New Version - May 19th (5-19)

[vyyt]

@tu_79, ha! So I was not daydreaming, the fresh RR actually was worse than Rd speedwise in a previous version.

I think many new people will think the RRs are bugged if they do not see any first-hand change in speed. Maybe giving them a teeny tiny speed boost would do the job while keeping the current balance of things (which I don't advocate changing).

 

[pineappledan]

How do you even do anything with this? Turn 62 and Carthage has 3 cities and 7+ units, making a death carpet because I settled 4 tiles away from my own capital. This is King difficulty; why is the AI being such a god damn psychopath?

I guess you just roll until you get your own island, unless you have an ancient UU this patch? You so much as look in another civ's direction and they'll go total war on your ass.

Spoiler :

 

[Rekk]

That's probably why the aggressiveness was tuned down in July 12?

If the AI is capable of doing this... It should probably do it regardless of whether they think you are expanding into their territory. Go for your (the weakest player) throat early throat early before you can catch up.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

You're almost in classical (maths) and you only have a warrior and pathfinder? I would've declared war on you as well, especially considering that pretty national wonder. It's a very valuable land you're sitting on and you don't have even a Horseman, or War Elephant (I see Ivory, but can't see Horses), or two Archers, who would've had the chances of foiling the enemy assault. You even have gold for an Archer, so that leaves only one Archer to have produced beforehand.

 

[chicorbeef]

Sometimes you can get away with low military like that, though you should at least have an Archer or two not next to an expansionist Carthage with a NW city.

The aggressiveness has been toned down now in June 12.

 

[Stalker0]

You're almost in classical (maths) and you only have a warrior and pathfinder? I would've declared war on you as well, especially considering that pretty national wonder. It's a very valuable land you're sitting on and you don't have even a Horseman, or War Elephant (I see Ivory, but can't see Horses), or two Archers, who would've had the chances of foiling the enemy assault. You even have gold for an Archer, so that leaves only one Archer to have produced beforehand.

Yeah have to agree here. The AI's aggressiveness was put up too high I think, but in this case you need at least a little more military.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

How do you even do anything with this? Turn 62 and Carthage has 3 cities and 7+ units, making a death carpet because I settled 4 tiles away from my own capital. This is King difficulty; why is the AI being such a god damn psychopath?

I guess you just roll until you get your own island, unless you have an ancient UU this patch? You so much as look in another civ's direction and they'll go total war on your ass.

Spoiler :

View attachment 526715

As others have already said. Only a warrior and a pathfinder in that state of the game is an invitation for every other civ you may have pissed off by settling in their direction.
AND..... its Carthage. Settling a city = archer. What do you expect from a civ with an extremly early game UA. I would do exactly the same.

For me, its a greater question, how CARTHAGE is able to have a size of 10 and that huge borders at turn 62?

 

[CrazyG]

Do you think barbarians are too aggressive as well? Because you can't even handle them.

 

[Bhawb]

As others have already said. Only a warrior and a pathfinder in that state of the game is an invitation for every other civ you may have pissed off by settling in their direction.
AND..... its Carthage. Settling a city = archer. What do you expect from a civ with an extremly early game UA. I would do exactly the same.

For me, its a greater question, how CARTHAGE is able to have a size of 10 and that huge borders at turn 62?

Tradition is how, I'd guess. Increased border growth, capital pop, and they only have 3 cities atm.

 

[crdvis16]

I gotta say that I agree with the others.

You should not be building a council in that border city when it's clear Carthage will be coming for you. It should be walls or units until you have a reasonable defense force.

Si Satchanalai is only 4 tiles from your capital but is also only 8ish from Dido's so it's not unreasonable for her to see your territory as a threat. Honestly your starting location is just kind of rough- I think your choice here was to either pick an enemy to forward settle and attack/conquer or turtle up with 3ish cities and just go tall.

Given the choice of who to pick a fight with I would have forward settled Portugal maybe- I would think she's the weakest at the start and any trade routes you pillage from her would help cripple her. With any luck Washington and Dido would have distracted each other while you knocked down Portugal.

 

[azum4roll]

Is a city supposed to have a <-100% growth and starve when you annex it while above the supply cap, before building a courthouse? It's probably still a thing in the latest versions, but I'm playing this one.

 

[bitula]

Hi All! First of all Congrats! I never liked or managed to like civ 5, but vox is an entirely different game and it is attractive! Now here’s my problem after playing two games (this is similar to long discussed concerns in this thread):

So the problem:

Long term agricultural investment is penalized. To a degree that you inevitably lose the whole game in a trivial manner if you are doing that. I mean this strategy is certainly not the best in any Civ iteration but in none is it completely unviable. The reason for this I guess is that local population count is factored into distress calculation.


I found this formula in the forum and came up with an idea:

Distress = (FoodCityEfficiency - WorldMedianFoodEfficiency) * EmpireSizePenalty * CitySizePenalty * TechPenalty * DistressDiscounts

So one alternative seems to be removing CitySizePenalty. But I like complexity and large pop makes people unhappy is sort of OK, so what if changing it this way:

Distress = (FoodCityEfficiency - WorldMedianFoodEfficiency) * EmpireSizePenalty * (CitySizePenalty – City food yield surplus modifier) * TechPenalty * DistressDiscounts


This way only those large pop cities are penalized which have high pop but low surplus, and thus agriculture and population are somewhat decoupled.

What do you think?

Note, point is, in my two game I ended up with severe peacful unhappiness despite building up essentially all happiness related building, traded all luxuries, took full artistry and not going wide. The reason was simply heavy investment in agricultural buildings (eg.: granary) and working food heavy tiles, I dont think I could have done anything else except for stop investment in food. Almost all cities had large food surplus: they were growing fast.

 

[Moi Magnus]

Long term agricultural investment is penalized. To a degree that you inevitably lose the whole game in a trivial manner if you are doing that. I mean this strategy is certainly not the best in any Civ iteration but in none is it completely unviable. The reason for this I guess is that local population count is factored into distress calculation.

There is a debate on that subject on a recent thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/on-food-growth-and-happiness.647114/
But note that happiness has changed a lot in the last few versions. I particular, I think the "CitySizePenalty" has been removed in the June 12 version, as written in the changelog:

Scrapped % pop modifier for needs in cities

So if you upgrade to the last version, you might have easier time. Though still not viable, as it is still an active subject of discussion.

 

[bitula]

Ah thx, does this require manual install, or updates are automatic?

 

[Moi Magnus]

Ah thx, does this require manual install, or updates are automatic?

No automatic update (As it breaks saves, it would be very frustrating to have an ongoing game broken every month).

You need to download the last version of the auto-installer each time, and reinstall the mod with it.