New Official Version - June 19th (6-19)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm confused as to which point you're trying to emphasize here; you start off by saying that the values for TRs are too low and using Polynesia as an example... but then go to on to say that they're sanctioned and you can't send TRs to them anyway? Higher values on the TRs wouldn't help here, unless I'm missing something.

The point is not that trade routes are too low, but that the trade routes have both direct and indirect influences. The first part is fine, but the second is 1/4 of the initial value. So @Stalker0 is suggesting to up the indirect value (to civs other than the one you send the trade route to). If I understand correctly.
 
Also, sanctioning people when you're trying to with a cultural game is generally a bad idea.

Wasn't my idea:(

Higher values on the TRs wouldn't help here, unless I'm missing something.

Remember that TR provide two forms of tourism. A big hit "X" to the person you trading with, and then a lesser tourism value ".25X" to all other civs. Its the latter that I am interested in changing, to maybe .5X or something.
 
The Epitome of late game fun. Watching two GDRs just kick the crap out of the Zulus, who have been a tiny thorn in my side all game. I really like where the GDR is at, its the perfect amount of strength to steamroll a lesser player, but its still only "really good" against more competitive technology civs.

Die Zulus!!:borg::scan:

upload_2020-6-27_14-55-20.png
 
The point is not that trade routes are too low, but that the trade routes have both direct and indirect influences. The first part is fine, but the second is 1/4 of the initial value. So @Stalker0 is suggesting to up the indirect value (to civs other than the one you send the trade route to). If I understand correctly.

Wasn't my idea:(



Remember that TR provide two forms of tourism. A big hit "X" to the person you trading with, and then a lesser tourism value ".25X" to all other civs. Its the latter that I am interested in changing, to maybe .5X or something.

Got it! My mistake.
 
Standard Emperor on Communitas_79. SV on Turn 385

Spoiler :
upload_2020-6-27_15-22-25.png


What started out as a sleepy Tradition CV game really got hot and heavy towards the end. It was all a great win....that I should not have won (See below).

You'll note that I started on a large continent. There is actually a strategy thread going on right now asking the question "should you go over your normal city numbers playing Tradition to fill up an island?". Hehe, well this is my answer:) I had 7 cities (with 1 puppet towards the very end), which is a bit more than I usually play for CV, but it was absolutely worth it. I never had a single enemy unit set foot on my island, so I maintained just a skeleton land force, and committed all of my forces to naval, which was vital.

It was Polynesia as number 1 all game, with me nipping on his heals in 2nd place. We shared a tense border for all of the game (bottom left in the screenshot), and it finally exploded into the late game. It was pandemonium, two large fleets of Destroyers, Battleships, and a few subs slammed against each other, just as Missile Cruisers were coming only. A few atomic bombs went flying, and a collection of heavy bombers picked off ships on both sides. Then we had the side show, the Zulus declared on me from the west and brought an antiquated fleet of cruisers and ironclad with them. I also had some old ships, so the old timers got to duel it out in the west while the "real men" fought in the southwest.

I had committed almost ever bit of supply into my navy....and it was just enough. I was killing lots of ships, but the weakness of Tradition/Freedom's late game production against Order showed its hand, and Polynesia had so many ships. But with a lot of dancing, some key atomic bomb drops, and a little late war help from the Netherlands, I held my ground.

The vast majority of the game I went for a CV, and had all the tools you would want to do the job. I had the entire world under my cultural heel for a LONG time....except damn Polynesia. They also went cultural, after that war it was clear that:

1) I would never defeat Polynesia militarily. I was lucky to hold him off defensively, let alone start and offensive campaign.
2) CV was off the table, there just wasn't a way to inject tourism quick enough.

With that in mind, I went for SV. And so the science race was on. Polynesia had Order's science engine humming, and we were neck and neck in techs...he through raw awesome, and me through strategic wonders like CERN and Hubble to keep pace.

********************
And this is where I say while I won....I shouldn't have won. Polynesia had all the tools....the tech, plenty of aluminum, the power of Order's production and tons of cities....this should have been a neck in neck production race for SS parts....likely with Polynesia being the winner. But, Polynesia didn't make a single SS part, not one. So what should have been a brutal finish....just ended in a whimper. And its not the first time I have seen this.

I'll put some notes in the next post, but this is the key takeaway for the devs. There is something screwy with the AI in the very late game in regards to SS parts. I have seen this behavior before, my guess is they commit to a victory condition, and do not know how to switch to SV.
 
A few notes from my latest game:

Diplomacy

This was a good organic diplomatic game for me. With some key denouncements early + strong trade, a made a life long friend in the Netherlands. I even got him to DP with me (and it was me who asked!). He charged me through the nose for it, but it was something.

As I was second place, a lot of the civs in the game were amicable towards me and jumped on the "I hate Polynesia" bandwagon. I had reasonable DFs, with other blocks of civs that were hostile but not war hostile with him.

The Huns were a treat this game. We were hostile with each other for a long time (he was not a fan of my archeologists). But late game he found the light of freedom, and we became strategic resource trading partners (aluminum to him for uranium for me).

I will say, the AI does really overvalue horses at the moment, I am getting huge windfalls from them. That said, I think the late game strategic are in a good place. I was actually getting the AI to trade them with me, but at prices I considered high but reasonable.

General

1) Subs continue to be a disappointment for me, but for and against. In the big fleet battle that late game naval combat inevitably turns into, they just don't have the staying power to be worth supply to me, I would always rather have another battleship, I can always find a use for another battleship.

2) The new Stealth Bomber change feels right. I was taking Air Penetration I with them commonly, and a ~50% evasion chance was still quite solid. But I did get hit by Jet Fighters a few times, so good to see those units getting use. Also now that range is deeper in the tree, I suddenly have choices! And its great.

3) I mentioned in previous feedback on this thread that the Destroyer is too "everything". I do think its AA skills are about right, you have to be weary of the Destroyer with all interceptor promotions but your stock destroyer is not too amazing against planes. I do think there anti-sub strength is too high (see point 1).

4) My go to Naval Promotions nowadays... BP II + Dreadnought I or Encirclement. BP II is essential and non-negotiable for all ships except my Nav II scout, I have to have the ability to run my front line ships back to heal, if they get stuck they die...and my ships die enough without me adding to it.

Encirclement is a solid attack promotion in certain cases. Dreadnought I gives a solid boost to survivability, and is also a good "in battle" promotion to give your ships some free healing when your in the thick of it. While I like the later promotions for ships, honestly a BPII ship that keeps getting Dreadnought promotion is a solid and true ship that just gets it done.

5) I do think Freedom needs some supply back, again not what it had before, but some. I was very fortunate to have an island to myself this game, and with a fully staffed navy I still had trouble against a committed opponent. God help me if I had to maintain any kind of land force as well, or deal with large amounts of Xcoms late game.
 
I just started a game as Venice, and my city got to 3 citizens then starved itself back to two immediately. I quit, don't have a save from it.
 
Not sure what that means, recursive. What does the gamespeed have to do with accelerated tech gain of top two or three AI players?

Your question was "Hey, uh, what happened to AI bonuses or whatever this time around? [...] Did something major get changed? This hasn't happened to me in a while."

This version changed AI bonuses by scaling them with game speed. The AI on Epic or Marathon therefore gets 1.5/3x more Science, Production, Food, etc. as on Standard, which might be a possible explanation for what you're experiencing.

There haven't been any other changes to difficulty bonuses in this version.
 
This version changed AI bonuses by scaling them with game speed. The AI on Epic or Marathon therefore gets 1.5/3x more Science, Production, Food, etc. as on Standard, which might be a possible explanation for what you're experiencing.
This is really interesting, it means that epic was quite a bit easier than standard in previous patches.
 
This is really interesting, it means that epic was quite a bit easier than standard in previous patches.

IIRC conventional knowledge was that Epic was easier because it gave more time for War and humans are just fundamentally better at War, so compounding value interest rolls more heavily in the human's favor. I wonder how much of that was actually true and how much was just a meme we all believed.
 
Your question was "Hey, uh, what happened to AI bonuses or whatever this time around? [...] Did something major get changed? This hasn't happened to me in a while."

This version changed AI bonuses by scaling them with game speed. The AI on Epic or Marathon therefore gets 1.5/3x more Science, Production, Food, etc. as on Standard, which might be a possible explanation for what you're experiencing.

There haven't been any other changes to difficulty bonuses in this version.

