Status
Not open for further replies.
I had a weird experience with diplomacy, and I'm unsure if it is something from vanilla or from VP.

I'd been in a defense pact with Assyria for most of the game; also in one with the Iroquois for a spell. When the pacts got activated, I didn't hold back, and fought full-force for my allies. I think maybe this made me an attractive partner for other civs; Russia asked for a defense pact, while I was still in one with Assyria. I thought, sure, Catherine was offering some gold along with it, maybe it will make Shaka think twice before attacking me.

Literally the very next turn, Russia declared war on Assyria, not only cancelling our new pact but now putting us at war. Why would Russia ask for a defense pact with me if I was already in a defense pact with a civ they were going to declare war on the next turn?

Not a bug, really, just an AI quirk that makes no sense, and I'm not even sure something that can be changed.
 
The other option is that the science leader gets them and immediately has all the tech he needs to win.

In some ways that's the point. Just like telecommunications gives a massive shot in the arm to a CV player, Hubble was meant to be a way for a science player to accelerate towards their victory condition.

Except they never actually get it now.

To put it in context, Hubble currently requires 1 more policy.....than you need for culture victory! That's a lot of policies!
 
I had a weird experience with diplomacy, and I'm unsure if it is something from vanilla or from VP.

I'd been in a defense pact with Assyria for most of the game; also in one with the Iroquois for a spell. When the pacts got activated, I didn't hold back, and fought full-force for my allies. I think maybe this made me an attractive partner for other civs; Russia asked for a defense pact, while I was still in one with Assyria. I thought, sure, Catherine was offering some gold along with it, maybe it will make Shaka think twice before attacking me.

Literally the very next turn, Russia declared war on Assyria, not only cancelling our new pact but now putting us at war. Why would Russia ask for a defense pact with me if I was already in a defense pact with a civ they were going to declare war on the next turn?

Not a bug, really, just an AI quirk that makes no sense, and I'm not even sure something that can be changed.

Head spinning eh :crazyeye: Maybe Catherine is playing subtle geopolitics.

If she dows Assyria (and indirectly you) with your pact already in place with her, rather than going to war with you and no pact having been established, from the perspective of other civs in the world that are not involved, if she ends up at war against someone she had a pact with, that appears to them as her becoming weaker because her network of partners is breaking down (which is not true but it may appear like that to strangers). That would be a win-win for Catherine because non-involved civs think she is getting weaker, but she knows it is not true! :lol:
 
In some ways that's the point. Just like telecommunications gives a massive shot in the arm to a CV player, Hubble was meant to be a way for a science player to accelerate towards their victory condition.

Except they never actually get it now.

To put it in context, Hubble currently requires 1 more policy.....than you need for culture victory! That's a lot of policies!

That's a great way to frame the issue.
 
In some ways that's the point. Just like telecommunications gives a massive shot in the arm to a CV player, Hubble was meant to be a way for a science player to accelerate towards their victory condition.

Except they never actually get it now.

To put it in context, Hubble currently requires 1 more policy.....than you need for culture victory! That's a lot of policies!
I guess I have more of a problem with the idea that the science victory condition (between SV players) is actually decided at who completes Hubble/CERN. This is different from competing CV players racing to Telecommunications.

This is more of a problem of what the wonders do than how many policies they require, however.
 
Last edited:
I guess I have more of a problem with the idea that the science victory condition (between SV players) is actually decided at who completes Hubble/CERN. This is different from competing CV players racing to Telecommunications.

This is more of a problem of what the wonders do than how many policies they require, however.

The policy requirement is extreme and out of whack with how the rest of the game plays. But to your point about what the Wonders do — that's why I said to reduce their power, instead. That's been the trend lately, anyway (Oracle, etc) .
 
I guess I have more of a problem with the idea that the science victory condition (between SV players) is actually decided at who completes Hubble/CERN. This is different from competing CV players racing to Telecommunications.

This is more of a problem of what the wonders do than how many policies they require, however.

It gives a solid boost, not an instant win. The SV player needs several more techs to win. While the diplomatic and cv players are heading into their endgames
 
It gives a solid boost, not an instant win. The SV player needs several more techs to win. While the diplomatic and cv players are heading into their endgames
I didn't say it gave an instant win. I said that the other SV players who didn't get the wonder will lose.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say it gave an instant win. I said that the other SV players who didn't get the wonder will lose.
The whole idea of requiring whopping 3 policies for Hubble and Cern is to "artificially" delay your science victory. You can go really very high on science via different means and get at Hubble and Cern quite early. Obtaining them this early will catapult you straight to science victory.

So the designers struggled to put artificial brakes to science avalanche. And it works. However I agree that it looks way too severe. Whopping 3 just outright kills your science strategy; that's a huge culture requirement being imposed on science strategies. Maybe reduce it to 1 or 2 policies instead. The next patch is being reduced to 2 and we shall see how it works.

It is tough issue. The endgame balances become complicated matter from a desiner's perspective because they want to preserve "equal" winning chances to different victory types.
 
I finished two 18/12 games and will move to next patch to test Tlinglit or wait for another one. Anyway - my notes:
1) regarding :c5happy::c5angry: system. Notes may be useless due to newer patch, but this was the first game I've seen 6 cities revolting and switching into CS. For me this is a result of unhappiness and needs spiral out of which there is no escape. In my game Denmark, Spain and later on Byzantium found themselves overexpanding, which resulted in having 6-7 less techs and 4-5 policies less than rest of the world, which meant constant unhappiness of 20:c5angry:. And once they hit that level, there is no escape. You can import luxuries? Well, I was playing on small map, so there isn't really that many resources. You can build :c5happy: buildings? There aren't that many of them. Plus you get :c5production: malus from :c5angry: and :c5science: malus, so you can't research new ones. New policies to raise :c5happy:? yeah, but it's hard if every turn the gap between them and rest of the world was widening.
2) Lakes and oasis are still pretty useless past classical. At least give them :c5science::tourism::c5gold: bonuses at some point. Or bonuses from policies. Whatever. I traveled a bit and lakes are touristic attractions almost everywhere. Make lakes and oasis great again.
3) Lumber mills working in triangles like farms is cool. Let's do the same with mines :)
4) AI declaring wars on bigger and far supreme empires is just puzzling me. Comparing to real world, it's like Ukraine would pay some money to Lithuania or Netherlands to attack Russia.
5) I can't get defensive pact with ANYONE. Biggest enemies have DP with themselves, Over my past 6 or 7 games, I managed to get DP once.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom