Discussion in 'Bugs and Crashes' started by Thunderbrd, Oct 20, 2019.
gold per turn (income/expense) doesn't scale by gamespeed. On fast gamespeeds one can more easily get away with having a small standing army as building one up is fast, while you'll quickly regret having to build 100 units in 3 turns on eternity if war comes sudden and unexpected.
Hmm, this is what I got when loading your save... Try a recalc.
Yeah? hmm... so it's something failing about free unit upkeep then huh? Alright.
Yeah, he hadn't recalculated, the value for the initial amount of base free upkeep gold stored in this save must have turned out as 0 somehow...
I haven't seen this happening in any of my old saves or saves from games started after the upkeep change, so I've no idea how it came to be for Joe's save.
A pre-upkeepRewrite save would have 0 free upkeep until a recalc is done.
Only other hypothesis I have on what could cause it would be if the global define for it was missing from its xml when the game was started or when the last recalc was done.
If the game after a Git update asks for a recalc I Always do the Recalc, Always. I don't forget to do it. It takes 35 seconds on my comp to go thru a recalc. I have been timing them for a long time now.
Another example of an upgrade that is cost way too much in screenshot. From gatherer to 1st worker costs 78 Gold. It's better to Not even bother to upgrade a unit like this. Just delete them and build the worker. Slows down the terrain improvement going on. But the cost is not worth the upgrade. This is not the only one. There will be more of them I'm sure.
EDIT: just did a Ctrl Shift T took 10 seconds this time and now I have 34 free units and am making Gold/turn again. But I will say it again this morning after the Github update which pulled 3 commits it did Not ask for a re-Calc. If it had I would have done so. So from now on any time Gitdesktop updates with new commits whether the game asks or not I Will do Re-calc at start.
Upgrade cost should be the same before and after the unit upkeep system change. Upkeep cost is unrelated to upgrade cost, upgrade cost is based on hammer cost of units.
I don't think worker and gatherer hammer cost have changed much the past couple months.
Maybe it didn't ask for it.... Anyhow a recalc was needed on your save. Only xml changes trigger the recalc, but sometimes a code change can require a recalc as well, but it won't trigger the recalc message.
You "don't think:, which means you are really not sure. I have complained about the upgrade costs for the past year plus. But T-brd kept saying he was going thru the Mil units and re-evaluating costs and so be patient. But I have always complained about the upgrade costs to workers, LE, Healers, and Story teller line. They have always been too high. But under the old system of cost they could be managed by throwing a city or 2 on meager or lesser Wealth. Not so much now. The belt is considerably tighter on the Gold per turn with these "new" costs. So you goal has been achieved and then some. Suck in the gut and don't complain if it hurts too much. I understand.
We still have a problem with too much gold. So unit upkeep need to be higher than it currently is.
Not in the early game we don't. Late mid game and on I will agree. The timing of When to belt tighten is a critical factor in a fluid game play. I disagree with your current heavy hand in the early game. Now if you had started your tightening in the Mid Classical era the approach would be smoother imhpo.
EDIT: And those that complain about too much gold early are playing the Longer GS. Will you admit that fact?
If you can ever feel like production is less valuable than gold than we're finally winning a balance war we've always lost. You're talking too about a unit you get at the beginning of the prehistoric to one you don't get to upgrade until the end of it - that's GOING to be a huge upgrade expense. The difference in production is that large. And yeah, I usually budget to just sacrifice all my gatherers unless I've got a LOT of gold, or I hold onto them until the gold has inflated so much that the cost is meaningless.
Yeah, someone tinkered with the trigger mechanism on that again to try and fix it since we all know it's never worked properly and now its broken the other way where it doesn't say to update most of the time it should. I noticed that too but again, I really don't want to have to mess with that thing - it might be based on SVN versions too which would mean if we're doing this through Git, WE don't get an automatic popup to invite the recalc. I'm not sure how it is setup at the moment.
Base production may have adjusted a tiny amount somehow but I don't remember any reason that they would've. This should be something that stayed constant. And who can be too sure of anything with how many modders tinker here and there. I don't recall any need to recost them since the last version release at least.
I agree gold balance isn't all that bad at all in the early game last I saw and we needed more tightening at about the point you mentioned, which is definitely what will happen with unit cost expenses rising according to the charts I have designed. We're also looking at some problems in recalculation that may be taking place still with replaced buildings somehow - there has been a glut that shouldn't be there for a while now but only experienced as buildings start to get replaced so I'm not sure how much the balance is skewed from trying to fix this or how much it may yet be once fully repaired.
I see it on ultrafast too, I've only played "ultrafast" → "long" gamespeeds the last two years, and there's too much gold, even early ancient era, it seems a bit better with he upkeep code change to be honest.
Early game will always require special treatment as it's a unique stage where you cannot have much if any expenses, while any other stage of the game you have too little in expense.
There's many ways to reduce early game upkeep, you can add more free unit upkeep or reduced upkeep cost percentage to obedience and other early civics, or reduce the base global define value and add a lot upkeep cost increases to late game civics.
I'm also planning to add in a new building tag which allows buildings like barracks to increase the amount of free unit upkeep.
Anyhow, balance was never the point/goal of the upkeep code rewrite, it was to simplify doing more wirth it for modders going forward. Sure it may have changed balance a bit, but balance in early game wasn't perfect before this shift either, and the shift seems small and an improvement from what I saw during testing.
I'm on a late ancient era game, changing difficulty from noble to deity brings me from a 1.5K net gold surplus at 0% taxes on noble to being worryingly in the red on deity. Difficulty level matters a lot for gold expenses, it's the main difference that I notice (and the second thing I notice is crime and education levels dropping, you need way more police, doctors and teachers on higher difficulties... and it again adds up to your expenses). It forces you to expand slowly and build up strong cities before you can support further campaigns or expansions. In the end, I stayed on emperor for the time being. Hopefully I can increase the difficulty again later eras to make the AI more challenging. Game speed is marathon.
It feels somewhat like an artificial containment system though. I had a city culturally flip to me and suddenly I was getting about 180 gpt less, I wanted to forward settle a new city to secure the ever so scarce tin resource but now I'll have to wait for the newly flipped city to turn a profit before I can even think of it. Now the AI is not expanding much for some reason, but I can see it's not from a lack of gold since they don't have the higher upkeep costs, with them being on noble difficulty.
Are you Actually playing the game Or are you letting the AI run the test game? Big difference between the 2. And while raxxo made Ultra for testing his Dual map scenario I do not use it for testing. It becomes skewed from the median results just like any GS longer than Marathon does.
You both stated this came from discussions with Pit over his exaggerated scenario. Yet did you take into account how much he has tinkered with his start set up? I would bet not. Basing decisions on too opposite exaggerations of Mod game play does Not seem like a prudent approach to testing and/or adding new mechanisms to the mod. Nor is relying on letting the game AI run for you results. Actual game play testing is better in all regards. BUT it does require more time, obviously. When you do play test without using AI runs you learn more about the interactions of the various mechanisms the Mod has. AI runs is a glossed overview at best. And really it's best attribute is How the AI performs against other AI. The Human interaction is totally missing. And That is a Huge difference.
Ultrafast is generally for testing/debugging only, not for actual gameplay.
Its for getting quickly to later eras.
When I actually play the game I use normal and long mostly, and when I use autoplay to quickly get to a certain point of the game for a test/debug I usually pick ultrafast so it doesn't take so long to reach the point I want. If I really wanna enyjoy a game for long I use epic or marathon, but I haven't really had time to sit down and really enjoy C2C the last couple years, I've had fast paced games which can be enjoyable too, but I've rarely play them past medieval the last couple years.
It was just a coincidence that we discussed it in that thread, it was off topic and none of it was triggered by his scenario in particular. The discussion did start 2 years ago or so between me and TB in a completly different thread, where I suggested big changes to unit upkeep that TB said was impossible with the vanilla upkeep code.
I've yet to see a save where unit upkeep under the new system is unreasonably holding the player back in early game on high difficulty.
In your save I could set research to 100% and still earned 24 gold per turn, unit upkeep was a measly 6 gold per turn, and you had over-expanded in that save relative to your total pop / tech level / difficulty level.
City maintenance was the biggest expense at 65 gold per turn.
Unless you have a better foundation than this to argue with me on, I won't take you seriously.
Seems like he was affected by shortlived bug, that is fixed now.
Joseph needs to recalculate save.
Ah I see. If I can't give formulas, hard cold facts, then my experiences and intuition is irrelevant again. Okay been there before. Won't point out things now unless it's a real Bug and not a design problem.
Was already done yesterday and posted about too. Late to the party again raxxo. smh
Just to be clear, do we really have one or the other right now? I'm not sure where we've fallen on things in the end here. Asking out of respect to see if we've addressed everything or not.
If you're saying that units are being made too expensive, can we agree that can easily be rectified by then being a little more generous somewhere in the civics themselves?
Only further play will tell. I don't have a bug per se atm. But I do disagree with the when it starts and how much it costs at the starting level of this new mechanism. But, as pointed out, this is just my opinion and is not significant without cold hard data.
Civics Are more flexible than this new system of costs (imo). So your question will always be true to some extent. How flexible is yet to be seen as the Eras are played out.
Now we shall see if I can maintain my interest after being summarily dismissed.
What svn repository address holds version 11131?
Separate names with a comma.