Next step tile balance and general economy

[mystikx21]

Gazebo would like to start progressing onto more substantial changes now that the happiness system is becoming stable. This would include porting over many options from CEP.

With that in mind, these are things that CEP did to tiles and the overall economy that we can consider whether to include or not.

Resource interactions

All improvements, except oil wells, have freshwater/non-freshwater tech improvements (vanilla this is just farms), as well as a regular +1 improvement, so all normal improvements should provide a base of +1 yield initially, +2 on rivers in the mid-game, and +3 yield anywhere by the late game. This would be further improved by policies or any leaders effects, and any yield provided by a resource or building interacting with the resource. (the net effect is to make bonus tiles feel "bonus-y").

Coastlines provide additional food and can provide gold via seaports.

Natural Wonders balanced.

GP Improvements should be balanced (higher yield for customs houses and manufactories than vanilla) and improved by tech and policies.

Strategic resources are more spread out, with fewer (actually zero) 6-8 tile deposits but more 2-3 tile deposits and some deposits of 4. Civs should have a random distribution but be guaranteed some iron and horses. (civs with UUs of horses or iron early on could also get free iron or horses in their capitals).

If yields are increased by this method, we would also want to consider increasing costs. This can be done in a general way assuming the costs of buildings/wonders and units are consistent and regarded as balanced, or the culture costs of policies or tiles is, etc.

Other economic effects to consider
Gold purchasing modifier reduced to make gold buying more viable for buildings. Units, courthouses, and defensive buildings should still be not as cost-effective to rush buy.

City Connection income changed to provide instant income (provides income per route instead of a penalty, but provides less per/population). Instead of a capital modifier included in this income, the capital "trades with itself", which also addresses the railroad capital bug. This tends to reduce the amount of gold provided later on, and slightly increases it early, with a minimal change most of the game.

Villages (trade posts) moved earlier in the game.

Strategic resources revealed before they are connected to trade network, so you can plan for shortages of oil, coal, alum available nearby by whatever means you prefer (war, trade, CS, expansion, etc).

Plantations can be built without clearing jungle, if desired.

Forest chop increased to 40 yield (was much higher). This is in conjunction with yield and cost increases overall.

Merchant specialists provide higher income than other engineers and scientists (3 instead of 2).
Specialist slots re-arranged.
Borders expand faster to natural wonders and resources.
Machu Picchu creates a "super" mountain tile.
Stone Works are unrestricted by plains cities.
University jungle bonus split between University and Lab.

 

[Stalker0]

I will comment on your points:

Note: Numbers in teh quote were added by me for clarification.

1) All improvements, except oil wells, have freshwater/non-freshwater tech improvements (vanilla this is just farms), as well as a regular +1 improvement, so all normal improvements should provide a base of +1 yield initially, +2 on rivers in the mid-game, and +3 yield anywhere by the late game. This would be further improved by policies or any leaders effects, and any yield provided by a resource or building interacting with the resource. (the net effect is to make bonus tiles feel "bonus-y").

2) Coastlines provide additional food and can provide gold via seaports.

3) Natural Wonders balanced.

4) GP Improvements should be balanced (higher yield for customs houses and manufactories than vanilla) and improved by tech and policies.

5) Strategic resources are more spread out, with fewer (actually zero) 6-8 tile deposits but more 2-3 tile deposits and some deposits of 4. Civs should have a random distribution but be guaranteed some iron and horses. (civs with UUs of horses or iron early on could also get free iron or horses in their capitals).

6) If yields are increased by this method, we would also want to consider increasing costs. This can be done in a general way assuming the costs of buildings/wonders and units are consistent and regarded as balanced, or the culture costs of policies or tiles is, etc.

7) Other economic effects to consider
Gold purchasing modifier reduced to make gold buying more viable for buildings. Units, courthouses, and defensive buildings should still be not as cost-effective to rush buy.

8) City Connection income changed to provide instant income (provides income per route instead of a penalty, but provides less per/population). Instead of a capital modifier included in this income, the capital "trades with itself", which also addresses the railroad capital bug. This tends to reduce the amount of gold provided later on, and slightly increases it early, with a minimal change most of the game.

9) Villages (trade posts) moved earlier in the game.

10) Strategic resources revealed before they are connected to trade network, so you can plan for shortages of oil, coal, alum available nearby by whatever means you prefer (war, trade, CS, expansion, etc).

11) Plantations can be built without clearing jungle, if desired.

12) Forest chop increased to 40 yield (was much higher). This is in conjunction with yield and cost increases overall.

13) Merchant specialists provide higher income than other engineers and scientists (3 instead of 2).

14) Specialist slots re-arranged.

15) Borders expand faster to natural wonders and resources.

16) Machu Picchu creates a "super" mountain tile.

17) Stone Works are unrestricted by plains cities.

18) University jungle bonus split between University and Lab.

Let me take a pass through these:

1) Probably the biggest change of the bunch. In terms of resource balance, X food = Y hammers = Z gold...I don't know what X,Y, and Z are just yet.

But I definitely know that 2X > Y and Z. I always farm river tiles, no question, no exception. So I agree with adding the bonus in.

As far as +1 gold on river tiles, I have no real issue with that, though frankly it may still not be enough. More gold is fine, it is still weaker than hammers and food so while it would have an impact it would not be night and day.

An additional +1 hammer is another story. There is a big "shock factor" to gaining more hammers early, as it lets you building a lot more stuff in that time window. Now the growth from the bonus food may give you a bonus long term, but those hammers can give you a big boost right now. I think this change would have the biggest impact on building speed and gameplay overall.

I think mines need a boost, but I am not convinced an additional +1 hammer is the right approach. Perhaps a +1 hammer/+1 gold (which I believe we debated before in CEP) is a better solution.


2) Coastlines are garbage tiles...but so is desert/ice. Right now, coastlines are balanced by the fact that sea trade routes are awesome, and sea resources are very powerful.

I build coastal cities in the base game...I love building coastal cities in the base game. Now its true that I only do it when I find a few sea resources...that is not necessarily a balance issue.

3) I'm fine pushing a change for natural wonders. They are a pretty minor part of the game overall, so we can tweak to our heart's content without major impact.

4) For GP Improvements, we need to answer the question, X food = Y hammers = Z gold...what is X,Y,Z? Thal spend a lot of work trying to make those equal...I don't think that is required but we need to understand the ratios to create the final numbers.

5) I am very in favor of reducing strategic resources. I am fine debating how much, but right now I have buckets of them every game..they just aren't strategic.

6) I would leave cost rebalancing for another pass after we agree on the yield changes.

7) I do think gold buying should be easier...but if gold is increased greatly with yield changes it may not be necessary. I've also questioned the wisdom of keeping courthouses, units, and defense buildings expensive. The point of gold is to be able to insta buy things. Sure I can insta buy a walls when you invade me....why is that a bad thing? Further, I think defense buildings are much stronger with the new happiness system so they will get built...or bought.

8) I would leave these for another pass, I don't have any real issue with connection income myself right now.

9) Agreed with this.

10) This is fine.

11) I'm ambivalent, not a big deal for me either way.

12) I'm okay with this two. We can tweak the number as desired, but I do think the current number is too low.

13) I would want to get a feel for those X,Y, Z numbers before committing to this.

14) I would leave this in another pass. I think CEP got a bit crazy with specialist slots myself. The base game slots work for me.

15) Fine

16) I say handle it when we do the wonder push.

17) On the one hand, I completely agree with this change. On the other, I would wait for the building sweep to include this.

18) Wait till the building sweep to debate this.

 

[Gazebo]

I'm fine with the changes as mediated by you two – yields will need balance, but we won't be able to really tell how it'll work out until we try it.

FYI, I fixed the railroad bug a while back (connection to another city gives the bonus to the capital now as well. I don't think I documented it, but it is fixed.
G

 

[mystikx21]

I figured the RR bug was fixed in a dozen different ways. Except officially.

1) Gold now adds to happiness as well and additional population is potentially a stiff cost of happiness (or not), so there's some need to have some gold laying around from villages or plantations or camps I should think.

I'd rather not dilute the mines and mills with gold unless it comes from a luxury, that was one of my many problems with villages having science in GEM (by default or activated via a tech instead of a policy). The purpose of the mine/mill is to have production, not to add gold. The extra production could be absorbed with extra costs and if you don't have mines, you will probably have extra population and villages instead (or pastures). We could also push back the water/non and tech boosts to mines to a later point than the village and farm bonuses.

2) Coastal settlements historically are much larger than interior cities and there are no meaningful polar/tundra cities anywhere on the planet (Helsinki and Oslo are closest) and "desert" cities are typically near rivers or lakes anyway. The easiest way to represent that is to park some extra food on the tiles rather than leave them as garbage. I'd agree it is a substantial change. The seaport change would also be significant.

