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

[BiteInTheMark]

I already have done a github entry for this issue but I want to mention it here too:
Landmarks didnt give any vote from Holy Land Reformation belief.
The reason I post here is another. Has anyone seen AIs making any use of it in your games?
In the last 2 games the AI picked it, they didnt get any vote from it.

 

[SpankmyMetroid]

I already have done a github entry for this issue but I want to mention it here too:
Landmarks didnt give any vote from Holy Land Reformation belief.
The reason I post here is another. Has anyone seen AIs making any use of it in your games?
In the last 2 games the AI picked it, they didnt get any vote from it.

I think it shows up under ‘policies’ for some reason. I picked holy land in my recent game and the number I got there was consistent with the landmarks I owned.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

It’s also worthwhile to note that this is all largely academic, as I’m not seeing any complaints about the system in 10-10.

G

"Playing on Prince with a Terra map, I was at 3 happiness, then picked an ideology (Order) and took the -20% poverty plus 20% food policy. Next turn unhappiness shot up to 43. The next turn it went to 99. WTH is going on here. In 3 turns I have a 102 happiness swing AFTER picking an ideology."
"Edit: And now after 1 turn at 57, I received a new technology, and it immediately went back up to 114."
https://www.reddit.com/r/civvoxpopu...tress_seems_broken/?utm_source=reddit-android
"How do you counter mid-game unhappiness? It's rampant no matter what I do. I build all the right buildings but the causes keep mounting up."
https://www.reddit.com/r/civvoxpopu...o_much_unhappiness/?utm_source=reddit-android
No median rounding error. Its still some crazy modifier jumps by the tech median.

Played another game with india, and this tech median modifier is so hardcore penalizing.
8 nations, the two "median" nations have 49 and 51 techs researched. We know already, with the 40% calculation, it will always took the lower one (49). And increase this value by one for a mysterious reason. (50)
From the observation of my need modifier by artificially increasing tech from 52 to 54, it confirms that calculation. The median is 50.

Following observations were made in a 8 city empire, capitol has size of 46, secondary cities have a size of around 30.
Going from 2 to 3 tech lead cause +25 unhappiness. Going from 3 to 4 tech lead cause +33 unhappiness.
I dont know how much unhappiness is generated by increasing tech lead from 0 to 2, but there is absolutly no option to deal with 58 unhappiness in a 8 city empire. No single social policy, tenet or building can fix that.

Two more techs in my capital (46) increase the needs by 40%, while a 75% reduction building is able to decrease it by 21%. This means I would need 2 more 75% need reduction buildings for every need to compensate it.
Two more techs in my secondary cities (30) increase the needs by 31%, while a 75% reduction building is able to decrease it by 25%. This means I would need 1.2 of such buildings for every need.
The effect of the tech-median modifier is in no relation to need-reduction buildings.

Gazebo, iam fine with an another increase of the population modifier (I may regret this...), cause this modifier increases slowly and can be stopped by growth. But even if you stop growth and freeze medians, a rampant tech modifier can cause huge happiness swings, especially in lategame. I would suggest the maximum effect of the median can stay as it is, but its reached later (6-8 tech lead).

Another issue:
More unhappiness by needs after setting "no growth":
I set my specialist control to manual and city management to default. Lot of laborers.
After I have set the specialist control to automatic and pressed the no growth button, my unhappiness increased by 24. Unhappiness by specialists is 26.25.
So, even if specialists wouldnt generate any unhappiness, the 105 (!!!) additional specialists would have decreased the unhappiness only by 2.5.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I think it shows up under ‘policies’ for some reason. I picked holy land in my recent game and the number I got there was consistent with the landmarks I owned.

No, I have 2 votes by policies too, it would fit, but those 2 by policy comes from "consulates" of the statecraft policy tree.

