In my current game (standard speed, prince difficulty, large continents plus, sparse resources) as Sweden with 9 cities, I have major gold difficulties and wondering why. My start was a jungle rich area so I set out to try something new and leave jungles in tact to build logging camps on them and get tourism with zoos later. Currently I am in the late renaissance era and my 20 logging camps provide 5 to 7 gold each, all markets and banks are built, I am at peace with everyone and my empire is in a golden age yet I am just short of +0 gold and fluctuating heavily.
I find it strange the one game I focus on making bank I have money problems...
Also, why is the AI doing so well? China is leading with +300 gold per turn, without jungles but the largest military force on the planet. I find that highly questionable.
Feedback:
The Industry social policy branch is a serious handicap for everyone picking it compared to Imperialism and Rationalism!
What era are you in and how
Many military units do you have? I do find that gold reserves tend to drop in industrial. The gold bonuses tend to decline and the maintenance fees start to creep up.
Trade routes are the best way to generate the extra gold you need, so you may need to switch to more ETRs if you haven’t already
Yep, more information would be great to try to figure out what's going on. E.g. what are the magnitude of your maintenance fees? If you hover over your income you can get a breakdown of how much each element is costing you.
Something else I wanted to note in my current game (which is overall pretty well balanced) is liberated city-states seem very vulnerable to recapture. I've seen this with liberated cities in the past, but in this case I gifted a number of units to the city-state to help it defend itself. I let one of my neighbours ally that city-state and very soon afterwards it got captured again. I feel as though I need to sort of nurture the thing like a plant or baby in order to keep it alive. Not that it's not worthwhile (I hate when city-states dissapear) but it feels like a lot of work.
Something else I wanted to note in my current game (which is overall pretty well balanced) is liberated city-states seem very vulnerable to recapture. I've seen this with liberated cities in the past, but in this case I gifted a number of units to the city-state to help it defend itself. I let one of my neighbours ally that city-state and very soon afterwards it got captured again. I feel as though I need to sort of nurture the thing like a plant or baby in order to keep it alive. Not that it's not worthwhile (I hate when city-states dissapear) but it feels like a lot of work.
This is one oversight with the new "City gets minimum CS = garrison". When you do a liberation, since there are no units garrisoning for the CS...it is very vulnerable to recapture. I got into a liberation war with an AI a few games ago.
Its annoying, though its a minor issue in the long run....I think the new change solved a lot of the problem.
Getting now more into lategame warfare, I think the melee buff might went a bit too far.
Especially the Fusilier is ridicoulus.
In comparison with the Tercio, you get a 50% CS increase, +15% CS against range attacks and +15 hitpoints in only one era. The +50% against mounted units make the fusiliers tougher against mounted units than the following rifleman. (57 CS vs 50 CS)
All together, the Fusilier is 1.5*1.15*1.15 = 2 tougher against ranged attacks than the previous unit.
I think halfing the modifier against mounted units and simply giving every melee unit beyond the tercio only +10hp/% CS against ranged would be fairly enough. (I think the AI thinks the same, else I couldnt explain why the Iroquese in my game are attacking one of my allied CS with nothing else than Fusiliers (12))
I also think, changing the required ressource for ironclads from coal to iron is a bad decision. Now it happens that I swim in coal but cant build any ships cause every ship needs iron. Iam not even able to build corvettes, cause those get instantly obsolet. Please switch that back.
I also think, changing the required ressource for ironclads from coal to iron is a bad decision. Now it happens that I swim in coal but cant build any ships cause every ship needs iron. Iam not even able to build corvettes, cause those get instantly obsolet. Please switch that back.
Getting now more into lategame warfare, I think the melee buff might went a bit too far.
Especially the Fusilier is ridicoulus.
In comparison with the Tercio, you get a 50% CS increase, +15% CS against range attacks and +15 hitpoints in only one era. The +50% against mounted units make the fusiliers tougher against mounted units than the following rifleman. (57 CS vs 50 CS)
All together, the Fusilier is 1.5*1.15*1.15 = 2 tougher against ranged attacks than the previous unit.
I think halfing the modifier against mounted units and simply giving every melee unit beyond the tercio only +10hp/% CS against ranged would be fairly enough. (I think the AI thinks the same, else I couldnt explain why the Iroquese in my game are attacking one of my allied CS with nothing else than Fusiliers (12))
Its true that the Fusilier increase is very strong, and taken in a vacuum it can look OP. But the key to me is that other aspects of war are also changing, and you have to take those into account.
1) Arsenals: Cities suddenly get another big boost of CS, and now hit from 3 away.
