New Version - Dec. 19th, CP 66.10, CBP 13.1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, but if some decisions are objectively better than others, that might be an issue. I edited a few of the 'global' decisions that had % modifiers, but that's only because I've removed almost all % mods from the game. Other than that, I leave the balance of E&D to the designer(s).
Well as mentioned earlier we have changed to general leaderbalance (for the better imho) but assuming E&Ds developer(s) used the unique decisions to balance out leaders in the vanilla (that is what I would have done anyways) so maybe Carthage have stronger unique decisions than Poland to balance out the fact that Poland is godtier while Carthage is pretty bad. Our meddling have evened out that balance pretty well, Poland is still godtier but Carthage is a lot better than it used to be, meaning that if we have the same decisions available as in vanilla there is going to be balanceissues.

As I haven't had much time to play around with E&D however I haven't really seen how the unique decisions are balanced but there are two ways I would have done it.
Nr 1 is what I mentioned above, balancing out minor balanceissues.

Nr 2 would be giving civs things they should have but that there just isn't any room for in in the UA/UB/UI/UUs for example English/Spanish tradefocus, they are pretty much all in warbased while in history both of them were economic and trading powerhouses. Unique decisions could fix that somewhat giving them tradefocused decisions.

I'm not precisely sure re: Health and Plague, as I didn't test the mod (I just made it compatible for AussieLurker). I assume, since the mod is LUA, that it doesn't teach the AI how to use it, so I'm reluctant to do too much with it.

G
I thought you added it because you and everyone else liked it.
 
Balancing E&D just isn't a priority for me - I've got enough on my plate balance-wise as it is. If you or others want to take point on that, be my guest.

I added H&P support as a favor for Aussie, but I'm not a user of the mod myself.

G

Personally I dont use it because I feel it buffs the player too much... :S
 
Balancing E&D just isn't a priority for me - I've got enough on my plate balance-wise as it is. If you or others want to take point on that, be my guest.

I added H&P support as a favor for Aussie, but I'm not a user of the mod myself.

G

So if I find something majorly overpowered and report it with a good explanation on how to nerf it, you'll do it? I have no idea how much work it is to change numbers or if you mean that the big part would be actual theorycrafting.

Edit: Do you use E&D btw?
 
I do like E&D- the AI knows how to use it, and it adds a nice dose of flavor to the game. I'm happy to do the code (it'll just be sql changes), so long as the changes are alterations, not total replacements. I just don't want to do the trial and error of figuring out what the changes should be. Ideally, Sukritact would balance them, as I hate to have multiple versions of the mod.

G
 
Some minor things I've noticed while playing around a bit:

1. The Japanese Dojo doesn't provide disorder reduction like the armory it replaces.
2. The Indonesian Candi doesn't provide the foodbuff for citrus and wine.
3. The Indian War elephant doesn't seem to be buildable.
4. Barbarian brutes upgrade to swordsmen not spearmen.
5. The Austrian Coffeehouse did not get the upgrades that the windmill got and is now pretty lowtier.
6. The Babylonian Bowman is still an archer-replacement not a comp-bow replacement, meaning you can build both bowmen and comp-bowmen as Babylon. Both available at the same tech.

I completely misunderstood the Ottoman Unique building, I thought it was an armoryreplacement not arsenal :D. Taking the arsenalstage into mind the building is probably too weak for how late it is available I know that your idea was for it to be useable with cannons, but since they both unluck at the same tech you're very unlikely to actually get any use of it as you usually just want to upgrade your trebuchet and attack as soon as you hit you hit the tech and attack. Not hit the tech, build a building, start building cannons from scratch. Sure it is going to help the AI and it is going to help you reinforce but it is still pretty meh unless you're planning an artillery attack, not a cannon attack.
I would suggest moving the building earlier, or changing it to a castle-replacement or something simular.


