NEW Handicap's

[olduser]

@BlueGenie

The first issue i noticed is that your iDistanceMaintenancePercent in WorldInfos are wrong.

The iDistanceMaintenancePercent should increase on bigger maps or stay the same but not decrease, because DistanceMaintenance is already scaled by mapsize. You made them decreasing with the mapsize this makes huge empires on bigger maps easier to maintain.

 

[BlueGenie]

Yes, I noticed that too and had a few tests done where I noticed that the scaling might not be enough once one increased the total maintenances. So after a few tests where I actually had the numbers reversed (lower in smaller and higher in bigger) I figured going slowly lower per distance probably was better.

The built in scaling is supposed to make a few more cities on larger maps as expensive as the slightly less cities on smaller maps but did not quite manage that if I increased the costs overall. I do not know the maths behind it, how the scaling works, only what my tests showed me.

I could be wrong and you are welcome to do a few test games to see.

Cheers

 

[olduser]

How would it go if we increased the numcity maint dramatically and reduced the base maint so we could eliminate the pretribemaint?

I'd also like to test what happens if the maxnumcitymaint is increased dramatically as well. Could help tame some of the runaway gold in the later phases of the game.

Stronger distance to capital could be interesting to make it a bit tougher for more distantly settled cities, particularly in the early phase.

I do think, however, that civics and traits should have a powerful effect on maintenance costs of all kinds.

I made alot tests back in november and no matter what you do there are always some runaway civs. I even tried a few extreme expotentional formulas to scale the the maintenance with the number of cities but even that didn't stop some civs from expanding like crazy

 

[JosEPh_II]

This will be my Last and Final post on this matter. So BG you won't have to contend with me except this one time. Doesn't that make you smile!

1.IF you leave all these changes in Nightmare Mode Option that would be great. leave this madness where it belongs as a Modmod.

2. But to put them back in the Main mod is a mod killer. You almost succeeded last time. The main Mod needs to go back to what the maint system was before BG's additions were added to the v 35 release. Some was reverted by alberts2 but not all.

If you all do put these changes back into the Main Mod your should rename the Mod AND2F. Because you will have succeeded in drying the Preh and Ancient eras up so bad that the Dust will choke you out before you can get 400 turns in in any gamespeed slower than Epic. AND's main problem right now impo

All the richness of the Preh and Ancient Eras will be negated. Subdued Animals relevated to insignificance like Rogues, theives and Ambushers are now. Even the Hunter line is weaker (but that's another topic)

All I will say is I'm finally having a good game again with the current SVN. The Barbs are a royal pain but can be dealt with with some concentrated effort. This alone has slowed my expansion down and the AI's as well. And it's on marathon gamespeed. But to willfully destroy the expansion of the the early game so someone can feel "challenged over gold" later on is just plain wrong for this Mod.

Now do as you will. You will any way. I've voiced my concern and as I said I will post no more about it.

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Blessed New Year.

JosEPh

 

[olduser]

Yes, I noticed that too and had a few tests done where I noticed that the scaling might not be enough once one increased the total maintenances. So after a few tests where I actually had the numbers reversed (lower in smaller and higher in bigger) I figured going slowly lower per distance probably was better.

The built in scaling is supposed to make a few more cities on larger maps as expensive as the slightly less cities on smaller maps but did not quite manage that if I increased the costs overall. I do not know the maths behind it, how the scaling works, only what my tests showed me.

I could be wrong and you are welcome to do a few test games to see.

Cheers

The DistanceMaintenance is divided by the maximum distance two plots can have on the map. This makes DistanceMaintenance decreasing by mapsize and that is why i suggest the values in WorldInfos should at least be the same for all mapsizes ánd not decrease.

 

[BlueGenie]

********

 

[Thunderbrd]

QUOTE=Thunderbrd
How would it go if we increased the numcity maint dramatically and reduced the base maint so we could eliminate the pretribemaint?

If you can do that then that could work. Remember that the preTribeMaint give -90% so basically you would need to reduce the base by 90% as well which might give it's own problems as the numbers for Num and Dist are then needing a x10 increase or later eras will be dead cheap still.
It would solves the Anarchism/Chiefdom problem BUT a second city during Anarchism would break a nation totally, which might not be wanted. Might even want to have ability to have 3 or even 4 Cities in Anarchism.

If the problem is at particular civics then can we not address it in a modifier on that civic?

I'd also like to test what happens if the maxnumcitymaint is increased dramatically as well.

We did in the Nightmare settings. Try a game with it to see.

Of course that comes along with numerous other tougher factors so it would be hard to get a clear comparison that way alone.

Stronger distance to capital could be interesting to make it a bit tougher for more distantly settled cities, particularly in the early phase.

Could be. I was being very conservative with the Distance changes, even if they look to be dramatic. Needs testing really.

Agreed.

I do think, however, that civics and traits should have a powerful effect on maintenance costs of all kinds.

