine if instead of 440 excess food you would get 440 science, culture, production or gold. I know it's probably impossible to assign citizens that way, but even half of that would be way better. Could you post a screenshot of that city? 440 excess food is crazy high.

Crazy high? Haha, 1 year ago I, had a India capitol with around 800-1000 excess food.
Food is the most easiest yield to gain. +2 on rivers, +3 (or 4?) by tech, +1-2 by triangles, +2 by imperialism, +2 by freedom, +3 by that horse building (+2 by Indians UB) = +10 by a simple farm should be easily achievable. +14 if you focus on it.
You can't stack science or culture as easy as you can with food, and the only way to translate this easy yield to more worth yields is growth.
Let's say you are in modern era, your specialists generate 8 science/culture but eat 5 food (freedom). Now let's say cause of working specialists all time you have 2 more tech and policies than me. Cause Iam behind of you by 2 steps, each trade route to you gives me additional 16 science and 16 culture. Now I send 6 trade routes to you and get 96 science and 96 culture out of it. If you were sending trade routes to me, you would get nothing.
So I get 192 yields for free cause Iam behind. You would need working 24 specialists to get the same sum. Effectively spending 120 food to feed them. While I can use 24 citizen to work 12+ food tiles, and earn 288 food, minus 48 for worker = 244 food. Multiplied with some food or growth modifier, let's say 50%, this is 366 food.
You have to pay 120 food to compensate the trade route bonus while I can have 366 food. A difference of 486 excess food. Split to 6 cities, this is 81 more food in every city.

And while I didn't target a domination victory and any other victory type can't be chieved before modern/industrial, I don't care if Iam behind in the midgame. Cause in the endgame, I can swap my large population to specialists, earn a lot of population based yields and didn't suffer by tech/social penalty by city number.

 

[crdvis16]

Crazy high? Haha, 1 year ago I, had a India capitol with around 800-1000 excess food.
Food is the most easiest yield to gain. +2 on rivers, +3 (or 4?) by tech, +1-2 by triangles, +2 by imperialism, +2 by freedom, +3 by that horse building (+2 by Indians UB) = +10 by a simple farm should be easily achievable. +14 if you focus on it.
You can't stack science or culture as easy as you can with food, and the only way to translate this easy yield to more worth yields is growth.
Let's say you are in modern era, your specialists generate 8 science/culture but eat 5 food (freedom). Now let's say cause of working specialists all time you have 2 more tech and policies than me. Cause Iam behind of you by 2 steps, each trade route to you gives me additional 16 science and 16 culture. Now I send 6 trade routes to you and get 96 science and 96 culture out of it. If you were sending trade routes to me, you would get nothing.
So I get 192 yields for free cause Iam behind. You would need working 24 specialists to get the same sum. Effectively spending 120 food to feed them. While I can use 24 citizen to work 12+ food tiles, and earn 288 food, minus 48 for worker = 244 food. Multiplied with some food or growth modifier, let's say 50%, this is 366 food.
You have to pay 120 food to compensate the trade route bonus while I can have 366 food. A difference of 486 excess food. Split to 6 cities, this is 81 more food in every city.

And while I didn't target a domination victory and any other victory type can't be chieved before modern/industrial, I don't care if Iam behind in the midgame. Cause in the endgame, I can swap my large population to specialists, earn a lot of population based yields and didn't suffer by tech/social penalty by city number.

Except your happiness plummets before you reach the end game and you quit out of frustration. Rather than realize your strategy is to blame, you come on the forums demanding that the game be changed to suite your obviously superior strategy.

 

[Owlbebach]

Crazy high? Haha, 1 year ago I, had a India capitol with around 800-1000 excess food.
Food is the most easiest yield to gain. +2 on rivers, +3 (or 4?) by tech, +1-2 by triangles, +2 by imperialism, +2 by freedom, +3 by that horse building (+2 by Indians UB) = +10 by a simple farm should be easily achievable. +14 if you focus on it.
You can't stack science or culture as easy as you can with food, and the only way to translate this easy yield to more worth yields is growth.
Let's say you are in modern era, your specialists generate 8 science/culture but eat 5 food (freedom). Now let's say cause of working specialists all time you have 2 more tech and policies than me. Cause Iam behind of you by 2 steps, each trade route to you gives me additional 16 science and 16 culture. Now I send 6 trade routes to you and get 96 science and 96 culture out of it. If you were sending trade routes to me, you would get nothing.
So I get 192 yields for free cause Iam behind. You would need working 24 specialists to get the same sum. Effectively spending 120 food to feed them. While I can use 24 citizen to work 12+ food tiles, and earn 288 food, minus 48 for worker = 244 food. Multiplied with some food or growth modifier, let's say 50%, this is 366 food.
You have to pay 120 food to compensate the trade route bonus while I can have 366 food. A difference of 486 excess food. Split to 6 cities, this is 81 more food in every city.

And while I didn't target a domination victory and any other victory type can't be chieved before modern/industrial, I don't care if Iam behind in the midgame. Cause in the endgame, I can swap my large population to specialists, earn a lot of population based yields and didn't suffer by tech/social penalty by city number.

I absolutely love examples like this because it is pure demagogy. It is nothing but a lot of assumptions and it is nearly impossible to find where is the mistake because it is just everywhere. If this is how you make decisions in game - no surprise you can't step up.

>Now let's say cause of working specialists all time you have 2 more tech and policies than me.
Why 2? Why not 5?
How about buildings that i can build and you can not?
How about yields from extra policies effects that i have and you do not have?
Wonders that i did build and you did not?
You forgot all % modifiers to science etc
2 specialists total or 2 per city? How many cities both players have (tech cost is different)
...
Should i continue? I am sure can find more mistakes in this particular message if i dig deeper into numbers. This example just has zero connection with reality

 

[Questdog]

One thing not mentioned in this argument about why grow just to work another food tile is the insane amount of insta-yields a citizens birth can give. I have not done the math, but it would seem to me those yields ought to be taken into account for a food tile.

 

[Owlbebach]

One thing not mentioned in this argument about why grow just to work another food tile is the insane amount of insta-yields a citizens birth can give. I have not done the math, but it would seem to me those yields ought to be taken into account for a food tile.

I have done maths for you. They are pretty low unless you heavily focus on them. Actually barely noticeable

 

[Minh Le]

One thing not mentioned in this argument about why grow just to work another food tile is the insane amount of insta-yields a citizens birth can give. I have not done the math, but it would seem to me those yields ought to be taken into account for a food tile.

I tried and fail miserably (progress india with Love ).
P/s: It should work if I didnt focus solely on growth. I had lots of science and faith but lacking culture and infrastructure. Eventually I felt into what people call unhappiness spiral and falling behind, then I quit when 2 neighbors declared war and pillaged my land pushing my happiness to -30, although I can defend with OP elephant, I took too much penalty on gold, science, culture due to unhappiness and it was a clear defeat.

 

[Questdog]

Is this the intended behavior of the new religious unrest formula? My holy city capital has 15 citizens in the classical era. 12 of them follow my religion and 2 follow my pantheon. The last citizen does not follow anything. The city is generating 1 unhappiness for religious divisions. Seems a bit rough.

P.S. Also, because of the beliefs I had to choose, I did not see much reason to spread my religion to my other cities until I enhanced it. In those cities, which typically have a majority of citizens following my pantheon and a few following my religion, there is no religious unrest. It would seem to me that those cities ought to be the ones generating unhappiness.

 

[Stalker0]

I have done maths for you. They are pretty low unless you heavily focus on them. Actually barely noticeable

This reopens a personal concern of mine. Now I will agree with many that Bite is swimming upstream at the moment, attempting to justify a strategy that really is not optimal.

But that said, I have "growing" (heh) concern that growth isn't strong enough. Do we provide enough benefit for high population to make that a viable strategy. In other words, right now high pop is not a good strategy.....should it be?

 

[Owlbebach]

But that said, I have "growing" (heh) concern that growth isn't strong enough. Do we provide enough benefit for high population to make that a viable strategy. In other words, right now high pop is not a good strategy.....should it be?

I don't think so. It should be beneficial IF you know what to with it. I mean otherwise "grow as much as you can" will be a very easy strategy. Also VP should still reflect real world in some way. Take a look at India, Indonesia or Russia - population is big, but economy is screwed and there is no light in the end of the tunnel. On the other hand China used its high population in a proper way.