Early barbarians are way too strong, it is close to impossible stopping them from stepping inside your territory, and if they step inside your territory you lose 50 gold, making it close to impossible to save up gold for anything. and combined with the superweak cityattack and the limited range/sight on cityattacks now means you're extremely unlikely to get rid of barbarians that wander into your territory.
Suggestion would be making the early barbarians weaker, give the cityattack a huge vs barbarian bonus, making barbarians spawn later, making the barbarians unable to enter your terriory for the first X turns (what CEP did), removing the barbarian gold-loot thing, atleast for the first X turns.
To be honest, this is usually manageable, but barbarian spawnrate varies extremely much between civs, civs with tundra or desertstart is going to have a ton more barbs on them than others. I tried playing a game as Morocco, and I got 3 barbcamps around my capitol, and they just kept spamming units running into my territory and stealing my gold, I couldn't take down the camps because of slow movement in the desert adding even more frustration.


The tradition-tree seems to be close to garbage right now. The AI seems to know it aswell as I saw one of the AI constructing the hanging gardens in industrial era, on a large map.
Comparing tradition to liberty you easily see the main issue, the openers are about equal, but the libertyone scales with more cities but not really a big problem. After the opener however Liberty have two extremely good policies, one giving you 2 hammers and cheaper roads and one giving you a free worker as well as faster roads those are both fantastic, usually doubling your capitols production, and making your secondary cities get their infrastructure up way faster and also helps you build early roads to combat your constant goldloss.
Looking instead at tradition, you have two extremely bad policys in the first tier, and you are actually forced to pick both of them to move on. One of them gives you 1 gold per city plus maybe 1 extra in your capitol while the other one gives you some gold when your cities grow (clearly a lot better but still doesn't help you), and while it feels like having some extra gold would stack up and let you buy a worker or a settler, it actually never happends because of the barbarian issue mentioned earlier. All your gold earned from those two polices just drains out of your pockets because of barbarian plunder. The tier 2 policy you can grab after picking up the two gold-based policies is somewhat useful and both tier 3 polcies are fine and probably way better than the ones in liberty but at that point it is already too late.
I would rate the +2 food in all cities policy in tradition about as high as the +2 hammer policy in liberty but the difference is that in liberty you can pick it up with your second policy, while in tradition you have you spend 4 social policies to get to it.
The earlygame is way too important and you just feel like you're crippling yourself by starting tradition.


Edit: There also seems to be a bug with the AI and promising not to spy on them, I'm getting a penalty for breaking my promise even though I stopped spying on them as soon as they asked. I think it might be tied to me catching them spying and forgiving them.
 
Early barbarians are way too strong, it is close to impossible stopping them from stepping inside your territory, and if they step inside your territory you lose 50 gold, making it close to impossible to save up gold for anything. and combined with the superweak cityattack and the limited range/sight on cityattacks now means you're extremely unlikely to get rid of barbarians that wander into your territory.
Suggestion would be making the early barbarians weaker, give the cityattack a huge vs barbarian bonus, making barbarians spawn later, making the barbarians unable to enter your terriory for the first X turns (what CEP did), removing the barbarian gold-loot thing, atleast for the first X turns.
To be honest, this is usually manageable, but barbarian spawnrate varies extremely much between civs, civs with tundra or desertstart is going to have a ton more barbs on them than others. I tried playing a game as Morocco, and I got 3 barbcamps around my capitol, and they just kept spamming units running into my territory and stealing my gold, I couldn't take down the camps because of slow movement in the desert adding even more frustration.

I personally love strong barbarians, as the early game is too slow and passive for my taste. So I always play with "raging" barbarians. I don't quite know how CPP manages "raging barbarians", but I got a lot of them, which is cool. The "pillage" effect forces the player to keep an anti-barbarian force, which may make early war against an neighbor harder.
However the "might" tree is then a must pick. The bonus vs the barbs + the culture + the science per kill are really powerful during the early game.
 
However the "might" tree is then a must pick. The bonus vs the barbs + the culture + the science per kill are really powerful during the early game.

And you don't think a policytree being a "must pick" is a problem?

Yes, if you go honor, you're probably fine.
If you go liberty or piety getting pillaged isn't a big deal, you're probably pretty low on gold anyways and I personally usually have a negative income, but it makes gold from ancient ruins and citystates way less valueable because if a random barbs walks into your territory(which you usually can't stop because you can't economically support enough defensive troops to keep all paths to all your cities scouted) you lose like half that earned gold per turn until you manage to get the barb out.

