So, are these mods so necessery? is the game really out balance?

[ZooBooBooZoo]

Hi there, I'm pretty new to Civ5 and I've been searching mods today

And I found a lot of modpacks FILLED with TONS of stuff.
and I'm talking about "balancing" mods, not fictionalize mods, or additions of Civs, leaders etc.


Is the game really so out of balance?

and are these "home-made" mods more balanced, and if so, which one is the best and most realistic one? (up until now unofficial patch/vanilla seems to be the most serious player in these balancing game, but I've only glanced at all of these mods specs...)

 

[CivOasis]

Personally, I don't care for the balance mods. I usually go for mods that add significant new features.

 

[Spatzimaus]

It depends on who you ask.

In my opinion yes, the vanilla game is that out of balance. Not that it's ALWAYS out of balance, but that if the player deliberately plays an "artificial" playstyle, he can take advantage of a number of imbalances that the AI won't be able to address. Back when Civ5 was first released, there was a common strategy known as ICS that involved you placing small cities in a VERY compact grid, keeping their sizes extremely low to limit unhappiness, and take advantage of the unbalanced Scientist slots in the early buildings. Eventually, the developers fixed this imbalance... using the exact same methods that certain people had already implemented in their balance mods. There are a few other balance issues that you'll start to notice after a while... Wonders that the AI doesn't go for, techs that it won't prioritize, or units that it'll just build too many of. A few small tweaks here and there can fix a lot of that.

Also, there are some balance mods that don't FIX the balance, so much as change it. For instance, my own Balance mod (see sig) shifts the balance a bit towards a defensive, builder playstyle in a few different ways. Start with a higher base unhappiness per city and then make more buildings add +1 happiness, and you encourage vertical development of cities more. Reduce the research rate boosts of research buildings, and you limit how quickly the late-game tech costs accelerate. Increase the amount of food needed to grow a city, and then provide more food storage buildings to compensate. Add more defensive penalties, and it becomes harder to get an overpowering advantage through an early war. And so on.
These aren't "balance" mods in the sense of fixing an imbalance in the core game; instead, they shift the balance towards a playstyle you might like better. (In some cases, they shift it towards a playstyle that the AI already knows how to do, to level the playing field a bit better.)

Now, if you're talking about balance mods, the gold standard is Thalassicus' set, which you're already aware of. There ARE a few others, but they depend on your personal tastes. Also, there are compatibility issues; my own balance mod might not have everything you want, but it's guaranteed to be compatible with my content mods, which most others aren't. (Yet. I'm working on cross-compatibility.)

Beyond that, your best bet is to go into the Modpacks and Projects forums, look for the threads that are active, and see if those mods are up your alley.

 

[Ahriman]

I think there are some pretty severe balance problems in the vanilla game. I would add my recommendation to Thalassicus's VEM mod. The combination of a large set of balance changes and tweaks makes the game play very differently.

I'm suspicious of smaller mods that try to change just a few actions, without thinking about the consequences of what those imply. I think a total economy overhaul like that of VEM is the only way to go.

 

[Spatzimaus]

(Sorry I couldn't respond to this earlier, but I was on a pseudo-vacation with very limited 'net access.)

I'm suspicious of smaller mods that try to change just a few actions, without thinking about the consequences of what those imply. I think a total economy overhaul like that of VEM is the only way to go.

This is the biggest single problem. Someone thinks "I'll slow down tech rates!" and uses a simple SQL command to inflate the tech costs... and now the game ends in a Time victory every time because the game still thinks that time runs out after the same 500 turns as before. Or they change the base city growth rate equation, neglecting its secondary effects on research rate and trade route income. Or they boost an Engineer's yield output, only to find that the AI now fills those slots every time and the cities starve from lack of food. And so on; many, many things interlock in this game, and changing any one thing invariably requires changing all sorts of other related bits.

Given this, the most successful "balance" mods are the ones that alter a wide spectrum of things simultaneously. You get small changes to a variety of areas, all of which reinforce each other in ways that don't screw the game up badly in any specific way. If handled well, these can shift the game towards a more interesting playstyle while still keeping the AI competitive. But if it was designed badly, then you can get some utterly broken games.

 

[Ahriman]

Exactly. This is why some of the larger mods with a big base of people using them (and implicitly stress-testing them for weaknesses or exploits) often tend to work out better. Which one you prefer will obviously depend on your individual preferences for what is the most fun for you.

 

[Pazyryk]

This is also why critiquing single changes is a fruitless exercise. It's possible that Change A or Change B will break the game individually, but Change A + B doesn't. The best thing is when the modder can clearly state his/her objective. A player can agree or disagree with the objective (which the modder can ignore or not as they please). But the most helpful critique is when a player says: "change B, D and F are not working toward your objective because..." or "here is a different way to reach your objective."

 

[Noatz]

If you're new to Civ5 you probably won't realise this yet, but after you've played a few games (especially on higher difficulties) you'll begin to see that there are a set few tech/build paths that are just flat out better. You'll begin to use them every game. And it will get boring.

The best example is firstly ICS, which has been fixed (first by modders as mentioned above), and another; which is still an issue, is your cookie-cutter beeline to education-astronomy for rationalism opener, spammage of research agreements tech strategy. There are others too(like the landmark culture strat), but the point is that what the balance mods do is allow you to play the game in new ways without the knowledge that what you are doing is necessarily "suboptimal".

 

[Spatzimaus]

you'll begin to see that there are a set few tech/build paths that are just flat out better. You'll begin to use them every game. And it will get boring.

Most of these are very simple to fix; add a few tech crosslinks (i.e., have the key "beeline" tech require some new tech that it didn't before) and it becomes much harder to purely progress towards any specific tech, without also increasing your research in other areas. Take the Modern Era as an example; in the vanilla game, it's basically four 3-tech chains with little or no interaction. You can beeline down one chain to get, say, Globalization, without ever leaving the Industrial Era in the physical sciences. But add a few extra dependencies (Rocketry requiring Robotics as well as Computers, Radar requiring Combustion, Ecology requiring Electronics, Computers requiring Radar) and suddenly that gets a lot harder to do; instead of Globalization only needing three of the X=11 Industrial techs, it'd now need all five. Obviously the Modern Era is long after the period where these decisions really matter, but it's just a good indicator of what's wrong with the game's design.

Similar reworking can be done to the earlier eras (and I have, in my mods) to prevent those sorts of tactics. It'd still be possible to focus your research towards one area, like the AI would with its Flavor system, but you wouldn't be able to completely ignore one side of the tech tree like you can now.

 

[Noatz]

Most of these are very simple to fix; add a few tech crosslinks (i.e., have the key "beeline" tech require some new tech that it didn't before) and it becomes much harder to purely progress towards any specific tech, without also increasing your research in other areas. Take the Modern Era as an example; in the vanilla game, it's basically four 3-tech chains with little or no interaction. You can beeline down one chain to get, say, Globalization, without ever leaving the Industrial Era in the physical sciences. But add a few extra dependencies (Rocketry requiring Robotics as well as Computers, Radar requiring Combustion, Ecology requiring Electronics, Computers requiring Radar) and suddenly that gets a lot harder to do; instead of Globalization only needing three of the X=11 Industrial techs, it'd now need all five. Obviously the Modern Era is long after the period where these decisions really matter, but it's just a good indicator of what's wrong with the game's design.

Similar reworking can be done to the earlier eras (and I have, in my mods) to prevent those sorts of tactics. It'd still be possible to focus your research towards one area, like the AI would with its Flavor system, but you wouldn't be able to completely ignore one side of the tech tree like you can now.

I think the Modern Era is set up this way due to it being endgame. By the time you reach it in vanillla you're typically closing in on a victory condition anyway, and even the science win won't see you research much beyond the robotics path by the time you launch the spaceship. Those techs exist as separate paths you choose depending on what your VC will be: Nuke path for domination, Robotics for space, Globalization for diplo etc.

Whether or not this is good design is a matter of opinion, but thats my understanding of the rationale behind the isolated paths at least.

Modding in an extra future content (as my mod does) does necessitate some rebalancing of this, however its not easy making the paths more interconnected and adjoining logically to your future ones while retaining flavour and sense (currently my tech tree retains a few minor oddities still after much thought invested).

On the other hand some of the existing tech tree is illogical anyway - how do you get Advanced Ballistics/Nuclear Missiles without Rocketry? How does Stealth lead to Nuclear Fusion?

 

[Spatzimaus]

I think the Modern Era is set up this way due to it being endgame.

It is. I was just using it as the example because A) it's a VERY clear pattern and B) I had that part of the tree in front of me when I posted. Since my Alpha Centauri mod (link in .sig) is obviously future-based, with three full eras beyond the existing content, I had to overhaul that era in the first place (rebalancing pretty much every unit, building, and tech from about the mid-Industrial on since nearly all were balanced around the game ending in that era).

My point was that there are similar points in the earlier eras, where at least one line of techs can be pursued an era or more beyond your weakest available techs. That just shouldn't be possible; the difference in X-value between the highest tech you've taken and the lowest tech you HAVEN'T taken should never be more than 2-3, IMO. The Astronomy beeline is a good example of this, but it's hardly the only one; the whole Machinery/Physics area is very isolated from the rest of the tree as well, allowing you to progress along the swords/guns unit chain very quickly. I've adjusted that somewhat in my Mythology mod (released tomorrow, most likely), however.

On the other hand some of the existing tech tree is illogical anyway - how do you get Advanced Ballistics/Nuclear Missiles without Rocketry? How does Stealth lead to Nuclear Fusion?

That last one's actually not so bad once you realize that "Stealth" is basically "Composites" (the Civ4 tech that gave the stealth bomber). The Nuclear Missile, on the other hand, is a good example of where they should have retained the ability to have a unit require two techs, if only so that it doesn't make Atomic Bombs go obsolete one tech after you get them.

If you want illogical, though, go back to the start of the tech tree. Pottery leading to Sailing is kind of justifiable, but look at all of the "science" techs that don't depend on Writing...

 

[Noatz]

It is. I was just using it as the example because A) it's a VERY clear pattern and B) I had that part of the tree in front of me when I posted. Since my Alpha Centauri mod (link in .sig) is obviously future-based, with three full eras beyond the existing content, I had to overhaul that era in the first place (rebalancing pretty much every unit, building, and tech from about the mid-Industrial on since nearly all were balanced around the game ending in that era).

My point was that there are similar points in the earlier eras, where at least one line of techs can be pursued an era or more beyond your weakest available techs. That just shouldn't be possible; the difference in X-value between the highest tech you've taken and the lowest tech you HAVEN'T taken should never be more than 2-3, IMO. The Astronomy beeline is a good example of this, but it's hardly the only one; the whole Machinery/Physics area is very isolated from the rest of the tree as well, allowing you to progress along the swords/guns unit chain very quickly. I've adjusted that somewhat in my Mythology mod (released tomorrow, most likely), however.



That last one's actually not so bad once you realize that "Stealth" is basically "Composites" (the Civ4 tech that gave the stealth bomber). The Nuclear Missile, on the other hand, is a good example of where they should have retained the ability to have a unit require two techs, if only so that it doesn't make Atomic Bombs go obsolete one tech after you get them.

If you want illogical, though, go back to the start of the tech tree. Pottery leading to Sailing is kind of justifiable, but look at all of the "science" techs that don't depend on Writing...

Oh I know, I used those two because they were the first that sprang to mind (I renamed Stealth to Synthetics in my mod, because its stupid imo to use that as a tech - in the Civ5 manner - where all techs lead to another one). Some other awesome tech tree bloopers include the ability to get Mech Inf before rifles, and being able to build cannon wielding Frigates before discovering Gunpowder.

Also the beelines you mention are one of the major causes that make research agreements absurdly strong; you can rack up a crazy median tech value in the Renaissance by teching or bulbing Navigation-Archeology. In fact you can get Archaeology without researching Mining or Archery, which is mental (apart from anything else, how do you dig up the ancient remains if can't build mines or quarries? ).

I think this is fine up until a point; it represents Civs diversifying in their technology which happened historically. The Chinese invented gunpowder long before it appeared in Europe for example, but in later eras this excuse doesn't wash given how much faster technology propogates or "trickles down" after the Information Revolution.

 

[Putmalk]

People like change, different things, so mods exist for this reason.

If you perceive their to be balance issues, then mods are a perfect way of correcting them (in your own vision).

If you want to explore history, then mods are the best way to attempt that.

If you just want to have fun, then mods are the best way to attempt that.

That is why mods exist.

To answer your question about why there are so many balance mods, that's because people believe their are balance issues and they want to correct them. That doesn't mean they exist, that is merely the user's choice. If you think the base game is unbalanced, try some of the balance mods out. If you don't think so...well, stick to base vanilla.

 

[MadDjinn]

To answer your question about why there are so many balance mods, that's because people believe their are balance issues and they want to correct them. That doesn't mean they exist, that is merely the user's choice. If you think the base game is unbalanced, try some of the balance mods out. If you don't think so...well, stick to base vanilla.

Even still, vanilla may be unbalanced, but at least the AI has a hope of understanding it. Until the dll is out and real changes can be made (including ensuring the AI understands the new 'balance') there really can't be any pure balance mods.

That is - Someone might 'balance' out various strategies, units/buildings/abilities/etc, but the AI won't understand how to use the new stuff correctly, so it'll just plow on trying the same old things it was coded to do.

 

[PawelS]

I think the AI doesn't understand the current balance correctly, and some changes may actually help it...

 

[Pazyryk]

That is - Someone might 'balance' out various strategies, units/buildings/abilities/etc, but the AI won't understand how to use the new stuff correctly, so it'll just plow on trying the same old things it was coded to do.

The AI doesn't "understand" anything. It has certain behaviors that are (in a very limited way) adjusted by feedback, giving it a tiny bit of adaptability (I use that word in a very generous way). Expert players (like yourself) can easily identify places where the AI behavior is not matched well at all to the current game rules/balance, or where there really is no AI at all. These are often areas were the AI handicap boniness have to be particularly heavy handed, or where deity players like yourself can really crush the AI players. If a modder changes stuff while ignoring (or ignorant of) current AI behavior, then what you say is exactly true. However, if a modder changes stuff with a very good understanding of current AI behavior (for example, after watching your playthroughs and mastering Deity play), then there are quite a few areas where re-balance or added mechanisms can enhance AI competitiveness without adding AI bonus.

In any case, new stuff added by a mod will require new AI. This is not easy at all. Not easy in Lua. Won't be easy with dll either. So please don't think I'm saying it's easy (did I make that clear?). OK, now then, there is a lot you can do with AI via Lua. You have full control of tech/policy selection, unit movement, and so on.

 

[Ahriman]

I think the AI doesn't understand the current balance correctly, and some changes may actually help it...

Its certainly true that balance changes can end up helping the AI, by strengthening strategies that the AI tends to favor while weakening strategies that the AI doesn't use well. I think an important value of some balance mods is the tendency to tweak the game towards the limitations of the AI.

 

[Spatzimaus]

However, if a modder changes stuff with a very good understanding of current AI behavior ... then there are quite a few areas where re-balance or added mechanisms can enhance AI competitiveness without adding AI bonus.

Exactly. Some of the better balance mods see what the AI is already doing, and adjust the game in a way that encourages the player to follow those same strategies.

The AI picks techs almost randomly, while the human will beeline up one side of the tech tree to get key techs. Solution? Add more tech interdependencies so that it becomes impossible to go straight for a single tech.

The AI won't expand as fast as possible, only settling a new city once it has a small buffer of Happiness to where it knows it won't go negative by doing so. Solution? Change the base unhappiness values and the amount you get from population so that the player will think twice before settling a new city.

The AI won't use Avoid Growth to keep cities from growing past small sizes, while the humans used ICS to win easily. Solution? Make it so that ICS doesn't work and the player goes back to playing like the AI does, with cities growing at normal rates.

-------------
The Flavor system is actually pretty flexible, because it doesn't care exactly WHAT the bonuses of a building or unit are, as long as you can fit them into one of its categories. If I make a national wonder that gives the owner a chance of stealing techs it doesn't have from the other players, then the AI doesn't need to actually understand the effect of the building. You just give it FLAVOR_SCIENCE, and the AI thinks "hmm, I need more science... okay that building should be good for that." It doesn't care exactly how the effect relates to science.
Or consider yields, which are something the AI already understands. Maybe you add a new unit action allowing a worker to plant a forest on certain terrains; the AI only needs to think that doing this action will add production to a tile. Even if it has no clue what the actual effect is, it'll choose that action when it thinks it needs more production.

The AI will have problems if the thing you add requires a conscious decision, but if the effect is passive, random, or strictly yield-related, then the AI handles it about as well as the human would. That leaves a lot of room for mods to work with, improving the game without crippling the AI.

 

[MadDjinn]

The AI doesn't "understand" anything.

yes yes I know... but for laymens terms, its fine.

(I could get into how it's actually insulting to even call it an AI, but that's a different tangent)

The point was that if the current AI can't incorporate the changes into it's current decision making processes, then it'll break it even more than not making the changes.

And yeah, there are some things that can be fixed without the dll, but to really make the game better, the dll is needed.

I don't consider mods that force the player to act more like the AI a 'balance' mod, since the AI is a really really really bad player. Sure it 'levels' the playing field a bit, but doesn't make the gameplay better. MP players won't get anything out of it either.

I would prefer, however, a system where the AI can play effectively on at least some higher levels, without actually needing heavy handed handicaps. So I don't mind that the Deity AI gets extra settlers/workers to start (it's supposed to be really hard, but isn't) but the heavy handed happiness handicap is a bit much. (fixing the AI to make better gold/happiness/expansion/etc choices would be the right approach)

 

[Ahriman]

The point was that if the current AI can't incorporate the changes into it's current decision making processes, then it'll break it even more than not making the changes.

And the point that we're making is that this isn't necessarily true, if changes are made in a way that is sensitive to the limitations of the AI.

but to really make the game better, the dll is needed.

The fact that there are some hugely successful mods suggests that this is not true. Sure, to fix *everything* you'd need more access, but there is an amazing amount that can and has been done with what is available.

Sure it 'levels' the playing field a bit, but doesn't make the gameplay better

Actually it does. Try it. For example, in vanilla Civ Maritime city states are ridiculously powerful, but the AI doesn't always realize that. So the human can get a huge advantage by investing in them. In a mod where Maritime city states are less powerful, investing in MarCSs is not a no-brainer decision, the playing field is more level and gameplay is much improved. The human is "forced" to act more like the AI (who doesn't always grab the MarCSs) because now it isn't always a good strategy to devote your gold to them.

I would prefer, however, a system where the AI can play effectively on at least some higher levels, without actually needing heavy handed handicaps. So I don't mind that the Deity AI gets extra settlers/workers to start (it's supposed to be really hard, but isn't) but the heavy handed happiness handicap is a bit much. (fixing the AI to make better gold/happiness/expansion/etc choices would be the right approach)

Many of the balance mods (VEM for example) remove the ridiculous AI happiness and food bonuses that exist on the higher difficulty levels.
The game remains hard on high difficulty levels because many of the tricks and semi-exploits that let the player win are weakened too.

Perhaps you should try some of these balance mods before declaring that they can't really make the game better?