New Version - May 19th (5-19)

[pineappledan]

In pineapple's example the Landmark is on desert...a Plains or Grassland Landmark with the WC proposal wouldn't be quite as bad.

It’s on a Petra desert during a GA... whatevs. That tends to happen when you can’t choose the tiles the landmark appears on. One of the other 2 landmarks in my empire is on tundra.

Sure, you can go Artistry and knowledge through devotion. You could even play Egypt! But all those also boost GPTIs by the same amount.

However, I can’t help but notice that GPTIs are useful without me having to orient my ENTIRE playstyle around them first.

 

[chicorbeef]

It’s on a Petra desert during a GA... whatevs.

Sure, you can go Artistry and knowledge through devotion. You could even play Egypt! But all those also boost GPTIs by the same amount.

However, I can’t help but notice that GPTIs are useful without me having to orient my ENTIRE playstyle around them first.

I never orient my entire playstyle around Landmarks, I orient it around Great People/Culture/Tourism and that makes Landmarks worth it as a side effect. Landmarks are not usually competing with GPTI, they compete with Artifacts.

I am not against buffing Landmarks for non-Culture players (the solution I like is giving points when dug, like maybe 150 scaling), I am simply saying that when the synergy is there, I think they're decent.

 

[pineappledan]

I am not against buffing Landmarks for non-Culture players (the solution I like is giving points when dug, like maybe 150 scaling), I am simply saying that when the synergy is there, I think they're decent.

thats not a solution. If anything that makes landmarks even worse. The problem is that they are trash tiles, so giving them a yield burst on improvement would be even more reason to replace them with something else after you get the GAPs and global happiness

Just give them 2-3 base so that it’s not all scaler. Give me a reason to give a damn about these tiles if I’m not playing a GP-oriented game. If I was going CV i would just take the artifacts anyways.

Why is it that a tile that is this restrictive and costly can ever be this bad? I have no power over its placement, it unlocks in way back in industrial, it costs hundreds of in archeologists to build. Why is it even conceivable that a 11 Renaissance landmark should be possible under any condition? I showed you an Ancient Era, the Best possible landmark, and it’s still rubbish unless I boosted it with policies/WC resolution/etc. That is baloney.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

It’s on a Petra desert during a GA... whatevs. That tends to happen when you can’t choose the tiles the landmark appears on. One of the other 2 landmarks in my empire is on tundra.

Sure, you can go Artistry and knowledge through devotion. You could even play Egypt! But all those also boost GPTIs by the same amount.

However, I can’t help but notice that GPTIs are useful without me having to orient my ENTIRE playstyle around them first.

As chicorbeef said, landmarks are not there to compete with GPTI, its a bonus. The competition is between, do I create a landmark or do I create an artifact.
I think we have a good balance, if the civs heading for a DV or SV have a hard time to decide, do I go for landmark or artifact in my own country. A landmark should be always the best option for CV players, cause those players get naturally the most benefits for landmarks, and I think this is mostly achieved. Meanwhile picking artifacts should be always better for warmongers, cause a low improved landmark in the territory of a puppet city is simply terrible, and I think, this is good too.
The question is now, would you build and work a landmark as a non-artistry-non-freedom civ? Which benefit to landmarks would create a 50/50 decision for those civs?

 

[tu_79]

As chicorbeef said, landmarks are not there to compete with GPTI, its a bonus. The competition is between, do I create a landmark or do I create an artifact.
I think we have a good balance, if the civs heading for a DV or SV have a hard time to decide, do I go for landmark or artifact in my own country. A landmark should be always the best option for CV players, cause those players get naturally the most benefits for landmarks, and I think this is mostly achieved. Meanwhile picking artifacts should be always better for warmongers, cause a low improved landmark in the territory of a puppet city is simply terrible, and I think, this is good too.
The question is now, would you build and work a landmark as a non-artistry-non-freedom civ? Which benefit to landmarks would create a 50/50 decision for those civs?

Is that so?

A great work is giving me 2-3 culture, plus tourism, plus some theming bonuses, plus extra GAP to the Great Artist, doing nothing more than having somewhere to stock it. (if I went cultural, I have quite a few wonders for that)
Meanwhile, the arch site gives nothing when not being worked (but happiness right now, in a way that is not commonly accepted), not enough yields for them to be worked unless you picked the right believes and policies. Just in the latter case, it could, maybe, outperform a great work.

I never raise these things in my lands now.

 

[pineappledan]

Sorry, but in my mind you’ve got it bass ackwards, Bite. Landmarks are pure yields and artifacts are a theme-able flat generator which I don’t need a to work. They are the obvious choice for a CV. A landmark requires a hotel/airport to translate into , and to get even 3, you need 6 and BOTH those buildings. Landmarks are totally inefficient for CVs.