 

[Gazebo]

"Playing on Prince with a Terra map, I was at 3 happiness, then picked an ideology (Order) and took the -20% poverty plus 20% food policy. Next turn unhappiness shot up to 43. The next turn it went to 99. WTH is going on here. In 3 turns I have a 102 happiness swing AFTER picking an ideology."
"Edit: And now after 1 turn at 57, I received a new technology, and it immediately went back up to 114."
https://www.reddit.com/r/civvoxpopu...tress_seems_broken/?utm_source=reddit-android
"How do you counter mid-game unhappiness? It's rampant no matter what I do. I build all the right buildings but the causes keep mounting up."
https://www.reddit.com/r/civvoxpopu...o_much_unhappiness/?utm_source=reddit-android
No median rounding error. Its still some crazy modifier jumps by the tech median.

Played another game with india, and this tech median modifier is so hardcore penalizing.
8 nations, the two "median" nations have 49 and 51 techs researched. We know already, with the 40% calculation, it will always took the lower one (49). And increase this value by one for a mysterious reason. (50)
From the observation of my need modifier by artificially increasing tech from 52 to 54, it confirms that calculation. The median is 50.

Following observations were made in a 8 city empire, capitol has size of 46, secondary cities have a size of around 30.
Going from 2 to 3 tech lead cause +25 unhappiness. Going from 3 to 4 tech lead cause +33 unhappiness.
I dont know how much unhappiness is generated by increasing tech lead from 0 to 2, but there is absolutly no option to deal with 58 unhappiness in a 8 city empire. No single social policy, tenet or building can fix that.

Two more techs in my capital (46) increase the needs by 40%, while a 75% reduction building is able to decrease it by 21%. This means I would need 2 more 75% need reduction buildings for every need to compensate it.
Two more techs in my secondary cities (30) increase the needs by 31%, while a 75% reduction building is able to decrease it by 25%. This means I would need 1.2 of such buildings for every need.
The effect of the tech-median modifier is in no relation to need-reduction buildings.

Gazebo, iam fine with an another increase of the population modifier (I may regret this...), cause this modifier increases slowly and can be stopped by growth. But even if you stop growth and freeze medians, a rampant tech modifier can cause huge happiness swings, especially in lategame. I would suggest the maximum effect of the median can stay as it is, but its reached later (6-8 tech lead).

Another issue:
More unhappiness by needs after setting "no growth":
I set my specialist control to manual and city management to default. Lot of laborers.
After I have set the specialist control to automatic and pressed the no growth button, my unhappiness increased by 24. Unhappiness by specialists is 26.25.
So, even if specialists wouldnt generate any unhappiness, the 105 (!!!) additional specialists would have decreased the unhappiness only by 2.5.

You don’t even know what version of the mod he is on. I’m betting not 10-10, based on his description. But hey, whatever it takes to bolster your argument, right?

G

 

[BiteInTheMark]

You don’t even know what version of the mod he is on. I’m betting not 10-10, based on his description. But hey, whatever it takes to bolster your argument, right?

G

One is saying he plays 10-10, the other says he plays the new beta (the post is 3 hours old)
Also Moi Magnus posted this reports and said its about this version....

 

[tu_79]

Playing on Prince for a test I want to do, I've rarely noticed war weariness. I took 4 Austrian cities after a bloody long war in late Classical before war weariness encouraged me to stop.

 

[Txurce]

Playing on Prince for a test I want to do, I've rarely noticed war weariness. I took 4 Austrian cities after a bloody long war in late Classical before war weariness encouraged me to stop.

Haven't you noticed that WW is rarely a factor in the early game?

 

[Gazebo]

One is saying he plays 10-10, the other says he plays the new beta (the post is 3 hours old)
Also Moi Magnus posted this reports and said its about this version....

The first one 'distress is broken' offers no concrete evidence as to what his/her empire looks like.

The other one is clearly a new player, most likely stepping into VP with vanilla mindset of 'grow, get science ASAP, expand as much as possible.' Understandable, but hardly evidence enough to warrant overhauling anything.

Again, the number of complains about swings and unhappiness have dropped precipitously with this version. I see no reason to alter the system much further at this time, aside from my discussion in the other thread of merging all negative penalties into the static yield update on citizen birth.

