New Official Version Released! March 8th (3/8)

[mavol6]

most of my games the ai are broke in the ancient age, like most of them have around -7 gpt and one time the huns were around -22 gpt lol. I guess this is because the addition of new buildings, like the council and the market not scaling as good.

i thought of ways of fixing this, and it could be increasing the starting gpt, buffing the market or maybe add a building or adding some gold generating feature to the palace maybe.

 

[TruthfulCake]

Suggestion for the next balance patch: decrease the number of required policies for wonders by 1 each.

Due to how steep the culture requirement is for a policy, especially in early game, Ancient Era wonders tend not to be available for construction until Classical Era, which is strange from a design standpoint. There is no reliable source of mass culture early game, after all.

Status quo, Poland is overpowered because of this - it can practically beeline one Classical Era tech, and have undisputed access to all wonders in Classical Era (and I assume, in all subsequent eras as well). As it is much harder to gain science now, early game there tend to be almost no tech gap between civs, meaning that the one who has the means to create a policy gap will always get to snag all the wonders. And Poland seems to have an unfair advantage, as it can easily be 1 policy (~30 turns) ahead of other civilizations.

My suggested solution is to decrease the policy requirement of wonders by 1 each. So column 1 wonders require 1 instead of 2, column 2 wonders require 3 instead of 4, etc.

 

[Gazebo]

Suggestion for the next balance patch: decrease the number of required policies for wonders by 1 each.

Due to how steep the culture requirement is for a policy, especially in early game, Ancient Era wonders tend not to be available for construction until Classical Era, which is strange from a design standpoint. There is no reliable source of mass culture early game, after all.

Status quo, Poland is overpowered because of this - it can practically beeline one Classical Era tech, and have undisputed access to all wonders in Classical Era (and I assume, in all subsequent eras as well). As it is much harder to gain science now, early game there tend to be almost no tech gap between civs, meaning that the one who has the means to create a policy gap will always get to snag all the wonders. And Poland seems to have an unfair advantage, as it can easily be 1 policy (~30 turns) ahead of other civilizations.

My suggested solution is to decrease the policy requirement of wonders by 1 each. So column 1 wonders require 1 instead of 2, column 2 wonders require 3 instead of 4, etc.

Poland's advantage is slight if it does not also have a science advantage (as you need both the tech and the policy # to unlock the wonder).

G

 

[pandasnail]

Those of us who warmonger will for sure end with multiple Holy Cities. In my current game (old rules) in the Ren, I have Karakorum, Teno, and only don't have Vienna because I don't want to piss off the peacemonger alliance until I defeat Atilla. I guess I don't know how many players warmonger, or what nonfounders deserve. But it be would be strange to acquire, say, Arabian Islam early, build it up, do some crosscontinent conquering and suddenly be a Siamese Buddhist nation.

If possible, I would prefer either first Holy Site conquered or the one with the most followers in the empire, forcing a nonfounder to keep up with proselytizing their new conquests and such if they want to keep the stolen beliefs.

 

[TruthfulCake]

Poland's advantage is slight if it does not also have a science advantage (as you need both the tech and the policy # to unlock the wonder).

G

I understand that, but barely any civilization has science advantage early game. In my experience in the current patch (admittedly only a few games around Ancient Era), what happens is that civilizations tend to have all the pre-requisite technologies researched, and tend to be waiting for the next policy to start building wonders. The next policy seems to come quite late for everyone except for Poland because of their free policy.

I assume that the intent behind this idea of requiring both techs and policies for building world wonders is to prevent snowballing wunderspammers and to allow some legroom to balance one's tech and policy progression without having to worry too much about losing the wonder race. As things stand though, I feel that policies carry too much weight on their own due to the steep requirements.

Reducing the policy requirement by 1 will allow other civs to start accessing wonders vital to their early-game strategy before Poland hits Classical Era - because the difference in culture requirement between the third and the fourth policy alone allows for enough time to research two to three techs in my experience. By removing this overly narrow policy bottleneck, it would be fair game in terms of Ancient Era wonder building between Poland and the other civs.

 

[Glowstrontium]

I've done all the usual, verified cache and deleted all other mods and reinstalled using the installer, which seems to automatically install the EUI DLC even though this isn't made clear and there doesn't seem to be a manual-to-install version anywhere.

No matter what, my bottom-left panel is still disabled.