And right now they’re trash for everyone else too, even worse in fact, because a SV/DiploV/DomV is not likely to go Artistry for the big finisher, and will probably opt for a different reformation belief

 

[Bromar1]

Artifacts do take up slots while Landmarks don't, so that's something to consider.

By the time archeology comes around, I have plenty of open slots.

 

[Bhawb]

As chicorbeef said, landmarks are not there to compete with GPTI, its a bonus.

They are competing when they can spawn under GPTIs.

 

[Bromar1]

It’s on a Petra desert during a GA...

I would rather have +2 food from grassland always than +2 gold situationally

 

[Rekk]

I would rather have +2 food from grassland always than +2 gold situationally

So trade out the 2 in the example for 2. It's still not a good tile.

 

[pineappledan]

I would rather have +2 food from grassland always than +2 gold situationally

You. Do. Not. Get. A. Say. Where. The. Ruin. Appears.

As chicorbeef said, landmarks are not there to compete with GPTI, its a bonus. The competition is between, do I create a landmark or do I create an artifact.

1. Except they kind of are, because Artifacts are identical to GWs in power and function, which are built by GPs, which do compete directly with each other. So they need to be roughly the power of a GPTI because that's what artifacts and GWs are balanced against.

2. But sure, let's take you at your premise.

• an artifact, regardless of ruin era, gives 33 -- a Renaissance Landmark gives 11. Oops!
• an artifact fills a slot (palace, castle, museum, pagoda, cathedral, wonders) and does not have to be worked by a -- a Landmark needs to be worked by a and occupies a tile.
  • Strictly comparing 33 with no means that the landmark needs to be roughly 33 better than an improvement that could otherwise occupy that tile. Say, a mine (6 in industrial). So it needs to be better than 633 or else you should have just taken the artifact and built a mine where the ruin was.
  • As @tu_79 said, that also ignores themeing, GAP burst from GArtists, etc.
• an artifact can be gained from ruins in neutral territory and non-owned territory -- there are maybe 3-4 landmarks that exist in workable range of your cities in any given game.
  • Workable landmarks are basically unicorns. You don't have to compare them to GPTIs, but if you do they are much less plentiful, arrive later, and are more costly to generate. Compare that to the potential artifact you get which is EXACTLY as good as something a GP might give you and are completely tile-agnostic
• Let me reiterate an ealier point: An Archeologist costs 450. Is +3 and a so-so tile worth that, or are you just going to take the artifact?

 

[Omen of Peace]

Changing to penalties based on the current city count would avoid the need to fix that case, probably avoid the save-during-popup issue, be easier to explain and understand and possibly improve the game. It would, however, need something to prevent to the 'setting captured annexed cities to raze status temporarily' exploit, probably making cities being razed count until they are gone.

We've seen a fair amount of support in this thread in favour of basing penalties on the current city count.
Are there people who are against, and why?

Also: Gazebo, is this the type of issue where a poll would help? Or do you have a strong opinion already?

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Is that so?

A great work is giving me 2-3 culture, plus tourism, plus some theming bonuses, plus extra GAP to the Great Artist, doing nothing more than having somewhere to stock it. (if I went cultural, I have quite a few wonders for that)
Meanwhile, the arch site gives nothing when not being worked (but happiness right now, in a way that is not commonly accepted), not enough yields for them to be worked unless you picked the right believes and policies. Just in the latter case, it could, maybe, outperform a great work.

I never raise these things in my lands now.

Airport/Stadium/Hotel translates 75% of culture into tourismn, together with the freedom tenet, you probably end with around +10 tourismn. Theming bonuses are neglegible, remember you have to divide those bonuses by the amount of GW, you will end with around +1.5 yield per artifact. With the right choices, you can buff your landmark with up to +26 yields, and I dont think an artifact can reach that amount of yields.

1. Except they kind of are, because Artifacts are identical to GWs in power and function, which are built by GPs, which do compete directly with each other. So they need to be roughly the power of a GPTI because that's what artifacts and GWs are balanced against.

That is simply wrong. GW are done by cultural GP, which are not able to construct GPTI. GW are the result of cultural GP and GPTI are the result of economical GP. Those are 2 different categories. Even the World Congress separate these both categories from each other by 2 separate options. Your conclusions is also missing the +3 happiness, which can translate into pure +3 or reducing growth penalties for your cities.

Ive written that it is my opinion too, that landmarks need a buff, and not by GAP bombs or happiness, but by pure yields. I would change all archelogical sites to be "pre-ancient", so give at minimum +4 and +2. If you are following a CV, you will gain enough further bonuses for the improvement by your policy choices. If not, you are not interested in the tourismn from GW, but may like the gold and happiness and have an era scaling improvement, which gets atleast in 98% of the games +1 by the historical landmarks decision.

 

[pineappledan]

That is simply wrong. GW are done by cultural GP, which are not able to construct GPTI. GW are the result of cultural GP and GPTI are the result of economical GP. Those are 2 different categories. Even the World Congress separate these both categories from each other by 2 separate options. Your conclusions is also missing the +3 happiness, which can translate into pure +3 or reducing growth penalties for your cities.

GPs are generated in the same method, working specialists. They use the same GP rates, and you can't work all specialists in all cities. So yes, they are in direct competition with each other, economic vs cultural GPs.

If not, you are not interested in the tourismn from GW, but may like the gold and happiness and have an era scaling improvement, which gets atleast in 98% of the games +1 by the historical landmarks decision.

I just disagree with the notion that a WC resolution being necessary to make a tile worth working is an acceptable, credible argument. That punctuates how sad landmarks are, if we need to scum for specific policies and workarounds that bring the improvement up to competitive.

Apparently I'm alone in thinking that landmarks should be better than GPTIs, because they are available later, they cost archaeologists, they are less numerous, and you don't get to choose where they go.

 

[Enginseer]

Apparently I'm alone in thinking that landmarks should be better than GPTIs, because they are available later, they cost archaeologists, they are less numerous, and you don't get to choose where they go.

Which is more productive to humanity? A couple of old rocks from the Neolithic Era or an Academy that has produced one of the best scientists? It makes sense that an international organization could force a couple of old rocks to be perceived valuable.

 

[crdvis16]

Did something change with war weariness? It seems to be spiking faster this patch- like getting into 20 or 30+ unhappiness from WW pretty quickly without anything major happening to cause it (I didn't take a city or lose a city, not much pillaging, just a handful of units lost for either side). Just curious to see if anyone else is experiencing a change.

 

[Txurce]

Did something change with war weariness? It seems to be spiking faster this patch- like getting into 20 or 30+ unhappiness from WW pretty quickly without anything major happening to cause it (I didn't take a city or lose a city, not much pillaging, just a handful of units lost for either side). Just curious to see if anyone else is experiencing a change.

Late game it does seem to, in my case using Freedom.

 

[chicorbeef]

Sorry, but in my mind you’ve got it bass ackwards, Bite. Landmarks are pure yields and artifacts are a theme-able flat generator which I don’t need a to work. They are the obvious choice for a CV. A landmark requires a hotel/airport to translate into , and to get even 3, you need 6 and BOTH those buildings. Landmarks are totally inefficient for CVs.

And right now they’re trash for everyone else too, even worse in fact, because a SV/DiploV/DomV is not likely to go Artistry for the big finisher, and will probably opt for a different reformation belief

Well, the idea is that the +7 /+4 (+8/+1/5 with the WC proposal), and potentially higher outweighs the . In a 4 city empire with limited slots, I find myself building 1 or 2 of these often. For a CV at least.

If we want , however, why not just add +1 for every past era then? So it has inherent Tourism like Holy Sites. That should solve our issues then. I still like the idea of recieving from digging Landmarks though.

 

[Txurce]

I'm finishing my first Emperor game with this patch. Carthage is firmly in control, ahead in tech and policies, with enough votes to win a DV. I'm still playing on t 444 because I'm going for a SV (74 techs at this point). With 12 cities (size 27 through 41), 4 vassals and 3 puppets, my happiness has swing between the low 70s and 100, despite constant wars by civs resenting my lead. Two things seem worth noting:

1. Happiness has never been close to an issue, and I've built no PW. It seems to me that the happiness system is no longer a millstone around the player's neck. Even with a less dominant position, happiness is not going to derail a decent game.

2. I was still building biplanes in the 21st century. This is partly because I raced for Robotics, but being I. a dominant position as well as topping the tech race, history says I should have been there over 80 years earlier. My guess for the discrepancy is having fewer science specialists. For the sake of verisimilitude, Gazebo, I'm asking if an adjustment is needed. I wouldn't suggest a change in the specialists, or even the tech rate, but maybe a shift in how time passes, so it effectively slows down sooner.

What do you think?

 

[XplosiveLun]

My general opinion is that early expansion can still destabilize happiness easily. But I would say it is more or less the same with any versions prior to the new system. With the new system, happiness swing is only minor and I think that's a good direction. The only major hit on happiness is expansion/conquer. New cities take time to develop infrastructure and introduce unhappiness along with it. But once they become self-sustained, they start producing proportionally less unhappiness. This result in a more stable happiness level in mid game. Unless you expand or doing it too fast, happiness level will not drop to a dangerous level.