An alternative could be to change the map script to make more atolls and change the resource distribution to park some more fish around. Similar effects to make more frequent deer or bananas or oasis/wheat in desert while also leaving the default tiles unaffected could work here. I think there are changes for this to bonus tiles generally (bananas, cows, sheep, deer, stone, wheat, fish) to be seeded a little differently that aren't just in the communitas map.

3-4) Are related in that ratio question. Natural Wonders also need to be balanced in light of this. I don't think they are yet, but they are substantially better than the default versions. We can start there and then adjust. Culture and science on NW or GPIs are probably too high or the others too low given current ratios.

6) I'd be fine with that. We can easily establish "what's a good # of turns to build a tank or wonder or a typical building" in a default game and then see how easily we can if yields are increased and increase costs by an appropriate amount, ditto for gold if there appear to be large gluts of gold that building costs are too high or too low to absorb.

7) The army rush-buy issue is mostly to penalize the player who sits on a gold reserve or uses it for economic growth instead of units and finds themselves in a war in need of units (or intentionally starts a war with a gold glut and rush buys defences and units). This is less pressing now with changes to happiness via defence buildings, but I still think the wisdom behind that change is sound.

The default ratio for gold buying is set at 30x^.75, and in addition most buildings and units have high modifiers early on. This was another change (reducing those modifiers to zero for most buildings). CEP set it to 2x^1. I'd say something like 3-5x^1 could work if there are additional gold sources.

8) The main reason is to slightly reduce the quantity of gold glut later on and to make city connections valuable quickly. Changes to happiness accomplish the later. I have my own formula and not what Thal used either. Which was frequently imbalanced toward wider empires (very high instant yield, very low population yield). It doesn't shift the amount down much until cities begin approaching ~20 population and increases it only until the city is around size 3.

9) We would want to establish just how early we want to move them, not just do it.

13) I think we can agree that merchant GPs are usually weaker. If we are using the disconnected value for GPs, they are a little better (because you can get them quicker once you've sucked down a bunch of scientists and engineers), and that engineers and scientists are primarily about the GP points and not so much the yield. But I agree we may want to fiddle with the ratios some more.

I would not want to make specialist incomes much higher than 3, maybe 4 however by default (without policy adjustments or leader effects). That would dilute the use of tiles and GPP accumulation.

17) Building sweep would be coming with in some respects. Something like that can be done whenever. I'll put up a thread for that shortly so some ideas for compensating with the happiness and dealing with the espionage buildings can get kickstarted.

- I will add numbers to future posts for clarity.

 

[Stalker0]

2) Coastal settlements historically are much larger than interior cities and there are no meaningful polar/tundra cities anywhere on the planet (Helsinki and Oslo are closest) and "desert" cities are typically near rivers or lakes anyway.

The game already does a good job of representing this:

1) Sea Resources have solid food bonuses. Sea cities can grow plenty large, especially if they are at the mouth of a river.

2) Sea Cities get tremendous benefits from Internal Trade Routes. Its easy to get +7-8 food from a trade route, making them high growth areas.


From a balance standpoint, I find I build plenty of coastal cities in the game. From a flavor standpoint, my coastal cities are large and generate lots of gold (just like in real life).

While I think G&K had problems with coastal cities, I think BNW solved it... I really don't see a need for a change.

 

[mystikx21]

What about this then? "An alternative could be to change the map script to make more atolls and change the resource distribution to park some more fish around. Similar effects to make more frequent deer or bananas or oasis/wheat in desert while also leaving the default tiles unaffected could work here. I think there are changes for this to bonus tiles generally (bananas, cows, sheep, deer, stone, wheat, fish) to be seeded a little differently that aren't just in the communitas map."

 

[ExpiredReign]

An alternative could be to change the map script to make more atolls and change the resource distribution to park some more fish around. Similar effects to make more frequent deer or bananas or oasis/wheat in desert while also leaving the default tiles unaffected could work here. I think there are changes for this to bonus tiles generally (bananas, cows, sheep, deer, stone, wheat, fish) to be seeded a little differently that aren't just in the communitas map.

As much as I like playing with the Communitas Map, I think there is something inherently flawed in adjusting the map scripts to balance gameplay.
Yes it is a good way to adjust things but to be truly balanced shouldn't the game play be viable with any map type? I don't know of a way to change these things outside of map scripts, if there is a way that would be ideal as ALL maps would benefit.

 

[mystikx21]

I think those are changes that aren't in the communitas map but in the mod. I'd have to check but the mod I think uses some varieties of resource placement adjustments and not just the map.

