Quick Questions , Quick Answers

[VCrakeV]

Larger cities make a big difference, I can take a look at your save out of curiosity regarding trade. I wonder if the cities of the lowered scored civs you are at peace with have lucrative trade routes to your cities, not sure if trade routes are two way streets or a one way street. These things I could check in your save, or any save really, but your save is ideal as the leading civ have zero foreign trade routes, not sure if I have such a save myself atm.

Well, I said "virtually no foreign trade routes"; there are some, but most cities have none at all, and the rest have mostly domestic routes.

By the way, disclaimer: I made some small edits to the civics XML on my computer, so when you load my save, it's going to have to take the time to replace my edits with the regular XML on your PC (at least this is what happened when I first made the edits and loaded my save that had no edits).

 

[Thunderbrd]

Excuse me for frequenting this thread, but I'm having trouble with my warlord colonels. For some reason, they can't attack the military units in a city I'm invading. They just walk into the city as if there were no military units there. My guerillas can attack them, and the colonels can bombard, but that's it.

@billw2015 This sounds like it's the same bug you were exploring with the other HN unit, the Bandit Footpad. So looks like naval has nothing to do with it.

Yeah this mechanic sounds a bit wrong now I think about it. During seige it is trivial for forces to stay outside the range of the defences until they are ready to assault. These city adjacent damage things should just get applied *when you attack*. Other things like attrition should be what gets you for sitting outside a city for ages. Although of course your siege weapons are within their range of the walls so perhaps vice versa should also be true. I don't know what is historically realistic here, but I never really heard of sieging forces being significantly hurt by defenses when not actively assaulting them (I'm definitely no expert though, I never read any detailed reports on sieges, only learning about them obliquely via more general histories).

We have both. The downside of the damage on attack is that the combat help is incredibly inaccurate with it since it looks at the battle before the damage is dealt and doesn't mention that it will be a very different picture once the combat commences.

As with all things combat, the system is allegorical in this sense and just represents the need to stay that extra distance out until you actually intend to attack and slow units will suffer hits most likely before they even go in and then even more as they really charge forward, both from siege defenses and the distance weapons (first strikes) of their immediate foes.

I've enjoyed this mod but when I started here it was WAY out of whack too strong and thus it was nerfed a lot and a random chance of being struck per unit was installed. I suggested we could make it a much deeper system with more variable damage and resistances and so on. While agreed to, that concept has sat on a shelf ever since and we are still in the development phase of it being fairly basic.

 

[VCrakeV]

Larger cities make a big difference, I can take a look at your save out of curiosity regarding trade. I wonder if the cities of the lowered scored civs you are at peace with have lucrative trade routes to your cities, not sure if trade routes are two way streets or a one way street. These things I could check in your save, or any save really, but your save is ideal as the leading civ have zero foreign trade routes, not sure if I have such a save myself atm.

Here's the save

 

[Somebody613]

@billw2015 I've enjoyed this mod but when I started here it was WAY out of whack too strong and thus it was nerfed a lot and a random chance of being struck per unit was installed. I suggested we could make it a much deeper system with more variable damage and resistances and so on. While agreed to, that concept has sat on a shelf ever since and we are still in the development phase of it being fairly basic.

I can only imagine the DEPTH this mod will have at v.80, loool.
And that's compliment, of course.
In fact, C2C has been a separate game all of its own for quite a few versions already, hehehe.
I wonder how negatively shocked C2C players get when trying Vanilla accidentally, lol.

 

[irishhombre]

I tried playing Vanilla once, it threw me for a loop. I couldn't get the hang of it anymore after playing C2C. That also applies to CIV 5 too, it felt so unnatural that I had to give up.

 

[Somebody613]

I tried playing Vanilla once, it threw me for a loop. I couldn't get the hang of it anymore after playing C2C. That also applies to CIV 5 too, it felt so unnatural that I had to give up.

The worst thing was the dumb limitation of ONE building per turn, loool.
After all, we had Multi-Build BY DEFAULT for... how many versions already?
It feels outright BACKWARDS to have to wait a turn per building, when you can build FIVE (or TEN) of them based on resources.
That's probably THE major feature that makes any playing in Vanilla outright ANNOYING, lol.

 

[irishhombre]

Exactly, multibuild is one of my favorite features.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I tried playing Vanilla once, it threw me for a loop. I couldn't get the hang of it anymore after playing C2C. That also applies to CIV 5 too, it felt so unnatural that I had to give up.

Same here. Last year I started a game in Vanilla and was stunned by how underdeveloped it felt. I just couldn't...

When I referred to the mod above, I was talking about the smaller segment of C2C dealing with damage to adjacent units from cities but we appreciate the comments on the Mod as a whole regardless

 

[JosEPh_II]

Excuse me for frequenting this thread, but I'm having trouble with my warlord colonels. For some reason, they can't attack the military units in a city I'm invading. They just walk into the city as if there were no military units there. My guerillas can attack them, and the colonels can bombard, but that's it.

By the way, I think I figured out why my cities have virtually no foreign trade routes. I'm in the tech lead, I have much larger cities, and I'm at war with the 2nd place civ (I have the most score). I guess foreign cities just don't offer enough compared to my own cities?

Do you actively trade resources with any of the other Empires? Are you using Civics that reduce trade with foreign Empires? There can be multiple reasons for your "much larger cities" to not have foreign trade routes. Even the one you suggest.

Which begs the question Why are your cities so much larger than the AI's? They really should not be Unless you are using a Game Option(s) that allows Empire cities to revolt and splinter off from the parent empire.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Do you actively trade resources with any of the other Empires? Are you using Civics that reduce trade with foreign Empires? There can be multiple reasons for your "much larger cities" to not have foreign trade routes. Even the one you suggest.

Which begs the question Why are your cities so much larger than the AI's? They really should not be Unless you are using a Game Option(s) that allows Empire cities to revolt and splinter off from the parent empire.

I suppose an easy enough setting or strong use of food generation tools like the food merchant could easily achieve that. It's a very valid theory as to why as well since the one thing I remember from the last time I looked at that code was that it will select the most profitable cities to trade with and that's not ALWAYS a foreign route at all. Sometimes the closeness can even be more effective at enhancing the value as the foreign modifier can be, but either way, the largest cities are usually the winners as long as routes with them are available. IIRC anyhow. I don't remember anything about trade agreements having anything to do with it, not saying they shouldn't... just that I don't remember if they do. Come to think of it, there should be some trade negotiations that can enhance trade route values with that nation at some cost somehow. That'd be cool. I also think if the foreign entity doesn't allow foreign trading for themselves, nobody else can get a route with their cities either so that could have an impact if most AIs are selecting closed borders I think.

 

[VCrakeV]

Do you actively trade resources with any of the other Empires? Are you using Civics that reduce trade with foreign Empires? There can be multiple reasons for your "much larger cities" to not have foreign trade routes. Even the one you suggest.

Which begs the question Why are your cities so much larger than the AI's? They really should not be Unless you are using a Game Option(s) that allows Empire cities to revolt and splinter off from the parent empire.

I don't actively trade with other empires, but I do accept some offers. I don't think I have any civics that reduce foreign trade route yields (I don't recall there being one in C2C, but I could have overlooked it).

I think there are a couple of reasons. First of all, as we all know, the AI sucks at city placement. They often place cities too close to each other, leaving less room for farms and what not.

More importantly, I think this is a case of the good ol' snowball (check my save, posted above, if you like). I'm playing on monarch, because I find that I struggle to get past the early game on any higher difficulty. However, once I got in the lead, it started to get out of control. I got a strong tech lead, and lots of resources from all of my territory. That means I get the food techs before everyone else, improved farms, etcetera.

I play with WFL, TD, and no human handicaps, but I guess that's not enough.

 

[billw2015]

> More importantly, I think this is a case of the good ol' snowball (check my save, posted above, if you like). I'm playing on monarch, because I find that I struggle to get past the early game on any higher difficulty. However, once I got in the lead, it started to get out of control. I got a strong tech lead, and lots of resources from all of my territory. That means I get the food techs before everyone else, improved farms, etcetera.
Yeah I have two current plans for tackling this because it ruins most of the fun imo: improved/reduced revs mod that will make maintaining a larger empire more difficult, especially rapid expansion, and improved AI cooperation when any other civ starts to get too big. I hope to start one or both within the next couple of months or so.

 

[JosEPh_II]

More importantly, I think this is a case of the good ol' snowball (check my save, posted above, if you like). I'm playing on monarch, because I find that I struggle to get past the early game on any higher difficulty. However, once I got in the lead, it started to get out of control. I got a strong tech lead, and lots of resources from all of my territory. That means I get the food techs before everyone else, improved farms, etcetera.

I play with WFL, TD, and no human handicaps, but I guess that's not enough.

So you basically ant to change the difficulty levels instead of playing the more difficulty levels. Seem rather counter intuitive to me. You are after all only playing on Monarch, 2 nd step above Noble. Perhaps you need to play Emperor or Immortal without using TD or WFL or No Human Handicap to get a real feel for the game play. And to not have skewed perceptions having these 3 options On are giving you.

Yeah I have two current plans for tackling this because it ruins most of the fun imo: improved/reduced revs mod that will make maintaining a larger empire more difficult, especially rapid expansion, and improved AI cooperation when any other civ starts to get too big. I hope to start one or both within the next couple of months or so.

If you want to improve Rev for those that use that's fine and good. But when you start changing base play for those that prefer not to have those restrictions then I do not look forward to parts pf your 2nd part plan for this mod. Just sayin' I'm not liking what I'm reading from you. You have some troubling views imo about How this game should or should not be played.

 

[billw2015]

You have some troubling views imo about How this game should or should not be played.

What are my views on how this game should be played, and what is troubling about them?

 

[VCrakeV]

So you basically ant to change the difficulty levels instead of playing the more difficulty levels. Seem rather counter intuitive to me. You are after all only playing on Monarch, 2 nd step above Noble. Perhaps you need to play Emperor or Immortal without using TD or WFL or No Human Handicap to get a real feel for the game play. And to not have skewed perceptions having these 3 options On are giving you.

Who said I wanted to change the difficulty levels? How are my perceptions skewed? I'm sure we all believe that someone usually snowballs at some point in the game.

By the way, I should have pointed out that when trying Emperor, I had TD and WFL on, but not the option that turns it off for human players. I'm not sure what it is, but I just haven't been able to play Emperor without falling behind really early (like, before sedentary lifestyle). I wasn't getting enough from WFL or TD to make up for it, either. Maybe I'll check the strategy and tips section.

 

[Thunderbrd]

WFL won't kick in until after Prehistoric because 50% boost from simply having 1 city while the leader has 2 is too much... the game isn't granular enough to make WFL not so overwhelming yet. And yes, usually on higher difficulties, since the game is simpler, the AI is better at it for a while or at least nearly as good as a human and therefore the handicaps are helping a lot more than they compensate for later when the game gets more complex. So yeah, usually on higher difficulties you'll start out falling behind then eventually recover and overtake them. It is admittedly difficult to get a game going where the AI is almost always equally competitive with the human player. You can use the Bug option to adjust difficulties midgame as well which can help, but once you're ahead, they can pretty much be on Deity and you'll still likely stay that way. WFL can help a lot with that but it's not a perfect solution as the AI also needs just some flat out improvements both to how it chooses its city queue selections and more importantly, how to use its units to maximum effectiveness. There's still some serious flaws there.

Raxo recently said that TD is also not functional until after Prehistoric but I don't think that's true actually - I think TD works right out the gate. Not that you know too many civs to benefit from it right out the gate usually.

 

[billw2015]

solution as the AI also needs just some flat out improvements both to how it chooses its city queue selections and more importantly, how to use its units to maximum effectiveness. There's still some serious flaws there.

The thing is it won't matter how good or bad the AI is if the goal is to keep the game competitive for the duration (or a longer duration than currently). Without regularization of some kind, snowballing by either player or AI is inevitable (lets be real its the former). If you want the game to stay at the fun bit where you have competition that is a threat then you need some factors that will boost weaker civs or punish stronger ones as they start to achieve escape velocity. WFL and TD are obviously aimed towards this goal, but for them to be able to actually stop a good player I think they will have to have jarringly strong effects.

It is obvious to me that we can just look at the real world effects that stop nations from snowballing and implement game systems based on those effects. TD is one such effect, helping to lift other nations rapidly under some circumstances (and we should expand on the concept as it is a good one), and the inherent instability of large empires is another. We have the real world examples of countless empires that have collapsed under their own weight, its practically a law of history, producing some of the most interesting periods of time. I'm really confused as to how people aren't way more enthusiastic about it as a concept.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The thing is it won't matter how good or bad the AI is if the goal is to keep the game competitive for the duration (or a longer duration than currently). Without regularization of some kind, snowballing by either player or AI is inevitable (lets be real its the former). If you want the game to stay at the fun bit where you have competition that is a threat then you need some factors that will boost weaker civs or punish stronger ones as they start to achieve escape velocity. WFL and TD are obviously aimed towards this goal, but for them to be able to actually stop a good player I think they will have to have jarringly strong effects.

It is obvious to me that we can just look at the real world effects that stop nations from snowballing and implement game systems based on those effects. TD is one such effect, helping to lift other nations rapidly under some circumstances (and we should expand on the concept as it is a good one), and the inherent instability of large empires is another. We have the real world examples of countless empires that have collapsed under their own weight, its practically a law of history, producing some of the most interesting periods of time. I'm really confused as to how people aren't way more enthusiastic about it as a concept.

I agree but it takes some finesse to design it in such a way that it doesn't feel like you're being punished for your success. That's the problem many players have with that approach.

 

[raxo2222]

The thing is it won't matter how good or bad the AI is if the goal is to keep the game competitive for the duration (or a longer duration than currently). Without regularization of some kind, snowballing by either player or AI is inevitable (lets be real its the former). If you want the game to stay at the fun bit where you have competition that is a threat then you need some factors that will boost weaker civs or punish stronger ones as they start to achieve escape velocity. WFL and TD are obviously aimed towards this goal, but for them to be able to actually stop a good player I think they will have to have jarringly strong effects.

It is obvious to me that we can just look at the real world effects that stop nations from snowballing and implement game systems based on those effects. TD is one such effect, helping to lift other nations rapidly under some circumstances (and we should expand on the concept as it is a good one), and the inherent instability of large empires is another. We have the real world examples of countless empires that have collapsed under their own weight, its practically a law of history, producing some of the most interesting periods of time. I'm really confused as to how people aren't way more enthusiastic about it as a concept.

Europe is pretty much tech leader since Renaissance.
Despite that it isn't single monolith controlling world as it would happen eventually in C2C.

So to prevent NWO (single civ controlling whole world) in Renaissance era maintenance cost should scale faster than linearly with population, city count and distance to capital.
Also if you conquer city belonging to other civ, then that city should have its culture meaning much higher maintenance for this city.

In C2C it seems like technology is adopted instantly everywhere.
If our world was transferred to C2C, then you would see many cities at Industrial/Atomic level of infrastructure.
Also civs would be seemed to run by broken AI.

That is corruption and bloat should be simulated somehow.

 

[billw2015]

I agree but it takes some finesse to design it in such a way that it doesn't feel like you're being punished for your success. That's the problem many players have with that approach.

You aren't succeeding if you make an giant but unstable empire though, that is the point. The first thing required to get on board with this idea is that you can't any longer just expand without thought. If you do that you are actually playing badly, and will be appropriately punished for it. Instead you have to use tools other than just plopping more cities to get ahead. You need to take more care of the cities you have, and carefully balance your expansion rate. You might need to actually *give back* cities you took through conquest! Imagine that! And when you do you could get appropriate diplomatic rewards. Also remember that vassals won't cause instability. There would be scope for introducing other subordination agreements as well once such a thing actually becomes a useful alternative to just annexing.
Of course to your point about doing it carefully it definitely needs to be something not entirely opaque to the player. They need to have tools and know how to apply them, and have some ability to predict what outcomes different actions will have.

Despite that it isn't single monolith controlling world as it would happen eventually in C2C.

Yep, and what happened to the nations that tried to conquer Europe? They either collapsed, or were ganged up on by as many allies as it took to beat them.

So to prevent NWO (single civ controlling whole world) in Renaissance era maintenance cost should scale faster than linearly with population, city count and distance to capital.

This is some part of the solution. I don't know how costs should scale and what the factors should be, but certainly we need to start causing later game players some more financial hardships.

That is corruption and bloat should be simulated somehow.

Yeah, that is part of what maintenance is I think, that is why court houses reduce it I guess.