2) Field Guns: Rough terrain is no longer protection, enemy siege can bomb you regardless of terrain.
3) Gatling Guns: The 38 CS doesn't look so tough against a 45 RCS unit. The fusilier entrenchment bonus simply counteracts the -15% CS bonus from the GG.
4) Military Academies: The +1 supply mean that armies are getting larger, and higher units favor ranged attacks over melee ones.
Simply put, ranged is getting a major upgrade at this point in the game, and melee needs to be really tough to do its job. As I've noted before, I love melee units, and I use the fusilier quite extensively. Is it stronger than it used to be? Heck yeah! Is it overpowered? I don't think so, they still die to concentrations of ggun fire and city bombardment just fine...they can simply take a bit more punishment than they used to. I have never found myself unable to counter the AI who plays with large numbers of Fusiliers, and I still find a mixed force army superior to one with all melee units.
I have never found myself unable to counter the AI who plays with large numbers of Fusiliers, and I still find a mixed force army superior to one with all melee units.
But then Iam asking me, why the Iroquese in my game was fielding a pure Fusilier army against my CS army. 12 Units were surrounding the city, but no attack were done. Around 10 turns later only one gatling gun and one howitzer appeared, that was it. If the AI values Fusiliers that high, it seems its values are really that high (too high).
And yes, its the time gatling guns, arsenals and field guns comes online, but that was happening before the patch too and I hadnt any problem with that.
If the -15% from gatlings are causing too much trouble, why not simply remove this promotion instead of adding others? Try to keep it simple.
Dont forget, 15 more hp AND 15% more strength against ranged units is multiplicative and increases the effective CS of that unit by 32%. That is huge.
I have a bigger problem with the +50% against mounted units, cause it makes no sense that Fusiliers have a huge combat bonus against mounted units but rifleman not. A small bonus like 20% would be ok, simply cause of gameplay reasons, but 50%?
Just some detailed observations after thoroughly enjoying a 5 city Maya game (I finished 2nd): Emperor / Standard / Continents (no events, tech trading/agreements disabled), Tradition / Artistry / Rationalism / Freedom.
First off, I'm going to further touch on something which was brought up in another thread recently, and that is tourism and CV, which does absolutely not need a nerf. In fact, I think CEP needs a slight hammer reduction (6000 is...a lot) because there are so many things that can stall your final stretch, including losing influential (and the ability to build CEP entirely) with that final pesky civ(s), meanwhile there is nothing to stunt the AI competing against you with a SV -- other than waging war against the competing civ(s), which is an impossibility in some situations which I'll outline next. In this instance I finished just shy of a CV, coming in second to Gandhi who won SV on turn 411. I couldn't even attack him because I had open borders and a couple final ETRs that I needed for tourism bonuses to help me touch influential. I had just completed my first turn of CEP when the splash screen hit (so he technically won by 13 turns), Gandhi finishing his last 2 parts in a single turn; I thought I still could squeeze it out as he was warring with AI.
As you'll see in the first pic,
Spoiler:
there are many varying factors to every game based on location, neighbors, and relative competition. I had a persistent Genghis to the north/east, an untrustworthy Askia with his Brazilian vassal to my west (though, really my only hope in combating Gandhi during late game), and a duo of Byz and Hiawatha to my south/east that would make things as difficult as possible on me without directly impacting my land -- despite being nothing but kind the entire game, Byz brokered multiple Mongol wars against me, and Hiawatha declared on me a couple times just to be a jerk and conquer some CS allies I had on his secondary continent. I could effectively only send routes (for tourism bombs on completion) to Byzantine cities throughout a majority of this game, and she only had 5 available. I had multiple circumstances of having to divert production, mostly from my low hammer secondary cities, into recreating TR's because of shenanigans from shady neighbors as soon as I tried to establish trade to my east/west. Byz never did DoW me directly, but this game had me feeling pressured and uncomfortable from all angles throughout the entire game. It was frustratingly awesome! To make things worse, I actually lost because Venice ultimately stalled my CV; he took Order and gained control of the World Congress from me, passing a travel ban that I couldn't get repealed throughout the last 100+ turns. I was sitting at the brink of influential with him for what seemed like eternity, but the negative modifiers were doing their jobs and I had to watch Gandhi finish his parts one by one. When I finally had enough faith to purchase the last musician I needed for Venice (10000 is harder to accumulate without Fealty, and I used all my previous to get influential with Gandhi), he had already DoW me and I could not accelerate the process anymore, simply having to rely on waiting for tourism bomb from a completed ETR. By that time it was too late.
I've got to address Gandhi next, because this dude was a powerhouse. He just might be the most well rounded foe in the game when all is said and done: food, religion, high culture leading into high science/economy/trade.