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea to force you to keep atleast one defensive unit per city is totally fine cityattack shouldn't be able to handle everything by itself, but as it is now one defensive unit in a city isn't going to be able to stop a barb before it manages to pillage 4 or 5 times.
 
Two other things, a game I played the iroquois somehow adopted an ideology like 50 turns before they entered industrial era, I have no idea how they did.

I think putting a merchant specialist slot in the caravansary would be smart, kickstarting your great merchant production if that is your thing, or an alternative way to earn some income if there are no viable traderoute targets.
 
I personally love strong barbarians, as the early game is too slow and passive for my taste. So I always play with "raging" barbarians. I don't quite know how CPP manages "raging barbarians", but I got a lot of them, which is cool. The "pillage" effect forces the player to keep an anti-barbarian force, which may make early war against an neighbor harder.
However the "might" tree is then a must pick. The bonus vs the barbs + the culture + the science per kill are really powerful during the early game.

I also like aggressive barbarians, but I agree that using the raging barbarian setting can make the Might tree too strong. Would it take a lot of effort to reduce the culture gain and other barbarian-related rewards while using that setting?
 
I just had my first game with this version of the mod, playing with the Huns in King difficulty. Here are some impressions:
  • I felt a great improvement in the tactical AI, which no longer makes any obvious blunders. Units randomly embarking (and dying) seem to be a thing of the past, enemy units attack in proper groups, and I even saw some successful invasions across an ocean.
  • Regarding AI strategy, I don't remember if anything was changed in the mod, but I got a couple of civs ally and declare war on me by the point I was starting to dominate (where they usually remain passive and I get to win after a long, comfortable peace), so that was nice. The combat penalties for world domination puzzled me until I figured out what was going on, but I think they work well.
  • The balance of naval units feels about right. I don't remember ever caring so much about naval warfare in a Civ game, as I had enemies properly blockading me and starving my coastal cities, and I even got to conquer a couple of cities with Ironclads.
  • Likewise, mounted units are much better now. They feel like a worthwhile investment without being overwhelmingly good. Overall, I now care a lot more about strategic resources, and they really impact how I go to war. I also like the new unit line of mounted archery.
  • The new Hun UI is nice, and probably balanced for the mid-game, but I think it could be a bit excessive in the early turns. I had a capital with no fresh water and lots of plains, and early on I felt like spamming Ekis gave me too much of an edge. I didn't go to war with other Civs until the Renaissance, so I never built a Battering Ram, but the mounted units bonuses came up often.
  • Regarding policies, I wanted to experiment a bit, so I started with Might and Piety and then went for Commerce with just a bit of Rationalism. I almost never use these trees in Vanilla, but they now feel fun and powerful. Commerce in particular went from pure junk to something really useful, and I got a lot of value from the Mercenary Armies policy.
  • The quality of life improvement of allowing civilian units is amazing.
  • I really like the new late game settlers, but I think that their cost could be increased even further. You are really getting a lot of value out of them, and they are so convenient that I now see little reason not to raze any conquered city without wonders and build a new one instead. There is also an odd interaction with the Commerce starter policy where you get a ton of gold when building an improved city due to all the free buildings, and I wonder if that was intended.
 
[*]The balance of naval units feels about right. I don't remember ever caring so much about naval warfare in a Civ game, as I had enemies properly blockading me and starving my coastal cities, and I even got to conquer a couple of cities with Ironclads.
Naval warfare have always been powerful, but you really needed to time it well in vanilla. Frigates were extremely powerful right when you got them, so were battleships. Galleases could be made to work if you beelined for them but that usually wasn't worth ut because you were busy catching up with the AI during that period of the game.

[*]Likewise, mounted units are much better now. They feel like a worthwhile investment without being overwhelmingly good. Overall, I now care a lot more about strategic resources, and they really impact how I go to war. I also like the new unit line of mounted archery.
Fully agreed but it is kinda weird how the chariotarcher starts out way stronger than its respective non-mounted archer equivalent, the horsearcher being a bit stronger and the keshik actually weaker than the crossbowman.

