New Version - July 18th (7/18)

[Gokudo01]

Don't blame the VP for 1UPT. There's only so much we can do, and none of those things (rally points, etc.) are viable.

G

Gazebo I didn't blame VP nor you, it's not Ad hominem but it's the context. You have to think about it everytime you make a gameplay choice. And imho, the game shouldn't promote boring mechanisms.
Sometimes, Trying to solve issues with realistic or mathematic accurate solutions move you away from the most important thing in a game : "Fun". I don't think many people here will come to explain me that moving around more than 2 units is not boring.

And as the game stands, it's exactly what it promotes, moving around my units, by deleting the old one and buying new ones with the oldest and the farthest cities which has usually already got the armoury or the military academy.

For example, in this game, I've only got 2 cities with seaport.

Extra movement = 1/extra fun

I think he isn't blaming VP for the 1UPT, but more for the fact that hight upgrade cost make the 1UPT more annoying. I like the current balance (where losing units is not really relevant in the long run), but I would also be fine with a -75% to upgrade cost (it would lead to a quite different balance, because it would make losing unts very costly)

Right
I don't know about the numbers /scaling ( why not introduce a vector between lvl and cost ) /cooldown. But as it stands it doesn't really feel right after medieval

 

[CrazyG]

If you take progress and the bonus science unlocks a tech for you, you don't get any bonus culture for that tech. Is that intended? I think it should, you discovered after taking the social policy

 

[Gazebo]

If you take progress and the bonus science unlocks a tech for you, you don't get any bonus culture for that tech. Is that intended? I think it should, you discovered after taking the social policy

The effects trigger simultaneously, and 'on the stack' it can't trigger first (as the entire policy caches at the same time). I can try to rework the stack, but bleh. Make a github post to remind me.

G

 

[Funak]

The effects trigger simultaneously, and 'on the stack' it can't trigger first (as the entire policy caches at the same time). I can try to rework the stack, but bleh. Make a github post to remind me.

Reworking the stack (if by that you mean changing the order things are calculated) is probably going to create more problems than it solves. This just feels like one of those situations where you have to live with it.

Speaking of stack-coolness, unless this has been changed, if you use a great engineer to rush the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus (and probably university of Sankore, but I've never actually tried that out) you get the +30 culture (or +100 science) for expending a great engineer.

 

[Gazebo]

Reworking the stack (if by that you mean changing the order things are calculated) is probably going to create more problems than it solves. This just feels like one of those situations where you have to live with it.

Speaking of stack-coolness, unless this has been changed, if you use a great engineer to rush the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus (and probably university of Sankore, but I've never actually tried that out) you get the +30 culture (or +100 science) for expending a great engineer.

Yeah, the building is built before he dies. Duh.

G

 

[CrazyG]

The progress tech thing isn't a big deal, if its a pain to fix.

Speaking of stack-coolness, unless this has been changed, if you use a great engineer to rush the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus (and probably university of Sankore, but I've never actually tried that out) you get the +30 culture (or +100 science) for expending a great engineer.

I've always found this humorous.

 

[Darth Andrew]

The effects trigger simultaneously, and 'on the stack' it can't trigger first (as the entire policy caches at the same time). I can try to rework the stack, but bleh. Make a github post to remind me.

G

Completely off topic, but do you play Magic the Gathering? You use several terms that make it sound like you do haha.

 

[Gazebo]

Completely off topic, but do you play Magic the Gathering? You use several terms that make it sound like you do haha.

I have. I think I have a bird deck sitting around some where...

In any case the nesting of functions in C++ is also referred to as the 'stack,' especially when you are debugging and 'walking the stack' to see which function is causing a bug.

G

 

[Funak]

Completely off topic, but do you play Magic the Gathering? You use several terms that make it sound like you do haha.

The MTG stack was removed years ago, RIP.

 

[Galbias]

Thank you as always.

So there's no real point to adopting an Ideology early now, aside from just getting the free tenet earlier? I always kind of liked rushing for the free tenets, without them it seems like it would be more beneficial to wait and see what the other civs in the game go for.

Also not sure about the Coal requirement for late-game melee boats, since I believe basically all late-game naval units require a strategic resource now. I always thought of melee boats as being kind of a "filler" unit (ranged ships are a lot more useful against land and cities, though less so after the range nerf) and not really something that's worth a strategic resource, I think Coal is usually in fairly high demand for buildings as well.

