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

[glider1]

having them fall into traps suboptimal play?

High populations still can be done just for fun on lower difficulties. People learn over time that it is not optimal in all cases. Don't see a problem. It isn't a lie because over-population is a huge issue in the real world too.

 

[PapaRockett]

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?

I had this happen, because the one who asked for war had a defensive pact with the enemy (ultimate trolling from the AI)

 

[CppMaster]

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?

Food is still important late game for working more specialists and keeping citizens. The more food boosting buildings you build the less you have to work farms to not starve your citizens.

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?

He mean that if the new median is lower than previous one, it doesn't change.
63 is a median in this set, but if previously it was 65, then it would be still 65, because it bigger.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

He mean that if the new median is lower than previous one, it doesn't change.
63 is a median in this set, but if previously it was 65, then it would be still 65, because it bigger.

Nope... The game say the median is 60 or lower. The only chance the real tech median is able to decrease is, if you kill a high tech nation. But this doesn't happened there.

 

[Gazebo]

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....

You’re walking the stack in the DLL? If not, don’t tell me you are confident on your numbers. Because you aren’t.

G

 

[Questdog]

I just had an odd thing happen and am not sure if it is a bug or some anomaly: 2 cities that I am allied with (Tyre and Hong Kong) both had the Barbarian Horde event pop up on the same turn. There is 5 tiles between them and they are close to my borders, so I sent a pair of knights to do some killing and rack up some influence. But no barbs ever showed up. After 20 turns the event ended without a barb ever having appeared. I was allied with these two, so I had vision the whole time.

 

[Questdog]

In the same game, I got 8 units as tribute from my vassals and they were all Explorers.....

 

[Txurce]

In the same game, I got 8 units as tribute from my vassals and they were all Explorers.....

Something similar happened to me, but I assumed it was an anomaly.

 

[Gazebo]

Something similar happened to me, but I assumed it was an anomaly.

Generally that means that the loop is not protected for RNG, i.e. the loop iterator doesn't change the RNG seed value on input. I've been compiling a list of these - make a github report so I can add an iterator variable.

G

 

[Questdog]

Generally that means that the loop is not protected for RNG, i.e. the loop iterator doesn't change the RNG seed value on input. I've been compiling a list of these - make a github report so I can add an iterator variable.

G

Done. I added a comment to ->

Randomness not random enough #4850

 

[Minh Le]

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!"

Extra food in the late game actually is very important. It allows you to work more non-food good yield tiles as well as specialists. You still have to feed your citizen

 

[wobuffet]

Extra food in the late game actually is very important. It allows you to work more non-food good yield tiles as well as specialists. You still have to feed your citizen

I think the "extra" in "extra food" here means "beyond what's required to feed your existing Citizens".

 

[Minh Le]

I think the "extra" in "extra food" here means "beyond what's required to feed your existing Citizens".

Which mean you can stop working that farm and work the Manufactory instead
And I didnt mean to stop growth completely, but keep it at a reasonable pace.

 

[Rafs]

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?

My take is food is harder to come by at the start (and harder to keep since you don't have buildings like medical labs, only aqueducts and granary) because high growth simply can't be sustained (as you will be lacking the appropriate buildings and policies to deal with the unhappiness brought by high pops), and once these late era buildings start to pop (like stadiums, nuclear centrals), so do the most op food buildings (medical labs, the river building at electricity for +2f/s/g on river tiles, ect...). You can of course push food if you really want with strong tourism in a capital + trade routes to dominant civs for extra growth, but this should be something exceptional and tied to a capital, rest of the cities don't have the bonuses that the capital gets and won't bring you the same benefits.
If we are "traping noobs", my opinion is not to mold the game to them, but to give them the resources (with tips or guides) to improve and learn why they failed. It is important to reflect by yourself on what failed the last time you lost a game, and if you can't see it you can always go ask others. Sometimes it may be out of your control (very bad lands/neighbor combo), but most of the time, if you analyze what went wrong you will see you could have taken a different course. The community is often enough (imho) very helpful with questions, tips, and how to improve your own game (like the contrast photojournals, or peoples own photojournals), so personally I believe the tools are actually here, for the people interested in using them.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

You’re walking the stack in the DLL? If not, don’t tell me you are confident on your numbers. Because you aren’t.

G

Do checked the DLL? No.
Are Iam confident? Hell yeah.
Feel free to explain the results, if my observersations are wrong.

If we are "traping noobs", my opinion is not to mold the game to them, but to give them the resources (with tips or guides) to improve and learn why they failed.

Doing not the most optimal way isnt failing. As long as you can win the game and have fun at same time, the people are playing it right.
This is the greatest strenght of this game/mod. Plenty of options how to play and how to win.

 

[Rafs]

Do checked the DLL? No.
Are Iam confident? Hell yeah.
Feel free to explain the results, if my observersations are wrong.

Doing not the most optimal way isnt failing. As long as you can win the game and have fun at same time, the people are playing it right.
This is the greatest strenght of this game/mod. Plenty of options how to play and how to win.

There are indeed plenty of ways to win and have fun, don't misunderstand me, everyone is free to play their own way, but there are some standards and rules in vox populi, and some things will work better than others.
There is a difference between optimal play (like the old tradition 4 cities sv in "vanilla" civ5, or even micromanaging all city specialists everywhere, which at immortal I only do in my capital for instance), and using the sinergies the policies, civilizations and religion can offer you. If you just want to play however you want it without sinergizing or making sacrifes to suit your playstyle, is this truly the game's fault? It is clear that not all ways of playing can work, and some are meant to fail, this is the way the mod is, most of the time to bring a semblance of balance. There is plenty of freedom and flexibility, but you must also use your experience and knowledge to make the best out of your situation to reach your goals.

 

[Gazebo]

Do checked the DLL? No.
Are Iam confident? Hell yeah.

 

[Owlbebach]

Doing not the most optimal way isnt failing. As long as you can win the game and have fun at same time, the people are playing it right.
This is the greatest strenght of this game/mod. Plenty of options how to play and how to win.

Actually it IS failing. It is only a matter of how much failing can you afford to still be able win.

Do checked the DLL? No.
Are Iam confident? Hell yeah.

And this is just perfect. Should be added to "golden quotes" list if there is one. Along with the "donut map" and "naturally unlucky person"

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Actually it IS failing. It is only a matter of how much failing can you afford to still be able win.

This is a kinda negative way to see this point.

And this is just perfect. Should be added to "golden quotes" list if there is one. Along with the "donut map" and "naturally unlucky person"

Did you even read what I have written in the 9-25 version thread, which is connected to this post?

 

[CrazyG]

Did you even read what I have written in the 9-25 version thread, which is connected to this post?

Maybe if you keep being condescending (and expecting everyone to read the entire forum), people will eventually agree that intentionally falling behind by two social policies is a good strategy.

Could you show some examples of how you entered the industrial era behind by 2 social policies and eventually caught up?