 

[IcyAngel]

Garrisoned units also adds a ton of combatstrength to the city, with this change it is practically impossible to take a city with walls and a spearman during ancient era.
Surrounding and flailing down the defender until it died and a new one couldn't move in was the most practical way of early conquest.

Agreed.

It is virtually impossible to take a city in the ancient era now. One invincible archer can decimate your entire army.

 

[dylansan]

I've done all the usual, verified cache and deleted all other mods and reinstalled using the installer, which seems to automatically install the EUI DLC even though this isn't made clear and there doesn't seem to be a manual-to-install version anywhere.

No matter what, my bottom-left panel is still disabled.

I'm away from my computer but I think this may be an option in EUI, that can either be found in the interface options in-game, or in some config file in the EUI folder. I seem to remember an option to disable certain panels so you might try looking for it.

 

[IcyAngel]

Suggestion for the next balance patch: decrease the number of required policies for wonders by 1 each.

Due to how steep the culture requirement is for a policy, especially in early game, Ancient Era wonders tend not to be available for construction until Classical Era, which is strange from a design standpoint. There is no reliable source of mass culture early game, after all.

Status quo, Poland is overpowered because of this - it can practically beeline one Classical Era tech, and have undisputed access to all wonders in Classical Era (and I assume, in all subsequent eras as well). As it is much harder to gain science now, early game there tend to be almost no tech gap between civs, meaning that the one who has the means to create a policy gap will always get to snag all the wonders. And Poland seems to have an unfair advantage, as it can easily be 1 policy (~30 turns) ahead of other civilizations.

My suggested solution is to decrease the policy requirement of wonders by 1 each. So column 1 wonders require 1 instead of 2, column 2 wonders require 3 instead of 4, etc.

If anything, the number of required policies is TOO low imo.

The civilizations with high science generally have high culture -policies- too, simply because they are runaways. There are exceptions, like Babylon and Korea who are always in the science lead while not necessarily doing well in other sectors, but in aggregate... the AI doesn't specialize that much.

I preferred the OR system for wonders.

 

[Gamewizard]

Played a game where I went tradition and I never had a problem getting first access to wonders. There is plenty of culture there if wondermongering is your strategy.

 

[Glowstrontium]

I'm away from my computer but I think this may be an option in EUI, that can either be found in the interface options in-game, or in some config file in the EUI folder. I seem to remember an option to disable certain panels so you might try looking for it.

Well I haven't been able to find anything like that, and why on earth would it be disabled by default (or who would even want it to be)? I never saw anything like this with the old versions.

 

[Gazebo]

Obviously we need more time for the current version to 'simmer,' but I'd like to offer up my own notes that I've been compiling since last week. These changes were not integrated into 3/8 out of a desire to ship that version, so this is more or less a 'things to consider for the next beta' discussion.

Science

The science rework is performing as intended on an overall level, though I'm not as thrilled by the 'yield into science' converters as I thought I would be. They don't offer much at first, and they scale too well into the late game. So, I think they're probably not long for this world, at least not on standard buildings. They are solid potentials for UBs, but - on standard buildings - they're obscure and of limited 'on-build' value.

Buildings should obviously have long-term value, but if weighted too heavily on the long-term, they become uninteresting. I like the urgency of the Council, for example, because it forces you to make a tough choice about early science v. other necessities.

Design-wise, I want early science (i.e. pre Education tech) to function as a direct result of player action, not just gradual yields. The authority policy, dominance, is a good example: science from kills is an active means of building up your scientific progress in the early game, but it is unsteady and therefore exciting. Some science per turn (as a base) makes sense in your capital, from specialists/UAs/Pantheons, but otherwise it needs to feel like you are making real effort to get into an era where the research of science was a pursuit in and of itself.

So, what I'm thinking is this:

• Granary: receive 15 science instantly whenever the city grows. Bonus scales with era and gamespeed. (old bonus a candidate for Harappan Reservoir)
  
• Forge: receive 15 science instantly whenever the city constructs a military unit, scaling. (old % bonus a candidate for Siege Works or Walls of Bablyon)
  
• Shrine: drop the converter entirely (potential candidate for Burial Tomb). Pantheons should be your science source.
  
• Council: receive 20 science instantly whenever you adopt a policy, scaling.
  
• Market: receive 15 science whenever you construct a building in the city (old bonus a candidate for bazaar)
  
• Baths/Gardens - drop culture modifier entirely (candidate for Coffee House, Skola, or Tea Pavilion) (culture should be used on policies that grant science, not the other way around).