Ok, well that is interesting. Huh. I think there may have been an over-correction? However, it does not seem to help every AI, or at least not relative to me. My 6th game on Large vox map with epic speed, and again the same pattern. At about the time i am researching my 10th tech, the Top two or three AI are way ahead of everyone else. In this last instance, to top AI had 16 tech vs me with 9 tech. The next two in line were 15 and 14. There was one AI who had the same as me, but then beat me to #10.
Is there some way for me to edit the multiplier to some other value? I mean maybe epic with x1.1 and marathon with x1.8 would have been something to try?
 
Ok, well that is interesting. Huh. I think there may have been an over-correction? However, it does not seem to help every AI, or at least not relative to me. My 6th game on Large vox map with epic speed, and again the same pattern. At about the time i am researching my 10th tech, the Top two or three AI are way ahead of everyone else. In this last instance, to top AI had 16 tech vs me with 9 tech. The next two in line were 15 and 14. There was one AI who had the same as me, but then beat me to #10.
Is there some way for me to edit the multiplier to some other value? I mean maybe epic with x1.1 and marathon with x1.8 would have been something to try?

If you edit TrainPercent it'll edit many values scaling based on gamespeed. You can edit the value of the A/B/C difficulty bonuses in DifficultyMod.xml if you want, however.
 
Last edited:
If you edit TrainPercent it'll edit every value scaling based on gamespeed. You can edit the value of the A/B/C difficulty bonuses in DifficultyMod.xml if you want, however.

So is this the stuff you mean ?
Diety:
<!-- Per Era Bonuses -->
<AITrainPercent>70</AITrainPercent>
<AIConstructPercent>70</AIConstructPercent>
<AIUnitSupplyPercent>35</AIUnitSupplyPercent>
<AIPerEraModifier>-10</AIPerEraModifier>

Immortal:
<!-- Per Era Bonuses -->
<AITrainPercent>80</AITrainPercent>
<AIConstructPercent>80</AIConstructPercent>
<AIUnitSupplyPercent>30</AIUnitSupplyPercent>
<AIPerEraModifier>-9</AIPerEraModifier>

Which part of this affects research speed in relation to gamespeed?
 
So is this the stuff you mean ?
Diety:
<!-- Per Era Bonuses -->
<AITrainPercent>70</AITrainPercent>
<AIConstructPercent>70</AIConstructPercent>
<AIUnitSupplyPercent>35</AIUnitSupplyPercent>
<AIPerEraModifier>-10</AIPerEraModifier>

Immortal:
<!-- Per Era Bonuses -->
<AITrainPercent>80</AITrainPercent>
<AIConstructPercent>80</AIConstructPercent>
<AIUnitSupplyPercent>30</AIUnitSupplyPercent>
<AIPerEraModifier>-9</AIPerEraModifier>

Which part of this affects research speed in relation to gamespeed?

The value affecting AI difficulty bonuses in relation to game speed is "TrainPercent", which is not the same as the "TrainPercent" within DifficultyMod.xml. Nor is it the same as the "TrainPercent" in Civ5Eras.xml.

The TrainPercent you're looking for is located at [steam installation]\Steam\steamapps\common\Sid Meier's Civilization V\Assets\DLC\Expansion2\Gameplay\XML\GameInfo\CIV5GameSpeeds.xml.

It affects far more than just difficulty bonuses, however.

If you want to edit the A/B/C bonuses, you can edit those values within DifficultyMod.xml.
 
Last edited:
So I'm wondering, players have been complaining about unhappiness being too punishing for years now, and yet it's always fallen on deaf ears. Is it hard to tweak it or just plain don't want to? Maybe a bit of leeway would make the mod more enjoyable?

There have been heavy reworks of the happiness system every year or so based on those complaints. Most of them were focussed on making happiness more readable and less punishing.
The main issue about making happiness "too easy" is that the AI exploit it and over-expand without any counter-cost, and then peoples (rightfully) complain that they have no chance to win if they don't have 20+ cities like the lead AI.

There are probably some improvement to be made on the difficulty levels, in particular maybe low difficulties should have significantly easier happiness for the human. Balancing low difficulty could be a whole thread by itself, but by lack of specific feedbacks on them, the game developers are kind of striking in the dark each time they change anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom