Some ideas for balancing and further development

[BiteInTheMark]

Rework of tradition:

Adopting Tradition grants:
- +1 to food, production, faith, culture in capital, growth in capital increased by 15%

Each Tradition Policy grants an additional:
- +1 to food, production, gold in capital, growth in every city increased by 3%

Justice:
- +5% production of buildings, that exist in capital.
Royal Guardhouse: +0.34 production in capital for every building in capital, increased by era. Engineer slot

Sovereignty:
- Culture cost of tiles reduced by 20%.
Court Chapel: Grant culture to every city based on 20% of population in capital. Artists slot

Ceremony:
- +0.5 science in capitol for every council, shrine and library.
Court Astrologer: +2 science and +2 faith. Scientist slot.

Majesty:
- Palace and National Wonders with Building requirements gain +2 Happiness
State Treasury: Increase yields of internal traderoutes from or to capitol by 2% for every population in capitol. Merchant slot.
(alternativly, population count +150% for trade unit maximum in capitol)

Splendor:
- Specialists in Capital consume half the normal amount of Food.
Palace Garden: +15% Great Person Rate in all Cities. Writer slot

Adopting all Policies in Tradition grants:

- Unlocks building the University of Sankore (Science per GP spent and Free Mosque).
+1 Food from all Great Person Improvements and Landmarks.
Throne Room built in Capital (+10% to all Yields, 1 Musician slot, 1 Great Work of Music slot)
Allows for the purchase of Great Engineers with Faith starting in the Industrial Era.

Small adjustment to industry policy:
Opener: -5% purchase cost of buildings and wonders
+10 culture each time you construct a Building, scaling with Era.
Scaler: -5% purchase cost of buildings and wonders
+2 culture each time you construct a Building, scaling with Era.

Small adjustment to imperialismn policy:
Opener: +1 Movement for Naval units, Embarked units, and Great Generals, as well as +1 Sight for Naval combat units.
-5% production and purchase cost of units
Scaler: -5% production and purchase cost of units
+1 admiral and general points per turn
Civilizing Mission: No Gold maintenance for Garrisons an cities with garrisions produce 2 to all yields, with courthouse doubled.

Rework of trade maximum:
I really like civilizations, whose rely on trade.
Unfortunatly, there is a pretty hard cap for trading maximum and despite 2 wonders and 2 social policies, you cant improve it much more.
This leads to the result, iam always playing civilizations like marokko or germany on small maps, rarely on standard.

I want to suggest a population based trade route maximum, in the kind we have now with military unit cap.
At the start, 10 population is needed to get 1 trade route, the more technologies you research, you need more population, calculated by this formula x = 10 + (0.40-0.1*era)*tech .
The value of population by a city can be increased by buildings, like market, caravancery, bank, train station by 15%. But by 25% from lighthouse and harbor, making coastal cities more worth for trade.

Change pantheon believes:
Pantheon believes, that trigger "+x yields for plantation/mine/camp/.... on improved ressource" is changed to:
Gain +x yields for any improved ressource that can be improved by plantagion/mine/camp/...
Former, you lose any extra yields, if you place a city, kasbah, GP improvement (...) on your pantheon ressources, now you get it, if you have atleast improved it.

Spirit of the desert now gives: +1 food, faith, production, gold on improved ressources on desert. +1 culture and gold from oases.

Unique improvements:
Allow terrace farm to be placed on animals on hills (sheeps)
Allow polder to be placed on wheat resources.

Cs yield distribution:
Yields from city states are generally distributed like food from maritime CS.
Allied: Capitol = 1 + 3*era yields
Other cities = 1*era yields
Friend: Capitol = 1 + 2*era yields

This makes statecraft more interesting for wider empires and not only small, tradition empires. (The yields in the lategame are laughable and shouldnt be depending on buildings only.)

Ottoman UA:
Each trade unit gain +2 food, +2 gold and 1 production for every internal trade route and +1 science, +3 gold and +1 culture for every external trade route, multiplied by the number of your trade units and Faith sites.

 

[Jarula]

I like the reworks for tradition but industry nah.

The culture for popping a building liberty already done by liberty liberty and industry synergize well enough as it is. I play industry normally liberty authority then industry order.

The natural progression of healthy history.

The culture for industry would be too much.

 

[CrazyG]

Could offer explanation for your tradition suggestions? The additional production and gold on the scaler would make the tree extremely strong. What problems does the tree currently have which this addresses?

 

[Enginseer]

The rework of Tradition seems to be building the Capital rather than building Tall...

This makes statecraft more interesting for wider empires and not only small, tradition empires. (The yields in the lategame are laughable and shouldnt be depending on buildings only.)

