New Official Version - October 7th (10-7)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
Maxxim69
Chieftain
Oh, you of all people are sure to know the drill.
Now you tighten the dealmaking AI just a bit and see what happens next.To quote Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang, "Technological advance is an inherently iterative process."
SilentReply
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2020
- Messages
- 70
"Doesn't look like anything to me."
I just outright remove the science goody hut (as well as the free pop and land hut) - they really screw over the balance in the early game. Gold, faith and culture are a good enough reward to scout early on.
Regards
XSamatan
BiteInTheMark
Deity
Not accepting deals is one thing. But getting spammed with trade request each turn by atleast 20-30% of all AIs is annyoing. Or getting war declarations from friends cause they are bribed to war for 2 gold per turn and open borders....
Cause those lose the same.
I see the diplomacy issues. I'll work on that when I get the chance.
Liking the new version so far, but something is up... I do think B values are maybe a bit high. I've played a few consecutive King games with some weirdness that seems to kick up around late Renaissance/Industrial. The new PW buff is solid though and definitely helps on the happiness front, so hopefully we can put that one to rest.
My current game (Standard / Continents / Carthage / Progress / Statecraft / Industry) has seen me first in score for almost the entire game through 275 turns with a 12 city empire and world religion + dominant congress control, yet all 7 of the other AI are somehow ahead of me in both techs and policies, some of them by 2, 3, or even 4 techs -- also no 3/4UC this game so none of that is from yield bloat or extra power spikes. They seem to have leapfrogged me around mid-game, granted most of them went Rationalism (Babylon and England have understandably been tech leaders for the majority), but a 5 city Authority/Imperialism France with exactly 0 conquered cities or waged wars -- except the war he just got brokered into against me, despite me being arguably his best ally lol, but I know @Recursive is already on it -- is somehow ahead of me in both departments aside from score. Like, come on... I also have 6 CS allies with 14 active trade routes alongside nabbing both Sistine and most recently Eiffel. I am the only Progress civ while everyone else is either Trad/Authority with no more than a handful of cities so their should definitely be some breathing room or separation.
I hate to bring this up again, but why even play peaceful wide when the only advantage seems to be bigger supply (supply I can't even fill because most cities have absurd %increases to unit cost/production with the slightest bit of local unhappiness)? What is the point of me playing wide Progress successfully and having to struggle with the negative aspects of wide (more unhappiness, increased unit production%, more micro, harder diplo, etc.) if there's no tangible benefit and it doesn't pay off in the long run? Civs can just 5 city turtle on not only Tradition, but now seemingly Authority, and still somehow be on par with a peaceful wide civ who's objectively dominating the game in every other facet? Hopefully it's just the B value...
I'll try and add a few pics if I can get around to it.
My current game (Standard / Continents / Carthage / Progress / Statecraft / Industry) has seen me first in score for almost the entire game through 275 turns with a 12 city empire and world religion + dominant congress control, yet all 7 of the other AI are somehow ahead of me in both techs and policies, some of them by 2, 3, or even 4 techs -- also no 3/4UC this game so none of that is from yield bloat or extra power spikes. They seem to have leapfrogged me around mid-game, granted most of them went Rationalism (Babylon and England have understandably been tech leaders for the majority), but a 5 city Authority/Imperialism France with exactly 0 conquered cities or waged wars -- except the war he just got brokered into against me, despite me being arguably his best ally lol, but I know @Recursive is already on it -- is somehow ahead of me in both departments aside from score. Like, come on... I also have 6 CS allies with 14 active trade routes alongside nabbing both Sistine and most recently Eiffel. I am the only Progress civ while everyone else is either Trad/Authority with no more than a handful of cities so their should definitely be some breathing room or separation.
I hate to bring this up again, but why even play peaceful wide when the only advantage seems to be bigger supply (supply I can't even fill because most cities have absurd %increases to unit cost/production with the slightest bit of local unhappiness)? What is the point of me playing wide Progress successfully and having to struggle with the negative aspects of wide (more unhappiness, increased unit production%, more micro, harder diplo, etc.) if there's no tangible benefit and it doesn't pay off in the long run? Civs can just 5 city turtle on not only Tradition, but now seemingly Authority, and still somehow be on par with a peaceful wide civ who's objectively dominating the game in every other facet? Hopefully it's just the B value...
I'll try and add a few pics if I can get around to it.
SuperNoobCamper
King
I figured out sometime ago that playing 100% peacfully is just not optimal even if i go Progress with a civ with no bonuses to war or strong UU, 5 or 6 core cities and conquer a couple of capitals then get a vassal or two is the easiest way around tbh ..... Wide peaceful progress is just ..... Not really good at best and a hinderance on the capital and the first couple of cities.
Even when i go Tradition i try to conquer a neighbor to get vassal and turtle for the rest of the game.
Wide progress forces you to work so many public works, fight unending happiness and unsatisfiable needs -that funnily enough thee most effective way to cut it down is to conquer the leader- for no apparent benefit -rather than a supply you cannot use as you said- and i just stopped playing wide peaceful altogether tbh.
Even when i go Tradition i try to conquer a neighbor to get vassal and turtle for the rest of the game.
Wide progress forces you to work so many public works, fight unending happiness and unsatisfiable needs -that funnily enough thee most effective way to cut it down is to conquer the leader- for no apparent benefit -rather than a supply you cannot use as you said- and i just stopped playing wide peaceful altogether tbh.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
I have to disagree. Consider that faith ruins give you about 195 faith on Epic Speed (last time I checked) - if you had 5 of those instead you'd almost be getting a religion for free. If you get a faith ruin really early, you get first pick of pantheons which is also a bit deal. Consider also that getting a culture ruin early on can give you about half a social policy which I'd argue is stronger than one tech (particularly because culture doesn't have the same limitations/drawbacks as science).