Thoughts?

G

 

[TruthfulCake]

If anything, the number of required policies is TOO low imo.

The civilizations with high science generally have high culture -policies- too, simply because they are runaways. There are exceptions, like Babylon and Korea who are always in the science lead while not necessarily doing well in other sectors, but in aggregate... the AI doesn't specialize that much.

I preferred the OR system for wonders.

The OR system rewarded cultural civs way too much, as there were no specific policy trees to unlock most wonders, whereas there would be specific techs. What happened was that once a player adopted a certain policy, suddenly three or four wonders became available for construction - and with a decent capital, said player can secure half of those without even any gold or engineer investment.

Plus it made no sense flavor-wise. It makes sense for some wonders to be unlocked because of a certain technological breakthrough. But having a civ build the Great Wall without having learned Engineering was... weird.

Also, I was talking mostly about early game, where said "high science civs" do not have their advantages yet. Babylon's science advantage starts at Writing (Classical), and Korea's starts at the point where specialists are available (again, Classical). And that is where they *start* having some advantage, with some investment. Poland *gains* an absolute advantage just by hitting Classical Era.

 

[Funak]

• Granary: receive 15 science instantly whenever the city grows. Bonus scales with era and gamespeed. (old bonus a candidate for Harappan Reservoir)
  
• Forge: receive 15 science instantly whenever the city constructs a military unit, scaling. (old % bonus a candidate for Siege Works or Walls of Bablyon)
  
• Shrine: drop the converter entirely (potential candidate for Burial Tomb). Pantheons should be your science source.
  
• Council: receive 20 science instantly whenever you adopt a policy, scaling.
  
• Market: receive 15 science whenever you construct a building in the city (old bonus a candidate for bazaar)
  
• Baths/Gardens - drop culture modifier entirely (candidate for Coffee House, Skola, or Tea Pavilion) (culture should be used on policies that grant science, not the other way around).

Honestly, I can't say I'm a fan of the current system at all, but you probably don't want to put that big of an importance on actually building those buildings, feels like overdoing it.

I mean the one aspect I liked about the current system was just the whole thing that the %modifiers were worthless so you didn't feel bad about skipping out on the buildings.


This is a bit off-topic, but could the shrine perhaps go up to 2 faith/turn instead of 1? I feel like way too much focus is put on the pantheons to perform in order to get a religion, after you get your pantheon up, actually building a shrine is a bit of a waste of time.

 

[dylansan]

Just to give my 2 cents, I can't help but wonder if the culture policy requirement for wonders is necessarily the best solution to the problem. For one thing, I think it's a little counter-intuitive and adds another thing to keep track of and remember. I don't just mean that wonders require policies, but the exact number of policies each wonder takes.

I haven't played in a while and am only at turn 70 (on Epic speed) in my most recent game, but already I feel that having different numbers of policies required for different wonders makes strategizing more difficult and time consuming. If you have to keep going back to the tech tree or Civilopedia over and over until you start to remember some seemingly arbitrary numbers, it's easy to be overwhelmed.

I say this as a player with only a little experience with the CPP. Still, my logic is that, if I can't imagine explaining this mechanic to my moderately-skilled vanilla-civ player friend without getting weird looks, it's probably overcomplicated.

If I understand correctly, the reason for this change was that tech-leading civs tended to runaway with all the wonders because tech was the only thing unlocking them? If that's the case, I'm sure some brainstorming could come up with a simpler and more intuitive solution. Even something as simple as making all wonders require more production would make it so that building lots of wonders would set you back in other areas, and would encourage players and AI to only build what is actually helpful. Another idea is that the more wonders you have, the more production successive wonders cost. It more of a forced solution but it's hard to deny that it accomplishes the goal simply, and even with some arbitrary scales and numbers, there would be nothing really necessary to keep track of at the time of building.

Also not sure I'm thrilled with the yield-into-science mechanic either, though I'll give it a fair shot. Again though, as a solution it seems a bit like using a sledgehammer to squash an ant.

 

[Gazebo]

Honestly, I can't say I'm a fan of the current system at all, but you probably don't want to put that big of an importance on actually building those buildings, feels like overdoing it.

I mean the one aspect I liked about the current system was just the whole thing that the %modifiers were worthless so you didn't feel bad about skipping out on the buildings.

The changes in my notes above have immediate importance, but -unlike yields per turn, there is flexibility in building them. It isn't an immediate loss every turn if you don't have them, only if you miss milestones.

G

 

[TruthfulCake]

Baths/Gardens - drop culture modifier entirely (candidate for Coffee House, Skola, or Tea Pavilion) (culture should be used on policies that grant science, not the other way around).

What do you mean by the other way round?

But I would like to see those changes, yes. I think that as it stands, Granaries generate more science than science buildings itself (10% of gross food production is quite high).

 

[Gazebo]

Just to give my 2 cents, I can't help but wonder if the culture policy requirement for wonders is necessarily the best solution to the problem. For one thing, I think it's a little counter-intuitive and adds another thing to keep track of and remember. I don't just mean that wonders require policies, but the exact number of policies each wonder takes.

I haven't played in a while and am only at turn 70 (on Epic speed) in my most recent game, but already I feel that having different numbers of policies required for different wonders makes strategizing more difficult and time consuming. If you have to keep going back to the tech tree or Civilopedia over and over until you start to remember some seemingly arbitrary numbers, it's easy to be overwhelmed.

I say this as a player with only a little experience with the CPP. Still, my logic is that, if I can't imagine explaining this mechanic to my moderately-skilled vanilla-civ player friend without getting weird looks, it's probably overcomplicated.

If I understand correctly, the reason for this change was that tech-leading civs tended to runaway with all the wonders because tech was the only thing unlocking them? If that's the case, I'm sure some brainstorming could come up with a simpler and more intuitive solution. Even something as simple as making all wonders require more production would make it so that building lots of wonders would set you back in other areas, and would encourage players and AI to only build what is actually helpful. Another idea is that the more wonders you have, the more production successive wonders cost. It more of a forced solution but it's hard to deny that it accomplishes the goal simply, and even with some arbitrary scales and numbers, there would be nothing really necessary to keep track of at the time of building.

It's fairly intuitive and simple, as the tooltips for the buildings tell you everything you need (and if you have the tech, but not the building, it appears in your building list with a reminder of what you still need). The concept makes sense – wonders are symbols not just of technological prowess, but also cultural sophistication. Having one doesn't mean you necessarily have the other, and you need both to be wondrous.

Re: 'wondermongering,' I'm actually seeing wonders far more spread out in AI games than they ever were pre-policy system.

G

 

[Guynemer]

[*]Council: receive 20 science instantly whenever you adopt a policy, scaling.

Is that 20 science for every council that you own? That could potentially be... a lot. Granted, adopting a policy is necessarily a bigger deal than building a unit or building, but that could scale out of control if you have a lot of cities, all with a council.

 

[TruthfulCake]

Just to give my 2 cents, I can't help but wonder if the culture policy requirement for wonders is necessarily the best solution to the problem. For one thing, I think it's a little counter-intuitive and adds another thing to keep track of and remember. I don't just mean that wonders require policies, but the exact number of policies each wonder takes.

I haven't played in a while and am only at turn 70 (on Epic speed) in my most recent game, but already I feel that having different numbers of policies required for different wonders makes strategizing more difficult and time consuming. If you have to keep going back to the tech tree or Civilopedia over and over until you start to remember some seemingly arbitrary numbers, it's easy to be overwhelmed.

I say this as a player with only a little experience with the CPP. Still, my logic is that, if I can't imagine explaining this mechanic to my moderately-skilled vanilla-civ player friend without getting weird looks, it's probably overcomplicated.

If I understand correctly, the reason for this change was that tech-leading civs tended to runaway with all the wonders because tech was the only thing unlocking them? If that's the case, I'm sure some brainstorming could come up with a simpler and more intuitive solution. Even something as simple as making all wonders require more production would make it so that building lots of wonders would set you back in other areas, and would encourage players and AI to only build what is actually helpful. Another idea is that the more wonders you have, the more production successive wonders cost. It more of a forced solution but it's hard to deny that it accomplishes the goal simply, and even with some arbitrary scales and numbers, there would be nothing really necessary to keep track of at the time of building.

Also not sure I'm thrilled with the yield-into-science mechanic either, though I'll give it a fair shot. Again though, as a solution it seems a bit like using a sledgehammer to squash an ant.

That policies unlock wonders has been a thing in vanilla BNW as well - I think that making it more refined is a fine solution. I love that the AND system right now builds on an existing idea from vanilla, and that it also alleviates the science civs' superiority in building wonders.

I don't think players should be punished for building wonders though - not more than the risk of building them already entails. It would make some wonders even much less viable than before in contrast to several must-grabs.