Chancery and Wire Stations say hi to wide empires.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Mainly the lacking scaling ability. For me, the main advantages of tradition is growth, GP growth and culture cost reduction for tiles.
But the GP growth is diminishing in relation to garden, pisa, artistry opener. The extra grow can be achieved also by pantheon.
And compare a 5 city progress empire = 15 extra food, 15 science, 10 gold, 10 hammer.

 

[Gazebo]

Almost every Tradition change involves brand-new code. Nope.

Industry is fine, currently a top-choice by winning AIs and players alike.

Imperialism could probably use a better scaler, but that's not very elegant (and the admiral/general point would be almost unfelt at that point in the game).

Trade Limit exists for a reason - it is a hard cap regardless of map size. Why? Because of the connections to tourism. Not changing this.

Pantheon balance is actually fine right now.

Can't put UIs on those resources because of graphical glitches.

Yields from CSs decline in late-game because their biggest role becomes votes. That's by design. Statecraft (and the DV by extension) do not need any buffs right now.

Ottoman UA is really passive and dull. Current one is fine.

I'm not pooh-poohing this to discourage balance discussions, however the 'no new code' and 'not possible in DLL' rules are still in effect.

G

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Almost every Tradition change involves brand-new code. Nope.

In my opinion its weak, 1 Food in capitol only and buildings with some low yields.

Industry is fine, currently a top-choice by winning AIs and players alike.

Imperialism could probably use a better scaler, but that's not very elegant (and the admiral/general point would be almost unfelt at that point in the game).

I simply wanted to split the purchase bonus, like others also said, that opener and scaler from imperialismn is crappy. In that stage of game, I nearly buy every unit with money. Reduced production and purchase cost would be more helpful.
The general/admiral thing was a fast solution. What is, if we say, make the skaler +3 to general/admiral points, with the reduced point cost, you would get your first general/admiral after 27 turns. Sometimes I go for imperialismn cause i want the farm buff and/or have a lot of coastal tiles, but not interested in war. This would give smaller empires an option to increase their territory by general and get more supply cap, small empires normally lack. (or give it a last try to rise from a small empire)

Trade Limit exists for a reason - it is a hard cap regardless of map size. Why? Because of the connections to tourism. Not changing this.

Ok, didnt thought about that part. But, is the tourismn reduction also applied to historic events from trade routes? If not, it should, and the whole thing would balance itself:
Bigger empire = more trade routes = more tourismn (but also) Bigger empire = more reduction of tourismn.

Pantheon balance is actually fine right now.

I would still prefer to get that pantheon yields by improved ressources, and not bound to the improvement itself.
And I dislike the spirit of the desert change. Go back to "improved ressources on desert" and give it back that food. The oasis extra food is crap, often i can place 3 or 4 cities in desert and have only one oasis or two, not really compensating the former pantheon belief.

Yields from CSs decline in late-game because their biggest role becomes votes. That's by design. Statecraft (and the DV by extension) do not need any buffs right now.

I think, they still need a buff. Commercial CS giving 10 gold in lategame while i have income of 2k and more, and that +1 gold in every city by chancery is simply laughable.

Ottoman UA is really passive and dull. Current one is fine..,

Tell me the difference?
You force us to make longer trade routes by your last change, but this also leads to longer time, till a trade route is finished. This negates the UA of the ottomans.
My change balance this, is nearly the same as the portugal UA and gives the opportunity to play more with it by the religious aspect of the ottoman empire, using faith sites.
Atleast balance the two yields from internal and external traderoutes. External gives 450, internal only 300. And the gold for internal trade routes is laughable low, especially you need 2 gold, to compensate 1 hammer.
120 yields for external and 180 for internal would make more sense.

 

[MorphBer]

I feel like a lot of your suggestions could use a little bit more elaboration why you thibk these changes are needed or what problems you see that you want to adress. Just suggesting "change x to y or buff this by x%" is kinda hard (at least for me) to evaluate.

I agree with others that tradition is in a good place, for my playstyle it is actually the most suiting ancient tree. There idea to give strong yields early and in the capital works well imo. Naturally this doenst.scale well and shouldn't.

I agree that imperialism could need a buff and that bonuses to unit production are not that relevant late.

 

[Enginseer]

I've tinkered around with Imperialism's scaling.

You either:
- increase the supply cap from population or a base supply cap increase per city overall in each scaler policy.
- amplify the unit cost by a certain threshold that makes imperialism scaler worth it whereas rationalism have to pump units out slowly and industry has to buy them out.
- let each imperialism policy increase the intimidation factor by 20% totaling to 100% which basically lets you bully a majority of the city-states virtually from your homeland when you boast a large military. All doable in the code, but we'll see.

 

[MorphBer]

Regarding this: Is there any way to find out a city's contribution to the supply cap? I kind of hard time evaluating a x% boost to it.

 

[Der_Zorn_gottes]

As for the imperialism scaler: I don't think I have ever, in any game I played hard buildt a unit past the medevieal age.

 

[Gidoza]

As for the imperialism scaler: I don't think I have ever, in any game I played hard buildt a unit past the medevieal age.

I know, right? I actually find the late-game dull because it's about hitting the "purchase" button a thousand times and not much about playing the game in a meaningful, planned way, like in the Ancient/Classical Eras.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I know, right? I actually find the late-game dull because it's about hitting the "purchase" button a thousand times and not much about playing the game in a meaningful, planned way, like in the Ancient/Classical Eras.

I feel like you. The science and gold production is too high. You rush through the later game, unable to build all buildings, even with purchasing them, there is simply no time to produce units. On the other side, you swim in gold, the earlier +2 to plantation, +1 by chanceries is laughable, compare to the lategame. In the most cases, I have no clue where all those yields come from. (3k gold per turn and 1.5k gold by events on a small map, wtf). Instead of adusting the production cost to good oldfashined produce things, you get spammed by yields from every corner and have to buy, what you need.

Dont understand me wrong, i love complexity. I love games by paradox interactive, but those yield from every corner are too much, and in my opinion, this is now maybe a bit too much, like in a spiral.

 

[Blue Ghost]

My change balance this, is nearly the same as the portugal UA

Therein lies the problem.

 

[CrazyG]

And compare a 5 city progress empire = 15 extra food, 15 science, 10 gold, 10 hammer

I mean yea, if you just ignore tradition's yields it looks crappy compared to progress, but when you consider things like 2 culture per monument its competitive. It also has a much stronger start

 

[Jarula]

It would make sense to improve tradition...

Just saying I'd like to see more players and ai choose it.

And just saying perfect idea make the bonus culture for monuments climb +1 +1 +2 +2 +3 +3 basically climbing to +3 per era great way to amp it up and mach Uber fun.

 

[tu_79]

Tradition.

I'd understand a nerf on great people. Artistry is so focused on great people that going from Tradition to Artistry seems the logical path. Not that it can be completely avoided, as a big capital is always going to have more specialist, thus more great people

Now. If Artistry goes for Great People and golden ages, Fealty goes for infrastructure and religion, and Statecraft goes for trade routes, spies and city states, maybe Tradition could do a bit for those things, while focusing in a strong capital.

Things that currently synergize with Artistry:
-Extra food and growth (more pop for working specialists)
-Specialist slots (more specialists)
-25% extra GP in capital (more specialists)
-Specialist consume half food (more specialists)
-GAP and culture for expending GP (rewards working specialists)
-Great works slots (rewards early GWAM people)
-Longer golden ages (artistry has a focus on golden ages too)
-High happines while tall (more golden ages)
-University of Sankore (science for expending GP)

That's too much a synergy. I like current balance in Medieval, and both Progress and Authority can jump to any Medieval tree, so maybe what's needed is a more balanced tradition.

I'm not good at exact numbers, and don't know what may require new code and what not, but things that I think can be made:
+Remove some of the specialist focused bonus, be it specialist slots, great work slots, extra GP, consuming half food, or everything.
+Add rewards for building religious buildings or from faith per turn (synergizing with Fealty).
+Add rewards for trade routes (synergizing with Statecraft)
+Add rewards for GPTI (anti-synergizing with Artistry), there's already +1 food on GPTI, but it is too little.
+Add some flat WLTKD bonuses (synergizing with Fealty and Industrialism)
+Add some influence to city states (synergizing with Statecraft)

 

[Gidoza]

I feel like you. The science and gold production is too high. You rush through the later game, unable to build all buildings, even with purchasing them, there is simply no time to produce units. On the other side, you swim in gold, the earlier +2 to plantation, +1 by chanceries is laughable, compare to the lategame. In the most cases, I have no clue where all those yields come from. (3k gold per turn and 1.5k gold by events on a small map, wtf). Instead of adusting the production cost to good oldfashined produce things, you get spammed by yields from every corner and have to buy, what you need.

Dont understand me wrong, i love complexity. I love games by paradox interactive, but those yield from every corner are too much, and in my opinion, this is now maybe a bit too much, like in a spiral.

While this game isn't other games, I sometimes find it worthwhile to look at other games for information.

For example, in Civ 2, basically no buildings whatsoever give any kind of yield ever. They WILL improve yields you already are making (+50%), but otherwise it is plain that your yields come from the tiles you are working. It's straight-forward, and also fun, as tile manipulation can be rather important at certain times. Additionally, boring tiles with nothing on them (like Plains) are actually worth working and even necessary. Specialists here are ultimately a bonus (which it feels like they should be in Civ 5 as well), but it's possible to play without them. The point is that with limited tiles around a city and basically all yields coming from tiles, it's easy to understand where your money/production/science is coming from, and the player has a meaningful control over it.

Another look - at Master of Orion 2. I think much of the time, money surpluses are natural things that come about in small numbers in order to build certain critical buildings or an emergency ship for defence where you need it. However, even a race that is 100% geared towards money will never be able to purchase a Doom Star or a Titan every single turn, and such a race alone (and not even that) can speed build every building on every planet, and that's *not* including the scaling factor that Civ 5 uses.

One more point to bring up is the single unit per tile and how this affects the AI. In a game like MOO2, if you're behind and have 70 ships against your 1, there is no amount of speed building that's going to help you to survive. On the other hand, in Civ 5 in the late game, I can virtually have no military and only bother to purchase units when someone declares on me; the units placed in only a few key points while other units are being purchased in all cities every turn is enough to hold off any late-game invasion I've ever encountered in VP, because the AI can't use the whole force of its army against you to overcome the gold power - which, by the way, is easy to do with ANY Civ.

I think in order for later-game play to come to a level that is fairer for the AI, not boring, and somewhat comprehensible, we'd have to have a couple things happen.

1. Purchasing costs later in the game are some four times higher than they are now - so you can purchase here and there or every few turns (like in the early game with a GOOD economy), but not more: no magical armies.

2. The military cap late-game needs to be reduced and also city defence in a corresponding way. The more units an AI can muster of its full force in a small zone, the less your purchasing power affects against it. Also, this would make it harder for the player to deal with wars on multiple fronts.

3. Perhaps units also get "invested" in the same way as buildings so you *have* to use hammers to build them. We can compensate against this by reducing the production costs of later-game buildings (I should mention though that I like the idea of a game where you have to pick and choose the most relevant buildings to produce rather than just being able to have all of them).

4. Cut back on all the tile bonuses from tech and certain kinds of scaling that occur throughout the game. Small changes are fine, but what helps the game be fundamentally comprehensible and manageable is that *things don't change much*. Every city *shouldn't* be a massive productive culturally scientific rich monster. But right now, it can be. It's boring.

 

[Moi Magnus]

1. Purchasing costs later in the game are some four times higher than they are now - so you can purchase here and there or every few turns (like in the early game with a GOOD economy), but not more: no magical armies.

2. The military cap late-game needs to be reduced and also city defence in a corresponding way. The more units an AI can muster of its full force in a small zone, the less your purchasing power affects against it. Also, this would make it harder for the player to deal with wars on multiple fronts.

3. Perhaps units also get "invested" in the same way as buildings so you *have* to use hammers to build them. We can compensate against this by reducing the production costs of later-game buildings (I should mention though that I like the idea of a game where you have to pick and choose the most relevant buildings to produce rather than just being able to have all of them).

4. Cut back on all the tile bonuses from tech and certain kinds of scaling that occur throughout the game. Small changes are fine, but what helps the game be fundamentally comprehensible and manageable is that *things don't change much*. Every city *shouldn't* be a massive productive culturally scientific rich monster. But right now, it can be. It's boring.

1) Producing units should be cheaper than buying them (since buying is immediate). Buying units should be cheaper than upgrading them twice (since upgrading give you the unit directly to the frontline, and keep the promotions). As long as this order is preserved (meaning that if you multiply by 4 buying cost, you also multiply by 4 upgrade cost), I have no problems.

2) Lower military cap mean that optimzing single-unit move is more and more important, which gives disadvantage to AIs. But I have big armies, so I like this suggestion.

3) Not convinced. Mercenaries always existed. And the impossibility to buy units would make the game far more difficult to beginners (against barbarians,...). (Well, maybe we could add a World congress resolution to ban mercenaries -> no militaristic unit gold purchase ?)

4) I understand your point of vue. But I also undersand people who like having end-games cities with stupidly high yields. Cutting drastically yields can give the feeling that the late game is monotone and "things don't change much" trough the game, which is also boring.

 

[Stalker0]

I’m not seeing the gold numbers you all are talking about, at least not with a tradition/fealty play.

My last game (no events mind you), I had more like 400 gpt. Now I’m not the best player, I’m sure I could have optimized more and gotten 500, 700, maybe even 1k. But 3k, no way.

Upgrading units late game is expensive, like 1.5k a unit. I don’t have the gold to do that and invest in buildings and units. St some point I have to sacrifice one or the other.