New Version - January 29th (1-29)

[documental]

Forgive as I'm a noob when it comes to late-game, in particular the usage of air units.. but is it normal for my bombers to get randomly one-shotted when intercepted from enemy fighters? Sometimes they take 10-20 damage, and sometimes they just die, even at full health. I thought at first maybe this could be explained by being intercepted by multiple fighters, despite there being no difference in animation for it, but it seems there is no in-between. The enemy has no anti-aircraft gun's in range.

Edit: Whenever this happens, the targeted ground unit gets healed (authority policy) as if they destroyed the bomber.

 

[Rekk]

10-20 damage is likely from no interception. Fighters will wreck bombers if they aren't air swept, especially if they take the promotions for it.

Promotions and combat strengths for air and anti-quite were recently updated, so there is likely still balancing to be done.

 

[documental]

So does interception have a chance to miss? I'm looking at a lot of my bombers getting intercepted but not all of them die, only most of them. I know there's a base chance for interception itself to proc, that isn't what I mean.

 

[BothTall&Wide]

It actually had been reported both on GitHub and here in the past. The reason (at least for the other people) is that you are subscribed to some component of VP (such as Community Patch or More Luxuries, etc.) at Steam Workshop.

Unsubscribe from these mods first, then delete them from your Mods folder and then rerun the VP autoinstaller and you should be good.

I am good. Thank you man. It works.

 

[glider1]

I think something has been overtuned or doesn't work as intended with happiness.
My most developed cities generate an insane amount of unhappiness ( from religious division and poverty)


Check the screenshot.

As you can see the infrastructure are right and, I don't have many cities ( seven if my memory doesn't play me ), I am still not able to manage unhappiness in my best cities ( I won't even show screenshot from some weakest cities )

Something is not working right either intentional or unintentional

I think it is a bug in the UI (guessing).

I think the answer to the riddle of the weird maths in the UI happiness needs calculations are that when the total needs modifier says 144% that means to non-coders a total of 44% increase in need.

So over time, the factors that increase needs are rising relative to 0% while the factors that decrease needs are decreasing relative to 100%.

So for decreasing needs the real number we care about is 100% minus what the UI says because 100% is equivalent to no factors.

The maths all adds up when you do that.

I think what happens is that in VP it is so easy to blame a bug for the times when you can't get one of the happiness factors under control and then the UI just makes it even more confusing. I thought I was immune to this but I'm not.

In my game for example:
Factors that decrease needs:
Basic needs: 54% (is really 100 - 54)
Gold need: 44% (is really 100 - 44)
Science need: 64% (is really 100 - 64)
Culture need: 64% ( is really 100 - 64)
Religion mod: 82% (is really 100 - 82)

It means that relative to 100% at the start of the game I have been focusing on getting poverty down (100% - 44% = 66%) more than the others which is exactly what I have done. However, because of the other civs and situations in the game my best efforts are not necessarily good enough (which is fine).

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I think it is a bug in the UI (guessing).

I think the answer to the riddle of the weird maths in the UI happiness needs calculations are that when the total needs modifier says 144% that means to non-coders a total of 44% increase in need.

So over time, the factors that increase needs are rising relative to 0% while the factors that decrease needs are decreasing relative to 100%.

So for decreasing needs the real number we care about is 100% minus what the UI says because 100% is equivalent to no factors.

The maths all adds up when you do that.

I think what happens is that in VP it is so easy to blame a bug for the times when you can't get one of the happiness factors under control and then the UI just makes it even more confusing. I thought I was immune to this but I'm not.

In my game for example:
Factors that decrease needs:
Basic needs: 54% (is really 100 - 54)
Gold need: 44% (is really 100 - 44)
Science need: 64% (is really 100 - 64)
Culture need: 64% ( is really 100 - 64)
Religion mod: 82% (is really 100 - 82)

It means that relative to 100% at the start of the game I have been focusing on getting poverty down (100% - 44% = 66%) more than the others which is exactly what I have done. However, because of the other civs and situations in the game my best efforts are not necessarily good enough (which is fine).

This doesn't make real sense, why using 2 different base points in an additive calculation? But you are right, the way you calculate is leading to the right result. The UI is really misleading and should be changed to use zero as 100% in all instances. Else the + sign in the final modifier is wrong and I would think the modifier is added to the normal 100%.
But I think there is still a problem in the calculation. I believe in the previous version, a final modifier of +150% was really a modifier of +150%, resulting in a final value of 250%. The amount of unhappiness generated by the previous version is similar to the recent amount with the same modifier, so I think it's still additive to the base 100%.
I will do some test runs and report my insight later.

 

[Gokudo01]

I think it is a bug in the UI (guessing).

I think the answer to the riddle of the weird maths in the UI happiness needs calculations are that when the total needs modifier says 144% that means to non-coders a total of 44% increase in need.

So over time, the factors that increase needs are rising relative to 0% while the factors that decrease needs are decreasing relative to 100%.

So for decreasing needs the real number we care about is 100% minus what the UI says because 100% is equivalent to no factors.

The maths all adds up when you do that.

I think what happens is that in VP it is so easy to blame a bug for the times when you can't get one of the happiness factors under control and then the UI just makes it even more confusing. I thought I was immune to this but I'm not.

In my game for example:
Factors that decrease needs:
Basic needs: 54% (is really 100 - 54)
Gold need: 44% (is really 100 - 44)
Science need: 64% (is really 100 - 64)
Culture need: 64% ( is really 100 - 64)
Religion mod: 82% (is really 100 - 82)

It means that relative to 100% at the start of the game I have been focusing on getting poverty down (100% - 44% = 66%) more than the others which is exactly what I have done. However, because of the other civs and situations in the game my best efforts are not necessarily good enough (which is fine).

I don't blame the system, I'm just saying it's not fun with the current calibre. I should never feel helpless when dealing with any mechanism. Every city in my empire generates between 8 to 14 unhappiness, my cities are not that tall and I've only got 7 cities. I've been playing VP for 3 years, I know how the system works and we are back to an extremely frustrating state.

 

[Minh Le]

AIs are settling much more aggressively in this version. Playing Tradition and going for Stonehenge I couldnt settle even my 3rd city, AIs settled every possible spot. They were also very aggressive early game. I got DoW by 4 civs from turn 80 to 85, 3 of them had DoF with me (they backstabed me). Japan had 1 forward settled city near me on a tiny land very far from the rest of its cities which could produce 4 horsemen, 3 skirmishers and a few more spearmen to throw at me. It seems game is impossible to win now unless I go all out warmongering.

 

[dylansan]

I think it is a bug in the UI (guessing).

I think the answer to the riddle of the weird maths in the UI happiness needs calculations are that when the total needs modifier says 144% that means to non-coders a total of 44% increase in need.

So over time, the factors that increase needs are rising relative to 0% while the factors that decrease needs are decreasing relative to 100%.

So for decreasing needs the real number we care about is 100% minus what the UI says because 100% is equivalent to no factors.

The maths all adds up when you do that.

I think what happens is that in VP it is so easy to blame a bug for the times when you can't get one of the happiness factors under control and then the UI just makes it even more confusing. I thought I was immune to this but I'm not.

In my game for example:
Factors that decrease needs:
Basic needs: 54% (is really 100 - 54)
Gold need: 44% (is really 100 - 44)
Science need: 64% (is really 100 - 64)
Culture need: 64% ( is really 100 - 64)
Religion mod: 82% (is really 100 - 82)

It means that relative to 100% at the start of the game I have been focusing on getting poverty down (100% - 44% = 66%) more than the others which is exactly what I have done. However, because of the other civs and situations in the game my best efforts are not necessarily good enough (which is fine).

This makes some sense, but I'm not convinced.