[*]The new Hun UI is nice, and probably balanced for the mid-game, but I think it could be a bit excessive in the early turns. I had a capital with no fresh water and lots of plains, and early on I felt like spamming Ekis gave me too much of an edge. I didn't go to war with other Civs until the Renaissance, so I never built a Battering Ram, but the mounted units bonuses came up often.
It kinda balances out how you get screwed over on farms if you don't have any freshwater. Unless you're building them on grassland you're not going to be growing your cities by working the tile. But i think the Eki is awesome and unlike the one showed in the preview it actually seems balanced.

[*]Regarding policies, I wanted to experiment a bit, so I started with Might and Piety and then went for Commerce with just a bit of Rationalism. I almost never use these trees in Vanilla, but they now feel fun and powerful. Commerce in particular went from pure junk to something really useful, and I got a lot of value from the Mercenary Armies policy.
I have a really hard time choosing between the 3 final trees tbh, they are all amazing.

[*]I really like the new late game settlers, but I think that their cost could be increased even further. You are really getting a lot of value out of them, and they are so convenient that I now see little reason not to raze any conquered city without wonders and build a new one instead. There is also an odd interaction with the Commerce starter policy where you get a ton of gold when building an improved city due to all the free buildings, and I wonder if that was intended.
Doesn't sound like it's intended. Do you also get culture from the liberty starter?
 
Great feedback here. The synergy of added buildings + late game settlers + liberty/commerce opener isn't necessarily intended, but it also is not necessarily broken, as you don't always get that bonus. That said, I do intend to increase the cost of late game settlers quite a bit more.

G
 
The Siamese UU, 'Stampy' might have slipped passed the mounted unit buffs, he is currently sitting at 1 less movespeed and 1 more combatstrength than a regular knight, doesn't really feel like such a good tradeoff.
 
The Siamese UU, 'Stampy' might have slipped passed the mounted unit buffs, he is currently sitting at 1 less movespeed and 1 more combatstrength than a regular knight, doesn't really feel like such a good tradeoff.

I'll give him a buff - going to add in the 'scary elephant' trait that the Carthage elephant use to have as well.

G
 
And you don't think a policytree being a "must pick" is a problem?

Yes, if you go honor, you're probably fine.
If you go liberty or piety getting pillaged isn't a big deal, you're probably pretty low on gold anyways and I personally usually have a negative income, but it makes gold from ancient ruins and citystates way less valueable because if a random barbs walks into your territory(which you usually can't stop because you can't economically support enough defensive troops to keep all paths to all your cities scouted) you lose like half that earned gold per turn until you manage to get the barb out.

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea to force you to keep atleast one defensive unit per city is totally fine cityattack shouldn't be able to handle everything by itself, but as it is now one defensive unit in a city isn't going to be able to stop a barb before it manages to pillage 4 or 5 times.

It totally is ! That's why I also think that culture from barbs may have to be reduced, at least in "raging barbarians" mode.
 
It totally is ! That's why I also think that culture from barbs may have to be reduced, at least in "raging barbarians" mode.

Playing around a bit with the aztecs and might in raging barbarians mode to check if how much of a merit your statement has. The first thing I notice is how the aztec UA does nothing compared to the might opener. Killing a brute with might opener gives you 18 culture, while might opener plus aztec UA gives you 25, that's barely anything actually, and that is with the might opener also giving 20 culture from barbcamps and some other number from citycaptures. I know the aztec UA works on AI units aswell not just barbs but still.
Also the Aztec UB, which kinda was what actually made mid to lategame aztecs viable seems to have lost a lot of its power. It used to give you 15% more food in your cities and now instead gives you one extra food per 4 citizens. That's a pretty huge nerf in any part of the game honestly and it feels like the Aztec dream is dying rapidly.
The Jaguar warriors however are still awesome and still kick ass like crazy but they also took a hit in how they upgrade to spearmen/pikemen instead of swordsmen/longswordsmen.
All in all I didn't really have much time to check out what you said and instead made an analysis of how the Aztecs currently work but that's life I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom