New Version - October 9th (10/9)

[randomnub]

The last time I checked a pioneer with Progress I got no bonus culture from all those free buildings. Anybody around with a savegame who can test it?

 

[Owlbebach]

I think pioneers with organization policy alleviates the culture costs for settling a new city quite well, but now how do I adjust for that...

you can calculate it, progress gives 5% discount on future policies, so the formula should look like 0,95*(1+0,1*n)

EDIT: In fact you want to multiply the function by a constant (1/0,95) so it has no effect on the result in terms of decisionmaking. 5% discount helps, yes, but it still be the same result in term of the efficiency

 

[kawyua]

That's a good point Owlbebach about expertise. makes sense

I thought someone said pioneer buildings count for organization. mmmm I'll have to figure it out myself.

 

[randomnub]

Ah it's written as a hint on the Civlopedia.

I found an old screenshot anyway, notice culture stays the same after settling (culture to next policy didn't increase because I razed some town earlier I guess).

 

[kawyua]

Is that intended and the hint on the civilopedia is just outdated? I guess I'll try to build a pioneer later in the game and see if it works now.

 

[merill]

ants.
Also is there a reason to scale % with map-size? At surface level it makes sense, but thinking about it there's a double-whammy in both more space to expand and reduced cost increases that benefits wide civs. If the standard equation is right, then it should be the same on all map sizes. Right?

That's also what i think.

To the topic of the wide/tall/puppet debate, i like the new role of puppet (not hindering the science/culture), it give them an utility (a year before, they where a burden).

imo,

• if you are a tech leader (low/no science from trade route),
• if you don't plant your GS,
• if you don't have a science-oriented religion (founder, enhancer and some reformation, not follower),
• if you don't have a cluster of big science-tiles in your first cities (NW, amber....),
• if you are not allies with militaristics CS (give science)
• if you have not too reliant on instant-science policies (progress founder, Imperium, Humanism, Spaceflight Pioneers)

=> then a new city is always a big plus science-wise in the long term (even at 40 cities), because all other source of science scale with number of cities/citizens, so the "%cost modifier per city" is totally neutral.

 

[lordrune]

While I agree some of those civs needed change, I am a bit disappointed with buffing everything again causing yield inflation, reneissance in 700AD and short UU window :/

From an immersion point, you gotta ignore that date in the top right corner, because games are never going to balance around it (vanilla never does either). Turn number is a better indicator to use, you just have to imagine progress accelerating at a certain point. The short UU window is best extended by playing epic or marathon speed.

 

[Owlbebach]

a new city is always a big plus science-wise in the long term (even at 40 cities), because all other source of science scale with number of cities/citizens, so the "%cost modifier per city" is totally neutral.

As far as I understand maths says the opposite. The role of puppets is okay, the % of cost increase is not right

 

[Gazebo]

From an immersion point, you gotta ignore that date in the top right corner, because games are never going to balance around it (vanilla never does either). Turn number is a better indicator to use, you just have to imagine progress accelerating at a certain point. The short UU window is best extended by playing epic or marathon speed.

We also didn't buff 'everything' - in fact, no one got extra science or culture from this (so his complaint is moot).

G

 

[Mad Madigan]

From an immersion point, you gotta ignore that date in the top right corner, because games are never going to balance around it (vanilla never does either). Turn number is a better indicator to use, you just have to imagine progress accelerating at a certain point. The short UU window is best extended by playing epic or marathon speed.

Yeah, when playing on Standard speed and at even moderate difficulties, the amount of science you generate (and the AI in general) is such that you'll usually reach certain historical Eras waaay before they occurred in our reality. Most games I've completed end in the 1800s to early 1900s by the in-game calendar, even for a Science Victory where technologically I was in the Information Age. In you move to Epic or Marathon speed this seems to also slow down the overall tech progression, and the Eras tend to occur slightly more in line to the reality/history we know. There are ways the science costs can be modified for Quick/Standard speed so that the Eras of tech more closely match our history (according to the in-game calendar), but it's such a small thing that it doesn't really bother me for normal VP play. Besides, I usually play on Epic speed, so the weird time-warping of the in-game calendar is less obvious.

