RifE 1.20 Ideas, Requests, and Feedback

[Valkrionn]

Those options work perfectly well, I just dislike them. Don't have one for Machinarum or White Hand either.

To use them, go into GameOptionInfos, search for the options, and change bHidden to 0.

 

[Viatos]

Has anybody mentioned Wild Trolls yet?

I tried a variety of 1.2 games and they all (except for the Jotnar with their +90% defense capital and their Defense 4 citizenry) ended more or less identically. My last before giving up and changing the gameinfos to make Minotaurs 4/2 and Wild Trolls 2/3 with Movespeed 1:

Kuriotates, Turn 12, Deity, Normal speed, killed by a minotaur. Reloaded from the last autosave and managed to get my mutated Stoneskin scout back to the capital (where previously exploring dungeons near your base was a bad idea, it is now an excellent one because it's not like you can spawn worse then an Enraged minotaur and you just might pick up something you can use defensively). Killed the minotaur, lost Stoneskin, picked up Guerilla 1 as we were on a hill (guarded by rivers from 4 approaches).

Turn 15, killed by 4 Wild Trolls and an enraged minotaur. Reloaded, tried to draw some aggro with my Scout, which apparently caused only 1 troll to spawn and the minotaur wasn't enraged. My second warrior had finished, so I killed both without incident and now had three Guerilla 1 units in my capital (the Scout failed to draw the aggro, so the warriors did the killing).

Turn 18, hit simultaneously by 4 Wild Trolls, 4 Orc Warriors, and a Hill Giant - which attacks first, causing collateral damage. The fact that the trolls are spawning in orc-sized groups and can't be picked off due to their defensive straight is rough, but the real killer is that they can beeline you at two squares a turn straight over hills - or mountains. There's no time to prepare and they can't be drawn off or reasoned with.

About this time I went into the WB, spawned Eurabatres, and tried to rampage angrily only to be utterly humiliated when as soon as he was out of range of my base another 5 trolls (in two groups) showed up with a wave of orcs behind them. The orcs were just out of breath range when they crashed my broken-spirited defenders.

About this time I went into the WB and spawned barbarian Abashis near everyone else's capitals. She was beaten to two of them by extant barbs. I wept.

 

[JanusTalaiini]

Those options work perfectly well, I just dislike them. Don't have one for Machinarum or White Hand either.

To use them, go into GameOptionInfos, search for the options, and change bHidden to 0.

Beautiful. Thanks!

 

[odalrick]

Cottages are a commerce resource. You're arguing chicken/egg.

Not really. If there already are Cottages around, you won't be building them will you?

If there already are -resources around, whether they are Gold, Dyes or Towns, you don't need to build Cottages.

Two things:
1) If you're correct, then isn't it equally true that if cottages have a vital effect on a part of the game (to wit: one of the most commonly used game strategies), then removing them would ruin those strategies and make them uncompetitive.

Sure. I was arguing that the scaling they do doesn't have a vital effect on the game. Replace them with a flat-rate improvement that has the same average yield and you won't notice a difference on the empire level.

My point was that if Cottages scale the available over time, then any strategy that doesn't scale will either be over or underpowered.

2) Frequently, Aristocracy, SE, and other game strategies rely upon a single cottage/commerce specialized city to generate a great deal of the commerce for the entire empire.

Only because Aristocracy and SE are later than Cottages. By the time you make the transition you already have several Cottage-economy towns and there is no need to change them.

I rather think it's the other way around. Build a cottage whenever you can (special resources aside... obviously I don't advocate building a cottage on a wheat; that's moronic). Build a farm only when required. Build a hammer improvement only as needed to get enough hammers.

That seems like the exact order I gave.

1. Harvest resource, obviously.
2. Build farm. When you can grow, it is required.
3. Build mine. If you need the production.
4. Build cottage. No other pressing issues.

Cottages are the default improvement built when nothing in particular is good.

Clearly, these are generalizations and city specializations over-ride this kind of thing much of the time (both for you and me, I imagine, unless you don't specialize your cities).

I do some specialization, but don't have the patience for extreme measures. Besides, it's not as useful in Fall from Heaven as in Beyond the Sword.

