POLL: Some Balance Changes to add to VP

[Rekk]

but lobby for a more general buff to early warfare for the AI (lowered city defense and more aggression, most notably).

Which we just made an attempt at in 2.4

 

[pineappledan]

I said yes to the national parks but for the supermarket and late game culture buildings i don't see them as the core issue. I would love tourism to go back to being more late game focused so these potential changes might be more interesting but tourism is so OP at the moment that it is usually over before the proposed tourism changes come in to play. Getting dominant with other civs is generally so easy that it even wastes tourism modifiers in ideologies as the leader or even leaders are usually dominant before they are available and their just counting down the tenants needed to build the wonder.

I agree that all my late game tourism changes do is shift atomic era bonuses more into information era, and make things cost more. If you are getting influential before then nerfing airports doesn’t address that. It is a piece of the puzzle though, and just because a fix doesn’t solve everything doesn’t mean it won’t help.

removing the instant tourism from circus and zoo does at least get at your problem of early tourism a bit. There are more things to do, like taking the scaling tourism off arenas, and another pass at historic events which I haven’t touched yet.

 

[gwennog]

I would say your Songhai rework in particular totally re-focuses the civ onto a different playstyle, and I don't think we've discussed what it is people want Songhai to do. For now I've just tried to keep his focus the same, but I think he is more balanced without his river roads movement bonus than he is with it. I think it's better than what we have, and it's better than what I have proposed here, but I am focused on being conservative and incremental with these changes.

Yes, it's more in VP logic, still my personal problem with too warlike civilizations .

 

[balparmak]

I voted yes on all unit changes, which I have been playing for a while and they feel pretty good. Especially the skirmisher change, which is somehow the least popular one on the poll, the VP version is just clunky.

For tourism buildings I remain a fanboy of Milae's tweaks, which replace instant yields with per turn. That said, I welcome any change to tourism, as the current version is one of the weakest points in VP.

I'm on the fence about Civilization tweaks. All suggestions are well justified, but what I'd really like to know is how they affect the AI, does it perform better with the tweaks? It'd be great if people who have been playing with pdan's tweaks can comment on that.

 

[DeAnno]

The Swordsmen always feel so lame to me because you can't get Cover II on the second promotion. This mixes kind of badly with improved Composite Bows especially because now to even slightly deal with them at all you really need to wait for Knights, and if you don't have horses lol. Or you could just build CompBows in response I guess but that's pretty degenerate.

I think an acceptable compromise would be if Professionalism unlocked Cover I.

 

[Rekk]

I'm on the fence about Civilization tweaks. All suggestions are well justified, but what I'd really like to know is how they affect the AI, does it perform better with the tweaks? It'd be great if people who have been playing with pdan's tweaks can comment on that.

Korea should, it's already incentivized to work GAP, and it will already plant GPTIs in favour of use them for instant yields.

With the Songhai nerf, there's not much to adapt to. He just has less kit, nothing new.

Brazil has nothing new, he'll still try to plant Brazilwood Camps to the best of his ability.

England just deals with less.

Spain is the only one that has to deal differently with his new UU. I know that agression is not increased with Recon UUs (unlike other UU UnitCombats), so she might not go to war with them, produce them on sufficient quantities. On the other hand, the AI should already know how to explore with the unit at least as well as with the knight version.

 

[balparmak]

@Rekk thanks, reading those again it becomes obvious most had nothing to do with the AI, I'm fine with all. In case Songhai doesn't get the vote, I think it's safe to proceed with a small nerf, i.e. don't remove the river roads and nerf embarked bonuses. I like changes to Korean UA/UB, I can go either way with the UU, if that's an issue for others we can leave that out too

 

[Legen]

You're arguing against a proposed change by arguing for new code. I said this with the Songhai changes and I will say it here, I am not proposing any new code outside of a single new ability attached to the supermarket. If you want to discuss new code then the sky is the limit, but the Brazil thread is a better place for such theorycrafting.