G

 

[Questdog]

Three times in the last two games I have played I have had City State near me get the Assaulted By Barbarian Hordes event and three times I have sent units to help out but no Barbs ever appeared. Has anyone else seen them appear? I am thinking that maybe for some reason these Barbs cannot spawn anymore in places where the player has vision. But that is just a guess.

 

[Gazebo]

Three times in the last two games I have played I have had City State near me get the Assaulted By Barbarian Hordes event and three times I have sent units to help out but no Barbs ever appeared. Has anyone else seen them appear? I am thinking that maybe for some reason these Barbs cannot spawn anymore in places where the player has vision. But that is just a guess.

Make a GitHub post and I’ll remember to check when I get time.

 

[pineappledan]

G, Re: the conversation about adding a setting for modders to disable parts of Rome's ability to capture buildings, wouldn't it be easiest to add a new 'NeverCaptureRome' column to the 'Building' table, with a default value of 0? If set to '1', the building is not captured by Rome.

That would give modders granular control over exactly which buildings they allow Rome to take or not.
The reason I was thinking about this is because I'm not sure what would happen if someone made a unique Arena replacement for a custom civ. The AI wouldn't sell the unique Arena so it could build its own Colosseum, so there might be cases where modders might want to disable specific buildings for Rome.

 

[Questdog]

Make a GitHub post and I’ll remember to check when I get time.

Done: "Barbarian Hordes Not Appearing"

 

[Gazebo]

G, Re: the conversation about adding a setting for modders to disable parts of Rome's ability to capture buildings, wouldn't it be easiest to add a new 'NeverCaptureRome' column to the 'Building' table, with a default value of 0? If set to '1', the building is not captured by Rome.

That would give modders granular control over exactly which buildings they allow Rome to take or not.
The reason I was thinking about this is because I'm not sure what would happen if someone made a unique Arena replacement for a custom civ. The AI wouldn't sell the unique Arena so it could build its own Colosseum, so there might be cases where modders might want to disable specific buildings for Rome.

Adding memory elements to buildings is more expensive than adding them to leaders. I can simply make a lua hook for modders that allows for an override.

G

 

[Galbias]

This may have been addressed in the past but it's a possible balance issue that I've been considering bringing up for awhile; Isolation can hit really, really hard late game and can be inflicted very easily in the right situation. Pillaging one (rail)road tile near Siam's capital here knocks them down by 51 happiness instantly:
https://imgur.com/a/xhKb8GP

Seems like it would be potentially exploitable with Paratroopers and I think it's usually a 4 turn minimum to repair the road (afaik it will only let you repair the road if the improvement has already been repaired) and that's after you've killed the offending unit and gotten a Worker there. Maybe it would be better with only a small hit to happiness initially which gradually ramps up if you don't fix your city connections?

 

[tu_79]

This may have been addressed in the past but it's a possible balance issue that I've been considering bringing up for awhile; Isolation can hit really, really hard late game and can be inflicted very easily in the right situation. Pillaging one (rail)road tile near Siam's capital here knocks them down by 51 happiness instantly:
https://imgur.com/a/xhKb8GP

Seems like it would be potentially exploitable with Paratroopers and I think it's usually a 4 turn minimum to repair the road (afaik it will only let you repair the road if the improvement has already been repaired) and that's after you've killed the offending unit and gotten a Worker there. Maybe it would be better with only a small hit to happiness initially which gradually ramps up if you don't fix your city connections?

This is why you need redundancy. One single road connecting all your cities in a row is something very cheap, and probably it's the first layout you need, but if the first tile connecting to capital is broken you are doomed.

