New Version - May 1st (5/1)

[tu_79]

Hi Guys!

Haven't played the game for around 6 months, missed a bunch of changes to the mod . But - I would really want to catch up now! I know there is no log of changes, but can any of you guys update me, briefly, on some of the biggest features implemented in this past half a year?
A very short list will do - things like being able to move through ocean in early eras, additional win conditions (are there?!), diplomatic damage for civilian casualties, and things like that.

I really wouldn't want to go into a new game not knowing the full extent of its great features... and be killed by everybody, immediately.


I will be eternally grateful!

Spoiler :

If you think that's the wrong place for asking this sort of stuff, please tell me where I should go

First of all, go down one level. Ai has improved significantly. They ally against other civs more often. They push for founding religion
Then, siege units. There's a new unit, Field Gun, before Artillery. Range 3, but no Indirect Fire. Siege units now don't need to deploy, but movement is reduced in enemy territory.
Monopoly bonuses have been tweaked. Religious bonus have changed again and again. Now you can usurp someone else's religion by capturing a Holy City.
Ranged promotions have changed recently.

There's a lower supply limit and a war weariness mechanic. You increase supply limit with military buildings and population, it lowers with tech progress. You suffer war weariness for long wars or heavy loses. It lasts long, so you can't declare war again so easily.

Some civs have radically changed. Check out America, Inca, Polynesia, China and Japan.

There has been minor tweaks to wonders and policies. Trees and plantations got a buff, too.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Nice patch, all seems good with the exception of the bug I've already reported. With both Accuracy and Barrage working 50% of the time, I think Accuracy no longer needs to have a higher base +RCS (10% instead of 5%).

 

[Hammurabi1337]

Nothing in relation to CSD? I'm still getting AI ignoring World Congress projects that are modified by CSD when I use CP and the CP dll (not CBP).

 

[joncnunn]

Whirlwind now 'Coup de Grace' - 30% more damage v. targets w/ less than or equal to 50% health

I think that whenever something named the Coup de Grace promotion triggered that it should always be a complete kill of the unit with no chance of leaving 1 or 2 hit points remaining; and so 1000% more damage to a target less than 33% health would be more appropriate for something using this name.

 

[CrazyG]

I'm part way through a game with Genghis Khan. Accuracy seems better than barrage, currently I have about a 4-1 ratio.

Damage against high health units is more valuable than low health for a couple reasons. First extra damage against very low health units has no purpose (am I going to kill it twice?). So really you only get the bonus for between 20-50 health, below that the unit usually dies already. Its a smaller window for bonus than accuracy. Its also conceptually useful to hit the healthy units harder, its awkward leading an army of wounded unit to a fight. Basically the accuracy bonus activates more often so I think barrage should get a slightly larger bonus (currently its the other way around)

It make more sense to make accuracy have a smaller bonus than barrage, I'll suggest accuracy as +10% RCS, +5% against high health, and barrage as +10% RCS, +10% against low health.

 

[cammcken]

I still prefer the promotion system from the beginning of this year, when Accuracy had +city damage. When it moved to +against full health, I was fine with it, but now these are strange. I agree with what everyone is saying, that Accuracy is too powerful now. (Maybe make it 75%?) Furthermore, the two promotion lines now seem too conveniently complementary. Back when it was +City damage, the choice and the trade-offs were more interesting: Better damage against units, or better straight combat modifier? Logistics at the end, or Range?

And this I think everyone will agree: the names make no sense now. Accuracy is more important when there are fewer men left standing, while launching area barrages would be more effective when there are more targets.

Spoiler Off-topic :

Off-topic: I want to bring Range back for mounted archers. (Unless it was never allowed for mounted archers, in which case I'll swallow my disappointment and remember for the future.) Would a kindly modder point me to which files I need to change (or copy from previous versions)? I've already found the xml file, so I know it's not too hard. I would do it myself, but I ask just in case there's something else I should know. Would it be possible to add it in without replacing the new promotion, to leave both as options?

 

[tu_79]

I'm part way through a game with Genghis Khan. Accuracy seems better than barrage, currently I have about a 4-1 ratio.