The reason I hold a high opinion of cottages (as well as other generators of commerce and science) is that Tech and research rate is so important to game success.

I like as much as the next guy. I only dislike Cottages and the reason is that they are so expensive.

First you have to build them, then a pop needs to spend 30 turns working a sub-par improvement. Finally you get to reap the rewards. Unfortunately they're not very good, and you have permanently locked the tile into a low powered improvement.

Farms aren't the only way to have more specialists.

Aren't they the best? Civics can give two, a few buildings give another.

How are you going to get 30 more specialists when the entire fat cross is covered with weak improvements? 60 settled Great Merchants?

I really want to know, is there some better way to get specialists than farms that I haven't though about?

Depends on how your suggested change would interact with the different game strategies. If your suggestions would change SE strategies to be more like some common medium, and change CE strategies to be more like that same common medium, then I think your changes reduce game variety (=enjoyment) and thus would be bad for the game.

I may be doing you a disservice but clearly this kind of tweaking of the system can have drastic and not necessarily obvious impact upon the game.

The only way to know is trying it out, I'll make a module.

I'm not particularly worried about disabling Cottage economies, because I think they are weak anyway. I may replace them with Plantation economies.

The thing that worries me is the early game. An extra six population unaffected by health and happy could really break things early.

 

[Vermicious Knid]

Has anybody mentioned Wild Trolls yet?

I tried a variety of 1.2 games and they all (except for the Jotnar with their +90% defense capital and their Defense 4 citizenry) ended more or less identically. My last before giving up and changing the gameinfos to make Minotaurs 4/2 and Wild Trolls 2/3 with Movespeed 1:

Kuriotates, Turn 12, Deity, Normal speed, killed by a minotaur. Reloaded from the last autosave and managed to get my mutated Stoneskin scout back to the capital (where previously exploring dungeons near your base was a bad idea, it is now an excellent one because it's not like you can spawn worse then an Enraged minotaur and you just might pick up something you can use defensively). Killed the minotaur, lost Stoneskin, picked up Guerilla 1 as we were on a hill (guarded by rivers from 4 approaches).

Turn 15, killed by 4 Wild Trolls and an enraged minotaur. Reloaded, tried to draw some aggro with my Scout, which apparently caused only 1 troll to spawn and the minotaur wasn't enraged. My second warrior had finished, so I killed both without incident and now had three Guerilla 1 units in my capital (the Scout failed to draw the aggro, so the warriors did the killing).

Turn 18, hit simultaneously by 4 Wild Trolls, 4 Orc Warriors, and a Hill Giant - which attacks first, causing collateral damage. The fact that the trolls are spawning in orc-sized groups and can't be picked off due to their defensive straight is rough, but the real killer is that they can beeline you at two squares a turn straight over hills - or mountains. There's no time to prepare and they can't be drawn off or reasoned with.

About this time I went into the WB, spawned Eurabatres, and tried to rampage angrily only to be utterly humiliated when as soon as he was out of range of my base another 5 trolls (in two groups) showed up with a wave of orcs behind them. The orcs were just out of breath range when they crashed my broken-spirited defenders.

About this time I went into the WB and spawned barbarian Abashis near everyone else's capitals. She was beaten to two of them by extant barbs. I wept.

Troll speed is going to be reduced to 1. That should help.

If that is insufficient I can move their spawning back a touch.

 

[Vermicious Knid]

The thing that worries me is the early game. An extra six population unaffected by health and happy could really break things early.

Not sure how you are going to go about this...but if you start these cottages as providing citizens only and phase the other specialist options in later it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[adecoy95]

ive played two games now to about 150 turns and i havent had too much of an issue with the spawns, they do a great job keeping me from expanding, and they will raze improvements, but as far as taking my citys they have not, i have gotten many of the 6/4 guys and the fast moving trolls many times, and they havent taken my citys yet. its possible that its because i rush for archery tho

 

[Vermicious Knid]

ive played two games now to about 150 turns and i havent had too much of an issue with the spawns, they do a great job keeping me from expanding, and they will raze improvements, but as far as taking my citys they have not, i have gotten many of the 6/4 guys and the fast moving trolls many times, and they havent taken my citys yet. its possible that its because i rush for archery tho

Honestly I haven't had any problems with the early spawns...but I'm pretty conservative in the early game.

 

[adecoy95]

maby there could be an option added in the next patch to keep the spawns like they are, something like animal invasions X-treme or something

 

[Vermicious Knid]

maby there could be an option added in the next patch to keep the spawns like they are, something like animal invasions X-treme or something

That would be tricky.


I could make the top couple of difficulty settings just ridiculous though. That would be easy enough.

 

[adecoy95]

sounds good

 

[smithroadtrip]

The only way to know is trying it out, I'll make a module.

If you make a module of this, I'd be more then happy to try it out.

 

[nutranurse]

That would be tricky.


I could make the top couple of difficulty settings just ridiculous though. That would be easy enough.

How about not? I often play these difficulties and still find it annoying to see civs fall due to minotaurs and not each other/me.

 

[Cyrusfan]

Vermicious, you mentioned you start conservatively, and previously that the spawns are balanced for the AIs on Diety. I was wondering what you consider a reasonable early city defense, since many of us don't seem to be doing an adequate job of it.

 

[Wodan]

Not really. If there already are Cottages around, you won't be building them will you?

Explain, please.

If there already are -resources around, whether they are Gold, Dyes or Towns, you don't need to build Cottages.

If I have a commerce-specialized city, I want as much commerce as I can get there (with hammers and food as necessary to support the maximum commerce generation).

Sure. I was arguing that the scaling they do doesn't have a vital effect on the game. Replace them with a flat-rate improvement that has the same average yield and you won't notice a difference on the empire level.

Of course it will be noticeable. Late game commerce will be much less.

My point was that if Cottages scale the available over time, then any strategy that doesn't scale will either be over or underpowered.

What's your basis for that conclusion?

You're exactly wrong anyway: Currently, cottages do scale over time. The mere fact of an income being scaled over time should be balanced against the required expenditure over time. And, the required expenditure over time does scale, and we have not discussed changing that fact. Thus, they match.

If we change cottages to not scale, then they will not match against the expenditure which scales. So, the non-scaled cottages will either be overpowered early game (because we change them to a flat rate which is higher than the current level early game), or underpowered late game (because we change them to a flat rate which is lower than the current level late game).

Only because Aristocracy and SE are later than Cottages. By the time you make the transition you already have several Cottage-economy towns and there is no need to change them.

Even if they were available early game, it would still be good strategy to do it, so your argument doesn't hold.

That seems like the exact order I gave.

1. Harvest resource, obviously.
2. Build farm. When you can grow, it is required.
3. Build mine. If you need the production.
4. Build cottage. No other pressing issues.

Cottages are the default improvement built when nothing in particular is good.

The difference is that you define all food as good. But, food is not always good. The best player wouldn't want city growth to outpace happy/health. Once the city is at max size, food is worthless. Same with hammers. While it's one thing to say we can always use more hammers, a city specialized to produce commerce wants to maximize those commerce multipliers and hammers are a necessary evil to be minimized.

Bottom line, food is a means to an end. The end is to have the city generate research/gold.

City specialization means some cities are desired to maximize commerce output. So, only enough food to enable citizens to work commerce tiles or run commerce specialists would be warranted. And, only enough hammers to generate any desired buildings would be warranted.

Your list would maximize both food and hammers when my list minimizes them.

I think your proposed changes suit your game style. But there are plenty of other players the game caters to, each with their own game style. Would you spite all of them to suit yourself?

I do some specialization, but don't have the patience for extreme measures. Besides, it's not as useful in Fall from Heaven as in Beyond the Sword.

Maybe because you don't do it, you see it as not as useful?

I like as much as the next guy. I only dislike Cottages and the reason is that they are so expensive.

First you have to build them, then a pop needs to spend 30 turns working a sub-par improvement. Finally you get to reap the rewards. Unfortunately they're not very good, and you have permanently locked the tile into a low powered improvement.

Let's make them better then. How about a double-speed civic, like we have in BtS?

Aren't they the best? Civics can give two, a few buildings give another.

How are you going to get 30 more specialists when the entire fat cross is covered with weak improvements? 60 settled Great Merchants?

30 is too high a number. Some tile improvements enable more than the 1 specialist a cottage would give you. And, as you say, some civics give some, some buildings give some, some wonders give some.

I'm not particularly worried about disabling Cottage economies, because I think they are weak anyway. I may replace them with Plantation economies.

The thing that worries me is the early game. An extra six population unaffected by health and happy could really break things early.

The former doesn't "worry" me so much as "meh". You're taking something away with one hand and say you'll add something else with the other hand. Assuming you can enable as good or better of a game strategy, I suppose it might be a slight improvement.

For the latter, I brought it up first.

 

[odalrick]

If I have a commerce-specialized city, I want as much commerce as I can get there (with hammers and food as necessary to support the maximum commerce generation).

And you won't be replacing generating improvements with cottages. You only build cottages when there isn't already a generating improvement.

Of course it will be noticeable. Late game commerce will be much less.

By flat-rate I meant an improvement that doesn't grow, like a Plantation. It can still get tech dependent boosts, at each stage in the game matching the average expected income from cottages.

You're exactly wrong anyway: Currently, cottages do scale over time. The mere fact of an income being scaled over time should be balanced against the required expenditure over time. And, the required expenditure over time does scale, and we have not discussed changing that fact. Thus, they match.

If we change cottages to not scale, then they will not match against the expenditure which scales. So, the non-scaled cottages will either be overpowered early game (because we change them to a flat rate which is higher than the current level early game), or underpowered late game (because we change them to a flat rate which is lower than the current level late game).

Come to think about it, I'm not convinced cottages grow in output if taken as an average. They have a maximum output and as they reach that, population growth requires new cottages. On average, beyond the first few Towns, they might generate about 3 each. The only benefit you get from growing cottages is increased vulnerability to pillagers.

Even if they were available early game, it would still be good strategy to do it, so your argument doesn't hold.

No, it wouldn't.

You set your civics and research priorities to benefit your main strategy. Ideally all cities follow that mainline, because that is where you have the most advantage. Only if you already have cities committed to another strategy does it make sense to diverge.

The difference is that you define all food as good. But, food is not always good. The best player wouldn't want city growth to outpace happy/health. Once the city is at max size, food is worthless.

No I said "if you can grow". It's not a list where you should build the first improvement that can be built. It's the order you evaluate if you need the improvements in. If cottages were first on the list, one would only ever build cottages, because one always need more .

As a side note, I think there is rarely any reason to avoid by limiting growth. Combat that with resources or buildings, but keep your population at the happy cap. If the governor could be set to "work or starve" management, I wouldn't even care about the happy cap, unhappy citizens mean faster growth when I get more happy.

Your list would maximize both food and hammers when my list minimizes them.

No, my list sets and to the desired levels and shunts the rest into . It works equally well with Scions and Calabim.

Minimizing and is insane. That means food: = 2*population + ); +1 when growing and 1.

Maybe because you don't do it, you see it as not as useful?

I know that it is useful. Just not as useful as in Beyond the Sword. It's because buildings are less powerful in Fall from Heaven.

Let's make them better then. How about a double-speed civic, like we have in BtS?

Doesn't Beyond the Sword have three cottage civics?

Yes, cottages could be boosted to the point where they aren't too expensive for their effort. I doubt the AI could be programmed to use and abuse them though.

 

[Wodan]

And you won't be replacing generating improvements with cottages. You only build cottages when there isn't already a generating improvement.

Are you using the game term "improvement" to describe "resource"? Because otherwise I'm increasingly thinking you and I aren't talking about the same thing.

By flat-rate I meant an improvement that doesn't grow, like a Plantation.

That's what I meant, too.

It can still get tech dependent boosts, at each stage in the game matching the average expected income from cottages.

Ah, good point. I had forgotten about that. Hrmm. I'll have to rethink everything I've said.

Come to think about it, I'm not convinced cottages grow in output if taken as an average. They have a maximum output and as they reach that, population growth requires new cottages.

That doesn't make sense. Don't you mean "more cottages growth requires more population"?

No, it wouldn't.

You set your civics and research priorities to benefit your main strategy. Ideally all cities follow that mainline, because that is where you have the most advantage. Only if you already have cities committed to another strategy does it make sense to diverge.

Civics are empire wide bonuses, correct. And to max leverage civics, you want all your cities to be homogenous.

Running counter to that are city-specific bonuses, some of which are limited in number of cities (wonders, settled great people, GPP generation, etc.) Even ones that don't have an overt limit (buildings) are limited in that they require generation of hammers to produce, so they are limited both in time (time because you don't realize the benefit until you have invested X turns) and by the hammers. To maximize the single city bonus, it is necessary to specialize each city to most leverage the bonuses available to that city.

The player must balance these two trends against each other. And also take into account that, empire wide, the player has certain needs... a certain amount of production of units/wonders, a certain amount of generation of research, etc.

So, when looking at a city and deciding if that city should over-ride the empire-wide bonuses, the player must balance all those factors. Quite often, it is good to have a GP farm, for example. Despite the fact that the empire may be running civics that do not encourage this, it nevertheless is more beneficial to have a single city which is specialized to generate GP, even if that city has non-optimal leverage of civics.

Same is true of money generation, or research, or units. It often is good to have a single city or couple of cities which are optimized to generate one of those things. Even if that city does not leverage the empire's chosen civics.

Back to your statement. Yes, "ideally" you want all cities to be homogenous, to max leverage your empire's chosen civics. However, ideally you ALSO want to maximize single-city benefits. And, this is true whether you already have such cities, or are starting them from scratch. So I am of different opinion on both those statements.

 

[odalrick]

Are you using the game term "improvement" to describe "resource"? Because otherwise I'm increasingly thinking you and I aren't talking about the same thing.

You said cottages were a resource. Tiles in general have pitiful output unless there is an improvement there.

But regardless of what is actually in the tile, the only time you build Cottages is when the tile isn't generating enough . The function of cottages is to give where there is none.

That doesn't make sense. Don't you mean "more cottages growth requires more population"?

No, when your population grows (higher happycap) you need more cottages.

Because cottages upgrades are limited*, they don't scale growth. It is population that grows to harvest more , the fact that cottages upgrade is immaterial. They could be replaced by a flat-rate improvement that has the same average output. All the upgrade mechanic does is make you more vulnerable to pillagers.

* Limited in this context means that they reach maximum potential within a short time compared to the time considered. Since it's early game compared to late game, I think they do. Cottages become Towns in 100 turns, I think. That's short compared to the time between early and late game, which means that Cottages don't scale available between early and late game.

This is broad strokes of course and to some extent they do grow output. I'm not convinced it is to a great extent, and the fact that fixed income/pop strategies are viable supports my position.

Civics are empire wide bonuses, correct. And to max leverage civics, you want all your cities to be homogenous.

Running counter to that are city-specific bonuses, some of which are limited in number of cities (wonders, settled great people, GPP generation, etc.)

But city-specific bonuses are also empire wide, in that they require techs to build.

To maximize the single city bonus, it is necessary to specialize each city to most leverage the bonuses available to that city.

But how could the map make a cottage city better than a specialist city when everything else is set up for the specialist city?

Low food potential? To me that would suggest a production city or the settler should settle somewhere else. No other space left -> late game, the cottages wont mature. The one scenario that makes sense is strategically important spot. In that case I could see cottaging, not because it is good; only least bad.

Other reasons?

Quite often, it is good to have a GP farm, for example. Despite the fact that the empire may be running civics that do not encourage this, it nevertheless is more beneficial to have a single city which is specialized to generate GP, even if that city has non-optimal leverage of civics.

I'm not questioning a GP-farm, in a cottage economy, specialist economy or aristograrian. Nor military production centres.

I question that it is a good strategy to make a cottage city when you are already set up for some other dominant strategy, for instance aristograrian. Legacy cities get a pass because they are already "done". You claimed that even if aristogracy was available from the beginning, some cities would still be cottaged.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Considering how the base BtS players usually swoon over cottages, with Attacko being the only one who opposes them, suck dislike for FfH/RiFE cottages is noticeable.

Maybe Agristocracy just needs nerfing or something.

 

[Valkrionn]

Might be time to discuss this in it's own thread, rather than the ever-larger stickied thread...