When I started a game, all my factors that decrease needs were at -10%. Does that mean on the first turn your needs are being decreased by 110%, and that effect lessens as you go through the game?

I don't understand what's bringing the number from -10 to +50 to 70ish. I would expect it to go down as the game progresses. If it started at 100, that would fit your theory, but it doesn't.

 

[Rekk]

So does interception have a chance to miss? I'm looking at a lot of my bombers getting intercepted but not all of them die, only most of them. I know there's a base chance for interception itself to proc, that isn't what I mean.

What behavior are you seeing that makes you see an interception that missed compared to interception not proccing? Are you playing with animations and seeing the bomber get intercepted by a fighter? If so, maybe promotion choice is making the difference.

 

[crdvis16]

AIs are settling much more aggressively in this version. Playing Tradition and going for Stonehenge I couldnt settle even my 3rd city, AIs settled every possible spot. They were also very aggressive early game. I got DoW by 4 civs from turn 80 to 85, 3 of them had DoF with me (they backstabed me). Japan had 1 forward settled city near me on a tiny land very far from the rest of its cities which could produce 4 horsemen, 3 skirmishers and a few more spearmen to throw at me. It seems game is impossible to win now unless I go all out warmongering.

I'm early in an Egypt game with a similar situation. I also went Stonehenge first and had the AI somewhat forward settle me in both directions (shoshone and babylon). Babylon's wasn't very aggressive since we started pretty close to eachother but shoshone's was pretty reckless. I took both cities even though I was planning on being fairly peaceful.

It didn't feel off or weird to me, though. Going Stonehenge first means I'm not settling as quickly as normal. I think if I had tried to I could have claimed my "natural" territory just fine via settlers at a reasonable pace.

 

[documental]

What behavior are you seeing that makes you see an interception that missed compared to interception not proccing? Are you playing with animations and seeing the bomber get intercepted by a fighter? If so, maybe promotion choice is making the difference.

"Sometimes they take 10-20 damage, and sometimes they just die, even at full health." & "there is no in-between"

 

[BiteInTheMark]

This makes some sense, but I'm not convinced.

When I started a game, all my factors that decrease needs were at -10%. Does that mean on the first turn your needs are being decreased by 110%, and that effect lessens as you go through the game?

I don't understand what's bringing the number from -10 to +50 to 70ish. I would expect it to go down as the game progresses. If it started at 100, that would fit your theory, but it doesn't.

Ok, I think it may be a mod conflict or bad install.
In my games, the values are always negative and increase into the negative direction.
The decrease is correctly subtracted from the increase numbers.

AIs are settling much more aggressively in this version. Playing Tradition and going for Stonehenge I couldnt settle even my 3rd city, AIs settled every possible spot. They were also very aggressive early game. I got DoW by 4 civs from turn 80 to 85, 3 of them had DoF with me (they backstabed me). Japan had 1 forward settled city near me on a tiny land very far from the rest of its cities which could produce 4 horsemen, 3 skirmishers and a few more spearmen to throw at me. It seems game is impossible to win now unless I go all out warmongering.

Game today, Babylon settled a city with only 3 tiles distance to my capital but over 8 tile distance to their own capital. The spot had only one gems, horse, stone and cattle deposit. He had enough space to settle in 3 directions and with more luxuries or the Salomon temple. I can understand if he wants aggressive forward settling, but minimum distance to my capital is like a war declaration, and the AI should be aware of this.

 

[Rekk]

"Sometimes they take 10-20 damage, and sometimes they just die, even at full health." & "there is no in-between"

I'm trying to ask how you know the 10-20 damage isn't the damage the bomber takes from attacking its target.

 

[Cat-du-fromage]

Did someone try the version 1-29-2?

I tried a modpack today with friends and we can't pass the first turn without someone crashing.

 

[glider1]

This makes some sense, but I'm not convinced.

When I started a game, all my factors that decrease needs were at -10%. Does that mean on the first turn your needs are being decreased by 110%, and that effect lessens as you go through the game?

