New Version - January 29th (1-29)

[Valvts]

Arabia can be extremely strong in player hands, but it doesn't usually get too far ahead or behind in played by the AI. It is tailor made for culture victory, but you still have to get two tier-3 ideology picks and build the utopia project without getting conquered.

Deity. I cant conquer them, they are 10 techs ahead and a whole policy tree ahead.

 

[alh_p]

@Gazebo I just wanted to say I have had a couple of epic games of VoxPop with the latest patch and, while I've been a fan of it for over a year now, I am more than ever impressed with the scale of you and the team's achievements. I only play SP games and no harder than King, but there is really never a dull moment in these latest games. Somehow you have pulled off a very complex balance where the challenge is varied, evolving but remains very high throughout the game. No mean feat and one that 99% of 4X games fail at.

I am particularly pleased with how distress and other happiness needs have been toned down in the current version (or perhaps i have learned to deal with them) and how the AI's military prowess has been notably improved too.

I should probably leave it at that, with the compliments untarnished, but I know you guys like nothing but feedback (or else wouldn't you have stopped evolving VP long ago! right?). My only question with VP is that I feel like it funnels playstyles into fewer (or only one) pattern - i.e. as you have to keep up with everything (tech, culture, faith) even if you are going for domination. I feel like you don't have as much freedom as in vanilla (for want of a better example - I'm not here for you to remake vanilla civ!) to choose between a greater variety of more focused playstyles (i.e. just do culture for a culture win, tech win). Now, I'm still ambivalent about this and, on balance, what keeps me coming back to VP is the challenge of building the best Civ that spans the breadth of the currencies - whichever victory style I aim for. VP also succeeds in retaining my interest to the very end way beyond the point in most 4x games, because I often don't know how i'll win until i nearly do. These are all great positives, but the reverse of the coin is that I feel I play the same way each time (build everything!) and that choices of which Civ to play have, in the end, little consequence. That's not entirely fair - I appreciate the "flavour" difference and advantages of each civ, but gravitate invariably towards tech/culture/faith civs as my comfort zone. I also have yet to crack (or particularly enjoy) more domination oriented civs (Zulu, Rome, Mongols) or Venice. So, its possible that its not the game but the player who funnels playstyles....

Perhaps what i have is questions:
1. @Gazebo and team, how do you think VP should be played? Are you expecting it to permit narrow/focused playstyles?
2. How do other players play VP? Do you play a full range of the civs or find yourself picking the same sort each time?
3. How should I play a domination win and what is fun about it for those that do?
4. How should I play Venice? Is the tall tradition/culture focus demoded now in favour of authority and a wide puppet empire?

 

[Jakethedane]

Declare war on humans was diplomatically never possible (I think).
According to Gazebo, moving into someone else's territory to declare was removed, cause it triggered too much trouble in the code.
The only way to declare war now is using a ranged unit with attack or ask an AI to pay for it.

So your saying it’s no longer possible to engage and start a war with mellee units? Or that you just have to use the bottom left attack button on the panel?

 

[Cat-du-fromage]

You can declare war, just ctrl + click on the bubble of the player {top right screen}, I declared war to a "friend" recently and it worked

 

[CrazyG]

My only question with VP is that I feel like it funnels playstyles into fewer (or only one) pattern - i.e. as you have to keep up with everything (tech, culture, faith) even if you are going for domination.

You probably do build libraries if you go heavily towards war and domination. I view this as the counterpart to if you want to play peacefully, you still have to build some military.

Perhaps what i have is questions:
1. @Gazebo and team, how do you think VP should be played? Are you expecting it to permit narrow/focused playstyles?
2. How do other players play VP? Do you play a full range of the civs or find yourself picking the same sort each time?
3. How should I play a domination win and what is fun about it for those that do?
4. How should I play Venice? Is the tall tradition/culture focus demoded now in favour of authority and a wide puppet empire?

1. There a lot of paths to victory in VP, I'm not sure what you mean by narrow.
2. There are many fun to play civs that put you down really different paths, I've played all of them.
3. I find domination can become somewhat boring in later eras. Early on war is very exciting, but once you've acquired enough land to easily crush opponents it can be stale. One thing to consider is that just because you war doesn't mean you have to win by domination. You can get the formal victory through culture, science, or diplomacy.
4. Warmonger Venice is actually quite strong.

