New Version - October 12th (10/12)

[CrazyG]

I personally think that the current barbarians are a little bit too much. It has felt very punishing trying to pick peaceful civs or choose a path other than authority. It has repeatedly crossed my mind that I could have just picked Authority, built like 1 more unit and then gone warmonger.

I will say that I do really enjoy the scouting difficulties and that the map is revealed slower, but I just think its too much early on. Especially if you start in open terrain, or without a coast, the attacks just come from so many directions, it has felt very frustrating. If 2 encampments spawn very close on defensive terrain it can require more than 2 units to capture, which is a really big commitment, and I just end up wondering why not just restart pick a warmonger and dominate.

Emperor difficulty BTW

 

[notque]

I personally think that the current barbarians are a little bit too much. It has felt very punishing trying to pick peaceful civs or choose a path other than authority. It has repeatedly crossed my mind that I could have just picked Authority, built like 1 more unit and then gone warmonger.

Emperor difficulty BTW

If it's too much, try dropping a level.

 

[CrazyG]

If it's too much, try dropping a level.

Well its the difficulty I've been playing on for a while, and I'm only having issues with barbarians within the first 70~ turns, and I've never had this big a problem with them before. I'm fairly experienced just never bothered getting on the forums before.

The first game I played on this version I picked Aztec, whom I've only ever played like twice, and it was a really easy game; I was considering raising the difficulty (I was beating a very isolated Korea in tech for most of the game). Then I went for a game with korea and really struggled with barbarians, so i picked babylon (my most played civ) and also struggled. So I just picked war mongers since and I've been wondering if its too easy

Anyways I put the above together and guessed that the barbarian spawn might have changed, and it looks like some others had similar thoughts, so I thought I'd put my 2 cents out there

 

[notque]

Anyways I put the above together and guessed that the barbarian spawn might have changed, and it looks like some others had similar thoughts, so I thought I'd put my 2 cents out there

All good dude, just a suggestion. I move around in difficulty levels a bit based on how things are going. If I win I go up, if I lose I go down. Makes it sort of fluid in a way.

 

[Txurce]

Well its the difficulty I've been playing on for a while, and I'm only having issues with barbarians within the first 70~ turns, and I've never had this big a problem with them before. I'm fairly experienced just never bothered getting on the forums before.

The first game I played on this version I picked Aztec, whom I've only ever played like twice, and it was a really easy game; I was considering raising the difficulty (I was beating a very isolated Korea in tech for most of the game). Then I went for a game with korea and really struggled with barbarians, so i picked babylon (my most played civ) and also struggled. So I just picked war mongers since and I've been wondering if its too easy

Anyways I put the above together and guessed that the barbarian spawn might have changed, and it looks like some others had similar thoughts, so I thought I'd put my 2 cents out there

A solid argument for the "tone 'em down" pov: there really is a big difference based on which civ you pick.

 

[Txurce]

I,m playing a game with America (Tradition) on Immortal. I started with a scout, followed by my usual shrine, monument and then an archer to account for barbarians. This time I had them all over the place... and had no problem beating them back. In fact, I then had a brief (setller-stealing) war with Polynesia, and then took a Russian city with two archers and a warrior. My point being that the barbarians have to be dealt with, but I've yet to play a game where they've seriously hindered my start.

About the one adjustment I have made is that I now will move my settler one space if settling will chop down something, to start with a quick scout before moving on to a shrine. In the past I would build a shrine first in most cases (not Shoshone or Aztecs, for example).

 

[heinous_hat]

About the one adjustment I have made is that I now will move my settler one space if settling will chop down something, to start with a quick scout before moving on to a shrine. In the past I would build a shrine first in most cases (not Shoshone or Aztecs, for example)

I almost always do this at slower speeds, either for the chop or to grab an extra resource copy (preferably both). Occasionally I'll gamble and waste multiple turns... it's fun .

Depends somewhat on map script, resource abundance setting and which starting plot functions are in play. I think it's the default More Luxuries script where you can typically move 1 space and pick up 3 regional resource copies.

 

[Skybird]

Hmmm. Not sure if its me, but since I've upgraded to 10-12 I'm massively struggling with happiness and gold on Prince. Around turn 70, with two cities, a warrior in both, one scout and one worker, I have -2 gold, -2 happiness. This is with 2 Ivory, 1 Cotton. I noticed that when I built a plantation on the cotton, the happiness didn't improve at all. After this it goes rapidly downhill, as successive buildings that you would expect to provide income (i.e. Markets) provide no income at all. Building barracks to reduce fear of crime seems to make things worse! I've noticed the barbs as well, but not too worried about these, its just that I can't seem to get any traction with my cities, even by turn 120 with three cities and two wonders I was unhappy all the way and -7 income. In previous games, there would be none of these issues as long as I didn't expand too quickly and kept units to a minimum. I thought that something might have gone wrong with the install, but I deleted the mods folder and reinstalled - same issues. Don't get me wrong - I always found CBP on prince to be a good challenge, but now it's impossible (it would seem) to get anywhere. Also Stonhenge keeps being built elsewhere around turn 15.

