New Hotfix Version (12-15)

[BiteInTheMark]

I play an edited Communitas huge with 22 civs. 8 pantheons were already taken by turn 21, so I checked exactly who took em. America was one with 4 total faith output per turn from getting an insta shrine and quickly taking Sovereignty. Tradition AI doesn't even need CSs to get pantheons early, since the AI often gets their second policy quickly.

This push feeld really artificial, and really cheesy. AI already start with more units to explore and capture ruins, a huge advantage against a human player. Isnt it enough they get better start and growing yields by era, they also get pushed so hard you cant beat them in faith game?

 

[bigcat88]

Why does distance in trade routes make calculations not in tiles? Now it is not a good idea to build a road if u want an internal trade route(unconnected city, no roads, desert tiles: +7 production, connected city throw road: +3 production)
Is it so intended now?

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Why does distance in trade routes make calculations not in tiles? Now it is not a good idea to build a road if u want an internal trade route(unconnected city, no roads, desert tiles: +7 production, connected city throw road: +3 production)
Is it so intended now?

Didnt played the new version, and didnt liked the "only one trade route to one city", but the distance calculation sounded really nice.
While it make sense traderoutes to targets more fare away are more worth (spice or porcelain trade with china), but the transport of food was always limited to short ways.
In this case, you should get rewarded to make internal traderoutes as short as possible, and also be rewarded, if your improving your infrastructure by roads and railways.

 

[Infixo]

Why does distance in trade routes make calculations not in tiles? Now it is not a good idea to build a road if u want an internal trade route(unconnected city, no roads, desert tiles: +7 production, connected city throw road: +3 production)
Is it so intended now?

That is actually good observation. @Gazebo put scaling on all routes, but that actually might not be the intended idea.
He wrote:

These nerfs to TR power (which were, admittedly, getting a little too potent) limit the ability of a player to 'game' trade routes by piling them all on a safe, lucrative destination. Will also result in a broader spectrum of routes overall for all civs (variety is the spice of life!

Well, for me that clearly means International destinations, not internal one. Internal ones are not blocked, so putting scaling there might be a bug.

 

[Jdoug312]

Huge, as always
Emperor, as always
Communitas with sparse resources
12 civs, 26 CS, as typical
Progress (unusual) Greece
Epic game speed

Figured I'd test out the new XP changes. I had a lot of really close AI, after I founded my second city, I was pretty much out of space. Would have been a perfect scenario for authority, but I usually go that route.

I have 2 vassals (progress ottoman, progress Iroquois) by turn 199. I have 11 cities at this point, #1 in score (98 points over 12 city Byzantium progress).

I usually don't do well with tradition, and I'm usually behind as progress, but I'm completely destroying this game. Maybe it's because I had a spearman UU, but I went top of the tree after that to go for diplo and didn't even get horsemen until like turn 180 or so. I'm guessing it felt easy because of epic speed? It'll be interesting to see how the AI bonuses play out as the game goes on. I'm 1 good trade deal away from shooting my shot against Genghis.

Any thoughts of what else we can do to minimize the human advantage on epic/marathon without having to go to standard? I reeeally like playing the eras longer, but I don't want to have it easier.

 

[Blue Ghost]

That is actually good observation. @Gazebo put scaling on all routes, but that actually might not be the intended idea.
He wrote:

Well, for me that clearly means International destinations, not internal one. Internal ones are not blocked, so putting scaling there might be a bug.

Even for international trade routes, it makes no sense for trade routes along roads to be less lucrative than routes through wilderness.

 

[Gazebo]

That is actually good observation. @Gazebo put scaling on all routes, but that actually might not be the intended idea.
He wrote:

Well, for me that clearly means International destinations, not internal one. Internal ones are not blocked, so putting scaling there might be a bug.

It is intentional. Longer routes are better, as they represent a bigger investment in infrastructure by the two cities to trade.

Even for international trade routes, it makes no sense for trade routes along roads to be less lucrative than routes through wilderness.

Roads allow for longer routes because of how the pathfinder works. So it is intentional.

G

 

[bigcat88]

It is intentional. Longer routes are better, as they represent a bigger investment in infrastructure by the two cities to trade.

Will see what distance will be, when I will reach modern era(railroads) - I think all cities will be in distance 1 for internal trade routes...

 

[Randomsheep]

Hey all,

New hotfix inbound. It's a little larger than a usual hotfix, so I wanted to start a new thread for it. I've tested a few saves from 12-13 and they worked fine for me, so caveat emptor. I'm leaving 12-13 up in the event it fails for you.



Online as of 11:20pm EST. Savegame compatible.

Link: https://mega.nz/#F!DMsxkDYI!zSpR9CHpmAfWyIvMXaN3pw

I'll be out of pocket for the next few weeks, so have fun, everyone!

Also, for those keeping score, I'm officially on the Nice list.

G

Hey thanks for the work.

Is there any chance you could make some of these updates betas since it is not possible to play a whole game before the next update currently.

Thanks.

 

[Funak]

Hey thanks for the work.

Is there any chance you could make some of these updates betas since it is not possible to play a whole game before the next update currently.

Thanks.

They're all betas, it's up to you to update when you feel like it.

It is intentional. Longer routes are better, as they represent a bigger investment in infrastructure by the two cities to trade.



Roads allow for longer routes because of how the pathfinder works. So it is intentional.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I already found internal trade-routes to be weak and with the numbers I've seen now they seem mostly worthless.
Just personal observation

 

[Randomsheep]

They're all betas, it's up to you to update when you feel like it.

Yes, I know but a bit of structure would help.

Most mods have 2 branches, a stable release and and an ongoing beta.

It think it could help this community since it would allow more feedback on the later game.

 

[Funak]

Yes, I know but a bit of structure would help.

Most mods have 2 branches, a stable release and and an ongoing beta.

It think it could help this community since it would allow more feedback on the later game.

If you can magically conjure a "stable release" by all means. But these fixes are released because the previous version clearly wasn't stable enough.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

but I already found internal trade-routes to be weak and with the numbers I've seen now they seem mostly worthless.
Just personal observation

The bad place musta frozen over. I agree with Funak about something. Internal trade routes need some kind of boost (at least early game) if the consequence of building a road between two cities is that I lose more than half the yield of the route. I suppose you have to decide now if you want infrastructure or internal trade routes?

What would be VERY nice is some easy way to ascertain whether a destination is reachable via trade-route before I settle a city.

 

[Randomsheep]

Funak, I think you are confused with what people understand as a 'stable' release with regard to a mod.

It is not meant as a bugs free release.

 

[lordrune]

They're all betas, it's up to you to update when you feel like it.


I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I already found internal trade-routes to be weak and with the numbers I've seen now they seem mostly worthless.
Just personal observation

Naval internal routes can still have value, especially if you're founding remote islands, but in general by mid game the only trade routes that has much value at all are intercontinental naval.

It does feel a bit counterintuitive that building a road makes caravan trade less worthwhile, as other than a bit of gold and potentially some small bonuses from various things, and of course removing 'disconnection' happy penalty, city connections aren't really that strong. I can live with it though, in my opinion, it's an arbitrary change to an existing arbitrary system, and it's no less arbitrary than before. I wouldn't mind seeing future tweaks.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

With regards to the discussion of removing "completing archaeological digs" from the list of events that give the AI its bonuses, I strongly support that. I'd remove them and instead give 100% (not 1/2) bonuses for the AI completing a policy tree or adopting an ideology.

 

[Infixo]

Naval internal routes can still have value, especially if you're founding remote islands, but in general by mid game the only trade routes that has much value at all are intercontinental naval.

I use internal routes all game. Depending on situation, for every 2-4 foreign routes, i have one internal. Mostly to speed up new cities growth, like after annexing. I really don’t see a reason why this needed to arbitrarily nerfed. Could be arbitrarily left unchanged just the same.

 

[psparky]

Yes, I know but a bit of structure would help.

Most mods have 2 branches, a stable release and and an ongoing beta.

It think it could help this community since it would allow more feedback on the later game.

As a new VP player, particularly one who can't play often so takes two weeks plus to finish a game, I would love to see a "supported" version from time to time. One that gets bug fixes applied but no changes to rules/mechanics. Every release thread seems to be full of issues where such changes appear to have possibly had a detrimental affect on the game. I see that some important bugs result in hot fixes, but to get fixes for lesser problems seems to involve taking on a new version with development changes as well.

Maybe that's against the spirit of this community but it does make it difficult for new players to find a good place to start.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I think if Gazebo can spare the time & effort, putting out, every once in a while, a version with just bugfixes and no new changes would be great.

 

[Infixo]

It is intentional. Longer routes are better, as they represent a bigger investment in infrastructure by the two cities to trade.
G

I was referring to your notes on changes:

These nerfs to TR power (which were, admittedly, getting a little too potent) limit the ability of a player to 'game' trade routes by piling them all on a safe, lucrative destination. Will also result in a broader spectrum of routes overall for all civs (variety is the spice of life!

1. I don't consider my cities as 'lucrative destination', also how is it 'gamey' to send many internal routes to one of my cities? I thought we were talking about exploiting CSs and big foreign cities.
2. Same - how will this broaden spectrum of routes - idk. Internal routes are not blocked, so I still can send all my routes to 1 destination, just with lower yields.
3. There is no information on proximity malus for internal routes (as a matter of fact, there is no tooltip at all). You've added Distance info, but no info how this influences yields is given.

- - - - - - -
On a side note, re: international TRs. Basic game mechanic is to value different resources (+0.5 / +1 G) plus special buildings give some singular yields (market, east india, etc.) This can give you 5-10 gold which is fine. But then mechanisms like cultural influence, open borders, influence over CSs, etc. boost this, adding much more than the base and making it really OP. Maybe it would be better to nerf those thus leaving value to buildings, resources, etc. things that really should affect trade (plus "blocked" destinations).