• Adjusted the start biases of many civs to be a bit more historically accurate/useful(thanks, Phalanx!)

Curious, is there a list of specifically what biases were changed?

 

[tu_79]

I think he isn't blaming VP for the 1UPT, but more for the fact that hight upgrade cost make the 1UPT more annoying. I like the current balance (where losing units is not really relevant in the long run), but I would also be fine with a -75% to upgrade cost (it would lead to a quite different balance, because it would make losing unts very costly)

I'm not sure if you have expressed it correctly.

I think you want the upgrading cost to be 75% of purchasing cost. So if the thing costs 1000 gold, you pay 750 for upgrading to it. It's not a bad solution. Producing new units has its own advantages, but only when there's still supply. And if it happens that the replacement rate is still too high, then rise both costs. For example, going to 1200 for purchasing and 900 for upgrading.

 

[ElliotS]

The MTG stack was removed years ago, RIP.

What are you talking about? The stack is still there, and always will be. It's where the magic happens in magic.

 

[Funak]

What are you talking about? The stack is still there, and always will be. It's where the magic happens in magic.

Yeah, but all the fun parts about the stack were removed years ago.

 

[ElliotS]

Yeah, but all the fun parts about the stack were removed years ago.

If the stack isn't fun then what do you call an EDH board state with a prototype portal imprinted with Knowledge Pool, unwinding clock, gilded lotus and thran dynamo?

 

[Moi Magnus]

I'm not sure if you have expressed it correctly.

I think you want the upgrading cost to be 75% of purchasing cost. So if the thing costs 1000 gold, you pay 750 for upgrading to it. It's not a bad solution. Producing new units has its own advantages, but only when there's still supply. And if it happens that the replacement rate is still too high, then rise both costs. For example, going to 1200 for purchasing and 900 for upgrading.

No. What I had in mind was something such that :
Increase production cost (hammer and gold) of ~30%.
Decrease upgrade cost of ~30% (instead of increasing it)
-> Upgrade cost is ~30% buying cost. Upgrading a unit from ancient era to renaissance would be approximately equivalent to buying a new unit.

So a complete balance change : keeping units alive would be central to wars.

 

[Funak]

So a complete balance change : keeping units alive would be central to wars.

But why? This is something that gives a massive advantage to human players at the cost of the AI, for ABSOLUTELY no good reason.

 

[Moi Magnus]

But why? This is something that gives a massive advantage to human players at the cost of the AI, for ABSOLUTELY no good reason.

If you read the previous post I've made, I do not say I want that change, I say that I like the current balance, but I would have no problem with changing the balance completely.
However, you are right that any change in that direction is a debuff to the AIs

 

[balinte]

I say that I like the current balance, but I would have no problem with changing the balance completely.
However, you are right that any change in that direction is a debuff to the AIs

What?

 

[PapaRockett]

Does the AI really understand Defensive pacts? Russia and Shoshone were lifelong friends, that all ended when Catherine declared on another civ that had a DP with Pocatello...

 

[tu_79]

No. What I had in mind was something such that :
Increase production cost (hammer and gold) of ~30%.
Decrease upgrade cost of ~30% (instead of increasing it)
-> Upgrade cost is ~30% buying cost. Upgrading a unit from ancient era to renaissance would be approximately equivalent to buying a new unit.

So a complete balance change : keeping units alive would be central to wars.

I think we all prefer the cost of upgrading a warrior into whatever being greater than the latter. That was already the case before. Now, the cost of upgrading is just much greater than before, so you are forced to choose wisely which units to upgrade. This is something most of us like. But costing the same as a new purchase might be a bit too much. Producing a new unit has its own advantages, and forcing the player to completely produce a new army may not be the best answer.

If we used real life as guidance, then the cost for producing a new unit should be minimal, and the cost for upgrading even less. But maintenance cost are huge, and the cost increase with the technology the unit uses. How comes that it takes the same to maintain a pikemen unit than a mechanized infantry unit? Because this is a game, this is an approximation, and we use the simplest thing to simulate real things, so it's easy to code and easy to understand for AI.