Still, once all of the balance changes are more or less settled, it would be nice if the tech costs could receive one final tweek to correct for the de-sync with the in-game year. There is already a simple mod-mod that does this, but I've never bothered with it because I've felt the balancing has been in such a state of flux over the last year. Things seem to have really gotten tightened up in the last few months of patches, and the balance has naturally corrected some of these weird turn vs. year anomalies.

 

[Blue Ghost]

It would be simpler to adjust the calendar rather than the tech costs, wouldn’t it?

 

[Enginseer]

People want to know why theyre so ahead of the timeline it was because your timeline never had the black death, great depression, and five peacekeepers that attempted to unify the world under their domain.

 

[Mad Madigan]

The calendar is based solely on the turn counter, with a modifier for game speed. I don't know how hard/easy it would be to change the formula that is used for that.

 

[Mad Madigan]

People want to know why theyre so ahead of the timeline it was because your timeline never had the black death, great depression, and five peacekeepers that attempted to unify the world under their domain.

Yeah, and this. The game does not account for those eras of history where massive technological or economic losses occurred. From a player's perspective, if you lose a big war, but are not wiped out, trying to recover and take the lead again almost isn't worth it. In most games where you make it to the Information Age, you did so with only minor setbacks along the way, or none at all. Especially at higher difficulties where falling off the snowball train is pretty much the end of the game for you.

 

[Moi Magnus]

[A lot of maths]

Here is a different point of vue, less global and more city per city :

Assumption 1 : You discover a tech of the current era every ~10 turns (standard speed)
Assumption 2 : The penalty for new cities is 10%
Assumption 3 : We are in Rennaissance Era (works with every era, but numbers are differents)

First half of Rennaissance, techs have a base cost of 1000.
Every additionnal city increase the cost by 100.
Since you discover a city every 10 turns, annexing a city has to increase your production by 10 to pay itself.
Since a puppet produce 60% of an annexed, it means '0.4 x N = 10' so 'N = 25'
So any city producing more than 25 science will speed up your science when annexed. Cities producing less will slow you down unless you invest heavily on their infrastructure.

Second half of Rennaissance, techs have a base cost of 1500, which leed to puppet cities need to produce at least 37 science to be interesting to annex.

Since puppet cities usually have a bad infrastructure, this cap will not be passed. But if you capture a city of an oppopent you are influencial on, since you keep all the infrastructure, it will be interesting to annex this city.

 

[Legedi]

People want to know why theyre so ahead of the timeline it was because your timeline never had the black death, great depression, and five peacekeepers that attempted to unify the world under their domain.

So thinking about real history set backs vs in-game mechanics I had an idea. What if going over the supply cap reduced science(and culture?) instead of food/production? It kinds of represents a civilization dumping all their effort into war instead of progressing. As a warmonger in game, you could reach a certain tech point, and go all-in on military conquest. If every nation fields huge armies they can't support everyone would get stuck in the same era.

It's probably a stupid idea, that wouldn't work in-game like I picture. But it sounds like it could be cool!

 

[matlajs]

Do the Conquistadors finally have possibility to embark onto ocean before astronomy?

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Do the Conquistadors finally have possibility to embark onto ocean before astronomy?

Nope, no changes to Conquistadors or Mission, only UA unless it's ninja-changes that aren't mentioned anywhere.

 

[matlajs]

Then i still don't understand that ability to settle diferent continents with them.......by that time, every valuable land is already settled(excluding small island, which i like tbh) and only reason for settling that ,, by view'' not valuable, are future strategic resources, which i don't see yet. So where is their uniqueness? i don't undertand why gazebo simply do not add that promotion to them. cmon.

 

[Galbias]

I very much like the changes to Russia, having border growth rate as part of their UA should help them grab tons of territory from early on, instead of late in the game where territory is already mostly defined anyways. Going God of the Expanse and Authority for maximum border blobbing sounds like a lot of fun.

Tourism was also kind of an odd thing for Persia to get GAP from, Gold fits better I think.