 

[Stalker0]

I mean otherwise "grow as much as you can" will be a very easy strategy.

Easy doesn't mean the strongest, but is it "strong enough" for players who enjoy that strategy. My reaction may be more towards those late game building like Medical Lab and Agribusiness. We are putting a strong signal with those buildings that "growth is still in baby!" but in reality at this point in the game growth is pretty darn weak. Its a mixed signal.

 

[Owlbebach]

Easy doesn't mean the strongest, but is it "strong enough" for players who enjoy that strategy. My reaction may be more towards those late game building like Medical Lab and Agribusiness. We are putting a strong signal with those buildings that "growth is still in baby!" but in reality at this point in the game growth is pretty darn weak. Its a mixed signal.

In my opinion it is strong enough. Maybe we can make it A LITTLE stronger but is it really necessary?

 

[Rafs]

This reopens a personal concern of mine. Now I will agree with many that Bite is swimming upstream at the moment, attempting to justify a strategy that really is not optimal.

But that said, I have "growing" (heh) concern that growth isn't strong enough. Do we provide enough benefit for high population to make that a viable strategy. In other words, right now high pop is not a good strategy.....should it be?

Growth, just as expansion, warring or any other focus in this game, is good in a certain balance. Is science bad? No, its great. Is focusing very strongly on science and ignoring the other yields a good idea? Not really. I think the mod strives to make you keep things balanced, only exception imho being culture, but it's a very hard to get yield, you can only prioritize techs/construction order and work some specialists.
Growth at the moment is very strong, but you can't grow everything at any time, only exception to this is the capital with tradition, as you can get many more specialists in it, to compensate for extra required yields, and the capital growth will make your city connections more worthwhile. A very big city is more versatile, will give more military supply cap, more faith yields, more yields from per pop buildings, ect..., so I understand it must also have drawbacks, if its only positives then growth is back to being the king.
Only time you can go crazy with growth is once you have enough policies to back that up (so not until late ideologies), which will coincide with late technological eras (late atomic/information).
Alternatively, you can just pick happiness policies in every tree and not complete those and focus on happiness in a very specific way (like opening imperialism and picking +1 happiness on costabularies, opening rationalism and +1 on universities.. ect), but it seems like a lackluster strategy to me.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Except your happiness plummets before you reach the end game and you quit out of frustration. Rather than realize your strategy is to blame, you come on the forums demanding that the game be changed to suite your obviously superior strategy.

I already apologized for thinking, the increased pop modifier is causing the issues. It isnt. I think its more by some strange tech median calculations, I saw this by an others game and by my own. Ive played a bit with fire tuner get a feeling for the values. I noticed, the increased population modifier in this version isnt that gamebreaking. The modifier in a size 50 city is only 8% bigger than in the previous version, you can handle it.
For the one who asked for my little capitol:

Ok, its now only 400 food, cause I placed 2 factories on former farms.
As you can see, I have 71 positive happines. I was struggling with happines in mid industrial, cause 2 big happiness swings crippled me and I had to stop growth and focus happiness policies for around 40 turns. Then polynesia got killed and I jumped up by 60 happiness. If those damn polynesian died earlier, I could have grown more. Still no answer, what exactly happened there. And as you can see too.... no waste farmland, no underdeveloped city.

A secondary city, they look all like this.

Should i continue? I am sure can find more mistakes in this particular message if i dig deeper into numbers. This example just has zero connection with reality

The greatest drawbacks are the wonders and the social policies, I agree.
But it works, if you focus on growth and production (yes, on both, not only farms everywhere ) and relativly ignore the rest, you can follow the tech and policy leader by trade routes, driving in the wind shadow of them, creating slowly your backbone of the lategame. I like playing that way, and it works. Thats civ. Do whatever works, do whatever enjoys you.

And if you have asked yourself, how the AI was able to fudge you in the previous versions:

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I just posted on GitHub, but I wanted to ask if anyone else experience a bug where your friend/ally asks you to declare war on another civ, which you accept, and then it causes you to enter war with your friend instead of that other civ?