Look also at the map/promotion ruins. If you get one of those early game it can turn your initial recon unit into a real powerhouse (and get more than 1 extra ruin), so arguably those are the strongest to begin with.
Last edited:
I understand your tactics and use it all the time myself, as it usually is the best bet, but it still doesn't mean that peaceful wide should become pointless. In fact, if someone can pull off peaceful wide and protect their lands adequately, that should arguably bring the highest potential for success out of any style. Progress shouldn't depend on you taking capitals/vassals or warring to get ahead, it should be about your ability to expand and protect your land, otherwise Authority should be the pick. The amount of challenge that stems from that should be enough to balance the risk/reward for peaceful wide. G even lowered the tech/social policy cost per new city down to 5% for this version; that itself should be a nice buff to wide, but I ain't seeing the results despite me basically having twice the amount of cities of any other competitor in my game.
I've been declared on twice after settling 9 cities (just settled the 10th with a Colonist to secure a lux I didn't have), and annexed a single city in each war, so it's not like I haven't tried. My main target was always America to my north, but by the time I was ready to engage, he had 4 DP's (like the AI knew they had to protect him or it was game over) and stole all my land with his UA + citadels. Global Peace Accord was also the first proposal passed. Sometimes it just be that way.
Last edited:
JamesNinelives
Emperor
I don't get where this concept of peaceful = never do any war, or Progress = 100% peaceful comes from. I'm a long-time peaceful player, but I'll still raze a city if someone forward settles me. Peaceful play is just about picking your fights, not tying your own hands behind your back.
SuperNoobCamper
King
It's more of roleplaying than actual optimized play; it feels good when you manage to pull it off but on Emperor/Immortal it just feels like shooting yourself in the leg to cripple yourself before competing against Usian Bolt.
General_Drax
Warlord
100 % agree about peaceful playing not feasible.
Trying Emperor again and even on epic with Ottomans and i'm already the last one, 8 tech behind the leader (Sweden) and 6 tech behind the second one (Shaka) and Shaka declared in Classical and bribed Sweden. Boys, will be tough =).
Trying Emperor again and even on epic with Ottomans and i'm already the last one, 8 tech behind the leader (Sweden) and 6 tech behind the second one (Shaka) and Shaka declared in Classical and bribed Sweden. Boys, will be tough =).
BiteInTheMark
Deity
My personal view is, that the A value (or whatever is causing higher bonus yields in early game) seems to be too high. The AIs are shooting away, when their expansion phase hapens.
Some testing with the Ingame editor seems to show, that they get around 40 science for founding their first non-capital city. Thats around 2/3 the science you need to get a tier 1 tech or equal to around 6 turns of research.
After around 8-10 techs are researched, they got 60 science for founding a city, which is between 1/2 to 2/3 of the science you need to get a tier 2 tech, or equal to around 7-8 turns of research.
If an AI is capable to found 6 or 7 cities, thats atleast 4 techs for free for the AI, only cause of the science bonus from founding cities.
Currently playing an India game on emperor, peacefully settled 8 cities and went progress/fealty/industry. Every tile is improved, most cities have only 1 or 2 buildings open to construct (while I am in the mid of industrial age), I am tech leader and none have more social policies than me (2 have same amount). I have 50% more points than the second civ. 80% of the cities of the world have my religion and I have chosen 2 religious buildings which lower unhappiness.
I think the most people might think I swim in happiness... but no.... I am at 54% with 113
/104
. And ONLY, if I chose the 
focus in my cities.If I change every city to "default" focus, I go down to 35% with 113
/159. 68 alone from urbanization.8 cities is no extreme expansion. Theres not even one puppet city, no war weariness. Nothing.
So I might ask, why do I suffer such amount of unhappiness, if I have done obviosly everything right?
PW is stupid. I said it already by its introduction, more soon than later, PW will shift more and more to a core element of happiness mechanic than an "emergency button" it was declared in the first place.
In the current situation, the amount of hammers I have to invest to gain atleast a bit control over my unhappiness would be sufficent to create easily a well equipped army of 16-20 units. (Maybe even higher, Iam not sure how impactful 2 PW in each city are)
Last edited:
<!-- CBP Difficulty Bonus -->
<DifficultyBonusBase>8</DifficultyBonusBase>
<DifficultyBonusA>340</DifficultyBonusA>
<DifficultyBonusB>220</DifficultyBonusB>
<DifficultyBonusC>130</DifficultyBonusC>
I noticed that DifficultyBonusBase has been increased in this version. Those above are the King bonuses and DifficultyBonusBase was 4 in the previous version. Maybe @Recursive can confirm.
If that's true then it just doubled AI yields. Or perhaps it is compensated by something else that I am missing.
usadefcon1
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2016
- Messages
- 505
Can we agree on a minimum gpt that should be accepted for a resource? Then maybe the AI can be programmed not to ask for anything less (perhaps scaling with era). Personality I think it's 4 gpt
I forgot to add that although playing on King, I do adjust the AI to select the best options for buildings/tech/policies in the difficulty.xml, so that does play a factor in the AI's performance being better than standard King. My bad in forgetting to include that in my initial post, but I've played with these settings for a long time and have never noticed a leaderboard like this on King regardless of the boost I give them.
Yeah I feel like the random policy choices ruin lower difficulty settings. King difficulty without the randomness feels like Emperor but with less yield bloat
DizzKneeLand33
Fall from Heaven 2 still rocks
I liked the ones I got today, they wanted 20 horses for 2 gpt. My friend at least offered 1 gpt + 15 gold for 12 horses.
- Status