 

[Animorganimate]

You probably do build libraries if you go heavily towards war and domination. I view this as the counterpart to if you want to play peacefully, you still have to build some military.

1. There a lot of paths to victory in VP, I'm not sure what you mean by narrow.
2. There are many fun to play civs that put you down really different paths, I've played all of them.
3. I find domination can become somewhat boring in later eras. Early on war is very exciting, but once you've acquired enough land to easily crush opponents it can be stale. One thing to consider is that just because you war doesn't mean you have to win by domination. You can get the formal victory through culture, science, or diplomacy.
4. Warmonger Venice is actually quite strong.

I think @alh_p is asking if the only viable playstyle, with all the Vox Populi tweaks, is to basically build everything and keep up with all victory conditions (culture, religion, science, etc) until you win one of them. Or is it possible to just focus on culture or science and still have a fun game.

 

[civplayer33]

I think @alh_p is asking if the only viable playstyle, with all the Vox Populi tweaks, is to basically build everything and keep up with all victory conditions (culture, religion, science, etc) until you win one of them. Or is it possible to just focus on culture or science and still have a fun game.

If one can actually comfortably build everything and win by the VC of one's choosing then it's time to level up to a higher difficulty.
In my experience, on difficulty >= Emperor, you actually have to choose a path to pursue in most games, which can differ quite a lot between games; while it is still possible sometimes, at least for me on Emperor, to choose two or, in rare cases, three different VCs to win by, that's just because I shouldn't be playing Emperor anymore, but I'm content with some games being kinda easy. If that is not the case for other players then it sounds like they should level up to a difficulty that makes them lose games some of the time.

 

[Minh Le]

Its true that you will build everythings in the end, but the build order is what makes the difference.

 

[crdvis16]

I think @alh_p is asking if the only viable playstyle, with all the Vox Populi tweaks, is to basically build everything and keep up with all victory conditions (culture, religion, science, etc) until you win one of them. Or is it possible to just focus on culture or science and still have a fun game.

I don't feel like I play like that (keeping up with all aspects of the game in every game). I think it's true that science and culture are quite important no matter the victory you're pursuing but after that there's lots of room for games to feel different.

If I'm going for a science victory I generally pay little attention to CS alliances or my tourism. I'll still make guilds and diplo buildings at some point and work a few of the specialists because a few great people are still useful but I'm not likely giving it much more attention than that. I might not ever open the tourism influence screen in a science victory game, for instance. I'll be targeting important science techs and wonders and paying little attention to those associated with other victory conditions.

A diplo game will feel very different. I'll be prioritizing diplo techs and buildings, evaluating who is a potential problem for me (other CS competitors like Siam/Germany or CS eaters like Venice/Mongolia). I'll be building diplo units throughout the game which I hardly do when chasing a different kind of win.

Same with tourism or domination. Totally different priorities, techs to beeline, wonders to go for.

In nearly every game I play I know from the start what victory I'm pursuing because I'll make choices to that end pretty much from turn 1. I think others are more fluid or adaptable in their games but I'm usually interested in executing a specific strategy when I play and having to abandon it and do something else to win would feel like a loss.

On top of all this, some of the civs in VP have kits that give the game a very unique feel (though some are more unique than others).

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I think @alh_p is asking if the only viable playstyle, with all the Vox Populi tweaks, is to basically build everything and keep up with all victory conditions (culture, religion, science, etc) until you win one of them. Or is it possible to just focus on culture or science and still have a fun game.

I think he means kinda that. You need to build everything, while former some buildings weren't necessary (circus line, constabulary line) they are now necessary cause of the need reductions.
Also as science heavy civ, you need to go culture as well, else you can't build all the wonders you have unlocked. In the end, every civ needs to work as much scientists than culture specialists, or others will build wonders before you.
Next restriction is growth. Growing your city large (definition differs) gets more and more penalized. First penalty is the more and more necessary food, to get a citizen. The more problematic point is the average median usage. Your median decrease cause the next citizen is always less efficient than the previous one and additional the necessary median rises by modifier, a double punishment. But I want to say, the actual system is much more growth friendly than the previous one and didn't end in a downward spiral like some versions ago if you head for big cities.

But such factors are adding and I can understand, atleast the feeled freedom gets cut by those game mechanics and changes.

 

[CrazyG]

I think he means kinda that. You need to build everything, while former some buildings weren't necessary (circus line, constabulary line) they are now necessary cause of the need reductions.

