1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

New Version - May 19th (5-19)

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by Gazebo, May 19, 2019.

  1. Rafs

    Rafs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    104
    Only EUI, the standard package for the comunity patch and 3rd/4th component mod. While it obviously pushes things a bit to the limit, the test I did previously was without any mods (aside from comunity patch). Setup was duel map on quick speed (wanted to test out some stuff).Ran into the same EUI shenanigans, and the trade routes too.
     
  2. Revolutionist_8

    Revolutionist_8 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2016
    Messages:
    371
    Location:
    Hungary, Earth, M.W. Galaxy
    I just came across with this issue tonight, I posted it on GitHub.
     
  3. chicorbeef

    chicorbeef Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,313
    Gender:
    Male
    I believe that if you lose an owned city, the costs remain the same, but the next city will be free Culture/Science wise.
     
    tu_79 likes this.
  4. tu_79

    tu_79 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,223
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    Yes, so it's not that much of a pain to lose one or two cities when you have too many. Isn't it?
    Thing is, if you don't overexpand, it's rare to have seceded cities. While if took the effort to expand so fast that secession becomes a problem, these revolted cities help you to not fall in an inefficiency trap. It's not useless effort either. Your units got experienced, the enemy receives a crappy city back since those are the most likely ones to lose.
    Maybe the worst thing is having to deal with rebels at the wrong time. Maybe when you are committed to another war.

    Anyways, I haven't seen any city revolting after that beta release that was so harsh for happiness that tradition couldn't work specialists in the capital.
     
  5. psparky

    psparky Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Messages:
    372
    Gender:
    Male
    Just to be clear, the tech/culture penalties are based on the highest number of (non-puppet) cities you ever had. The penalty never gets reduced, but if you lose cities in any way it creates a float where you can acquire new cities without an additional penalty until you exceed the previous maximum number of cities.

    Personally, I hated this mechanic so much that it was the first thing I changed once I learned how to build the DLL (I changed it to just be based on the current number of cities). The current mechanic penalizes civs that lose cities and cannot replace them, so they fall even further behind. It makes it far harder for a human player to recover from losing a city or two, in what otherwise might be an interesting game. It adds a prohibitive (to me) cost of certain actions like liberating a city-state or other city, or taking and razing a city that was forward-settled against you (unless you plan on expanding in the near future). I have seen it described as a penalty on warmongers, but to me, it works the other way - I don't care about it when I'm warmongering but do when I'm not.
     
  6. Omen of Peace

    Omen of Peace Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2018
    Messages:
    209
    Gender:
    Male
    Have you tried proposing your patch for it to our code leaders?
    I had understood it was a bug they couldn't fix.
    I would be keen to have it included - the current mechanism doesn't make much sense. It actually penalizes civ who get eaten up by warmongers since their culture/science costs don't decrease.
     
  7. Revolutionist_8

    Revolutionist_8 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2016
    Messages:
    371
    Location:
    Hungary, Earth, M.W. Galaxy
    I agree, you could propose your solution to G or ilteroi as this would make a good change to a most probably unintended behaviour. It would be well appreciated!
     
  8. Moi Magnus

    Moi Magnus Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,793
    The way I understand it, it is not a bug. Though it may be difficult to change that in current version for some technical reason I don't know about, I remember being told it was initially a feature.
    The argument being that you should not want to catpure a city and lose it immediatly.
    (Note that this "feature" was introduce at a time where war wearinness was mostly absent)
     
  9. crdvis16

    crdvis16 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    755
    I thought that the science/culture cost of tech/policies was recalculated to reflect your current number of cities after opening a policy or unlocking a tech? In that scenario, losing a city would only penalize you with higher policy/tech cost temporarily.
     
  10. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,164
    Location:
    Aquidneck Island
    It's not a secret, nor a bug, but rather a Firaxis design choice:

    Code:
    //    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    // How many Cities does this player have for policy/tech cost purposes?
    int CvPlayer::GetMaxEffectiveCities(bool bIncludePuppets)
    {
        int iNumCities = getNumCities();
    
        // Don't count puppet Cities
        int iNumPuppetCities = GetNumPuppetCities();
        iNumCities -= iNumPuppetCities;
    
        // Don't count cities where the player hasn't decided yet what to do with them or ones that are currently being razed
        int iNumLimboCities = 0;
        const CvCity* pLoopCity;
        int iLoop;
        for(pLoopCity = firstCity(&iLoop); pLoopCity != NULL; pLoopCity = nextCity(&iLoop))
        {
            if(pLoopCity->IsIgnoreCityForHappiness() || pLoopCity->IsRazing())
            {
                iNumLimboCities++;
            }
        }
        iNumCities -= iNumLimboCities;
    
        if(iNumCities == 0)    // If we don't pretend the player has at least one city it screws up the math
            iNumCities = 1;
    
        // Update member variable
        m_iMaxEffectiveCities = (m_iMaxEffectiveCities > iNumCities) ? m_iMaxEffectiveCities : iNumCities;
    
        if (bIncludePuppets)
        {
            return m_iMaxEffectiveCities + iNumPuppetCities;
        }
    
        return m_iMaxEffectiveCities;
    }
    The magic is the 'update member variable' line - it never allows your total city count to 'go down' once it has gone up.