Damage against high health units is more valuable than low health for a couple reasons. First extra damage against very low health units has no purpose (am I going to kill it twice?). So really you only get the bonus for between 20-50 health, below that the unit usually dies already. Its a smaller window for bonus than accuracy. Its also conceptually useful to hit the healthy units harder, its awkward leading an army of wounded unit to a fight. Basically the accuracy bonus activates more often so I think barrage should get a slightly larger bonus (currently its the other way around)

It make more sense to make accuracy have a smaller bonus than barrage, I'll suggest accuracy as +10% RCS, +5% against high health, and barrage as +10% RCS, +10% against low health.

I wanted to wait until logistics, but I'm noticing the same. I see two options: the one you are suggesting, and changing the health trigger. For example, Accuracy can have the bonus against units with >40% health, and Barrage against units with <75% health. They overlap a little, but I don't think it's too bad.

 

[CrazyG]

Furthermore, the two promotion lines now seem too conveniently complementary. Back when it was +City damage, the choice and the trade-offs were more interesting: Better damage against units, or better straight combat modifier? Logistics at the end, or Range?

A lot of people agreed that accuracy was a useless option back it had +city damage (I think you are the first I've seen state that they liked it). Siege archers are outclassed by catapults

 

[Gazebo]

I'm part way through a game with Genghis Khan. Accuracy seems better than barrage, currently I have about a 4-1 ratio.

Damage against high health units is more valuable than low health for a couple reasons. First extra damage against very low health units has no purpose (am I going to kill it twice?). So really you only get the bonus for between 20-50 health, below that the unit usually dies already. Its a smaller window for bonus than accuracy. Its also conceptually useful to hit the healthy units harder, its awkward leading an army of wounded unit to a fight. Basically the accuracy bonus activates more often so I think barrage should get a slightly larger bonus (currently its the other way around)

It make more sense to make accuracy have a smaller bonus than barrage, I'll suggest accuracy as +10% RCS, +5% against high health, and barrage as +10% RCS, +10% against low health.

That's fair - my reasoning was that killing a unit > wounding it (thus having enough damage to kill it outright can keep it from getting away and healing). But if that's not accepted by the community we can flip it.

G

 

[tu_79]

That's fair - my reasoning was that killing a unit > wounding it (thus having enough damage to kill it outright can keep it from getting away and healing). But if that's not accepted by the community we can flip it.

G

Well, I am trying to make myself an opinion, but mandelakus keep killing both my ranged and siege units.

 

[balinte]

I'm part way through a game with Genghis Khan. Accuracy seems better than barrage, currently I have about a 4-1 ratio.

Damage against high health units is more valuable than low health for a couple reasons. First extra damage against very low health units has no purpose (am I going to kill it twice?). So really you only get the bonus for between 20-50 health, below that the unit usually dies already. Its a smaller window for bonus than accuracy. Its also conceptually useful to hit the healthy units harder, its awkward leading an army of wounded unit to a fight. Basically the accuracy bonus activates more often so I think barrage should get a slightly larger bonus (currently its the other way around)

It make more sense to make accuracy have a smaller bonus than barrage, I'll suggest accuracy as +10% RCS, +5% against high health, and barrage as +10% RCS, +10% against low health.

Accuracy also synergizes better with melee units since they receive more dmg based on the enemy's hp
Also much better with mounted, armor's attack wounded promotion
Playing authority with even the kill-heal plus the listed above leaves accuracy much better/ also im using more and more ranged compared to melee as they are getting more "agile"

 

[kawyua]

A lot of people agreed that accuracy was a useless option back it had +city damage (I think you are the first I've seen state that they liked it). Siege archers are outclassed by catapults

Usually a normal civ would get archers to damage people, so obviously damaging people is better. They would take way too long (4 promotions) to actually have the damage to kill cities, so just getting seige units for that were preferable. Especially with the updates on seige units to move and shoot, archers are a niche.

The part where the combat strength vs cities become broken is with unique units. The inca, babylon, and china unique units are very strong. Thus, when you give these units the ability to destroy cities they are units that can basically do whatever the hell they want. Being able to kill cities, having the decent combat strength to survive a hit, and focus fire down nearly any unit that comes their way becomes very spammable for a player. It gets bad when b-lining to get enough of these units are enough to kill civilizations outright.

I really like that this combat strength vs cities on archers has been taken away - I think its unhealthy. It makes a good archer too overwhelmingly all-purpose. Each class of units has their niche and although the lines can be blurred, the options should encourage the player to invest in its variety.