 

[Gazebo]

I already apologized for thinking, the increased pop modifier is causing the issues. It isnt. I think its more by some strange tech median calculations, I saw this by an others game and by my own. Ive played a bit with fire tuner get a feeling for the values. I noticed, the increased population modifier in this version isnt that gamebreaking. The modifier in a size 50 city is only 8% bigger than in the previous version, you can handle it.
For the one who asked for my little capitol:

Ok, its now only 400 food, cause I placed 2 factories on former farms.
As you can see, I have 71 positive happines. I was struggling with happines in mid industrial, cause 2 big happiness swings crippled me and I had to stop growth and focus happiness policies for around 40 turns. Then polynesia got killed and I jumped up by 60 happiness. If those damn polynesian died earlier, I could have grown more. Still no answer, what exactly happened there. And as you can see too.... no waste farmland, no underdeveloped city.

A secondary city, they look all like this.

The greatest drawbacks are the wonders and the social policies, I agree.
But it works, if you focus on growth and production (yes, on both, not only farms everywhere ) and relativly ignore the rest, you can follow the tech and policy leader by trade routes, driving in the wind shadow of them, creating slowly your backbone of the lategame. I like playing that way, and it works. Thats civ. Do whatever works, do whatever enjoys you.

And if you have asked yourself, how the AI was able to fudge you in the previous versions:

Judging by the UI this is not from 10-10 - please keep questions and content in this thread to 10-10 content only.

G

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Judging by the UI this is not from 10-10 - please keep questions and content in this thread to 10-10 content only.

G

Heyho mister Gazebo. Be ready to do one more Great Person in your great mod.
Ive found the bug.
As I said.... its the tech median calculation.... And you didnt have changed anything about the tech median calculations, so any bug in the 9-25 version is still there.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-beta-version-september-25th-9-25.636800/page-27

 

[Gazebo]

Heyho mister Gazebo. Be ready to do one more Great Person in your great mod.
Ive found the bug.
As I said.... its the tech median calculation.... And you didnt have changed anything about the tech median calculations, so any bug in the 9-25 version is still there.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-beta-version-september-25th-9-25.636800/page-27

No bug my dude. The median tech calculation is a median, and it can't be lower than the current median (i.e. it can't go down). So if it appears to freeze because of a tiny civ influencing the median, that's because the median is lower than the calculated median.

At this point I think I may just make myself a Great Person in this mod. Perhaps a Great Artsciengineratist.

G

 

[Stalker0]

Only time you can go crazy with growth is once you have enough policies to back that up (so not until late ideologies), which will coincide with late technological eras (late atomic/information).

This is the area I am targeting for discussion.

We know that all yields have a value curve in the game. Faith has one of the steepest curve changes. Faith is extremely valuable early game, and then rapidly loses value by the midgame, almost worthless by end game. Food follows a similar curve, though not nearly as steep as faith.

The difference though is that the game respects faith as an early resource. All of the faith benefits from policies and buildings are finished by the mid game. There is no late game building that generates more faith, no ideology that boosts your faith, etc. The game is telling you "faith is done".

However, the game does not do the same to food. In fact, there are many late game policies, techs, and buildings that dramatically increase food. That is a signal to the player that "food and growth are still really important!"

But....is that a lie? Are we telling players that they should be committed to growth at a time in the game when growth is no longer that useful, having them fall into traps of suboptimal play?

 

[BiteInTheMark]

So if it appears to freeze because of a tiny civ influencing the median, that's because the median is lower than the calculated median.

Cause the median is lower than the calculated median? What?
You always say you use the median in need calculations cause its so stable and even bigger nations cant influence it... .and now you say tiny civs can freeze the median????

Here are some numbers:
56, 57, 57, 60, 63, 65, 65, 65, 71
...... so tell us.... whats the median of those numbers? Your game tells me it's 59, and sorry but it's kinda strange 6 of 9 nations are over the median.
54, 54, 55, 55, 59, 59, 59, 61, 65
Where is the median here? Your game tells me it's 56....

 

[arthurF]

I think something in this latest patch made it a bit harder for us human players. At my prefered difficulty level of Diety, i've been having a MUCH harder time vs warlike civs, and they are grabbing most of the wonders too. I"m not complaining. I"ll just have to go down a notch or two.