    G
     
  11. Enginseer

    Enginseer Salientia of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2012
    Messages:
    3,200
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere in California
    PERMANENTLY.
     
  12. Der_Zorn_gottes

    Der_Zorn_gottes Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Messages:
    742
    Something clever, something clever, Entropy, something clever.
     
  13. Revolutionist_8

    Revolutionist_8 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2016
    Messages:
    371
    Location:
    Hungary, Earth, M.W. Galaxy
    And is it possible to change this? I mean, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense :crazyeye: Can we / want we?
     
    JamesNinelives and Bromar1 like this.
  14. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,164
    Location:
    Aquidneck Island
    Sure. Question is the latter. I understand the logic: if you expand to 10 cities and have that advantage for 100 turns, then drop back to 4 cities, you’d suddenly be able to get policies and techs quickly, perhaps instantly depending on the speed. Not saying it’s realistic, but that’s probably why they did it.

    G
     
  15. crdvis16

    crdvis16 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    755
    Learn something new every day. The mechanic certainly punishes losers of war pretty harshly when they've probably already been punished a lot to begin with.
     
    BiteInTheMark and Arthur Jama like this.
  16. psparky

    psparky Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Messages:
    372
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think it's a bug, as it's a Firaxis design decision. However, VP improves on countless such decisions :)

    It's pretty clear that the current mechanism is misunderstood looking through the posts - the alternative is at least easy to explain and understand. I am concerned that there may be ways to exploit it though.

    And yes, all I did was change the line that sets the count to just use the current city count, rather than the maximum of current saved maximum and the current count. That does seem to work OK.

    In the vanilla game, liberating a city or capturing and immediately razing a city don't incur the penalty, but in VP they do. Perhaps that might be regarded as a bug.
     
    JamesNinelives likes this.
  17. tu_79

    tu_79 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,223
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    How's that benefitial?

    I can't raze my own settled cities. I have to let them be conquered or lose them due to a very bad mismanagement of my economy, so I would not be faring well in any case.
    I could conquer a few cities and then raze them all, while in current system I have to do this one city at a time for avoiding extra costs, but this is not intuitive at all.
    It's no longer possible to sell many buildings at once in a razing city.

    I don't see many ways to exploit this mechanic, especially with all the changes from vanilla, but this would help bad players to keep playing in case they overexpanded too much and also badly wounded wide civs would be able to recover faster.
     
    JamesNinelives likes this.
  18. civplayer33

    civplayer33 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    605
    To be fair to the current mechanic, razing a city immediately after conquest will make the city not count in the following turns; so you don't have to wait until it's completely razed before you conquer and raze more, as long as you don't interrupt the razing process. If you didn't have a "free spot" available in the maximum, however, it will increase the maximum by 1 for the first city, though; after that you're good. (I've tested this)

    To me, the most annoying aspect of the current mechanic is that a single liberation or razing will increase the counter irrevocably the first time, which doesn't matter much if I'm going wide, but if I planned to stay tall for a while, let's say with 5 cities, liberating one city without planning to conquer / found another shortly thereafter will be a pretty bad move.
    So I'm wondering if it's possible to omit increasing the counter on liberation / instant-razing instead of the proposed change (once razing is interrupted it should increase, however); this would be more of a minimalist best of both worlds, no?
     
    JamesNinelives likes this.
  19. Revolutionist_8

    Revolutionist_8 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2016
    Messages:
    371
    Location:
    Hungary, Earth, M.W. Galaxy
    I hate being an annoying potato, but I don't understand how would that possible. You lose cities -> you lose yields. The tech and policy % remains the same compared to #Cities. With less yields, you need less proportionally. Fair fair. (Am I missing something? Could someone please explain to me)
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2019
    JamesNinelives likes this.
  20. psparky

    psparky Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Messages:
    372
    Gender:
    Male
    I just did a test on my modded version, and there is an exploit. You can temporarily set captured cities to be razed which lowers the tech/culture costs, get a policy (would probably also work with tech), then cancel the raze. I kinda wish I didn't know that :(

    I'm considering a further change to make cities being razed count. You would then potentially suffer a penalty for multiple razing cities, but it would reduce as each city was completely razed. I do wonder if I'm digging a hole for myself though.
     
    JamesNinelives, vyyt, Rekk and 3 others like this.

Share This Page