That they should but right now when still in early Ancient with Chiefdom a 25% change equals >100 in maintenance change (16 cities, NOT Deity) so I would say 15% and 10% are still having a big impact with the higher MaxNumCity.
After all it might not be good to basically state that if you do not have -25 or-20% NumCityMaint in a Civic then you do not chose it due to it's costs?
/QUOTE

Some civics have always been inappropriate for later eras right? The civ franchise has always striven to show that a global nation under Tyrannical rule (or that of a less refined nature) will never be able to function well enough to maintain the empire.


@Joe: I'll ask you to say one more thing here... Do you feel that Vanilla was overly economically restrictive on growth?

 

[BlueGenie]

@Alberts
I am not against doing that if you think it should be like that. As long as the C2C larger maps than the Civ standard by size increase can handle that. I think that was were it failed as C2C's base sizes are bigger than normal sizes. Maybe adjust the Distance by map-size, make sure they are adjusted after C2C's sizes?

@ ThunderBrd
"The problem" does not lie in the Civics, or a few Civics, a few, or a lot of, Civics were given City Maintenance costs to help buff up the costs in later eras, a band-aid if you may, that should not be needed,

True, you could always just modify your play copy for a game to test it out on it's own.

No comment.

Yes they have, and should still be, but the Civics I meant are the Rule ones, City States, Federal, and so on. Those as far as I know should always be a viable option?
Though setting a Tyrannical deficit of +25% City Maintenance while giving it almost massive military (and other Tyrant appropriate) buffs could be interesting. A small Nation could actually fare better then perhaps while any larger Nation would crumble in on itself if attempting that.

Cheers

 

[Thunderbrd]

@ ThunderBrd
"The problem" does not lie in the Civics, or a few Civics, a few, or a lot of, Civics were given City Maintenance costs to help buff up the costs in later eras, a band-aid if you may, that should not be needed,

True, you could always just modify your play copy for a game to test it out on it's own.

Understand I'm just throwing out some theories here as this is not really my realm of expertise and it deserves having someone working various angles in a committed dedication to the cause of getting in some excellent game balance overall. I've got far too many other things I'm working on to do more than comment and suggest here.

Yes they have, and should still be, but the Civics I meant are the Rule ones, City States, Federal, and so on. Those as far as I know should always be a viable option?
Though setting a Tyrannical deficit of +25% City Maintenance while giving it almost massive military (and other Tyrant appropriate) buffs could be interesting. A small Nation could actually fare better then perhaps while any larger Nation would crumble in on itself if attempting that.

Cheers

I don't know if those should always be viable or not... city states would probably not work today at all.

However, I like the viewpoint on Tyrannical you offered. Enabling nations to benefit from being smaller or from having a tremendous amount of financial power to compensate sounds like great design.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I don't play with this new Nightmare mod but on the standard set and some of these changes were put in place for all players. I play on noble level with the city limits active. They are the only thing stopping me expanding! The unhappiness starts to overwhelm me at 16 cities before Bronze Working.

Money is short but I have not noticed any change to the economy with my third city or changing to chiefdom. In fact expanding from one to 5 or 6 is the only way to keep from going below 100% science.

 

[BlueGenie]

As for City States I would like to think that USA basically works that way in part as each State is independent to a degree, even as far as having own laws and such, which is what City States means in general; Being under an independent rule though part of a whole.
Then again I suppose one could argue if USA is a viable nation today. *grin*

Dancing: That means you are playing with the increase Maintenances in place, just not the MaxNumCities. You still have the PreTribeMaint though, and some of the other changes.
I also do not really have a problem passing from Anarchism to Chiefdom but I also plan for it when playing so am expecting it and can compensate for it (if pushing the Shoplifting Crime to Trade instead).
Maybe try the Nightmare on 2 levels lower than you normally play the normal on (should be about the same other stuff then, just added MaxNumCities really). Hopefully that will make it a little more challenge to expand. Not impossible if planning ahead along those lines, just a tad more to work for.

Cheers

 

[Thunderbrd]

I think states differ significantly from city state structure. Though we do probably have some more bureaucratic expenses than other forms of government for it. City States didn't have nearly the overseeing federal level authority we have here. At times they didn't even consider themselves the same nation at all and would commonly war amongst themselves.

 

[BlueGenie]

True enough but then again they WERE not a single nation while in the game they are considered to BE a single nation, just mostly autonomous.
But not here to argue semantics. Real City States and in Game City States are not quite the same thing though, at least that we should be able to agree on and move on.

Cheers

 

[Thunderbrd]

The point was simply that some of the older civic mechanisms like that could certainly be made less valid as time goes on with prohibitive upkeep costs that don't work as well beyond a particular amount of cities.

 

[strategyonly]

Blue G, anything new on this or needs to be changed??

 

[JosEPh_II]

As for City States I would like to think that USA basically works that way in part as each State is independent to a degree, even as far as having own laws and such, which is what City States means in general; Being under an independent rule though part of a whole.
Then again I suppose one could argue if USA is a viable nation today. *grin*

Dancing: That means you are playing with the increase Maintenances in place, just not the MaxNumCities. You still have the PreTribeMaint though, and some of the other changes.
I also do not really have a problem passing from Anarchism to Chiefdom but I also plan for it when playing so am expecting it and can compensate for it (if pushing the Shoplifting Crime to Trade instead).
Maybe try the Nightmare on 2 levels lower than you normally play the normal on (should be about the same other stuff then, just added MaxNumCities really). Hopefully that will make it a little more challenge to expand. Not impossible if planning ahead along those lines, just a tad more to work for.

Cheers

I too do not have a problem with moving from Anarchism to Chiefdom. Actually I don't think I ever did with this system. The problem is moving from Chiefdom to either Despot or Monarchy. A treasury at 200 gold/turn in Chiefdom at 60% research slider will become a -200 gold/turn after the anarchy period switching ti either Despot or Monarchy. (And this is with the Main mod and not the Nightmare Option active.) Which means to get out of the - Gold/turn you must drop research slider to Near 0% and look for Any building that will provide a Gold boost (even if it runs Crime or Disease or any other property up thru the roof.) Which then causes more problems to overcome. But that is what I take it you want. Especially in Nightmare Mode. But not so much for Main Mod as Non Deity players really struggle with the mod over this.

And as someone stated before, never understood why Despot (in it's current form) came before Monarchy.

JosEPh

 

[BlueGenie]

The same thing I have said all along after the City Maintenance changes is that the Govt Civics need overhauling.

First off something would be needed to be done to remove the -25% from BOTH Anarchism and Chiefdom civics, preferable in a way that Anarchism can have +25% and Chiefdom +-0%.
This can be done by reducing the overall Baseline a bit. The numbers I first proposed were in need of testing, like I said, and could be a little lower, maybe around 75% of what they are now.
Some discussion about this was made in the Civics thread but the 75% is my suggestion alone.

The other Civics then need clearer defined bonuses, and bigger, to make them each more unique and also to make each civic worth the costs they will be incurring.
If they do not have good bonuses the NumCityMaintenance should be lower, but not negative.
Remember that the high baseline for NumCityMaint also means each percent has a rather significant impact on the overall costs.

The DistanceMaintenance though can be more depending on how well such a government can handle many cities farther away from government centres. As the Distance baseline is smaller each added or removed percent has less impact.
I even recommend skipping any changes to Distance from Govt and only having NumCity changes there, keeping Distance changes in Rule instead, and not having NumCities in Rule at all either.

@Joe, no, that is not what I want. The transition should be more seamless but as long as the +% (and possily too) in Capital by going over to Monarchy is not buffed to reflect the added costs to NumCity maint. How much buff and how much to NumCity can be discussed and tweaked.
Despotism should also have a lot more free units. Most, if not ALL of the costs should lie on CityMaint, which should be rather high. Despotism should really only be chosen if at war and wanting a large army and NOT as a "natural transition from Chiefdom". Thus expanding might be tough in Despotism but you can house a large army.
Considering mapsized I would recommend setting any additional free units above the already existing base +20 free as FreeUnitsPopulationPercent (and rather high, 50% at least, possibly more) to make up for the added cost of cities growing more too. It will still impact very highly if settling more cities while in Despotism.

The other civics also need looking over but I have not checked through them. I do know, I think I know actually, that once past Monarchy the transition to any of the others is not as bad but if Monarchy gets the needed buff to it's bonuses then the other civics also need a buff to their bonuses to reflect whatever the costs are in NumCity.

Cheers

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Despotism should really only be chosen if at war and wanting a large army and NOT as a "natural transition from Chiefdom".

The problem with that is that there is almost an era between Chiefdom and Despotism and almost another era before Monarchy. This means that the transition through all three is natural when playing. If you want Despotism and Monarchy to be alternatives then you need them to come closer together and have them as obviously about the same strength but with different focus.

Part of the problem we have with many of the civics is that their main focus is not obvious neither for the group nor the individual civics in the group. It is currently better than it was but still needs some work.

I even recommend skipping any changes to Distance from Govt and only having NumCity changes there, keeping Distance changes in Rule instead, and not having NumCities in Rule at all either.

This suggestion is a good one in my opinion as it makes the difference between Govt and Rule clearer.

 

[BlueGenie]

That they come far apart should not automatically make the next one the natural choice. If you look at it from a purely in-game years perspective then the time between Anarchism and Chiefdom is larger than the one from Chiefdom to Monarchy and the time between access to Despotism (Bronze Working) and Monarchy (basically the way I play right after Writing, which I take right after Bronze Working an be very short indeed if trying for it.

I also never take Despotism, did not before any changes, still do not. It was never a good transition.

But speaking purely from a point of view of what Despotism stands for I always consider it an alternative, not a natural transition from Chiefdom. Monarchy is a more natural transition from Chiefdom. Maybe making Despotism a purer War Govt might show that in a clearer way?

I do not think that just because they come after each other they need to be a transition, regardless of how far in between they are in the science tree.

Cheers

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I play with City Limits on so that probably makes the difference. Without Despotism I am limited to 12 cities due to unhappiness but with Despotism I can easily double that.

I try to get Despotism and Writing at the end of one golden age and Monarchy at the start of the next which ends with me getting Currency, Literature and the war tech plus if I am lucky Meditation.

BTW I do have an idea for demand buildings, ie the population demanding buildings in their city, but I am waiting for after the next release to post about it. These buildings are mostly aimed at infrastructure or state religion.