Spoiler:
Throughout the majority of the game I was sitting pretty with a substantial tech lead and was also leading or tied atop policies. After discovering him, it was apparent that he was a threat to my intended CV or SV, but I wasn't worried because I'd taken Rationalism with a tech lead and a science centered civ lead by Pacal. This apparently didn't matter to him because he was able to somehow leapfrog me into a ridiculous game winning snowball throughout the last 100+ turns. This is despite me snatching the only corp available for our civs (T-Sid's, he had furs and I had spices) and beating him to Bletchley and CN by 1 turn each; I even got Hubble to try and see if I could combine the 2 free techs with a couple scientist bulbs to reclaim an SV because my CV was in limbo. He adopted Freedom first while grabbing SoL, though I eventually caught him in policies, but none of it mattered really. Once he got Apollo and Cern, the writing was on the wall. He didn't waste resources trying to influence me (couldn't really budge me over 45%), but he had influenced every other civ and had a CV in his initial sights. His tech lead throughout late game was enough to easily stop short any efforts to stop him by Venice and Askia -- he actually gained a couple cities. I just don't understand how he was able to gain so much more momentum than me, when I should've realistically had the science advantage due to my civ and terrain. He did all this despite being sanctioned for basically the last 50 turns of the game. I don't know what the deal is, maybe just Emperor's late game bonuses, or maybe he just really is that spooky. He wasn't even as powerful as he could've been, initially choosing Way of Pilgrim...
Fun side note from this game is that I did not build a single ship or diplo unit the entire game. Not one. My waters were surrounded and any paltry fleet constrained by my low supply would be overwhelmed. Meanwhile I had Mongol, Venice, an Authority Hiawatha, and Askia eating up CS left right and centre. By the end of the game there were only 2 CS left lol.
I was severely annoyed again on a few occasions this game with the policy requirements for certain wonders.
Spoiler:
If a civ is science heavy without any substantial culture output, then I get it, but I'd specifically taken Iconography and was situated either first or second in both techs and policies for the entire game. This was more apparent in late game, with Gandhi becoming the benefactor because his slight policy lead allowed him to catch up to what little tech advantage I did have in certain areas, while I had to still wait on another policy or two even though I realistically shouldn't have had to due to being second in policies with Iconography. As I mentioned previously, I barely managed to get CN despite specifically bee-lining, and I had to wait several turns before I could start constructing. It almost cost me the game right then and there. yet there were no compromises having to be made for Gandhi. Ultimately the inflated policy requirements only aided the snowball of the civ in first, on top of things like early adopter free tenets, Free GA and GS on completion of Apollo, etc., I find these things are unnecessarily creating more snowball and yield bloat throughout end game and need to be removed/readjusted.
Being on the flip side with Great Wall this time, I still hate how the Dynamite aspect currently functions. I was being squeezed all game from multiple directions, and although I was tech leader into mid/late game I found myself actively avoiding teching Dynamite (even though I really wanted Eiffel, which Gandhi subsequently snatched) because it would negate the movement effect and allow my land to be breached easier by less advanced Mongols who don't have the ability to blow through my wall yet... It just makes no sense and I hate it from both perspectives, regardless of ownership.
This has been brought up before, but Explorer into Zeppelin cost is broken. You can see here
Spoiler:
that simply upgrading my 2 scout units would cost me all my gold. If this is intended or isn't going to be addressed, how can I manually adjust this to my liking?
I've spoke of this in the past, but I'm again going to illustrate the silly rules concerning excavations and open borders. It makes no sense why both sides need to have open borders for me to excavate. If I've put up the necessary assets for trade and secured open borders into their lands, then I should be able to dig (keeping relatively good diplo relations with a civ in the first place to allow me reasonable trade for their open borders is a feat sometimes by itself). You're already risking repercussion by accumulating negative diplo by excavating their lands, so there shouldn't be the silly restriction that's currently implemented. When you are a CV threat the AI is programmed to never accept your open borders, so it completely negates your archs and takes away potential gameplay despite having bartered to get into their lands... I was getting some buggy behavior anyways as you can see here,
Spoiler:
with my 1 arch allowed to dig while the other can't (when they technically both shouldn't be able under current rules because there was no open border through both parties). I use Arch Aesthetic Adjusment mod, which only changes appearance and has never caused problems for the many users.
I still don't think bartering for votes in WC is reasonable. Despite competing against each other throughout end game, Gandhi and I were friends on great terms, but this is how one instance played out. Here's a snapshot
Spoiler:
of his influence situation; similar to mine in that CV was very much an option at that point of the game if he really focused it and focused me with concert tours. Now here are the proposals, and you'll notice he actually proposed travel ban even though we were both equally situated for a CV.
