New Version - July 18th (7/18)

[DoctorDuke]

Is anyone else having issues with units(mostly civilian) asking for orders every turn after I've told them to move 5-10 tiles away?
Example: I send my worker from one city to another that is 5-10 tiles away. He's going to ask for orders every turn like he forgets where i told him to go.
This should normally happen only when there is a barb or some other hostile unit nearby, but with VP it happens almost every turn and its getting really annoying.
Now i switched back to an older version of VP and I didn't have any problems so I figure the bug is in some of the newer versions.

I noticed this as well.

 

[Txurce]

Okay well is there a way to tone down the number or horsemen that barbarians get? It's not so much the number of units but rather all the horsemen running around by turn 50 (standard speed).
Any number I can change in the files?

The current arrival of multiple barb horsemen has led to my frequently bypassing archers in favor of researching spearmen or (if available) horsemen. I see no other way to combat horsemen so quickly.

Gazebo, do you see researching these units at this point as something essential but appropriate?

 

[Gokudo01]

I've considered flipping the 'move after attack' free promotion to melee ships instead of ranged ships, actually. I think that change alone would balance the two lines.

By just flipping the bonus, you make ranged ship useless until cruiser. Remember that you have introduced this bonus because dromon/galleass were aweful without it. They've got 3 moves + 1 range and can only move on coastal tiles. At this point, you are FAR from imperialism.
Moreover flipping "move after attack" will not make their promotion line better.
Furthermore, why would I want to move after attack if my range ships can't move after attack, I will start to attack with melee ship and finish the target with range ? so I will never get the healing bonus from authority, i will take more damage with my melee ship, injured units deals less damages and my range ship will be extremely vulnerable until my next turn.

I think "just flipping" will bring new issues while trying to solve the current ones. I even think that it's better to leave the naval fight as it stands right now if we can't establish what role should have each ship, what should be their strength, their weakness and their role in the game. In the end, if navy becomes weaker, the new version won't have solved anything but just made navy pointless like in civ 6 where you avoid to build ships until frigate.

 

[tu_79]

Well my post about WoT being OP was a sarcasm...

Next time use html tagging. [SARCASM] This is much easier to write [/SARCASM]

 

[Gazebo]

I noticed this as well.

Grab last night's hotfix if you haven't already. If you have, make a github post for Ilteroi the Pathfinder to see.

The current arrival of multiple barb horsemen has led to my frequently bypassing archers in favor of researching spearmen or (if available) horsemen. I see no other way to combat horsemen so quickly.

Gazebo, do you see researching these units at this point as something essential but appropriate?

The warrior isn't supposed to last you very long at all. Barbs get known techs after 60% of civs have a tech. And the AI does tend to move towards horsemen early. So there you go.

G

 

[Gazebo]

By just flipping the bonus, you make ranged ship useless until cruiser. Remember that you have introduced this bonus because dromon/galleass were aweful without it. They've got 3 moves + 1 range and can only move on coastal tiles. At this point, you are FAR from imperialism.
Moreover flipping "move after attack" will not make their promotion line better.
Furthermore, why would I want to move after attack if my range ships can't move after attack, I will start to attack with melee ship and finish the target with range ? so I will never get the healing bonus from authority, i will take more damage with my melee ship, injured units deals less damages and my range ship will be extremely vulnerable until my next turn.

I think "just flipping" will bring new issues while trying to solve the current ones. I even think that it's better to leave the naval fight as it stands right now if we can't establish what role should have each ship, what should be their strength, their weakness and their role in the game. In the end, if navy becomes weaker, the new version won't have solved anything but just made navy pointless like in civ 6 where you avoid to build ships until frigate.

I don't think it is quite so drastic as all that. 'Flipping' = give melee units move and attack, give ranged units something else to compensate. I'm personally happy with the current balance, even if melee boats might need a small buff.

G

 

[Txurce]

I don't think it is quite so drastic as all that. 'Flipping' = give melee units move and attack, give ranged units something else to compensate. I'm personally happy with the current balance, even if melee boats might need a small buff.

Agreed. I still tilt toward range over melee, but the proportion is now closer to 2:1. A small buff to the damage melee inflicts on range would essentially even them out.

 

[Moi Magnus]

I've considered flipping the 'move after attack' free promotion to melee ships instead of ranged ships, actually. I think that change alone would balance the two lines.

Adding "move after attack" to melee ships seems good.
But I'm not sure about removing "move after attack to" ranged ships : 1 range units that cannot move after attack and are defensivelly not really good would be so bad I don't think I would build even one ranged ship before the crusers. If you remove the move after attack, you obtain :
+MELEE ships can attack from far away without being exposed to a lot of risk (move, attack, move away from city bombardments/...)
+RANGED ships cannot attack from far away without being exposed to a lot of risk (move, attack, and die from city bombardments/...)
=> It would be comletely absurd.

My suggestions :
Solution 1) Adding "MAA" to melee ships, removing "MAA" to ranged ships, and reverting range change (so +1 range to every ships) => I don't like this one.
Solution 2) Removing "MAA" to ranged ships (not adding it to melee, not doing anything else) => It is a huge nerf of navy making them mostly useless to city conquest in most cases.
Solution 3) Removing "MAA" to ranged ships (not adding it to melee), making a huge buff to ships CS and RCS to compensate. => Need to find the good numbers.
Solution 4) Adding "MAA" to melee ships (not removing it from ranged), finding another debuff to ranged ships, such as the siege unit restriction : mouvement halved in ennemy territories => have some strange consequences (naval defense would be far easier than naval attack), but may be interesting.

 

[Bromar1]

I don't think it is quite so drastic as all that. 'Flipping' = give melee units move and attack, give ranged units something else to compensate. I'm personally happy with the current balance, even if melee boats might need a small buff.

G

I am in favor of move after attack for melee ships. This will make the coastal raider promotions much, much more viable.

 

[Gazebo]

Adding "move after attack" to melee ships seems good.
But I'm not sure about removing "move after attack to" ranged ships : 1 range units that cannot move after attack and are defensivelly not really good would be so bad I don't think I would build even one ranged ship before the crusers. If you remove the move after attack, you obtain :
+MELEE ships can attack from far away without being exposed to a lot of risk (move, attack, move away from city bombardments/...)
+RANGED ships cannot attack from far away without being exposed to a lot of risk (move, attack, and die from city bombardments/...)
=> It would be comletely absurd.

My suggestions :
Solution 1) Adding "MAA" to melee ships, removing "MAA" to ranged ships, and reverting range change (so +1 range to every ships) => I don't like this one.
Solution 2) Removing "MAA" to ranged ships (not adding it to melee, not doing anything else) => It is a huge nerf of navy making them mostly useless to city conquest in most cases.
Solution 3) Removing "MAA" to ranged ships (not adding it to melee), making a huge buff to ships CS and RCS to compensate. => Need to find the good numbers.
Solution 4) Adding "MAA" to melee ships (not removing it from ranged), finding another debuff to ranged ships, such as the siege unit restriction : mouvement halved in ennemy territories => have some strange consequences (naval defense would be far easier than naval attack), but may be interesting.

Solution 4 does sound nice. Might need to reduce CS/RCS overall on naval units, though (that or remove the 'naval penalty' promotion from land units. Otherwise naval units can avoid damage too easily.

G

 

[tu_79]

Solution 4 does sound nice. Might need to reduce CS/RCS overall on naval units, though (that or remove the 'naval penalty' promotion from land units. Otherwise naval units can avoid damage too easily.

G

Make them vulnerable to siege units. So, I may rush trirremes on a coastal map, catapults if balanced, swordsmen if just land.

 

[Psikus]

I've considered flipping the 'move after attack' free promotion to melee ships instead of ranged ships, actually. I think that change alone would balance the two lines.

I personally enjoy the current naval mechanics. If the main issue is balance between the two lines, wouldn't simply adjusting CS for ranged ships fix that? Perhaps also reducing speed for later ranged ships - I think dromon is fine, but I see how later era ships make it too easy to have lots of attacks on a single city.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

The new version is really good! One thing though, not sure if it's rotten luck or anything, but in my recent games, including the one with the new version, I've been getting hammered by foreign spies in the pre-constabulary era, despite having a level 3 spy for defence in my capital. In my current game (new version), the AI has pulled of 12-14 consecutive successful tech or gold steals, without losing a single spy, despite having a level 3 spy and despite being in war against the culprits (in my mind, being in war against the Asstecs should lower their chances of success, because we'll be extra careful against anyone with ties to the Aztecs etc.). Luckily I had mandirs to prevent GP assassinations. Does anyone else find pre-constabulary espionage too strong/too hard to defend against?

 

[DarkZero]

The new version is really good! One thing though, not sure if it's rotten luck or anything, but in my recent games, including the one with the new version, I've been getting hammered by foreign spies in the pre-constabulary era, despite having a level 3 spy for defence in my capital. In my current game (new version), the AI has pulled of 12-14 consecutive successful tech or gold steals, without losing a single spy, despite having a level 3 spy and despite being in war against the culprits (in my mind, being in war against the Asstecs should lower their chances of success, because we'll be extra careful against anyone with ties to the Aztecs etc.). Luckily I had mandirs to prevent GP assassinations. Does anyone else find pre-constabulary espionage too strong/too hard to defend against?

If you are in a position where pre-constabulary every single civ in the game is punting spies in your capital, maybe its time to move up a difficulty, because you clearly already won the game.

 

[tu_79]

I'm liking the movement GUI.

.5 means can take another action in that turn
0 means this turn
1 means next turn

It's useful.

I wonder if that can be made more stylish. The same as now, the place where one cannot fire is marked with the number in another colour.
Like 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 3 - ...
This time, colour bold red means you cannot attack if ending the turn in that tile. (Bold for the colour blinded)

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

DarkZero, thanks for the reply. I'm playing on Immortal, which is hard enough as it is. It's just that I'm usually playing against warmongers, which naturally try to bully me, declare war on me etc., because I usually have a smaller army etc.

 

[Owlbebach]

DarkZero, thanks for the reply. I'm playing on Immortal, which is hard enough as it is. It's just that I'm usually playing against warmongers, which naturally try to bully me, declare war on me etc., because I usually have a smaller army etc.

Go deity! It is nice and fun!

 

[Gidoza]

I personally enjoy the current naval mechanics. If the main issue is balance between the two lines, wouldn't simply adjusting CS for ranged ships fix that? Perhaps also reducing speed for later ranged ships - I think dromon is fine, but I see how later era ships make it too easy to have lots of attacks on a single city.

That's funny, because I've always found the Dromon in particular to be strong - against Triremes it's OK, but they're unkillable from land, which seems both extreme and unrealistic, especially since the Dromon was originally Theodora's UU. Personally, I see no need whatsoever for an early-game ranged ship unit - I think Vanilla has the upper hand for design, here.

 

[Txurce]

That's funny, because I've always found the Dromon in particular to be strong - against Triremes it's OK, but they're unkillable from land, which seems both extreme and unrealistic, especially since the Dromon was originally Theodora's UU. Personally, I see no need whatsoever for an early-game ranged ship unit - I think Vanilla has the upper hand for design, here.

The window for the dromon as a city attacker closes fast, but you make a good historical point. It may seem blasphemous, but I'd be open to eliminating the dromon, or severely reducing its kick. Counter-argument: screw verisimilitude -- full-on naval warfare is fun.

 

[CrazyG]

City States now have a base reluctance of 175, which makes tribute really difficult. I currently have 6 spearmen and a pathfinder in range, and Zulu's bonus, but I cannot even get regular tribute from a CS. I didn't see any note of this change, it used to be a base of 150