But if you have it off and the Techs are still to cheap it can't be the reason that Techs are to cheap.
NEW Handicap's
- Thread starter strategyonly
- Start date
But if you have it off and the Techs are still to cheap it can't be the reason that Techs are to cheap.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Of course. I also have not played since the global values have been adjusted.
I had a Deity level game where I noted the turn I went from 30 something research to over 200 thanks to meeting another civ. It was at that point I stopped playing with Tech Diffusion. That's as far as I can comment on it. It's a factor. But I don't think it's the only factor.
I think that BG said something earlier that explains a little better - the game speed tech modifiers were not ratioed out according to the same turn count ratio because he felt they were being doubled up by another factor. I'm not sure the right balance was quite struck there for longer game speeds such as Snail and beyond.
I had a Deity level game where I noted the turn I went from 30 something research to over 200 thanks to meeting another civ. It was at that point I stopped playing with Tech Diffusion. That's as far as I can comment on it. It's a factor. But I don't think it's the only factor.
I think that BG said something earlier that explains a little better - the game speed tech modifiers were not ratioed out according to the same turn count ratio because he felt they were being doubled up by another factor. I'm not sure the right balance was quite struck there for longer game speeds such as Snail and beyond.
I have another look at TechDiffusion.
That is true iResearchPercent is to low for Marathon and slower speeds, Snail for example has 750 but it should be 1035.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
By all means go ahead with that fix!
One thing we'll need to consider with this too is the extended build costs game option by SGT Slick has probably been thrown way out of whack. *sigh*
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
Didnt like them anyways, but why do you think?? btw are these modules?
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
No it uses the replacement mechanism much like your Nightmare Mode... and should be compatible unless Nightmare is also replacing the same files. We might just want to ask him to try to recalibrate them to the new structure.
Still testing and i found another bug....
All the Leaders with the Politican Trait start with -6 free Military Units and with 1 gold cost per Unit it is -6 Gold per Turn from the start
After stopping free Military Units from going negative i removed the 1 gold cost per Unit from Anarchism because it is unfair. Some Leaders start with free units and others without that is ok but if it can't have a Gold per Turn cost right from the start.
Still testing and i found another bug....
All the Leaders with the Politican Trait start with -6 free Military Units and with 1 gold cost per Unit it is -6 Gold per Turn from the start
After stopping free Military Units from going negative i removed the 1 gold cost per Unit from Anarchism because it is unfair. Some Leaders start with free units and others without that is ok but if it can't have a Gold per Turn cost right from the start.
Good catch. I would have missed that.
Speaking of traits, I'd like to suggest changing Expansionist trait to -50% Distance Maintenance and -15% #Cities Maintenance.
Distance is a lot less as it is now so the #Cities bonus means a lot but the little difference the Distance reduction does makes -20% hardly worth it, especially in comparison with the increased #Cities maintenance.
Cheers
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
Still testing and i found another bug....
All the Leaders with the Politican Trait start with -6 free Military Units and with 1 gold cost per Unit it is -6 Gold per Turn from the start
After stopping free Military Units from going negative i removed the 1 gold cost per Unit from Anarchism because it is unfair. Some Leaders start with free units and others without that is ok but if it can't have a Gold per Turn cost right from the start.
Are you changing all this you find or as you go do you want others to change (well at least the easy stuff)?
Is that normal or NM mode?
Thats to much for a Trait if you ask me.
I commit those changes later today.
Normal mode for the Expansionist. Could be 40% Dist and 12% #Cities if you want to make the trait harsher in NM mode, but then you should probably take a look at all traits and tweak them for NM mode too.
Which might be tough as LS612's traits are different again so how would that work?
Check any new game Alberts, for the difference between Dist and #Cities maintenance costs. 50% bonus might sound like a lot but it is not that much. Also taking #Cities Maint from -20% to -15% is reducing it in total already with the new maintenance costs.
I agree that with the old costs it would have been way much, but now I think -15# and -50Dist is less than -20# and -15Dist, which is the trait currently.
Cheers
Which might be tough as LS612's traits are different again so how would that work?
Check any new game Alberts, for the difference between Dist and #Cities maintenance costs. 50% bonus might sound like a lot but it is not that much. Also taking #Cities Maint from -20% to -15% is reducing it in total already with the new maintenance costs.
I agree that with the old costs it would have been way much, but now I think -15# and -50Dist is less than -20# and -15Dist, which is the trait currently.
Cheers
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
Those are modular changes to a "personal" use, so really C2C has nothing to do with them, its up to him to worry about those, not us. I never use them anyways. No offense to him though.
Traits are one of the reasons some AI players expand alot faster compared to the rest. That is why i think Traits should not create a big difference between players.
Which is why I am proposing the change to Expansionist, to reflect the change in the maintenance costs so Expansionist is not too powerful. I suppose one could make it even less though, 10% #Cities and 25%Dist. That way it will not be even less difference with or without than now.
But I am not always in favour of haing traits not make a difference, but each trait should have it's strength and in that area give that player an advantage. That's what I would like to see. Currently traits are mostly bland, with a few rare exceptions, and the plan to have traits "stack" in levels, Exp1, Exp2, and so on, seems to have been put on ice.
Cheers
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
And I never use sgtslick's either! Will you consider removing them too???
No offense to sgtslick but I had my arguments with his set and it got personal after awhile. Because I Was pointing out problems and asking for clarifications that never came. ls612's traits are actually less complicated than sgt's. And as Anything, introduced into the Mod, that is overly complicated, it causes long term problems.
So I'm to the point I don't use Any of the Trait Options at all! ls612's are the Least intrusive of the bunch.
And I agree with alberts2 assessment and not BG's in this regard.
JosEPh
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
We were waiting on SGT Slick for those layers and it never took place. At some point I'll get back to working on those and I'll try to keep them a little less impacting at each point than my original plan. The gradual growth of trait strength should make things more effective from a game play perspective on both sides of this argument, not quite as strong at first but stronger later.
I've been wrapped up in other projects since I paused work on that front.
Good catch on the effect of negative unit upkeep though Alberts2... that certainly would create problems in that case. Obviously it's not a bad thing to allow the tag to be negative and counter other positives but that's pretty severe if it's throwing 1 city civs into -6 gold out the gate.
I can't finish my dll work today but here are the values for iResearchPercent i would suggest.
Gamespeed iResearchPercent old iResearchPercent new
GAMESPEED_NORMAL 220 220
GAMESPEED_EPIC 400 440
GAMESPEED_MARATHON 500 647
GAMESPEED_SNAIL 750 1139
GAMESPEED_EONS 1500 2278
GAMESPEED_ETERNITY 2250 3235
Those should be tested after i updated the dll and i think it could be possible that they are still to low.
GAMESPEED_NORMAL 220 220
GAMESPEED_EPIC 400 440
GAMESPEED_MARATHON 500 647
GAMESPEED_SNAIL 750 1139
GAMESPEED_EONS 1500 2278
GAMESPEED_ETERNITY 2250 3235
Those should be tested after i updated the dll and i think it could be possible that they are still to low.
Well. I'd suggest going more from the iConstructPercent and match the iResearchPercent with it more, and fix the weirdness that is iConstructPercent for the slower ages.
This considering the talk about buildings being built to slow in comparison to the research speed. Comparing the ratio on Marathon and onwards it is no wonder really that any Epic and Normal game feels completely different in building v. research terms.
Gamespeed iConstruct now iResearch now iCon/iRes Ratio Turn Ratio
GAMESPEED_NORMAL 135 220 1,6 1
GAMESPEED_EPIC 180 400 2,2 2
GAMESPEED_MARATHON 370 500 0,74 3
GAMESPEED_SNAIL 500 750 0,67 5
GAMESPEED_EONS 1000 1500 0,67 9,6
GAMESPEED_ETERNITY 1000 2250 0,44 14,3
I usually play in Eternity and mostly find that ratio to be decent after I increase the costs of tech even more in EraInfo.xml, by a lot, so I would think the 0.44 ratio there is too low. With new buildings coming in all the time I can understand where the ratio needs to be much lower in C2C too, so maybe make the ratios from 0.35 at Eternity through to 0.60 on Normal for testing? An increase of 0.05 per gamespeed.
The number of turns per gamespeed also shows how off the numbers are. With those ratios iResearch should potentially be closer to 3000 in Eternity, which would fit with 1000 iConstruct.
Though for me to fully understand the XML: What is
<Percents>
<Percent>
<ID>ADAPT_DEFAULT</ID>
<iValue>1250</iValue>
</Percent>
</Percents>
and what does it do?
Cheers
This considering the talk about buildings being built to slow in comparison to the research speed. Comparing the ratio on Marathon and onwards it is no wonder really that any Epic and Normal game feels completely different in building v. research terms.
GAMESPEED_NORMAL 135 220 1,6 1
GAMESPEED_EPIC 180 400 2,2 2
GAMESPEED_MARATHON 370 500 0,74 3
GAMESPEED_SNAIL 500 750 0,67 5
GAMESPEED_EONS 1000 1500 0,67 9,6
GAMESPEED_ETERNITY 1000 2250 0,44 14,3
I usually play in Eternity and mostly find that ratio to be decent after I increase the costs of tech even more in EraInfo.xml, by a lot, so I would think the 0.44 ratio there is too low. With new buildings coming in all the time I can understand where the ratio needs to be much lower in C2C too, so maybe make the ratios from 0.35 at Eternity through to 0.60 on Normal for testing? An increase of 0.05 per gamespeed.
The number of turns per gamespeed also shows how off the numbers are. With those ratios iResearch should potentially be closer to 3000 in Eternity, which would fit with 1000 iConstruct.
Though for me to fully understand the XML: What is
<Percents>
<Percent>
<ID>ADAPT_DEFAULT</ID>
<iValue>1250</iValue>
</Percent>
</Percents>
and what does it do?
Cheers
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
Its too bad we cant fix it so you can do it by era. I have been working on Marathon for a year now, and i am close to being satisfied. Because after Medieval Era it works great. But wish that Pre/Ancient were a little longer in trying to reach the next era, infact alot longer, but after that it is close, "at least to me." At least thats what iResearchPercent is for, right?
I didnt think too much about buildings before, because i thought Hydro did a decent job on setting them for cost value per era per CIV4TechInfos. Never even occurred to me to also set values in EraInfos
I wrote AIAndy to look at your post for this,
<ID>ADAPT_DEFAULT</ID>
I didnt think too much about buildings before, because i thought Hydro did a decent job on setting them for cost value per era per CIV4TechInfos. Never even occurred to me to also set values in EraInfos
I wrote AIAndy to look at your post for this,
<ID>ADAPT_DEFAULT</ID>
The values in the tables above are from GameSpeedInfo, not EraInfo.
You can fix the research per Era with the BBIA modification in CIV4EraInfos.xml. To make it easier for myself to fix it there for my games I set all iResearchPercents in that file to 100 and only changed the BBIA. So far 75-200-350 for Prehist-Ancient-Classical seem to work decently, have not yet gotten to enough Medeival games to be able to give a good input but I think 500 might fit closely, around there at least.
This, stressing it, is with 100 in iResearchPercents.
iResearchPercent reduces the output of a nations research by that factor (50 is 50% of total output). I never liked that my research was not showing the right values and like the BBIA mod more as it increases the beakers needed for the technologies instead, from 0 being no change and 50 being +50%(1.5x) and 200 being +200%(3x)
Using both just complicates matters more as 80 iResearch and 120 BBIA is 2.2x cost but you only tech at 80% speed, so 2.2div0.8 or 2.75 longer research time total??? Why when 175 BBIA would have sufficed? *laugh*
Cheers
You can fix the research per Era with the BBIA modification in CIV4EraInfos.xml. To make it easier for myself to fix it there for my games I set all iResearchPercents in that file to 100 and only changed the BBIA. So far 75-200-350 for Prehist-Ancient-Classical seem to work decently, have not yet gotten to enough Medeival games to be able to give a good input but I think 500 might fit closely, around there at least.
This, stressing it, is with 100 in iResearchPercents.
iResearchPercent reduces the output of a nations research by that factor (50 is 50% of total output). I never liked that my research was not showing the right values and like the BBIA mod more as it increases the beakers needed for the technologies instead, from 0 being no change and 50 being +50%(1.5x) and 200 being +200%(3x)
Using both just complicates matters more as 80 iResearch and 120 BBIA is 2.2x cost but you only tech at 80% speed, so 2.2div0.8 or 2.75 longer research time total??? Why when 175 BBIA would have sufficed? *laugh*
Cheers
