Probably Improved Gameplay Mod

[The_Reckoning]

First off I'll say this is an excellent thread. There are few things I dislike about Civ4:

- AI isn't perfect [the best strategy AI in a game to date, IMO, but still not perfect]
- A few interface annoyances [grouping system mainly]
and, relevant
- The dominance of a few strategic options.

People are really thinking on how to balance out the strategy options, which is great.

I've read the entire thread so far.

What I would suggest is reducing their cost to 35.

Still, at this stage I reckon I'll put +1 first strike on the marine in v0.2.

What do you think of +1 for farms under serfdom?

Like.

- +1 on a jungled tile

Like.

I've read of concerns regarding Scientific Method. It's a prerequisite tech for important ones (i.e. communism, biology...), yet its effect is overall negative on the short run. For instance, losing the power of monasteries & The Great Library is just a too big blow for a tech that's supposed to represent more advances in science/research! How about giving it a 10% bonus in all cities? That would be attractive for those not wanting Free Religion as a civic, & for those who want to win either by space, late domination, late conquest or perhaps time. I do know that the late game research might get too accelerated by that bonus, but in later era starts that bonus would be balancing.

Totally agree. If I have several monastaries in each city, the hit of obsoleting Monastaries is too hard, and I put off SciMeth till I have nothing left to research.

Few more ideas:

- Remove the 10% bonus from Monastaries, replace with a fixed +X of beakers [scaled to speed+map?].

- Remove the 10% bonus from Monastaries, let Monastaries give +1 per priest.

- Remove the 10% bonus from Monastaries by default, but add it back in with the Religion civics, but have Free Religion not give that bonus. [So Monastaries give no bonus, but having Paganism, Org. Religion, Theocracy or Pacifism gives +10% per monastery, FR still gives +10% overall].

- Make the GL obsolete with a later tech.

- Have the 10% bonus from Monatstaries halve with an earlier tech, such as Paper.

At the moment, I'm thinking move slavery to Masonry which sounds fairly sensible, but at the same time increase the cost of Masonry ever so slightly.

I like the idea of just moving it.

If you want to nerf mass chopping I agree. What I think would be fun is to change what techs affect hammers-per-chop:

So initial no. is changed to +10

per forest [it's currently 20

]
IW is +50%

[5]
MC is +50%

[5]
Maths is +100%

[10]
Replacable Parts is +50%

[5]

So after IW it's 15

per chop, after Maths it'd be 25

per chop, after MC it'd be 30

, and after RP 35

. By that point, it's generally worth a lot more to keep forests for mills.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More ideas:

- Remove the free tech from being the first at Liberalism, give the first at Liberalism a free great scientist.

 

[PieceOfMind]

More changes coming in v0.2:

-Merged BUG
-Merged Better AI
-Merged Unofficial Patch v1.0 for BtS 3.19
-Added flag hover text, to help indicate correct installation (like the one used in Better AI)
-Added civilopedia text for Nuclear plant to tell you the chance of meltdown per turn.

 

[Jaroth]

More changes coming in v0.2:

-Merged BUG
-Merged Better AI
-Merged Unofficial Patch v1.0 for BtS 3.19
-Added flag hover text, to help indicate correct installation (like the one used in Better AI)
-Added civilopedia text for Nuclear plant to tell you the chance of meltdown per turn.

If you're adding text to the Civilopedia (Sevopedia, right?), I also noticed there's a unit control missing from it.

Ctrl+H: selects all injured units

I use this all the time and it's very helpful; especially since I disable the PLE buttons.

 

[The_Reckoning]

If you're adding text to the Civilopedia (Sevopedia, right?), I also noticed there's a unit control missing from it.

Ctrl+H: selects all injured units

I use this all the time and it's very helpful; especially since I disable the PLE buttons.

wat

lol that's going to save me so much time

 

[Jaroth]

wat

lol that's going to save me so much time

Exactly...

There are players unaware of it; it should be included within the Civilopedia.

 

[aday]

Exactly...

There are players unaware of it; it should be included within the Civilopedia.

Oh nice, that should be a huge time-saver!

Does anyone know of a nice (preferably printable) cheat-sheet of all the keyboard shortcuts?

 

[cybrxkhan]

I really like some of the ideas in this mod. Do you mind if I incorporate some of the ideas (though not perhaps exactly as you implemented them, but the concept behind them anyways) in WoL? Proper credit will be given.

Also, I have a few suggestions for your mod that I'll be implementing in WoL, and I thought you maybe would like them (or not).

The first one I got the idea from an ancient thread. Basically, ALL resources are hidden at the start of the game - i.e., you'll have to research Agriculture to know where wheat is. The logic behind this is that before people knew how to farm, they probably didn't keep track of where the good wheat was. It'll also make the discovery of things like Agriculture and Calendar much more strategic.

Other minor suggestions:

- Move Knights back from Guilds to Feudalism. Firstly, it makes more sense - Knights existed because of the Feudal system. Secondly, I always find in my games that I already am in the Renaissance oftentimes before I even research Guilds, and by the time I start cranking out Knights, a couple of turns later, I can already make Cuirassiers. Knights and other forms of cavalry played an essential part in medieval warfare, so moving them back to an earlier technology certainly allows civilizations to utilize the effectiveness of the knights more fully.

- Move Cannons back from Steel to, say, Military Science or Chemistry. Cannons, in my opinion, come a bit too late. It's kind of unrealistic for the trebuchet to still be operating when there's riflemen and grenadiers running around. Plus, there's already the Artillery in the Industrial Age

 

[Dragonxander PR]

I really like some of the ideas in this mod. Do you mind if I incorporate some of the ideas (though not perhaps exactly as you implemented them, but the concept behind them anyways) in WoL? Proper credit will be given.

Also, I have a few suggestions for your mod that I'll be implementing in WoL, and I thought you maybe would like them (or not).

The first one I got the idea from an ancient thread. Basically, ALL resources are hidden at the start of the game - i.e., you'll have to research Agriculture to know where wheat is. The logic behind this is that before people knew how to farm, they probably didn't keep track of where the good wheat was. It'll also make the discovery of things like Agriculture and Calendar much more strategic.

Other minor suggestions:

- Move Knights back from Guilds to Feudalism. Firstly, it makes more sense - Knights existed because of the Feudal system. Secondly, I always find in my games that I already am in the Renaissance oftentimes before I even research Guilds, and by the time I start cranking out Knights, a couple of turns later, I can already make Cuirassiers. Knights and other forms of cavalry played an essential part in medieval warfare, so moving them back to an earlier technology certainly allows civilizations to utilize the effectiveness of the knights more fully.

- Move Cannons back from Steel to, say, Military Science or Chemistry. Cannons, in my opinion, come a bit too late. It's kind of unrealistic for the trebuchet to still be operating when there's riflemen and grenadiers running around. Plus, there's already the Artillery in the Industrial Age

I do agree with moving knights earlier (also make their upgrade cost from HA & chariots lower, & the cost from knight to cuirassier is too low, so raise it)

Cannons should work like the following, at least IMO:

-Require gunpowder & replacable parts
-Buildable with copper or iron
-Strenght 10 (not 12)

Then the transition to machine guns & artillery would be more important.

 

[JujuLautre]

I'm unsure about the liberalism beeline. I may be mistaken, but I believe that it's power comes less from the free tech than from the trading opportunities it produces combined with the bulbing preferences of great scientists and the fact that the AI does not really prioritize these techs. It's for the exact same reason that people often tech aesthetics at high level.

I'm afreaid we're stuck with that trading "problem" (if this is one). If someone changed the tech preferences of the AI, we would see either the same problem for an other tech (like: tech guilds and backfill later), or a much bigger problem (what to tech? I do not know what the AI will tech so I cannot decide). Why a problem? Because if one has to gamble to chose a tech in the hope that he will be able to trade it, I do not know how people would overtake the insane bonuses the AI gets at higher level.

Taking that as granted, we're left with one other solution: modify the tech preferences of scientists. Either directly (like: put machinery somewhat high on the list), or indirectly (making more severe prerequisites to techs of the beeline, like education). I must say I'm more in favour of the first option, but still unsure.

 

[UWHabs]

If I remember right, compass and optics are higher on the preferences than paper and education, so even forcing machinery as a prereq for paper would for you to research that manually, then you'd bulb compass+optics, which would slow down paper somewhat.

 

[PieceOfMind]

v0.23 has been uploaded.

Please keep the feedback coming.

On the Lib beeline, I agree with JujuLautre mostly, and UWHabs. From what I've heard the power comes mostly from the journey not the destination, so to speak. Removing the free tech entirely is too significant IMO and extreme for this mod. In v0.23 I made Construction a prereq for Education, and Machinery a prereq for Paper. I have to agree that these two changes, or even just the Machinery one, would have been enough to dampen the Lib beeline enough.

It's interesting that now when you have the prereqs for education you have the prereqs for Engineering too, so castles are getting a bit of a boost in that sense.

And UWHabs, yes normally for the Liberalism beeline people are taught to not tech Metal Casting IIRC because it opens up the Machinery bulb.

 

[PieceOfMind]

For v0.3 I am thinking about returning axemen to their unmodded forms, because at the moment I'm not 100% satisfied with the new balance. I would like some other opinions on what to try, if possible.

I could, for example, just increase their cost. Make their base cost 40 and figure out where to go from there.

Ideas?

 

[avain]

Nice ideas.

About the axeman:
One thing I'd suggest is to leave the axeman strength intact, and change the melee combat bonus to a (melee) attack bonus. The downside is that there's no such xml tag that gives bonus only when attacking, so:
- either give it attack bonus against all the relevant melee units (not nice in Civilopedia/Interface texts)
- implement such an xml tag

So in summary, the axeman would be just as good when attacking as now, but be weaker on defense giving plenty of room for counterattacks.

 

[Ninja2]

You might be interested in these tweaks from LoR: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8158359&postcount=522 I think they all made it in there, although I haven't checked.

EDIT: I'll bet your next project will be the CIV Alternative Bts Better Ai Game Enhancing Patch.

 

[Jaroth]

Nice ideas.

About the axeman:
One thing I'd suggest is to leave the axeman strength intact, and change the melee combat bonus to a (melee) attack bonus. The downside is that there's no such xml tag that gives bonus only when attacking, so:
- either give it attack bonus against all the relevant melee units (not nice in Civilopedia/Interface texts)
- implement such an xml tag

So in summary, the axeman would be just as good when attacking as now, but be weaker on defense giving plenty of room for counterattacks.

Hey there, Avain. I don't think I agree with that approach, though I could be wrong. With your proposed change, axemen would apparently become less dominant because they'd be more susceptible to counterattacks, since their melee bonus would only apply while attacking.

But what will be the main counter unit? Axemen. (along with chariots as usual, but defending spearmen within the stack will take care of those.)

Assuming a civ has access to iron/copper, Swordsmen are also nice (but if you can make swordsmen, you can make axemen - which are a better counter) and spearmen have a "chance" at attacking axemen at least.

Though, with no access to copper/iron, a defending a civ would be in the same boat as the default game and can get steamrolled by axemen en masse. Which is what POM is trying to revise; I think.

Also, since axemen are the best counter to the axemen rush, Bronze Working is still the tech to beeline towards to both rush AND protect yourself (while also hoping you have copper nearby), among its other current benefits. So, civs that can fortunately defend themselves with axemen against the other civs' axemen rushes had to rush towards Bronze Working as well.

On another note, it makes attacking with or pillaging with mounted units more difficult. With their "bodyguarding" axemen having no bonus while defending, groups of spearmen can take down that axeman and then tear thru the mounted units behind him much easier.

I suppose this sums up what POM is looking for:

Regarding the axes, I think we mainly need to make them less dominant particularly in their era...
...
Basically we need a way for the axeman to be less of the build-only unit that it currently is for so many people. IMO swords should beat archers and be about level with axes. Axes should beat spears. Archers should beat melee units when well positioned (on hills or in cities).

Like I mentioned, axemen may still be a build-only unit early in the game, even with their melee bonus removed from defense.


I still believe that by giving archers a small bonus towards axemen, it may not nullify the axemen rush (which should be avoided), but it will help lessen the effectiveness of it.

Also, everyone has access to archers; no need for copper/iron/horses to be able to defend yourself a little better.

Also, the balance of unit strengths is less impacted and disrupted.

Though, I'm unsure whether the archer bonus towards axemen should be a defense-only bonus or just an all-around bonus... and what that value should be. +25% vs. Axemen? I have yet to run any numbers, so I don't know.

For the realism junkies that need an explanation... I suppose you can think of it this way: Archers would have a bonus towards axemen because the axemen are typically unarmored, berserking, brutes weilding a two-handed axe, hacking men down within close-combat, while spearmen are at least armored and swordsmen are armored and/or carry a shield.

Use your imagination...

Also, this "may" be a solution towards the potency of axemen rushes, but it doesn't solve the current priority and importance of teching towards Bronze Working early, which has other issues.

 

[PieceOfMind]

In v0.3 I have given archers a +25% defense vs. axemen, and increased the cost of all axemen units to 40.

 

[avain]

Ok, I give in! I don't have even comparable experience playing to modding - but this is a disadvantage I plan on improving

 

[Yaotlatoani]

How about a Sentry Promotion for Scouts and Explorers? They really need that promotion. That'll give you enough warning to avoid danger.

 

[muxec]

Woodsman 3 to recon units coupled with larger bonus against enemies makes sub-super healers to0 easy to get for hunting-starting civs, IMO.

Other changes are reasonable, well done. I guess we should start a SG to test the changes sometime in the future.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I noticed people still seem to take issue with carriers having too few air units despite them being fairly cheap.

Rather than increasing the cost to 200 and leaving the capacity at 3, what would people think if I increased the capacity to 5 but increased the cost to 350?

Note that 200 * (5/3) = about 333, so 350 is only making carriers slightly more expensive per plane than they already are in this mod.

IMO carriers should be very expensive, definitely more expensive than any other naval unit.

Alternatively, to make carriers remain slightly lower capacity than forts, cities etc., we could make them hold 4 air units for 250. This is my preferred change, and I will put this in v0.3 unless there is good reason not to do so.