Spoiler:
Kind of clever and ultimately what was my downfall, so I guess it worked even though it stunted his tourism also. I thought I could push through despite the passing, and he went into science overload to secure a win. What I don't like is the weirdness concerning the other two proposals. If he was gearing up to switch from a CV to a SV, then why would he not want to vote against Space Regulations, as seen here?
Spoiler:
And when I try to get him to agree for my proposal of International games (which technically still aids him and is a wonder he eventually ended up out hammering me to anyway, by the way...) there's this unfeasible value attached to just simply securing a couple votes.
Spoiler:
The values are just to impractical and I believe really need to be lowered across the board.
Finally, the good news is that I believe happiness is rounding into form, as my past few games (experiencing both wide and tall) have felt really good in this aspect.
What era are you in and how
Many military units do you have? I do find that gold reserves tend to drop in industrial. The gold bonuses tend to decline and the maintenance fees start to creep up.
Trade routes are the best way to generate the extra gold you need, so you may need to switch to more ETRs if you haven’t already
I can see some arguments for keeping the forest instead of improving cinnamon but ...
The AI should be replacing tile improvements on strategic resources, in this case also for the hammers.
Is it possible to fix?
Do the free Terracotta Army units have healing disabled? I just built Terracotta and I can't say I've ever noticed this before. Half my units don't have the Fortify Until Healed command available.
If thats the case then I will admit I kinda like the addition, but it should be somewhere in the text, or Terracotta soldiers should have a promotion which indicates that healing is disabled.
Edit: Nevermind. The Terracotta disabled the healing on my horse units because it put me over the strategic resource limit
I played two games now on this version (immortal, epic). Not happy. Felt the urge to register, to get it of my chest.
I feel like the military-score scaling is way off for the player.
In addition, in both games at least one AI completely carpet-of-doomed the game, which is super annoying.
Killing 3 units per round for 20+ rounds.. and still the map is cramped as far as a zeppelin with +2 vision can see.. the AI not even dropping into unhappiness, with more than 50units down.
It feels ridiculous and gives me basegame-PTSD. This can't be intended..
I really think that there ought to be a HARD absolute limit to both number of cities and to units. This has no basis in any rationale other than this : IT MAKES THE GAME PLAYABLE in later eras on larger maps.Please for the love of sid, implement.
I played two games now on this version (immortal, epic). Not happy. Felt the urge to register, to get it of my chest.
I feel like the military-score scaling is way off for the player.
In addition, in both games at least one AI completely carpet-of-doomed the game, which is super annoying.
Killing 3 units per round for 20+ rounds.. and still the map is cramped as far as a zeppelin with +2 vision can see.. the AI not even dropping into unhappiness, with more than 50units down.
It feels ridiculous and gives me basegame-PTSD. This can't be intended..
I played two games now on this version (immortal, epic). Not happy. Felt the urge to register, to get it of my chest.
I feel like the military-score scaling is way off for the player.
In addition, in both games at least one AI completely carpet-of-doomed the game, which is super annoying.
Killing 3 units per round for 20+ rounds.. and still the map is cramped as far as a zeppelin with +2 vision can see.. the AI not even dropping into unhappiness, with more than 50units down.
It feels ridiculous and gives me basegame-PTSD. This can't be intended..
Egypt, Tradition/Fealty/Industry, 9 cities, 182 population, 176 military score.
We're all in similar places technologically, I'm at my unit cap and all of my units are up-to-date with three or four exceptions.
(EDIT: Assuming what G says is true (which there's no reason whatsoever to doubt), it would suggest to me that the weighting emphasizes something which the AI tends to focus and a lot of players (including myself) don't. I don't know if that's something that could easily be accounted for and/or adjusted, but I do know it's a consistent problem I have anytime I'm not conquering.)
I too think there's something odd about the evaluation of player's military score and AI's. I'm consistently much lower than civs with comparable empire size/policies even when I'm at full cap with upgraded/modern units.
This has been reported many times in the past. If the calculation really is the same then the only option left is that the AI is has a higher unit cap, and if that is needed for the AI to be competitive, the calculation should take that into account and not be the same for human and AI. E.g. If the AI can have 30% more units it should value AI units 30% less.
I liked the vanilla CivV military score much more because it added up all units and not units divided by cities. I find the original way more informational because I (and the AI) don't need to defend every city in my entire empire, ever, only conflict zones. That's why it's very important to know which army is bigger before we clash. Right now I largely ignore the military score and I hope it gets reversed to be useful again.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
