Notes on 1.069

[mystikx21]

That would be a old(er) VEM design. They'd been giving science for a while.

I'm not sure yet how such a system would work, but my guess is it should only apply to the human player. The primary concern is addressing unit cost as it stands right now, and then come back and see if this problem can be resolved from there.

I didn't say it needed a realism support. Just offering one for those who can't follow abstractions. That would work far better than defence against ranged. Artillery types *should* blow them apart (relatively speaking) and they should be able to hit each other with some effect. The problem was the vulnerability to air power. If they're also more vulnerable to artillery or archers or something because of this effect, we'd have to look into it further.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

I don' think there's any need for a penalty for having obsolete units. it's already a penalty in itself because you are weak on the powergraph so you look like a juicy target.

I'll agree that science on trading posts isn't very useful as if you want science you should be building farms instead, but it doesn't really bother me either way..

 

[Ahriman]

The primary concern is addressing unit cost as it stands right now

Agreed. [Assuming you mean unit maintenance cost.]

I didn't say it needed a realism support. Just offering one for those who can't follow abstractions.

Understood.

If they're also more vulnerable to artillery or archers or something because of this effect, we'd have to look into it further.

Yeah, I haven't checked that yet.

Ideally what we would have is a system where you defended against ranged or air attacks with whichever is stronger out of base strength or ranged strength?

it's already a penalty in itself because you are weak on the powergraph so you look like a juicy target.

Being falsely weak on the power graph can be helpful; it can sucker an enemy into attacking you, and then you upgrade and get a war with them where you can weaken them without suffering diplomatic penalties.

 

[mystikx21]

I'm suspicious that the MG thing is based on the ranged character of the units so it picks ranged defence against ranged units like airplanes.

I'm not sure that this is always appropriate for every ranged unit (archers/siege?) defending against ranged attacks to use ranged strength, but we probably only notice on MGs because the difference is so wide.

Keshiks would be another unit to test this on until the leaders changes are made (they're 17-16).

 

[Ahriman]

I think that every ranged unit normally uses ranged strength against ranged attacks. And in general I think that is fine.

We're only noticing this with MGs because MGs are the first unit where the ranged strength was ever really low.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

Being falsely weak on the power graph can be helpful; it can sucker an enemy into attacking you, and then you upgrade and get a war with them where you can weaken them without suffering diplomatic penalties.

it feels very "gamey" though so I don't think it should be encouraged.

 

[Ahriman]

Right, that's why I'm looking for an explicit mechanic that discourages you from saving lots of gold by not upgrading.

But it isn't a high priority.

 

[Ahriman]

Also: in the version I'm running, great artists seem to be back to just Golden Age. Is this deliberate, because of bugs in the great work ability?

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

what version is that? you could check thal's site to see when exactly it was added.

 

[Ahriman]

what version is that? you could check thal's site to see when exactly it was added

Version frmo 2 days ago. 1.6.11?

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

it's supposed to be in since Gem v1.051 + Civup v33 so it does seem like an issue.

 

[mystikx21]

Looks like he reverted to an older version of great works folder? Date is from April. It was updated to August (I thought). Either the change was bugged or the wrong file was used.

 

[mystikx21]

Notes for 1.614

Piety still has a +5 that was moved to Liberty tree.
Constables and Police Stations do not give 5 as stated in notes, only +3.

 

[mystikx21]

More notes:
Ignore. I think I deleted or added a comma based on looking at the log file. Somehow.

For the upcoming wonders modifications, wonders that are deleted need to be removed entirely. They show up in the CS quest line and cannot be completed.

AI seems to get way too much happiness. 30-50 very early. Because of tradition opener, this means they also get lots of social policies rapidly.
AI doesn't seem to get "too much" science per turn but they can get way out in front quickly to get to the classical age. It isn't terribly hard to keep up but it's almost like a rush assault.

Levy and Skirmisher units are available for faith-buys before they are researched. Probably Sentinel as well.

 

[skodkim]

Notes for 1.614

Piety still has a +5 that was moved to Liberty tree.
Constables and Police Stations do not give 5 as stated in notes, only +3.

Was there any release notes on 1.6.14? Thals page still says 1.6.12 while the download is for 1.6.14.

\Skodkim

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

nope, it seems like 1614 is 1612

 

[skodkim]

Maybe. Version numbers have been quite confusing lately.

\Skodkim

 

[mystikx21]

Both the constable and piety changes were from a couple versions ago and were documented at that time. I just now noticed them by reading changes to the tree files directly. They're not correct.

I'd go with 1.614 being 1.612 too.

 

[Stalker0]

Some people say gold income is too high, others say gold expenses are too high. It's only possible to have one of those, so which one is it?

It can in fact be both.

If unit maintenance is too high, then warmongers are hit harder than peaceful players. So peaceful players might have gold at the waazoo and warmongers are dirt broke. So both playstyles can report different issues.

 

[Thalassicus]

The gold per turn maintenance cost of units is:

= maxc5strength:, ) / 5 + / 50 - 1

• +50% for captured barbarians
• -25% for sea, air, and vanguard units
• -50% for gatling and machine guns

Example: archer = max(5, 8)/5 + 80/50-1 = 8/5 + 0.6 = 2

We could change the 5 and 50 to 6 and 60? I like the tension between upgrading our units vs leaving them alone. It costs a lot to upgrade units, so unless we keep thousands of gold in the bank, it's not practical to wait until a war starts to upgrade everything. I think maintenance cost is a more effective balance tool than production cost.

Ranged land units defend with ranged strength (which includes land units embarked at sea). I believe ships always defend with their melee strength value. This inconsistency between sea & land ranged defense makes it very hard to balance ranged ships against ranged land units. We can't change how this works. The type of strength a unit defends with is:


A less confusing approach is for all units to defend with melee strength, and give ranged units an actual "+X% defense from ranged" unit attribute. It's a very common mistake for players to equate ranged=attack and melee=defense. Only a player who carefully looks at the combat numbers notices this is not always the case. It might be confusing if gatling guns defend well vs aircraft but are weak to crossbows. Yes, crossbows! I forgot about this stuff when changing gatling gun strength, so without a broad defense bonus, they're not much better than crossbows at ranged defense.

If unit maintenance is high, then warmongers are hit harder than peaceful players.

I like making conquest hard because it's my favorite playstyle. If people want peaceful games harder too, we could raise building maintenance, instead of my earlier suggestion to lower unit maintenance. Another alternative is we could buff the upgrade/maintenance bonuses from Honor/Nationalism policies.

gold income if anything is lower because trading posts give a mix of gold and science

Markets and Mints were buffed when this change was made last year, so overall gold income is roughly the same.