 

[diddl]

I never tried playing with CEP, so don't know what Works and not Works in that, but when i play, i don't see the general problems in the current yield output.

The areas regarding this i noticed in my playing is i really want to have some better use for Wheat, Banana and Deer. I know they give out extra food.

The biggest problem i think should be adressed is Tundra starts, from what i read, most people simply restart when getting one of these, and i think we lack something to make Tundra/Snow viable to play.

We can just be inspired from Northern America, where people are able to live in the snow, couldn't we make something like a building like Petra for Snow areas, which requires trade route connection. Or perhaps allow caravan to snow cities that both produces hammers and food?

 

[Gazebo]

Having luxuries/bonuses that only spawn on tundra would be an easy way to make tundra valuable without drastically altering yields. Furs operate this way already (most of the time) – making furs exclusive to the tundra, and perhaps increasing the yield value of furs, might be an effective means of buffing the tundra.
G

 

[Lord Tirian]

Same position as diddl here - I haven't played Communitas before either and personally, I think the tile yields of default Civ 5 are mostly fine.

As general note regarding the CEP changes you mention: it seems like CEP adds a few ways to get gold yields. That seems in stark contrast with BNW's crusade to eliminate gold yields in favour of trade routes. I think the BNW approach is more interesting - leave gold yields to bonus resources like gold or salt, that makes them feel special.

Tundras are probably best improved by giving you ways to make them better - make the exclusive resources better. I'd also think increasing the base city yields a bit is a good way to make early expansion more stable (and decrease the same amount of bonuses elsewhere).

Nevertheless, there are some ideas I find interesting, notes on them (using Stalker0's numbering) are below:

Spoiler Point-by-point discussion :

1) & 2) As said before, I don't like the proliferation of gold sources, since it make trade routes less interesting. Running an empire more or less as autarky should require investment (that's also a way to buff some policy trees, e.g. honour and piety).

3) Fine in principle. I don't mind the natural wonders that are just better, but they should spawn far away from starts. They are a neat reward for exploration and expansion.

4) Fine in principle. I'd rather attempt to balance things with adding different yields, though. Adding a bit of food would make the customs house more interesting (and fits thematically, I think).

5) Agreed on making strategic resources more strategic my making them rarer.

6) I rather try to keep yields low in general. Not a fan of numerical inflation.

7) Don't see a big need for it - this seems like it's going against Civ 5's design direction (buildings are harder to build OR buy in general, you have to prioritise more) and caters towards the older Civ direction of trying to build all buildings. This said, it's not a huge deal to adjust the costs a bit.

8) Necessary? Might be fine, but again, I think having low gold at the start boosts the need for trade routes, that's a feature, not an imbalance.

9) This I agree on, though. Even with trade routes there's a spot where money doesn't increase for a bit - having trade posts just one tech after markets clutters the gold increase a bit (there's a very sudden burst from markets + trade posts), could be a smoother transition.

10) Good idea, giving you some time to plan is appreciated and probably not a bad change.

11) No strong opinion, but I don't see the need.

12) Interesting, makes the "chop vs. lumbermill" waiting game more interesting. I worry about wonder rushing with it, though.

13) Needs the context of other tile changes.

14) I think slots are fine as they are, overall. Perhaps split up the university scientist, the university is very strong anyway.

15) No strong opinion, but I probably not necessary. If people really want to get a resource/natural wonder, let them buy the tile.

16 - 18) Let's leave that for the wonder and building discussion.

 

[mitsho]

The design mantra of CEP is/was "fun". Gold is more fun as a yield since you can use it instantly, nation-wide and over a wide range of game elements. I hated the slow turns in vanilla and was quite often quite low on gold. Trade Routes on the other hand are quite volatile and not the best for the AI (risk calculation). The best thing in CEP was the gold spending mechanism for the AI that created developed cities for them. All in all, getting gold "right" is very crucial (even more so than culture) and while I do like trade routes, they get micro-managey and I do believe the game needs a solid basis of gold income from other venues.

So gold should be a bit more around and less special in my mind, contrary to "civ5 design" which I think was watered down with every expansion and rightly so. Getting things is fun, it involves instant rewards and makes the game interesting

Point 1) is necessary in my regard since there should be no "best-in-tile" improvment, but one of course can discuss if these need to be gold boosts.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Valid point regarding the AI, though I think that can be done via AI difficulty settings (which need an overhaul anyway).