I regularly end games without constabularies in cities other than my capital.

 

[alh_p]

Thanks guys, really interesting to read all your thoughts!

I think he means kinda that. You need to build everything, while former some buildings weren't necessary (circus line, constabulary line) they are now necessary cause of the need reductions.
Also as science heavy civ, you need to go culture as well, else you can't build all the wonders you have unlocked. In the end, every civ needs to work as much scientists than culture specialists, or others will build wonders before you.

Yes, that's basically it. Even if going domination, you really have to have a solid core of cities to sustain the troop production, tech and culture to avoid being out-matched down the road. I dabbled with domination in vanilla but never found it much fun as it was such a "thin" experience - just churn out troops after 2-3 cities and raze everything bar enemy capitals. :yawn:

Don't get me wrong, the focus in VP on building a powerhouse that you then lean towards a particular advantage feels both more satisfying, challenging and fun but it does have the detriment of going through the same motions each time.

If one can actually comfortably build everything and win by the VC of one's choosing then it's time to level up to a higher difficulty.

Point taken! Maybe I just need to up the challenge more now and feel less complacent about keeping par with the AI...

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I regularly end games without constabularies in cities other than my capital.

Possible in this version, yes, the late game happiness seems to easy.
But 2 versions ago I had only 15 positive happiness late in the game, even I was playing tall with only 6 cities, perfect infrastructure, over 45 GPTI and a lot of specialist usage. I think a such well developed empire should have more positive happiness than 15. In this case, its really necessary to build everything to stay above 10 happiness.

 

[CrazyG]

Possible in this version, yes, the late game happiness seems to easy.
But 2 versions ago I had only 15 positive happiness late in the game, even I was playing tall with only 6 cities, perfect infrastructure, over 45 GPTI and a lot of specialist usage. I think a such well developed empire should have more positive happiness than 15. In this case, its really necessary to build everything to stay above 10 happiness.

Possible in older versions. Just because you can't do something doesn't mean its impossible. If I recall other discussions, you love growing which will hurt your happiness. Also your religion, social policies and golden age status play a big part.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Possible in older versions. Just because you can't do something doesn't mean its impossible. If I recall other discussions, you love growing which will hurt your happiness. Also your religion, social policies and golden age status play a big part.

Yes I like growing, but this shouldn't be a giant happiness drow in general, if your doing it right. Some guy posted a picture with a 85+ capital as India, half the improvements still farms, if he get punished, ok, cause this is really too much stupid grow and a bad use of the citizens.

Atleast the religion shouldn't be counted for happiness balance, cause not every civ has access to the decision making. If my happiness is too low cause I wasn't able to pick or get converted by the "right" religion, Iam kinda doomed right from the start. But I agree with the other aspects.

 

[Valvts]

Happened to anyone? Spain just got all the policies and all the ideology policies the moment it switched ideology due to pressure (if I am not mistaken).

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Is anybody able to trade luxuries with Shaka or Montezuma? They value their own luxuries always over 2k, even we are no neighbors or have any negative diplo modifiers.

 

[Rafs]

Happened to anyone? Spain just got all the policies and all the ideology policies the moment it switched ideology due to pressure (if I am not mistaken).

Sounds like a bug, don't know if it could be related to extra mods though.

Is anybody able to trade luxuries with Shaka or Montezuma? They value their own luxuries always over 2k, even we are no neighbors or have any negative diplo modifiers.

It happens to me with very aggressive warmongering civs (like the huns, they also do this). Do you have the option to see all diplo modifiers? Usually this happens if they don't like you, they won't feel inclined to trade stuff with you. Sometimes they seem to change their mind but in my experience it has always been kind of random. Maybe someone can shed some light on the subject.

 

[Valvts]

Sounds like a bug, don't know if it could be related to extra mods though.

I Only use More Unique Components for VP (v 41), Unique City States, and Wonders Expanded.
This bug is a huge bummer because I had a pretty good game on Deity. And now, how do I even win against that.

 

[Minh Le]

Is anybody able to trade luxuries with Shaka or Montezuma? They value their own luxuries always over 2k, even we are no neighbors or have any negative diplo modifiers.

No, cant trade with them, and it seems they dont trade with other AIs either (they often hold on to 6 or 7 copies of their lux). I think its make those warmongers much weaker because they just dont sell their lux for gold.