What you need to do is:
- Ensure your capital connection to the sea. Each coastal city is connected via lighthouses as long as it is not blockaded by an enemy fleet. You have to blockade all coastal cities to interrupt this connection.
- Design a loop road net. This means connecting your capital to two different cities using different roads, and those other cities being connected by a different road, closing the loop. This way you can place more villages boosted by roads.
- Protect your weak spots. While it's difficult to prevent a parachute attack, a tile cannot be pillaged if a unit of yours is parked there.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Again, the number of complains about swings and unhappiness have dropped precipitously with this version. I see no reason to alter the system much further at this time, aside from my discussion in the other thread of merging all negative penalties into the static yield update on citizen birth.

G

Yes, I agree, the reports have decreased and unhappiness seems a bit more controllable. But this solution look so artificial and inelegant. Not very intuitive for gameplay.
The numbers behind the need modifier stays in cover and mysterious.
And in my opinion, going into lead by 2 more techs, leading to 60 more unhappiness, is a extreme punishment. Picking the "3 specialist generate happiness instead of unhappiness" gave me 7 happiness while one more tech lead increase unhappiness by +25. Going order and pick great leap forward would be a suicide.
Even if I stop growth, a nation once with big population is a playball of the tech median.

Could you imagine to spread the tech median punishment a bit more, making it less painful with same tech lead?
At the moment the formula is this:
X*X*X = 1 - 8 - 27 - 64 - 100 (Max)
But with this formula it would be this:
X*(X+X+1) = 3 - 10 - 21 - 36 - 55 - 78 - 100 (Max)

This formula would be less punishing for small leads while the whole power hits those which are really a runaway.

 

[tu_79]

Yes, I agree, the reports have decreased and unhappiness seems a bit more controllable. But this solution look so artificial and inelegant. Not very intuitive for gameplay.
The numbers behind the need modifier stays in cover and mysterious.
And in my opinion, going into lead by 2 more techs, leading to 60 more unhappiness, is a extreme punishment. Picking the "3 specialist generate happiness instead of unhappiness" gave me 7 happiness while one more tech lead increase unhappiness by +25. Going order and pick great leap forward would be a suicide.
Even if I stop growth, a nation once with big population is a playball of the tech median.

Could you imagine to spread the tech median punishment a bit more, making it less painful with same tech lead?
At the moment the formula is this:
X*X*X = 1 - 8 - 27 - 64 - 100 (Max)
But with this formula it would be this:
X*(X+X+1) = 3 - 10 - 21 - 36 - 55 - 78 - 100 (Max)

This formula would be less punishing for small leads while the whole power hits those which are really a runaway.

I'm not sure about this, but probably will make tall game too easy. As it is now, I can be several techs over the median and still very happy while playing tall.

 

[Gazebo]

Yes, I agree, the reports have decreased and unhappiness seems a bit more controllable. But this solution look so artificial and inelegant. Not very intuitive for gameplay.
The numbers behind the need modifier stays in cover and mysterious.
And in my opinion, going into lead by 2 more techs, leading to 60 more unhappiness, is a extreme punishment. Picking the "3 specialist generate happiness instead of unhappiness" gave me 7 happiness while one more tech lead increase unhappiness by +25. Going order and pick great leap forward would be a suicide.
Even if I stop growth, a nation once with big population is a playball of the tech median.

Could you imagine to spread the tech median punishment a bit more, making it less painful with same tech lead?
At the moment the formula is this:
X*X*X = 1 - 8 - 27 - 64 - 100 (Max)
But with this formula it would be this:
X*(X+X+1) = 3 - 10 - 21 - 36 - 55 - 78 - 100 (Max)

This formula would be less punishing for small leads while the whole power hits those which are really a runaway.

See above: if I merge the tech penalty into the static yield players would have clear visibility in the city UI what growth will mean. This means that happiness will only change in a negative fashion when cities grow, if a city's yield output drops, war weariness, or the other needs like isolation/religion. No more 'positive' things (like tech research) causing drops.

G

 

[Minh Le]

I've tried some OCC game recently. The new war weariness system make it really hard to play OCC where unit supply is very limited. Now wonders like Great Wall and Red Fort are must build for OCC. I think supply cap provide by population should be raised a little. With 9 units in modern era, defend against horde of AI is hard enough even without war weariness.