Thing is, "fun" is subjective: getting more things because you buy them with gold seems boring to me (and undermines the usefulness of hammers), while volatility results in decision points (and trade routes aren't completely volatile, they behave in a very predictable manner, but you need to be aware of them). Making trade routes less important again just makes it vanilla + more stuff to "fake" over the slow game by giving you busy work (buying buildings and getting stuff).

Plus, it moves more gameplay on the map (and out of the city screen), that's - to me - a good thing. It makes things less "spreadsheet" and gives you more "physical" representation. Same reason why I like CSD: it gives you more actual play with the map instead of spending gold and, through policies, it eases up on the micromanagement over time (and so do trade routes and their slowly decreasing importance).

I think having a mode of play where trade routes are less important is fine and a valid strategy, but it should be a choice and would be an interesting way to spruce up the Honor tree (since wars do wreck your trade routes if you're not careful - plus trading? If you want something, you pay the iron price!).

 

[Gazebo]

The best thing in CEP was the gold spending mechanism for the AI that created developed cities for them.

I created a function for this for CSD quite some time ago. It is also part of the CP.
G

 

[Lord Tirian]

Also, small addendum I forgot before, regarding strategic resources:

Instead of fiddling with the amount you get, we can also change the amount needed. There's precedent in vanilla with varying resource requirements (e.g. the nuclear missile).

Bumping up some units to 2 iron and setting a few to 1 iron will make iron a lot rarer and allows for some graduation between units. For example, I think it could sense if the "big" units capable of bombardment, like frigates and battleships, need 2 iron or 2 oil, respectively.

 

[diddl]

Regardning strategic resources World it e possible to make units require more than one type fx iron to battleship/destroyers - perhaps even make all modern units require resources except infantry soldiers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[diddl]

Forgot - would love to we resources requirement on wonders too like in one of the older civ game I think statue if Zeus required ivory etc...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mystikx21]

I'd avoid resource requirements on wonders. There are already enough restrictions available via terrain or coastal requirements, policies and techs as well.

I'd consider 2 oil on battleships. Not sure there are other units available that would be that strong with other changes to units that they should require multiple resources. I'd also prefer to eliminate the (aluminum) requirements for gunships and rocket artillery rather than make them strong enough to require a resource (and this also reduces the need for aluminum via the recycling center by having fewer units, the hydro plant is in a similar state).

Part of the change is to spread them around more so there are more resource tiles as well, not just fewer per deposit.

I am skeptical that there are substantial gold "boosts" in CEP. There is more gold available from villages/plantations/camps but everything also costs more, even as you can buy it with gold more efficiently. I find the gold glut late game is present regardless of using the mod or not and isn't really any different in my experience (once I turned off the inflation change in particular).

Gold if it is reduced has to be done in several places (city connections changed some, higher upkeeps, etc), but it should not impact tile balance would be the argument here. If farms are clearly better than villages or mines, that's a problem. Ditto camps or plantations being weaker (which is why bananas and deer may seem weak, wheat and fish I think are fine).

 

[mystikx21]

As far as the "gold fun" question, I find it doesn't really mean much in default to have "more gold", especially when using CSD. Other than unit upgrades there's little point once you have a surplus, any surplus will do (1 or 1000). Production is considerably more valuable. I find that a bit more boring than being able to use gold to rapidly construct infrastructure in new cities or save up for a bunch of factories.

But. I would not propose going all the way into the full CEP mode where gold is basically superior to production either. A compromise position where gold is more efficient than default could be found so that gold has a useful and obvious purpose but isn't a dominating resource either. This would help represent large global economies more smoothly. Eg, if you are running along with a lot of trade routes and lots of gold production, that should be a viable strategy with "fun" uses, but not an obvious "do this every time" strategy (build tons of villages! is also boring). Keep in mind also that gold can't rush buy certain things, projects without the freedom ideology, nuclear weapons and wonders for example, which still gives production an edge.

 

[Stalker0]

Also, small addendum I forgot before, regarding strategic resources:

Instead of fiddling with the amount you get, we can also change the amount needed. There's precedent in vanilla with varying resource requirements (e.g. the nuclear missile).

Bumping up some units to 2 iron and setting a few to 1 iron will make iron a lot rarer and allows for some graduation between units. For example, I think it could sense if the "big" units capable of bombardment, like frigates and battleships, need 2 iron or 2 oil, respectively.

I like the concept...and if you were going to do it I think frigates and battleships would be the units to do it on.

I can say I think its generally better to spend iron on frigates than on longswords assuming I have sea access...and on battleships over landships/tanks on the same reason.


I don't know if double the cost would be too much though, but I can entertain the idea.