As I said, I would happily also raise the to conversion to something like 50% (currently 30%), but having the 25% As it Exists Now is repetitive, both with itself and with another civ, and makes the UA less focused than it could be if the other aspects of the UI and UA were made stronger.

Old code. Brazil already had its WLTKD's growth set to 0, and even a custom message popup explaining that. Even if nobody has the old files anymore, I'd expect someone to still remember how Carnival's growth modifier was set to 0.

Besides, China's most noticeable design aspect is that it is focused around population growth; this civ gets compared with India sometimes due to that. Making Brazil's WLTKD no longer grant growth makes for a bigger distinction from China than removing the culture.

Note that China isn't getting only +10% food from WLTKD, it is also getting +10% gold from WLTKD due to the UB. In fact, that gold part could as well be moved to the UA alongside the food, instead of having to wait for the Paper Maker, which would leave for an elegant UA description: "gain +1 food and gold in all cities, and gain WLTED in all cities for an extra +10 % food and gold modifier, whenever you create great works or gain cities".

Removing it doesn't change how Brazil plays:: Brazil has a 2nd, more unique bonus during Carnival, which basically eliminates Needs on empire. Having the extra culture on top of that doesn't affect what you focus on, because there is already another powerful reward for getting Carnivals

I also think you're overestimating the -50% need part of Brazil. This civ is often mentioned to work best with Tradition due to it being the only Ancient Era policy that grants GAP, as well as Tall gameplay being generally better for tourism victory than Wide. This means that Brazil's cities tend to have low unhappiness outside Carnival anyways due to Tradition's nature; you usually get only a single digit point of happiness in the whole empire from Carnival's need reduction.

Brazil also tends to have an easy time with gold, as every unique in the civ grants gold, even the UU. Because of that, Brazil tends to have a solid infrastructure to address city needs regardless of WLTKD.

My experience with the civ is that the -50% needs on Carnivals is actually the weakest part of the kit, since the civ's gold and tall playstyle already minimize unhappiness from needs really well on their own. This bonus was meant to support wide gameplay, so the civ isn't locked to Tradition. For now, it is more about flexibility than about an actual reward.

In fact, if you remove the culture modifier from Carnival's, you may as well remove the whole unique WLTKD Carnival part, since Brazil already achieves the need reduction really well with its extra sources of gold and the CV's preference for tall gameplay.

• Brazil's UA has bonuses to both offense and defense for CV:: The other big component to Brazil's UA is the conversion of GAPs into Tourism when a Golden Age begins. This is an offensive weapon for cultural victory. Raw Culture generation, in the form of a massive % modifier is a defense against CV. I personally don't like how the UA looks omnipotent in this regard; it should pick sword or shield, and focus on that.

• Brazil has another powerful Culture bonus:: The Brazilwood Camp is primarily a large culture battery. Having both the UA and the UI pointed at the same yield focus is allowed, but not necessary, and it's not terrific design to have 2 components accomplish the same thing. It would be more sleek and well-designed if the UA lost its culture bonuses, and the UI was made stronger to compensate

The Brazilwood Camp is also a powerful tourism UI, not just culture. Once you get Hotels and so on, the UI becomes a solid source of tourism, akin to having extra Holy Sites. I see Brazil's UI as an extension of the UA, with both giving Brazil a source of culture, gold and lategame tourism, while interacting with happiness. I see no reason to change this design by cutting the culture from the UA.

 

[Rekk]

Old code. Brazil already had its WLTKD's growth set to 0, and even a custom message popup explaining that. Even if nobody has the old files anymore, I'd expect someone to still remember how Carnival's growth modifier was set to 0.

Looked through git history. It doesn't look like TRAIT_CARNIVAL ever had something like that. There is a column called GrowthBoon in Traits, but I don't see anywhere TRAIT_CARNIVAL had it, and it refers to food now, not growth, anyway. I don't see any way to reduce growth during WLTKD using SQL alone. Maybe you know where, or could link the conversation you had with Gazebo / find the patch notes that gives/removes Brazil's growth bonus so I can get a better idea on the date.

In fact, that gold part could as well be moved to the UA alongside the food, instead of having to wait for the Paper Maker, which would leave for an elegant UA description: "gain +1 food and gold in all cities, and gain WLTED in all cities for an extra +10 % food and gold modifier, whenever you create great works or gain cities

100% new dll code. Culture and Food are the only WLTKD yield modifiers available to traits. You've also just suggested removing the only bonus that isn't static yields from Paper Maker with no replacement.

It looks like there's enough wide components: spammable UI with high culture, unhappiness reduction which will give more GAP at high empire population, and lots of gold to invest in lots of satellite cities. If you're easily winning without utilizing these components to the fullest (and instead just focusing on the components that work specifically with Tradition->Artistry), I think there might be something wrong.

 

[Hinin]

Which we just made an attempt at in 2.4

From what I've seen in my AI-only tests, the results are unfortunately not very satisfying. AI offensives seem to only conquer walled cities starting the Renaissance : before, it seems far too difficult, mostly because it do not protect its siege units correctly and so loses a lot of time trying to attack cities without much result (I even saw that with the Ottomans failing to land a single shot with their Great Bombard against a city, for they always went back and forth with it). Field Gun really make AI agression much more potent if there is even a little bit of rough terrain around.

 

[Rekk]

From what I've seen in my AI-only tests, the results are unfortunately not very satisfying. AI offensives seem to only conquer walled cities starting the Renaissance : before, it seems far too difficult, mostly because it do not protect its siege units correctly and so loses a lot of time trying to attack cities without much result (I even saw that with the Ottomans failing to land a single shot with their Great Bombard against a city, for they always went back and forth with it). Field Gun really make AI agression much more potent if there is even a little bit of rough terrain around.

Maybe you can add to the GitHub report about AI retreating behind its own city.

 

[notaspambot]

A fair amount of the tweaks feel like I wouldn't mind them in part, but the end-result that they come packaged with is just too much.

I voted yes on all unit changes, which I have been playing for a while and they feel pretty good. Especially the skirmisher change, which is somehow the least popular one on the poll, the VP version is just clunky.

For tourism buildings I remain a fanboy of Milae's tweaks, which replace instant yields with per turn. That said, I welcome any change to tourism, as the current version is one of the weakest points in VP.

I voted against the skirmisher changes, because we've already had a fairly well-received proposal for skirmisher changes right before this one. I'm personally hesitant on supporting any new proposals on the same topic until we've worked through the older ones first. A new poll to choose between them, perhaps.

As for the tourism changes, I'd also prefer a version with Milae's tweaks if we could choose, which is closer to what we had before the buildings rework. As things stand, I still voted for it though

 

[Rekk]

I voted against the skirmisher changes, because we've already had a fairly well-received proposal for skirmisher changes right before this one. I'm personally hesitant on supporting any new proposals on the same topic until we've worked through the older ones first. A new poll to choose between them, perhaps

The previous skirmisher tweak is just this one plus a dll-required promotion. This change would get move them partway there.

 

[pineappledan]

I also think you're overestimating the -50% need part of Brazil. This civ is often mentioned to work best with Tradition due to it being the only Ancient Era policy that grants GAP, as well as Tall gameplay being generally better for tourism victory than Wide. This means that Brazil's cities tend to have low unhappiness outside Carnival anyways due to Tradition's nature; you usually get only a single digit point of happiness in the whole empire from Carnival's need reduction.

Brazil also tends to have an easy time with gold, as every unique in the civ grants gold, even the UU. Because of that, Brazil tends to have a solid infrastructure to address city needs regardless of WLTKD.

My experience with the civ is that the -50% needs on Carnivals is actually the weakest part of the kit, since the civ's gold and tall playstyle already minimize unhappiness from needs really well on their own. This bonus was meant to support wide gameplay, so the civ isn't locked to Tradition. For now, it is more about flexibility than about an actual reward.

In fact, if you remove the culture modifier from Carnival's, you may as well remove the whole unique WLTKD Carnival part, since Brazil already achieves the need reduction really well with its extra sources of gold and the CV's preference for tall gameplay.

You're playing a civ with no Great Person bonuses and very high Culture on tiles as a small empire in order to milk this 25% culture modifier and maximize GAPs. This is making a strong case for why the 25%Culture should be removed; that bonus is forcing Brazil into a bog-standard tall GP-focused playstyle where you ignore all other parts of the kit just to go Tradition -> Artistry for every scrap of GAP in the policy trees.

Wider play with Brazil would make more use of the UI, because more land = more Brazilwood. It would also make better use of the Needs reduction, because more cities means more total happiness on empire, which can convert into more GAPs, since they aren't being sapped by Unhappiness. There is a chance to make Brazil a more interesting wide-CV civ, but the way the policies are designed, it's better to just ignore everything that is unique in the kit and focus all attention on a mundane % yield modifier, just because it's really big.

I think your comment also points to a failing of the policy trees as they currently exist: Why do Ancient and Medieval both have a tree that focuses tall, Great People, and Golden ages? That's 3 of the same focuses in sequential policy trees. The way that Tradition and Artistry stack up shackles a civ like Brazil -- with lots of GA bonuses, but no direct GP bonuses -- to a small, tall empire, because the civ's wide bonuses are swamped by the power of two full policy trees that push tall. As you say, that makes you play as if the needs reduction doesn't even exist, and you don't question that?

A fair amount of the tweaks feel like I wouldn't mind them in part, but the end-result that they come packaged with is just too much.

I guess this means I should do these polls more often? We haven't had almost any balance changes in almost a year.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

And here's Best Korea standing awkwardly in the corner after recently conceptualizing a hybrid version of both their bonuses in order to provide +5% culture, but -5% growth during We Love the Kim Day. It's okay though, I'd already considered ditching the idea in favour of keeping my UA more compact, especially with solid WLTKD bonuses already being funneled in through my Suryong.

The 1&Unly will continue to monitor the situation.

 

[Legen]

You're playing a civ with no Great Person bonuses and very high Culture on tiles as a small empire in order to milk this 25% culture modifier and maximize GAPs. This is making a strong case for why the 25%Culture should be removed; that bonus is forcing Brazil into a bog-standard tall GP-focused playstyle where you ignore all other parts of the kit just to go Tradition -> Artistry for every scrap of GAP in the policy trees.

Wider play with Brazil would make more use of the UI, because more land = more Brazilwood. It would also make better use of the Needs reduction, because more cities means more total happiness on empire, which can convert into more GAPs, since they aren't being sapped by Unhappiness. There is a chance to make Brazil a more interesting wide-CV civ, but the way the policies are designed, it's better to just ignore everything that is unique in the kit and focus all attention on a mundane % yield modifier, just because it's really big.

I think your comment also points to a failing of the policy trees as they currently exist: Why do Ancient and Medieval both have a tree that focuses tall, Great People, and Golden ages? That's 3 of the same focuses in sequential policy trees. The way that Tradition and Artistry stack up shackles a civ like Brazil -- with lots of GA bonuses, but no direct GP bonuses -- to a small, tall empire, because the civ's wide bonuses are swamped by the power of two full policy trees that push tall. As you say, that makes you play as if the needs reduction doesn't even exist, and you don't question that?

I guess this means I should do these polls more often? We haven't had almost any balance changes in almost a year.

What sets for tall tourism isn't the culture modifier. It is simply that the tourism penalty for controlling more cities overweight the yields you get from going wide in the first place. This isn't specific to Brazil, people have complained about the same regarding Sacred Sites reformation and similar attempts in other civs.

I've tried wide tourism and often went Progress with Brazil to see if I could get more from the UI and Artistry's scaler, and I've often found that Tradition simply won faster and made more sense. Brazil's extra gold ended doing more on the gold-starved tree that is Tradition than on Progress, as it allowed you to keep your satellite cities with robust infrastructure; Progress's focus on infrastructure was redundant for Brazil. And the UI meant that your satellite cities contribute with valuable yields almost immediately by simply sending a worker alongside your settler, which addresses Tradition's low production outside the Capital very elegantly. The UA's culture modifier is irrelevant for both of these points that make Brazil work so smoothly with Tradition.

Progress ends not contributing at all for anything that Brazil's uniques attempt to do, the most it does is to set the UI faster thanks to the free worker and improvement speed, and it isn't of relevance in the long run; Tradition's ability to get workers done for its satellite cities is decent enough. It just made more sense that, if you're going to aim for tourism, you're going to pick the trees that are most focused around great works, Tradition and Artistry, and both happen to also be the ones with the best culture and GAP output. In fact, I've found that you end doing better going wide Tradition than wide Progress as Brazil because of the gold and the UI; if you're going to have robust satellite cities regardless of which one you pick, why not pick the one that gives you more great works and GAP that actually help you with a CV? The only thing that keeps players from going wide in the first place is the tourism penalty from owning more cities, not some aspect of Brazil itself.

My opinion is that an early boost for the UI's yields just make Tradition even more desirable for Brazil, not less, and that the culture modifier has little to do with whether you go tall or wide. The culture modifier's role is about Brazil's lategame power, it helps setting the civ to have a solid scaling for that lategame.

Looked through git history. It doesn't look like TRAIT_CARNIVAL ever had something like that. There is a column called GrowthBoon in Traits, but I don't see anywhere TRAIT_CARNIVAL had it, and it refers to food now, not growth, anyway. I don't see any way to reduce growth during WLTKD using SQL alone. Maybe you know where, or could link the conversation you had with Gazebo / find the patch notes that gives/removes Brazil's growth bonus so I can get a better idea on the date.

100% new dll code. Culture and Food are the only WLTKD yield modifiers available to traits. You've also just suggested removing the only bonus that isn't static yields from Paper Maker with no replacement.

It looks like there's enough wide components: spammable UI with high culture, unhappiness reduction which will give more GAP at high empire population, and lots of gold to invest in lots of satellite cities. If you're easily winning without utilizing these components to the fullest (and instead just focusing on the components that work specifically with Tradition->Artistry), I think there might be something wrong.

I'll look for that conversation. Of China's UA, I mentioned that just to point out that China doesn't get only more food from WLTKD, it also gets gold. Whether it stays on the UB or the UA isn't important.

The thing wrong is that more cities mean higher tourism penalty, and that matters more than the bonus yields of going wide.

 

[Stalker0]

I like the organization of this thread. Clear poll with nicely delineated results. Its a very constructive basis to host a debate.

 

[Legen]

Looked through git history. It doesn't look like TRAIT_CARNIVAL ever had something like that. There is a column called GrowthBoon in Traits, but I don't see anywhere TRAIT_CARNIVAL had it, and it refers to food now, not growth, anyway. I don't see any way to reduce growth during WLTKD using SQL alone. Maybe you know where, or could link the conversation you had with Gazebo / find the patch notes that gives/removes Brazil's growth bonus so I can get a better idea on the date..

Found it: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-version-february-10th-2-10.610241/

February 10th (2/10), 2017

• Brazil:
  • UA: no longer replaces growth in Carnaval with culture - you get both
  • Bandeirantes: can now also build mines, quarries, and brazilwood camps.
  • Brazilwood now a culture monopoly - UI yields +1 Gold, base resource yield +1 Gold (tied to Hexxon Refineries Corp)

 

[CppMaster]

@pineappledan Why do you still want to give insta yield on completion? It's it better to just give yields per turn?

 

[notaspambot]

I guess this means I should do these polls more often? We haven't had almost any balance changes in almost a year.

Maybe? As Stalker0 said, I think this poll is pretty well-organised already, although having fewer topics to talk about at the same time would be nice. Most of my concerns are with the individual tweak packages themselves.

For example: Could Songhai use a nerf? Probably. Should Songhai's UA be nerfed that hard? Ehh. Or as with the Slinger rework, I'm okay with the idea conceptually (albeit the slingers themselves feel pretty useless), but as others mentioned in its own thread, I'm not very fond of what it does with the tech tree.

How do people feel about the resource requirements on the power plants by the way? That's a whole lot of iron going unused and the other way around for aluminium.