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

[Gazebo]

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.

Correct, was merely a concept. It'd make more sense for it to be a local thing, such as border growth, probably.

G

 

[IcyAngel]

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.

Ah! it's true, unlocking multiple wonders at once is problematic, although science is such a massive advantage even disregarding wonders that it probably would balance out in the end.

Regarding Poland, I don't understand your point.
With the current system, Poland being ahead in tech means it can snatch only the wonders it beelines. If, say, you beeline Writing, you won't be able to then rush Mathematics before another civ gets there and gathers the required number of policies to build it. It's not like Poland has some fantastic science boost or something.

Furthermore, in my thin experience -in Immortal and Deity- since the last few patches came in, every civ or so has the required number of policies for wonders early game. The spread is extremely thin, the leader and last in policies rarely being more than one apart until medieval. The first two policies are slower to come than Stonehenge, but beyond that it's a relatively smooth ride.

I'll need to play more to really confirm that, though.

 

[phantomaxl1207]

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.

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).

Shrines do feel underwhelming; Temples also. I tend to only get Temples if I pick up Piety. WI Founder Beliefs enhance Shrines with a Yield like they do to Holy Sites.

The Baracks could get the Science and the Forge could get the old Mine Bonus. So with this system means that Ancient Era is about doing things to get Science. I do hope you give the Granary at least 1 Food.

I don't know how I feel about the current %Science bonuses being in UBs. For some like Culture/ Faith > Science is ok, but not Production/ Gold/ Food. They feel just too necesary.

 

[dylansan]

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

Fair enough, but just because the info is easily accessible in a tooltip doesn't make it easy to plan ahead. If I've just started a game, getting an idea of where my strengths will be, and I want to plan ahead and decide on which wonders might be worth prioritizing, I have to look at the tooltips for all the upcoming wonders and compare not only their benefits and their place in the tech tree, but also how well my culture will coordinate with my tech unlocks and whether I'll even be able to build the wonders by the time I unlock them. I'm just imagining many scenarios where I'm excited to get started on a wonder after finally unlocking the tech and... oops. I still need two more cultural policies. Yeah, if you're paying attention, it won't happen, but personally I doubt I'll be able to coordinate as well as I'd like.

I'm sure it solves the problem but on the scale between perfect balance and clarity of gameplay decisions, I think it might be tending a bit too much towards the former.

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.

In BNW you just have to remember which trees unlock which wonders, and even if you forget, you only have to check once. If you want those wonders you just have to open the policy branch and you've unlocked it (once you reach the tech). There's no "wondering" whether you'll reach a required number in time.

 

[Moi Magnus]

• 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

I don't like "progress-like bonus", it is not easily predictible. When I play a tradition game, I want to know exacly when I will unlock my next tech. Sometimes, I really nead to know if my next artist will arrive in this era or the next, and "random science bonus" don't help to make a strategy on that.
So I would prefer science bonus that can be computed by the EUI (so no instant ones), so I know in how many turn I unlock a tech.

On the new science system in general :
When you introduced % bonus on forge and market, I was thinking :
"That's a very good idea : now, I will have to choose between having production-gold focus and having more science NOW, or having food focus and having more science LATER".
In my point of vue, it would be great if you could continue in that direction :

More population -> More science (thanks to yields and specialists)
BUT
More science -> Less population grows (because no food focus)

In that point of vue, the bonus on granary is not a good idea, because it makes the granary be "science without cost".

 

[TruthfulCake]

Ah! it's true, unlocking multiple wonders at once is problematic, although science is such a massive advantage even disregarding wonders that it probably would balance out in the end.

Regarding Poland, I don't understand your point.
With the current system, Poland being ahead in tech means it can snatch only the wonders it beelines. If, say, you beeline Writing, you won't be able to then rush Mathematics before another civ gets there and gathers the required number of policies to build it. It's not like Poland has some fantastic science boost or something.

Furthermore, in my thin experience -in Immortal and Deity- since the last few patches came in, every civ or so has the required number of policies for wonders early game. The spread is extremely thin, the leader and last in policies rarely being more than one apart until medieval. The first two policies are slower to come than Stonehenge, but beyond that it's a relatively smooth ride.

I'll need to play more to really confirm that, though.

It may just be my last few games against Poland that gave me this bias, but Casimir snatched plenty of the Ancient Era wonders by himself. I would need to test Poland myself to prove this more conclusively. However, Poland does not have to be ahead in science at all - since in theory nobody is ahead in science early game. I feel that the policy requirement needs to be knocked down a notch because it tends to become a situation where everyone has completed almost all the Ancient Era techs, and is just waiting for the next policy.

This feels significant to me because the next policy comes really slowly - with around ~5 culture points per turn early game (having built a monument), even the third policy alone takes 20~ turns, whereas most column 2 techs can be researched within 10-15 turns with a council built. This is why I feel that giving wonders in column 2 a 3-policy requirement is sufficiently balanced. On the other hand, the fourth policy (costs 205 culture with 1 city) will take you ~40 turns to get. By this time, you can probably research most if not all column 2 techs, causing the problem I described.

Which is why Poland does not even have to have an advantage in science - everybody can be equal in science, and most likely nobody can build a single wonder except for Poland.

 

[Gazebo]

I don't like "progress-like bonus", it is not easily predictible. When I play a tradition game, I want to know exacly when I will unlock my next tech. Sometimes, I really nead to know if my next artist will arrive in this era or the next, and "random science bonus" don't help to make a strategy on that.
So I would prefer science bonus that can be computed by the EUI (so no instant ones), so I know in how many turn I unlock a tech.

On the new science system in general :
When you introduced % bonus on forge and market, I was thinking :
"That's a very good idea : now, I will have to choose between having production-gold focus and having more science NOW, or having food focus and having more science LATER".
In my point of vue, it would be great if you could continue in that direction :

More population -> More science (thanks to yields and specialists)
BUT
More science -> Less population grows (because no food focus)

In that point of vue, the bonus on granary is not a good idea, because it makes the granary be "science without cost".

Tradition game gives you the benefit of the astrologer and specialist, which will drive most of your science.

I'm just, generally, not as happy with the yield conversion model as I thought I would be. It is interacting with science in the wrong way for the early game.

 

[dilophosaur]

Mac OS can run civ mods, but cannot run DLL ones as dll is a Windows-only thingy.

 

[Moi Magnus]

Tradition game gives you the benefit of the astrologer and specialist, which will drive most of your science.

I've never said that tradition doesn't give science bonus. Tradition give "constant" science bonus, and not "instant" ones (as progress and honor).
And that a point I like in Tradition : you have science per turn and not science per event.
When I play a game with liberty, I know that the number at the left-up corner of my screen are useless because my science and my culture are half "per turn", and half "per event".
But when I play Tradition, I would prefer to be 100% (or maybe 90%) "per turn" and almost nothing "per event" (except of course CS quest, and others...)

Remark : I may seems a little agressive. If that the case : Sorry. You're doing a great job. Moreover, sorry for criticising your ideas without making any better proposition.

 

[notque]

I've never said that tradition doesn't give science bonus. Tradition give "constant" science bonus, and not "instant" ones (as progress and honor).
And that a point I like in Tradition : you have science per turn and not science per event.
When I play a game with liberty, I know that the number at the left-up corner of my screen are useless because my science and my culture are half "per turn", and half "per event".
But when I play Tradition, I would prefer to be 100% (or maybe 90%) "per turn" and almost nothing "per event" (except of course CS quest, and others...)

Agree strongly. It's nice to have a more steady understood game sometimes than all the popping and things happening as one time instances.

When games start to go in that direction, I tend to stop caring ultimately about all the pops. I don't have any real value in all the randomness going on around me.

Being able to choose a steadier path like Tradition for stable old style per turn values is one way where if I am getting frustrated by all the popping, I can still play in a stable environment, and I like that Tradition is the one for that.

Very cool idea.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm not fond of the science for units built. Peaceful game play tends to have fewer units and would have to build and scrap unit to keep up with warmongers.

 

[Gazebo]

I'm not fond of the science for units built. Peaceful game play tends to have fewer units and would have to build and scrap unit to keep up with warmongers.

Perhaps, but peace players would also have more infrastructure. Warfare drives early technology (look at just how many of the early techs are war-related).

G

 

[Funak]

Perhaps, but peace players would also have more infrastructure. Warfare drives early technology (look at just how many of the early techs are war-related).

Still, spamming warriors and gifting them to city-states over and over again for the science-gain is not really interesting gameplay.

 

[PurpleMentat]

On the Temple and Shrine being rather weak and boring for anyone that doesn't go Piety, perhaps they could aid in religious pressure? Religious pressure is fairly weak in CBP. Having a Holy City seems to me like it should be able to convert some of the surrounding cities through trade and pressure. Right now, that's not really an option. Missionaries or nothing.

 

[Funak]

On the Temple and Shrine being rather weak and boring for anyone that doesn't go Piety, perhaps they could aid in religious pressure?

The shrine would be fine with one extra point of faith. Temple would be fine with one or two points of anything, Temple would also be fine if it got the great work of art slot back.

 

[Gazebo]

Still, spamming warriors and gifting them to city-states over and over again for the science-gain is not really interesting gameplay.

It'd finally give you a reason to gift units.

I think it is food-for-thought. Ultimately, I'm just not too happy with the yield-to-science modifiers. They lack initial value and interactivity.

G

 

[notque]

On the Temple and Shrine being rather weak and boring for anyone that doesn't go Piety, perhaps they could aid in religious pressure? Religious pressure is fairly weak in CBP. Having a Holy City seems to me like it should be able to convert some of the surrounding cities through trade and pressure. Right now, that's not really an option. Missionaries or nothing.

Temples and Shrines are weak, agreed. The first shrine is all that really matters for me.

Religious pressure is super weak, and I usually go Church because of it. Most games so far have had me able to pass world religion because it's the only reasonably strong way to spread religion.

But if I don't go Church which I've been playing around with recently, I do like that I end up making missionaries. And once I make them, I tend to make more to spread my religion.

I never made them before, always going to buildings instead but it's been a pleasure to actually use them, and care about where my religion is.

So, I like having the options all available to choose.

 

[Myrrdin_Emrys]

hi,
testing the new version.
I really like the new science system, im not fan but i dont dislike the culture-wonder system (well at least early game, cuz u have no way to improve your culture output except monument).
I dislike the change about market cuz now you can't focus on money early (for example if u want to sustain an army its nearly impossible if you dont start near gold-plantation.... just the fact you could convert a citizen into a merchant was great but not broken you had to sacrifice food and production income which are the most important early just to earn few coins) now if you are in loss and have build market you just cant do nothing.

BUG report : i'm playing as japan, war versus Ethiopia. I won the war so they gave me Harar their holy city (of orthodoxy).... i had no religion (all religions founded) after that turn a great prophet could born for me . I have the option to enhance Orthodoxy cuz now i have holy city (even if im not the founder i'm considered so) but when the religion panel opens when i want to enhance, it asks me which religion i want to found. Of course i cant select anything cuz all religion are founded and if i try to select orthodoxy it says it was already founded. so i have no way to enhance religion and i'm forced to reload (cuz i can't click next turn till i select enhancer belief). Is that normal, am I the only one ?

 

[Funak]

It'd finally give you a reason to gift units.

You're kidding, right? I gift units all the time, easily cheapest way to maintain relations.

I think it is food-for-thought. Ultimately, I'm just not too happy with the yield-to-science modifiers. They lack initial value and interactivity.

You've said that 5 times now, no one disagrees with you.

 

[Xony]

My suggestion to fix this problem is simply increasing the base science that palace gives. This would allow increasing the science gained from council and then other buildings could increase science per turn by 1. This would allow other buildings being at least somewhat relevant scientifically, but wouldn't make them more relevant science buildings than the actual science buildings later in the game. Gaining more science from palace would also allow us to balance stuff more discreetly: at the moment even the slighest increase of science per turn is 33% of what you gain in the start. That is massive and means you always want to build council ASAP.

Obviously increasing the base science of palace would mean increasing tech costs and balancing everything that gives science, but I think that could let us reach a better outcome than the current system, in which we only get 3 science/turn at the start.

I didn't had the time to try the last few versions, but from reading the posts here I think I like this suggestion in addition with changing the current scaling ones being discussed. Makes it more viable to build different stuff first instead of the council with it still being important. Could also spread the science difference between civs more gradually together with the other early buildings giving science. Hope this assumption isn't too farfechted without the firsthand experience.