New Version - October 17th (10-17)

[ElliotS]

I don't get the entire theory behind this post.

Why is the "people will have more cities so scaler should be lower" flawed? On a larger map you ARE more likely to have more cities. Yes there are more civs in the game on a larger map but there tend to be more cities overall and the "base" number of cities tends to be higher. But quite simply in any given game you are going to tend toward a certain % of the map owned, and that will quite simply mean more cities on a large map than on a small. I think the scaler makes perfect sense, and would definitely be against a scaler that went the other way (was lower for smaller maps than higher).

Tradition is better with 4-5 cities. Progress and Authority are better with 6+ cities. On standard they're balenced-ish around 8%. On huge not only is there room for Progress and Authority to have more cities (undeniably a positive buff.) but the cities, which produce the SAME amount as on standard, cost 1/2 of the cost standard. That's another huge buff. Continue discussion here please.

 

[Stalker0]

G, is it possible to make the influence changes more exponential?

Getting to the first level of influence is easy, getting to the last extremely difficult. I would like to see that rewarded with smaller bonus early but larger bonus as you get to the stronger levels of influence.

 

[Ziad]

Tradition is better with 4-5 cities. Progress and Authority are better with 6+ cities. On standard they're balenced-ish around 8%. On huge not only is there room for Progress and Authority to have more cities (undeniably a positive buff.) but the cities, which produce the SAME amount as on standard, cost 1/2 of the cost standard. That's another huge buff. Continue discussion here please.

Counterargument: Duel and Small maps favor Tradition because you won't expand as much.

 

[doublex55]

Counterargument: Duel and Small maps favor Tradition because you won't expand as much.

Which proves his point that that is actually the map which should have lower per city penalty

 

[CrazyG]

Counterargument: Duel and Small maps favor Tradition because you won't expand as much.

That isn't a counterargument, its another reason for what ElliotS is suggesting

 

[bigcat88]

@Gazebo , u removed all penalties for Venice puppet cities in this patch? Or in previous versions? Cause I played in spring many many games for Venice and they have penalties for culture(as usual puppet city). I am sure about this. Cause at that time with monument that gives only 1 culture - there was no border growth in puppet cities )
P.S.: And I am trying Venice right now - it is a dream...

 

[zeofig]

Is the discount on organized religion not working for anyone else?

I also have this problem.

 

[matlajs]

Gazebo, are you going to somehow adjust AI logic in their voluntary vassalaging each other? It seems to me that Ai just do that so much often without a reason, just for improve best AIs score and their yields , while this feature is almost off for player. And i am speaking about score/overall average or better civs, which can stand on their own.


To adition: AI tends to not improve their plantation luxuries if they are on a top of forest. I could see the arguments for better yields, but not in case of AI unhappiness issues and also they don't get monopol bonus

 

[Ziad]

That isn't a counterargument, its another reason for what ElliotS is suggesting

It's a product of policy design, not just culture/science scalers though.

Tradition is empowered on smaller maps, and is less punished for expanding on larger maps.

 

[Gazebo]

Gazebo, are you going to somehow adjust AI logic in their voluntary vassalaging each other? It seems to me that Ai just do that so much often without a reason, just for improve best AIs score and their yields , while this feature is almost off for player. And i am speaking about score/overall average or better civs, which can stand on their own.


To adition: AI tends to not improve their plantation luxuries if they are on a top of forest. I could see the arguments for better yields, but not in case of AI unhappiness issues and also they don't get monopol bonus

“Are you going to” implies that I see a problem. I do not see a problem. The AI does it for protection if they aren’t warmongering. And why not?

G

 

[matlajs]

Because for this purposse there is def pact? And not like 2nd score leader Arabia voluntarilly gets 2 vassals in 2 turns, while one of them is isollated on mini island with me, who DoWed zero times since start and no one else is threatening them. Rather than your point, i see just free yields for AI leader to have better chance for catch up, if player is runaway.

edit: that was just suggestion to maybe tweak AI logic for that, to try catch up and be competitive themselve rather than fall under another AI, which will most likely not help them, but will drag them into their own wars.

 

[Txurce]

It's a product of policy design, not just culture/science scalers though.

Tradition is empowered on smaller maps, and is less punished for expanding on larger maps.

And policy design -- not to mention civ design -- are also adjusted periodically. But they're basically balanced for standard. So if you want to balance different-sized maps without upsetting the entire apple cart, starting with adjustments to the % variables makes a lot of sense... hence, the map-size scaling thread.

“Are you going to” implies that I see a problem. I do not see a problem. The AI does it for protection if they aren’t warmongering. And why not?

I wouldn't call it a problem, but I do think it contributes to less-competitive games. Speaking broadly, it benefits the cautious, lower-ranked civ by providing protection, and the already successful one with additional benefits. Does the AI need more protection methods, especially now that they can benefit from the new DP's? I don't see the readon for the overlap, and would prefer vassalage to be limited to more extreme cases of imbalance (and of course peace treaties).

 

[Gazebo]

Because for this purposse there is def pact? And not like 2nd score leader Arabia voluntarilly gets 2 vassals in 2 turns, while one of them is isollated on mini island with me, who DoWed zero times since start and no one else is threatening them. Rather than your point, i see just free yields for AI leader to have better chance for catch up, if player is runaway.

edit: that was just suggestion to maybe tweak AI logic for that, to try catch up and be competitive themselve rather than fall under another AI, which will most likely not help them, but will drag them into their own wars.

And policy design -- not to mention civ design -- are also adjusted periodically. But they're basically balanced for standard. So if you want to balance different-sized maps without upsetting the entire apple cart, starting with adjustments to the % variables makes a lot of sense... hence, the map-size scaling thread.

I wouldn't call it a problem, but I do think it contributes to less-competitive games. Speaking broadly, it benefits the cautious, lower-ranked civ by providing protection, and the already successful one with additional benefits. Does the AI need more protection methods, especially now that they can benefit from the new DP's? I don't see the readon for the overlap, and would prefer vassalage to be limited to more extreme cases of imbalance (and of course peace treaties).

I'll look at it, but - again - I don't necessarily see weaker civs buddying up with big civs in (essentially) a military-alliance-with-benefits as a bad thing.

G

 

[Paramecium]

Gazebo, I have to agree with the others. In my current game as Songhai, the first are the Inca and the second is Poland. Both of them are in the western hemisphere with Marocco. Marocco is quite behind and became vassal of the Inca. So far, no big problem. But Poland had a DP with the Inca and became their vassal too. That was quite inconvinient for me, because I had to look to the east for my expansion and those three were uncontested for quite a while.
But it is not that bad, Poland isnt currently anymore a vassal, but still have a DP with the Inca. Now I try everything to provoke them to declare on me, even when they have their UU now and are a little bit ahead in tech (and of course in SoPo, but yeah, thats Poland).

The problem I just have, it feels very random to me, if a nearly as powerfull civ as the other becomes a vassal to the other, but on the other site, Ghengis declared on me and would just become vassal to me, after taking 2 cities and his capital and crushing everything of him. He is now basically out of the game. To be honest, I just wanted him to become my vassal and didnt even want to take his capital. But I think that is quite a difference here, I see a lot of AIs getting Vassals of someone else, but they dont get crushed heavily.

I see the point of getting protection, but sometimes it is really bizarre and yeah, for defensive you have the DP I thought too...

 

[Moi Magnus]

“Are you going to” implies that I see a problem. I do not see a problem. The AI does it for protection if they aren’t warmongering. And why not?

G

AI never proposed to me a deal with "volontary vassalage" (contrary to defensive pact). And when I ask for it, they refuse. Does that means I should try every turn to know if it is possible ?

 

[intelli]

I had a large Poland vassalise itself to a tiny Venice recently, totally bizarre.

 

[Omincron]

In my plays, the AI vassals created like this never last till end game and, as Gazebo mentioned, each time they did it, it made proper sense in light of the fact that either the CIV they preemptively surrendered to or I would have goon at them sometime in the next 50 turns.

In each case, it caused a major re-evaluation of my war plan which I found to be very exciting behavior to play against.

In at least one case, I completely changed my target and went to war on the other side of the world. In another, I went at them all and had my hands full. Both very fun.

In all the games I have seen this, the vassal eventually breaks free and has a war for independence. Either because I had reduced them to stick wielding peasants or because their patron became a threat of global concern.

If this was a voting place, I would vote to leave this behavior alone till it's more obviously a problem.

-Steve

(Also, I currently play on Emperor but am considering a greater challenge soon. This seems like behavior that my be significantly different on different difficulties.)

 

[DarkZero]

Voluntary vassalage is out of control, I had it happen 1-2 time every single game I played recently, and I am yet to ever be able to make someone my voluntary vassal, never did it once even wen i am like 10 turns away from a victory, vassalage from conquest on the other hand I got about 3 times so I am sadly very unfamiliar whit the bonus you get from having a vassal, but unlike what Omicron said, I believe its futile fro someone to become a vassal and them go to war later because all those turns of vassalage probably crippled them to the point they are no longer relevant to the game.

Its one thing wen the big bad warmonger starts wars and begins to take cities and make vassals, its another wen for some random reason the same guy effortless gets 2 voluntary vassals effortlessly and just snowballs out of control, more and more I am seeing voluntary vassalage in places where i would expect a defensive pact for no reason other than the guy its the first or seconds in points.

Vassalage should come from war, and voluntary vassalage its a last resort from and dying civ who had most of its cities captured in prior wars and has no other choice but to capitulate to someone stronger to see then end of the game, whit no chance to win of his own because in no way a vassal of someone should be able to win a game.

 

[matlajs]

AI never proposed to me a deal with "volontary vassalage" (contrary to defensive pact). And when I ask for it, they refuse. Does that means I should try every turn to know if it is possible ?

sometimes i have it possible in negotiation win. but it always has been something like pay us tons of gold and resources and protect us....

On the matter of proper ,,sense''. On one side, yeahh, there are warmonger juggernauts, so let's get vassalised by another strong civ which is neigbouring me. The issue is, that vassalised civ is usually nowhere near to this need of beign vassalised for protection and, how i said before, they are dragged down by masters wars, who can afford them yield/happines/ army/etc wise, while vassals often go into war with previously friendly civ, with which they traded. I don't see many possitives in it at all, because they exchange their happines,less potential trade partners, less potential cs friends, less GA because of unhappiness, for ,,something'', while they also buff their master with yields as side effect. I don't know but i have never seen that this had any possitive effect for vassalized civ whatsoever. In short, like Txurce said, less competitive civs.

 

[kevytmaito11]

Modpack: https://mega.nz/#!EPZ0UAjL!cW0vZcoOYi2su6CUOPon3A16z7KCnmMoSh727xaowa8 (EUI-version)