I still find the over and under 50% option bland though. It kind of lacks flavor. I get the >50% health enemies mean more damage, but when its under 50%? Its very hard to picture why archers have more damage because an enemy has less health. I don't think archers are meant to be finishing people off here, nor in history.

If I were to have a take on archers I think:
1) barrage: more damage on enemies with 50% or more health - its good
(e.g. +10% RCS, +10% against high health) - as is
2) accuracy: more damage on enemies on open ground - this is vanilla, but it works.
(e.g. +10% RCS, +15% against open ground)

more damage enemies on open ground makes a lot of sense on archers and I think its a much more thematic idea then the more damage with <50% health. The variability of the land makes this choice dynamic. Of course, this would have to be stronger than the +dmg with >50% hp, but numbers can vary. I'm not sure why it was taken away.

The more damage vs enemies on rough ground didn't make sense to me though. Neither did the more damage on injured enemies. ah I just think that this is it - this take is how the archer should be

Just these choices would make archers make sense in my book. Even though it would make them even more niche, that's the fun of it.

Thanks tu_79 for the run down on what's changed - I haven't been here in a while. The ai is exciting, if not pretty brutal right now vs any aggression.

Oh that production to defense is quite pleasant to see

 

[Hammurabi1337]

Nothing in relation to CSD? I'm still getting AI ignoring World Congress projects that are modified by CSD when I use CP and the CP dll (not CBP).

To expand on this, it seems that the AI "sees" United Nations, Treasure Fleet and Global Wargames and competes hard for them but World Fair and International Games just sit at 0.

 

[tu_79]

I still find the over and under 50% option bland though. It kind of lacks flavor. I get the >50% health enemies mean more damage, but when its under 50%? Its very hard to picture why archers have more damage because an enemy has less health. I don't think archers are meant to be finishing people off here, nor in history.

Barrage is like sending a cloud of arrows, spilling ammunition like crazy, so it can kill faster when the target is big (full health units), but lacks precision when the target is smaller. Accuracy suggests that archers aim better, each arrow sent precisely against the few standing survivors (low health units), but shooting so carefully they don't kill as fast against the full health unit. Too bad the names don't match the ability.

You don't need to kill every last man of a unit to break the unit. Sometimes the 'wounds' are people that abandoned the unit, scared or crippled.

 

[kawyua]

You don't need to kill every last man of a unit to break the unit. Sometimes the 'wounds' are people that abandoned the unit, scared or crippled.

well... That argument can be used everywhere. Its a bit too convenient in my perspective, but imagining is half the fun. I really don't think archers are meant to be finishing people off, but that is kind of knee jerky. I'll need to play more for a better informed opinion.

I hope that my comment didn't come off as a complaint - I just thought there is room for flavor. There certainly are big imbalances in the game, but that's okay. Or rather, I'm not sure how to say what is better or worse.

 

[tu_79]

well... That argument can be used everywhere. Its a bit too convenient in my perspective, but imagining is half the fun. I really don't think archers are meant to be finishing people off, but that is kind of knee jerky. I'll need to play more for a better informed opinion.

These people don't agree with you.

I hope that my comment didn't come off as a complaint - I just thought there is room for flavor. There certainly are big imbalances in the game, but that's okay. Or rather, I'm not sure how to say what is better or worse.

Wow, big words here. Criticism is always welcomed, but politeness is required.
This is a huge game with tons of mechanics and there's always room for improvement (we're currently debating about the scout role). Also, my ideal game doesn't need to be your ideal game. We're a bunch of players asking Gazebo to please our preferences, and he usually concedes. Most things are brilliant, others not so much, but overall it works.

There's a big emphasis on balance and playability. If given a situation you have a no-brain strategy, we change that. Having a promotion for cities on ranged units was a no-brain situation. We only picked it for the medic promotion. The solution is not the most brilliant this time, but it's a solution, now both trees are apealing. There were other proposals, but we couldn't agree. Besides, it needs to be AI friendly, so not everything is posible.

Secondary concerns are flavour and fun. If you want to check a recent pick on flavour, see the thread for monopoly bonuses. See the remake of China and Inca for the fun factor.

 

[Txurce]

These people don't agree with you.


Wow, big words here. Criticism is always welcomed, but politeness is required.

Do you understand that he couldn't have been more polite?

 

[tu_79]

Do you understand that he couldn't have been more polite?

Ups, I missed faces.