Quo's Combined Tweaks v7.0.19 BETA

[isau]

I just rolled out a beta test with the changes I described. Give it a try and let me know if the civs seem to be functioning better now. My limited testing seemed to show my guess was correct about the issue.

 

[Cagarustus]

Just a quick about the new changes to production of settlers. Is the cost of the Settler reduced the more City Centre buildings you construct?

 

[Laurana Kanan]

Thanks for posting the older version. I just did a comparison and of the two side by side and I think heinous_hat is right. If we are lucky, changing the values in this section may fix the issue. I screenshotted the area I think the problem is coming from. Making a decision about how to approach.

Spoiler :

View attachment 475294

Since there have been problems getting alliances recently, I'm curious what the differences are in

<Row StateType="DIPLO_STATE_DECLARED_FRIEND" DiplomaticActionType="DIPLOACTION_ALLIANCE" Worth="-10" Cost="-10"/>

versus after the Summer Patch as I've (thankfully) kept Steam offline and haven't updated yet.

 

[isau]

Just a quick about the new changes to production of settlers. Is the cost of the Settler reduced the more City Centre buildings you construct?

Yes, altho I am welcoming feedback on this mechanic. I'm half tempted to just cut the cost back to what it was before Firaxis doubled the cost. I guess they were thinking everyone runs the Colonization policy (+50% toward Settlers in the unmodded game) but I am not a fan of that mechanic because I think it shoehorns a period into the game where Settlers are cranked out like a factory.

As of one of the more recent Tweaks patches, you get 10% toward Settlers for each building in the city center. This includes the Palace, so the capital always builds Settlers 10% faster, and also Monuments, so Rome is also naturally 10% faster due to the free building (fits with their ability set and agenda). Walls, Ren Walls and Star Forts are also included, since those are also built in the city center.

Since there have been problems getting alliances recently, I'm curious what the differences are in

<Row StateType="DIPLO_STATE_DECLARED_FRIEND" DiplomaticActionType="DIPLOACTION_ALLIANCE" Worth="-10" Cost="-10"/>

versus after the Summer Patch as I've (thankfully) kept Steam offline and haven't updated yet.

Not sure. I havent looked much at alliances.

 

[heinous_hat]

As of one of the more recent Tweaks patches, you get 10% toward Settlers for each building in the city center. This includes the Palace, so the capital always builds Settlers 10% faster, and also Monuments, so Rome is also naturally 10% faster due to the free building (fits with their ability set and agenda). Walls, Ren Walls and Star Forts are also included, since those are also built in the city center.

Is that modifier visible anywhere in the UI? With the way you were doing initially, it showed up in the production tooltip. I don't see it anywhere, and the base hammer cost looks like it stays the same... have to double check.

 

[Laurana Kanan]

Not sure. I havent looked much at alliances.

Sorry, I was hoping that since you were already comparing the pre- and post-patch DiplomaticActions.xml and since it's somewhat related to the Friendship issue you could take a quick look and see if the Worth & Cost numbers have changed any.

 

[Smity2k1]

I played my first game with this mod yesterday - very fun! I kept everything enabled except for the increased movement speed.

One thing I did notice is that the city states pumped out units like crazy. However, they never upgraded their units through most of the game.

 

[qadams]

I have a thought about governments... with Autocracy focused on building Wonders, and with Oligarchy oriented towards combat, it's always seemed wrong to me that the former has two Military Policy slots while the latter has one Military slot and one Diplomatic slot. Shouldn't that be reversed?

 

[Sobaka]

Yes, altho I am welcoming feedback on this mechanic. I'm half tempted to just cut the cost back to what it was before Firaxis doubled the cost. I guess they were thinking everyone runs the Colonization policy (+50% toward Settlers in the unmodded game) but I am not a fan of that mechanic because I think it shoehorns a period into the game where Settlers are cranked out like a factory.

As of one of the more recent Tweaks patches, you get 10% toward Settlers for each building in the city center. This includes the Palace, so the capital always builds Settlers 10% faster, and also Monuments, so Rome is also naturally 10% faster due to the free building (fits with their ability set and agenda). Walls, Ren Walls and Star Forts are also included, since those are also built in the city center.




Not sure. I havent looked much at alliances.

Long post below, sorry. Love your mod, been playing it since you first posted it. Appreciate it a great deal, and it is along the lines of Thalacicus mods from Civ5 - the vanilla game is boring and easy without it. Nevertheless, I am a little concerned about the situation with settler production, thus my first post with Civ 6 mods (have played civ since Civ net, so long ago).

I play on a gigantic map, island plates, marathon speed, at Deity. Even if I build a monument, encampment to get the barracks and then walls in the centre, and even purchase a granary, by that stage city population is up to between 5-7 in most games (and imagine you have few resources or no amenities or only those requiring irrigation), and a settler will still take me between 40-70 turns to build. In the meantime, the AI civs already have 3-5 cities when it is even reasonable to start constructing my first settler.

Depending on starting location, one could need multiple other builds. This is one example of many:

'You are no where near a coast at the start, meet no other civilizations or city states, and have almost no tribal villages - combined with reduced science and culture in hardcore, by the time the first settler is built to construct a galley to meet a civ or state, you are so far behind in all aspects. It is the luck of the draw - if you have a scientific city state or some tea nearby, maybe you can compete having only one city. (further, with no eureka for writing to build a campus to get the extra science to keep up, this further delays any expansion).

When you do start meeting other civs, you are immediately denounced for being weak and small, unless you are just building units with no place to go and increasing turn costs). From that point, the only cities that can build settlers to mid-game is the capital (the coast is trying to build a couple of ships, and the capital is then stuck between a decision on progress or expansion).

Finally, if you play with Pericles with the extra wildcard spot, in the above scenario, the extra spot is fairly useless (no need for extra combat, scouts do not need the buff since there is no land to explore, and +1 culture for cities without a monument is useless until you can actually get that first settler built. In the end, the only useful policy is +1 faith, +1 gold in the capital from Code of Laws. From there the next set of policy options are not particularly helpful if you still have not met anyone, except for Mysticism.'

In short, the latest patch and the QUO changes to setter production, it seems to me, make every game the luck of the draw on starting location, while before the patch and latest QUO changes, at least there was a chance from any start location. It is just my take on it - I have been playing on watery worlds since civ 3 (the naval aspect is interesting), and the challenge should be creating the best strategy to win given your starting conditions, not on the luck of your starting location (now I know immediately within 20 turns of my warrior walking about whether or not I even have a chance at winning when I realise I cannot expand to at least 1 other location early - all units except scouts cannot embark until Shipbuilding!).

Maybe just reduce the costs of settlers overall? It think is not fun to play with a single city or only 2 cities so far into the game, in the same way the AI would build only 1 or 2 cities max, when playing with AI+ mod (now defunct) on watery worlds - it was so easy to eliminate them with only 1 or 2 cities to conquer.

Finally, I think civ has always been about expansion, especially on large maps, which is why it is fun to play. No expansion, little chance of winning.

Cheers.

 

[isau]

I played my first game with this mod yesterday - very fun! I kept everything enabled except for the increased movement speed.

One thing I did notice is that the city states pumped out units like crazy. However, they never upgraded their units through most of the game.

The city states might need a little refinement because I am not sure they are keeping up in science when the game is played in harcore mode. I need to look at it closer. Of course, failing to upgrade may be caused by a number of other things. I've been contemplating automatically giving all city states resources like iron, oil, etc. It's not "realistic" but prevents them from bottlenecking.

I have a thought about governments... with Autocracy focused on building Wonders, and with Oligarchy oriented towards combat, it's always seemed wrong to me that the former has two Military Policy slots while the latter has one Military slot and Diplomatic slot. Shouldn't that be reversed?

View attachment 475435

I'm not sure. I can see the argument for it. I'm willing to hear arguments from other players.

 

[isau]

isau updated Quo's Combined Tweaks with a new update entry:

Quo's Combined Tweaks CivFanatics Edition v3.13.5 BETA

Some minor updates and bug fixes.

• Settlers
  • The code that was supposed to reduce Settler cost based on the num of buildings in the city center has been removed.
  • Settlers now simply cost 50% less than they did (basically back to what they cost prior to the Summer patch.
  • Swapped Colonization and Urban Planning back to their original positions (undoing change from a few patches ago). Currently thinking about some additions to the Colonization policy since it is fairly...

Read the rest of this update entry...

 

[Cagarustus]

Hi isau.

I really like the changes you've made to some civ traits. The only thing is that some of the additional traits are attributed to leaders when they should be attributed to civs. For eg. Egypt's relic trait should be attached to the civ and not to Cleopatra. Likewise with Russia and Arabia it should be attributed to the civ.

Some leader traits make total sense like gorgos or Pericles' and Haralds.

I modified your code to reflect these changes (including the text) because it really bothered me personally (not your fault) and I was hoping that you would be able to put them in there permanently.

Certainly you're more than capable of doing it yourself, but I'm happy to copy and paste the code here to save you time.

 

[isau]

Hi isau.

I really like the changes you've made to some civ traits. The only thing is that some of the additional traits are attributed to leaders when they should be attributed to civs. For eg. Egypt's relic trait should be attached to the civ and not to Cleopatra. Likewise with Russia and Arabia it should be attributed to the civ.

Some leader traits make total sense like gorgos or Pericles' and Haralds.

I modified your code to reflect these changes (including the text) because it really bothered me personally (not your fault) and I was hoping that you would be able to put them in there permanently.

Certainly you're more than capable of doing it yourself, but I'm happy to copy and paste the code here to save you time.

Do you mean you don't like how they are assigned in terms of flavor? Generally the reason I split them up the way I did is that most civs only have 1 leader anyway so it doesnt affect gameplay. It becomes an issue where new civ leaders are modded in. The reason Cleo/Egypt has her abilities assigned as they are is so if someone mods in a new Egypt leader they don't become wildly overpowered by acquiring a long list of abilities. You are of course allowed to edit my mod however you see fit for your personal reasons.

 

[Cagarustus]

Ok, no worries.

As I said, it's just me being anal.

Sorry to have edited your code without your permission. I should've asked first. I apologise.

 

[Sobaka]

isau updated Quo's Combined Tweaks with a new update entry:

Quo's Combined Tweaks CivFanatics Edition v3.13.5 BETA



Read the rest of this update entry...

Very good changes on settler production. Thank you! Already playing, and it seems more balanced. Cheers.

 

[Sobaka]

The city states might need a little refinement because I am not sure they are keeping up in science when the game is played in harcore mode. I need to look at it closer. Of course, failing to upgrade may be caused by a number of other things. I've been contemplating automatically giving all city states resources like iron, oil, etc. It's not "realistic" but prevents them from bottlenecking.




I'm not sure. I can see the argument for it. I'm willing to hear arguments from other players.

I think the policy slots for Autocracy and Oligarchy could be interchangeable if you think about it historically, with the latter needing to have greater diplomacy in spending their cash as opposed to military conquest (but obviously, they could spend it on wonder production for example - e.g. take Russian Oligarchs having to fork out cash for the Sochi Olyimpics). Arguments could go either way with the government names.

In regards to bonuses, I never choose Oligarchy since I play on a gigantic or larger map. If I get attached early on, it is so easy to defend at Deity that it makes the bonus useless. Though, I have no opinion on smaller map sizes with civs so close to each other. If I DO manage to build a wonder, Autocracy is the first choice. To bad there is not a way to mix and match or add new government styles (maybe for an expansion that brings in elements of civ 4 and 5). Legacy bonuses - I've never received more than a 2-3 % increase in any government before switching to the higher level. Is that something of interest to focus on to mix things, or decrease the number of turns required for an additional %, especially at longer game lengths? Just a thought.

 

[Smity2k1]

Does the +2 range to ranged units from fascism apply to naval ranged units as well?

 

[isau]

Ok, no worries.

As I said, it's just me being anal.

Sorry to have edited your code without your permission. I should've asked first. I apologise.

I don't mind. The earliest versions of this mod explicitly encouraged people to do that. I only added the MyOptions stuff later to make it easier. You are always free to edit the code for your own use. I'm usually okay with people using it in other mods too, as long as they credit me and don't mind that I update frequently.

Does the +2 range to ranged units from fascism apply to naval ranged units as well?

It currently does not. Those units already have really good range and tend to already be useful. Land Ranged and Anti-Cavalry tend not to be as useful and that is why they were singled out for a (relatively huge) buff when that government is used.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

I think you could try setting Colonization to +30% production towards settlers ( in line with the policy for builders and wonders ) and Settlers cost halfway between current and previous patch

by the way, it seems like in the latest patch you've set ALL units to half cost instead of settlers only

 

[mydezhh]

Hi, have you finished the released version for summer patch? If you have done please let me know and I will begin to translate the mod into Chinese.