New Version - May 19th (5-19)

[ShadedSkies]

Does anyone have any expereince with disabling victory types? I accidentally stumbled my way to victory on Deity this patch by becoming popular with every civ on turn 180 at Epic speed. I know you're supposed to wait for ideologies but I'm a full era ahead of everyone else and have a colossal death army, 2 vassals and multiple citadel chokepoints. I was thinking about disabling Cultural victories for the next game but worry that it will screw up the excellent AI.

 

[Moi Magnus]

Does anyone have any expereince with disabling victory types? I accidentally stumbled my way to victory on Deity this patch by becoming popular with every civ on turn 180 at Epic speed. I know you're supposed to wait for ideologies but I'm a full era ahead of everyone else and have a colossal death army, 2 vassals and multiple citadel chokepoints. I was thinking about disabling Cultural victories for the next game but worry that it will screw up the excellent AI.

As long as you keep domination victory, the AI should manage to deal with it.
Also note that the endgame is a race for victory, so if an AI has technological advance on you, he might reach science victory or diplomatic victory before you have the time to have your tier 3 tenets, the tech telecomunication, and build the Citizen Earth Protocol.

 

[Stalker0]

Probably time to shift the landMark discussion into its own thread but I’ll throw in my quick 2 cents.

1) Landmarks do not compete against GPTI. The cost of a archeologist is not comparable to a GP. So the comparison is purely landmark vs artifact.

2) To me it’s ok if landmarks are only useful in niche circumstances, because I can always choose to get an artifact instead. No one is putting a gun to my head and saying I have to use my archeologists for landmarks.

I never build villages off of roads. Do I think villages worthless? Not one bit, they are great tiles in the right circumstance.

3) I would be fine with removing the landmark era scaling and just going with a flat number. The placement of landmarks is already random so no reason to have further randomness with yields.

So ultimately are landmarks (with some of the landmark boosters) good tiles compared to artifacts? That’s the key question.

 

[Revolutionist_8]

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.

I've noticed it as well. Maybe it's just a personal feeling, but it does seem like "jumping" instead of gradually building up, especially in the beginning.

 

[XplosiveLun]

Yes, War Weariness does jump at the middle of war.

 

[Rekk]

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.

Do this, let razing cities count while they still exist.

 

[Bhawb]

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.

You're not, I absolutely agree. Maybe I'm one of the few people here who have traveled much, but landmarks make up a massive amount of tourism, which is far more impactful to a country than a fancy academy. Unfortunately with Civ 5 we don't have an accurate depiction for tourist landmarks outside of archeologist dig sites. This obviously isn't relevant to real life considering the largest tourist locations aren't dig sites or holy sites, they're things like Disneyland/world, New York City, and various natural wonders and parks.

 

[Stalker0]

You're not, I absolutely agree. Maybe I'm one of the few people here who have traveled much, but landmarks make up a massive amount of tourism, which is far more impactful to a country than a fancy academy.

Most countries that get the predominance of their income from tourism are poor countries that don’t always have fancy academies.

Further, many landmarks in real life are just “buildings”...they are not the special unique tile that a civ landmark represents.

At the end of the day, an archeologist is far easier to get than a great person, so powerwise should not provide a full GPTI bonus.

 

[civplayer33]

At the end of the day, an archeologist is far easier to get than a great person, so powerwise should not provide a full GPTI bonus.

You need a dig site in addition to training an archeologist, though; those are limited in number and in my games so far I'd say I've placed more GPTIs than Landmarks.

I do agree with those that would like Landmarks to receive a boost (not sure which kind would be best, though).

 

[Rekk]

Where is Sacred Sites useful? One would expect that a wide civ might want to make use of the Hotel and the faith building bonus, but in reality, they're getting less than 1 per building and likely only one tourism per Wonder. A tall civ is relying having many World Wonders...?

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Where is Sacred Sites useful? One would expect that a wide civ might want to make use of the Hotel and the faith building bonus, but in reality, they're getting less than 1 per building and likely only one tourism per Wonder. A tall civ is relying having many World Wonders...?

I thought several times I maybe could do a Byzanz-Sacred sites game with 3 belief buildings and monastery, but in the end, 12 tourism per city reduced by the tourismn penalty isn't that much. Kinda useless to create a wide tourism belief while going wide is the best way to make any per turn based tourism neglegible.

Btw. I find it strange, that 3 forests are able to generate the same tourism than a GW. I could understand if you give the bonus to jungle, cause jungle is fairly weak, but I don't see that much relation between a forest and tourismn.

 

[gwennog]

Btw. I find it strange, that 3 forests are able to generate the same tourism than a GW. I could understand if you give the bonus to jungle, cause jungle is fairly weak, but I don't see that much relation between a forest and tourismn.

Some examples of forests developing a strong tourism: Fontainbleau in France (A lot of Parisians are in forest of Fontainebleau the weekend ), Broceliande (Mystic Forest) in Brittany, Schwarzwald in Germany.

 

[Bhawb]

Forests giving tourism is a decent way to symbolize things like National Parks since those don't explicitly exist in Civ 5. Yosemite National Park for example gets around 1 million foreign tourists per year.

 

[Rekk]

Forests probably get MORE tourists per year than jungles. Jungles are dangerous and you almost always require a guide.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Forests probably get MORE tourists per year than jungles. Jungles are dangerous and you almost always require a guide.

Simply speaking for balance of the game, not about realismn. I like working forests, but jungles are terrible. In most cases you need 2 to compensate 1 , but jungle generate as much as forest generate . And in my opinion, 1 from universities for jungles didnt compensate that. I think, there would be a better balance if lumbermills would get only +1 while logging camps get +2 by techs.

Jungles generating tourismn make also more sense, if you remember, which building is causing tourismn. Its a zoo. Exotic animals from dangerous jungles should get much more attraction than animals you can see all the time in your own forests.

 

[tothePAIN]

Can we please make it so the palace allow 1 unhappiness free specialist?

I'm playing Arabia with a poor food start. On turn 30, I have a capital with 5 population, 5 happiness, and 5 unhappiness. I'm obviously playing tradition. I can't run either the artist or engineer specialist. This is frustrating.

 

[tu_79]

A jungle is a forest.
The ingame difference is that jungles are tropical forests and the others are continental/boreal forests as depicted.

 

[Stalker0]

If jungles need a buff, tourism is not the way to go. Honestly the forest tourism buff is almost a ribbon bonus.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

A jungle is a forest.
The ingame difference is that jungles are tropical forests and the others are continental/boreal forests as depicted.

I dont think people would really like to hike through the Schwarzwald in Germany, if it would be a jungle with lot of dangerous and poisonus plants and animals. But atleast jungles have a correlation with the building, the zoo, which gives the tourismn. Changing the name of the zoo to national parks would make sense. But I still see the tourismn bonus from forests/jungles as a big ribbon bonus too. Starting in relative flat lands is often enough a pain, but falling behind in tourismn cause my major competitor started in a lot of forests can be annoying.

 

[pineappledan]

Here in Canada, people come mainly to see our forests/mountains. There are lots of people who have never seen a bison, moose, bear, wolf, elk, beaver, etc., so it’s not just jungles that have ‘exotic’ animals

Drives me crazy, having to wait for a bus full of Japanese tourists who have spilled out all over the highway because a bighorn sheep is licking up all the road salt...