 

[tompliss]

Do you make sure your cities work their specialists after building the market and the library ?
Also, don't hesitate to sell some of your strategic resources to friendly civs so you can get some gold early on (even though they are much more greedy in the ancient/classical era, now).

 

[Skybird]

Hi, yes with 1000+ hours into the CBP I do understand the key strategies to create gold, use specialists etc - but something seems fundamentally wrong with my game. Just reached a point in my new game, as Askia, where everything ground to a halt. Four cities, -6 happiness, -18 gold despite having four improved dye tiles and marble, pantheon etc., and then my technology / research ground to a halt due to lack of funds. I disbanded every unit, leaving all cities unprotected and only one worker left. Still -5 gold and raging unhappiness. Looking closer, all of my luxuries are producing next to no happiness and looking at city tiles worked, none of the tiles surrounding any of my cities are producing any gold - only the initial home city tile of each city was producing +2 gold. Markets in every city, no difference. I can see the change in barb level and intelligence so definitely have the new patch working, but this is inexplicable...

 

[vyyt]

Could be a botched install. I think no (significant) changes to happiness and gold generation have been made recently. What is your happiness source breakdown? Post screenshots and maybe a save - some of us can try loading it and see if we get the same numbers as you.

 

[notque]

Hi, yes with 1000+ hours into the CBP I do understand the key strategies to create gold, use specialists etc - but something seems fundamentally wrong with my game. Just reached a point in my new game, as Askia, where everything ground to a halt. Four cities, -6 happiness, -18 gold despite having four improved dye tiles and marble, pantheon etc., and then my technology / research ground to a halt due to lack of funds. I disbanded every unit, leaving all cities unprotected and only one worker left. Still -5 gold and raging unhappiness. Looking closer, all of my luxuries are producing next to no happiness and looking at city tiles worked, none of the tiles surrounding any of my cities are producing any gold - only the initial home city tile of each city was producing +2 gold. Markets in every city, no difference. I can see the change in barb level and intelligence so definitely have the new patch working, but this is inexplicable...

Roads are expensive. If I get to even neutral gold, I stop building buildings and focus on farming until I make it right. Same for avoiding growth with happiness problems.

I really have to manage it, I can't just coast without paying attention to it. I also beeline for gold stuff often, and pay a lot of attention to safe trade routes.

Just sounds like the normal game to me. I can't just keep building things.

 

[notque]

I tend to also not build roads at all, and just focus on having horse units to move around to save gold.

 

[Txurce]

Just sounds like the normal game to me. I can't just keep building things.

Counter-intuitive advice worth considering, I tell myself. At least with the average civ.

 

[Gazebo]

Roads are expensive. If I get to even neutral gold, I stop building buildings and focus on farming until I make it right. Same for avoiding growth with happiness problems.

I really have to manage it, I can't just coast without paying attention to it. I also beeline for gold stuff often, and pay a lot of attention to safe trade routes.

Just sounds like the normal game to me. I can't just keep building things.

Roads pay for themselves if you plop some villages or a town down on them.

 

[notque]

Roads pay for themselves if you plop some villages or a town down on them.

it takes a while of negative gpt to get to that point. early game, I can't afford that. the second that I can start affording it, or have enough workers to same turn a road, I will built it.

 

[matlajs]

i have very interresting game now. playing as poland on Emperor(my first game on this diff). I started with EUI, but bcoz of bug on first turn i rather reinstaled it and reloaded without EUI. everything seemed well, but through the course of game i gathered rly nice collection of bugs and issues. im going to loose and if not, it will be so-so. just want finish it bcoz its very interesting. im just surprised what diference is load that game with or without EUI. Anyway i picked Progress + Statecraft, worst combination ever. Progress with its + free worker and +25% tille improvement rate seems to me like worst policy of all 3 starting branch policies(imho this need something to adition to be better in late eras +1culture from city connections?). Also progress is way to unhappines hell, along with statecraft, which has + happines from chanceries, but all bonuses it provides from cs aliances are global, not rly boosting anything in any city, while providing you with pre-renaisance spies which could be usefull if their tech steal rate wouldnt be so embarrasing(and all other rates of spy actions). it indirectly helps you a little with poverty but thats all. i stabilized my empire once i adopted Industry, but when i wouldnt play exactly poland, i still would underperform in everything. those are just my observations, so chill you progress lovers

 

[Lenox1993]

free worker and +25% tille improvement rate seems to me like worst policy of all 3 starting branch policies

Agreed on that, in most cases it leads to a meager 1 turn deduction even on 8 turn improvements.

 

[Wexmajor]

I have a city-state ally whose army just sits on its ass instead of attacking the enemy cities right next to it. They are just huddled around the city and not moving.

 

[Lenox1993]

I have a city-state ally whose army just sits on its ass instead of attacking the enemy cities right next to it. They are just huddled around the city and not moving.

Isn't it normal? I've never seen city-state militaries actualy attack cities.Troops yes, but not cities.