I don't understand what's bringing the number from -10 to +50 to 70ish. I would expect it to go down as the game progresses. If it started at 100, that would fit your theory, but it doesn't.

Yes my decreasers all start at 100% and go down over time. Base install no mods. Maybe try that?

 

[Kim Dong Un]

I'm only through 300 turns (Standard/Emperor/Continents), but happiness has actually been great for me; it's been at 100+ for over 30 turns. However, I'm playing 7 city Arabia (Trad/Art/Ind/Free)...

This is despite only having 10 turns (250-260) without war. Denmark DoW'd me as soon as the game began, and I haven't had a break. As soon as a war would end, the other neighbor would jump in (I survived with my neglected army thanks to The Great Wall). Diplomacy has been great, and I've still had several DoF's with AI (I've yet to declare war on anyone), even having to turn some down due to global politics. The majority also voted me as host of the World Congress through 2 sessions. Although I wanted a peaceful game, it's been anything but, yet I'm right behind Gandhi in techs and policies. The AI is now turning on him, and it's glorious. Just synergized CivJewelers, and going to see if it can push me passed him for a CV.

Coming down the stretch, this has been one of my most frustrating games, but also one of the most fun. It took me until year 1600 AD+ before I could even get explorers out to scout past my initial borders/continent. My religion struggled to get a hold, with both a neighboring Pacal and Gandhi causing havoc, and I was barely able to reform 250+ turns in (had to spend 2 Prophets for spreading). This is also the first game I've ever had with only a single embassy. To my pleasant surprise, by the time I could scout and leave my continent freely, all CS had been accounted for.

 

[Moi Magnus]

Did someone try the version 1-29-2?

I tried a modpack today with friends and we can't pass the first turn without someone crashing.

Someone reported that "MP with 2 players works fine, but crash with more than 2".
Can you give more info on this bug report? https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/issues/5162

 

[John.B.C]

On happiness...

I've played several games with this patch and haven't experienced any issues at all with happiness. I don't even bother about checking unhappiness before the "growth of a city" (in earlier versions when I played civ actively [october/november] before my break, I actually had to check it from time to time). I'm very very pleased about how the system works now. I don't experience any downwardspirals or silly fluctuations at all. I play on immortal and go tradition almost every time and push my cities to grow as tall as possible.

EDIT: I do have to care and I still need to deal with unhappiness, but maybe I'm quite good at it ?

 

[Bhawb]

While enemies are definitely more aggressive, I highly disagree that it is impossible to deal with without war. I won as Venice Tradition/Artistry/Industry into Freedom last game, very convincingly, on Immortal, and I made plenty of mistakes along the way. I was only able to buy 1 CS until I was able to cross oceans since Mongolia was on my continent and Heavy Tributed every other CS. I had early declaration from Russia, who I fended off. Finally picked up 2 extra CSs that were across a smallish ocean and held onto those all game, all despite being 100% peaceful Venice. Fended off a Mongolia that owned an entire continent, 3 civs and I think 4-6 CSs worth of land, but I only faced a "real" DOW 3 times despite having the smallest army most of the game. I'm sure they would have been more aggressive in a higher difficulty, but it wouldn't have mattered since none of them ever touched one of my cities.

I never once declared war, I never signed a defensive pact. I just keep my supply capped and went about my business winning a Culture Victory while on the way to a Science or Diplomatic Victory, both of which I was well in the lead for. It never felt that bad, despite drowning in an entire continent of Mongolia save for Venice and Sophia tucked in a corner.

I just think the AI is far more likely to take advantage of perceived weakness, whereas previously they would often not bother you even when you had practically no units. They also seem to be very happy to backstab, I was backstabbed twice over the course of the game and the other civs backstabbed each other pretty consistently too. It honestly feels more realistic and interesting, but I could see people who want to Tradition turtle and play a bit of Sims being put off.