New Hotfix Version (12-15)

[Stalker0]

And you run in circles and circles and circles.
I see always only make it more expensive, raise that, raise that....
Why not the most simple solution, reduce the insane high gold and science production, forcing the player to simply PRODUCE UNITS CAUSE HE DONT HAVE 4K gold every turn!

I don't think gold production is too high innately, but I do think certain policy trees probably aggravate it, especially progress and industry.

 

[MorphBer]

50% Xp sounds like a decent, easy solution. Seems a buff to zealotry though so maybe there should be some other nerf to it

 

[Blue Ghost]

I would prefer a simple solution that doesn’t add more complex mechanics. Reducing starting XP on purchase is simple enough, but more bells and whistles like messing with XP gain would be too much. I haven’t looked at cost-to-production ratios in the late game, but if units are currently more cost-efficient to buy than buildings, then perhaps tweaking the numbers would be good enough.

 

[pineappledan]

I’m just worried about civs that rely on high XP being punished unduly by this, with no compensatory balance. Assyria, for instance, would be giving up 40+ XP by industrial if it ever bought units.

What if instead, the penalty was the purchased units had -5 xp from the promotion they would have had if they had been produced? Ie. with barracks, the unit gets 5XP if purchased (10XP for 1st promotion - 5).
If they had armoury and barracks they would get 20xp (25xp for second promotion - 5).
So round down all xp in excess of the highest promotion level, then subtract 5 more to put them just under.

Edit: I wouldn’t make any special exceptions for Zulu

 

[tu_79]

You've made a good case. I like purchased units with fewer xp as well.

EDIT. Some bonus for producing units could be higher, though. +15% for producing range units (Temple of Artemis?) is anecdotal.

 

[CrabHelmet]

I don't really see a problem with the Barracks being nerfed. It's currently the best building in the game by a considerable margin. It makes sense, too - mercenaries didn't train at your barracks, so why are they getting the XP for it? If you wanted to even it out, bought units could have a free promotion, representing how mercenary armies outperformed peasant levies, but were worse than standing armies, represented by Barracks.

 

[SLGray]

Is this to help or weaken? AI or human?
In history, if somebody spent money to buy warriors, they were usually Better than owned ones. Otherwise, what would be the point? So, giving them less XP is the worst idea. Unless we assume that they fight worse, but then they have to be cheaper than normal units. Cannot have more expensive units that fight worse.

When you pay for warriors or fighters, you take the chance of them leaving for someone who will pay more money.

 

[infidel88]

Like I was mentioning in other topic, make units earn XP while stationed in a city up a to city limit. 2 XP/turn might be UP, but it's all about tweaking numbers. This way fresh units can start in city as garrison and learn while you can send veterans to war.

 

[Gazebo]

Like I was mentioning in other topic, make units earn XP while stationed in a city up a to city limit. 2 XP/turn might be UP, but it's all about tweaking numbers. This way fresh units can start in city as garrison and learn while you can send veterans to war.

Not gonna happen. AI.

G

 

[Randomsheep]

I think CrabHelmet is making a lot of sense with his posts.

Having played through 2 games with the latest version (admittedly at less then deity - so no doubt some will argue I should be ignored) , I think both gold and science bonuses from buildings and GPs need to be toned down.

With a fairly casual approach I had finished the tech tree by about 1850-1900 both times.

I think the guy in the other thread comparing it to civ ii also makes a lot of sense where he points out that buildings almost exclusively give bonuses to tile plots. It naturally scales the game.

I'm not expecting such a radical overhaul here, but I would support a systematic reduction in non percentile bonuses from buildings.

 

[pineappledan]

I can't recall, but XP levelling is the same in VP as in vanilla right?
If so, this is the leveling progression
Level__XP needed__Total XP
1_____0__________0
2____ 10_________10
3____ 20_________30
4____ 30_________60
5____ 40_________100
6____ 50_________150

So I would recommend that buying units create XP "plateaus" at the following places
If 10<XP<=30 then XP on purchase = 5
If 31<XP<=60 then XP on purchase = 25
If 60<XP<=100 then XP on purchase = 55
If 100<XP<=150 then XP on purchase = 95

 

[Randomsheep]

Can I suggest that some of these solutions to buying units will be redundant if the underlying problem is fixed.

I personally think that the 0 XP solution for buying units is the best one.

Having said that, the only reason this debate exists is because gold and science income is not balanced well.

If the balance is improved there will be no need for some of these solutions, which ultimately concern the underlying problem of too much gold.

 

[MorphBer]

I wanna just throw in that if bought units have only half xp it really kills the fun of creating military specialized cities like I did lately (Assyria with 5 great works of writing, full Barrack Line, Brandenburg Gate, Autocracy Policyp). The amount of output such a city can have would be much less if buying would be of the table.

 

[Randomsheep]

I disagree MorphBer. Armies shouldn't be thrown together with throwing money to buy them. There should be an advantage to producing them in a city with military infrastructure.

In my opinion buying should only be a last resort.

As CrabHelmet explained, mercenaries have a place but they shouldn't be the basis of your armies.

It should be an option if you need armies quick.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

I'm 100% against weird, finicky rules that revolve around whether units were bought or produced. There's no good way of keeping track of them, and a mercenary line of units already exists to represent that kind of unit.

 

[Deadstarre]

This is the other part of the problem. Late game building costs are very high. I'm not sure of hammer/gold benefit ratios, but intuitively I think it skews towards units late game. That's the root of the problem if it's true.

this is to do with per-city gold inflation, building investment costs go up with every new city you get, while unit costs stay the same - the so wider your empire is, the less parity between cost-effectiveness between investing buildings and purchasing units

also, even if they were equally effective anyone who takes progress is still gonna spend the cash for units and keep the cities working on buildings otherwise theyre throwing away %20 hammers. and i think a whole lot of people are taking progress now

 

[Gazebo]

Can I suggest that some of these solutions to buying units will be redundant if the underlying problem is fixed.

I personally think that the 0 XP solution for buying units is the best one.

Having said that, the only reason this debate exists is because gold and science income is not balanced well.

If the balance is improved there will be no need for some of these solutions, which ultimately concern the underlying problem of too much gold.

Neither gold nor science income is imbalanced to any extreme. There are some outlying cases but if you find yourself substantially ahead of all other players you are batting below your difficulty weight.

G

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Neither gold nor science income is imbalanced to any extreme. There are some outlying cases but if you find yourself substantially ahead of all other players you are batting below your difficulty weight.

G

Sry, but this is bullfeathers. If I can finish the tech tree at 1900 cause the AI isnt receiving enough bonus to kill me with armies twice as mine, you should think about the definition of difficulty and balance.
Instead of integrating a unnecessary mechanic for a problem, that is caused by too much money (which is created by the problem, you need a lot of money to compensate the huge production cost and the fast speed of technology) you should solve simply the root of the problem.
Too much science and too much gold production. Slow down the science progress and the production cost, and you have more time to build buildings and units with normal production, (Like it was in all other civilization games). And with even more decreased money creation, you dont have the problem of 100% purchased armies cause you cant affort it.
No need for raise of purchase cost, decreased experience or any other stupid mechanic.
ONLY. TWEEK. NUMBERS. DOWN.

 

[pineappledan]

No need for raise of purchase cost, decreased experience or any other stupid mechanic.
ONLY. TWEEK. NUMBERS. DOWN.

I think you would get a hell of a lot further if you listed specific offenders which are giving too much gold. The last major patch implemented a massive nerf to trade route gold.
Is the caravansary 25% on city connections a culprit? Would that be better at 15%?
Are there particularly bad policies for gold inflation?

 

[Gazebo]

Sry, but this is bullfeathers. If I can finish the tech tree at 1900 cause the AI isnt receiving enough bonus to kill me with armies twice as mine, you should think about the definition of difficulty and balance.
Instead of integrating a unnecessary mechanic for a problem, that is caused by too much money (which is created by the problem, you need a lot of money to compensate the huge production cost and the fast speed of technology) you should solve simply the root of the problem.
Too much science and too much gold production. Slow down the science progress and the production cost, and you have more time to build buildings and units with normal production, (Like it was in all other civilization games). And with even more decreased money creation, you dont have the problem of 100% purchased armies cause you cant affort it.
No need for raise of purchase cost, decreased experience or any other stupid mechanic.
ONLY. TWEEK. NUMBERS. DOWN.

I don’t even know what difficulty or speed you are playing on. Sorry but I don’t listen to feedback that isn’t quantitative.

Also, tweak* (and don’t yell, that’s infantile)

G