Some ideas for VP and/or modmods

[Zanteogo]

CERN produces a couple atoms at most of a substance. That's not comparable to the amount of uranium/iron/oil it takes to make a military vehicle. And regardless it doesn't produce iron, oil, or uranium. I do agree with you about the gameplay, it should be changed somehow.

I know, but the other World Wonders use some pretty lose RL logic to justify the effects they create. Many of them have zero to do with what the wonder "did" in RL. With CERN creating things, at least it.. sort of.. reflects on what the RL CERN does. I agree it's a massive leap in logic though.

 

[General_Drax]

I actually like building wonders outside my capital. If feels a bit boring to me when one city can build everything, and coastal cities can be pretty terrible sometimes so it's good that they have nice things. I do think Ideology wonders should be buildable anywhere though. They are more important in terms of gameplay.

You could try More Wonders from Adan_eslavo. There are a lot changes about requisites. My games show that wonders are much more spread out through cities and not all inside capital. It really adds variety and require planning on founding if you aim for a specific wonder like Solovetsky Monastery (fealty finisher, require Tundra and Hills and coastal city).

While I find most of them balanced there is something off about science progression: with the faster tech rate in 10-7 the wonders that add science as yield allow gaining tech even faster. In my current game (Emperor/standard) Arabia (progress/artistry/industry/freedom) got 75 tech on turn 352 standard speed and was ready even for a cultural victory. I had to use every trick from Congress (sanction/decolonization/open door on his CS) and deploy a massive force of military from 1/2 age before to stop Harun.

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Thanks again to everyone for the replies.

James, hmm, yes, to me that is too long to wait because if I'm rushing Calendar, I'm rushing it for luxuries so Bananas will have to wait a long time to get improved. And if I don't need Calendar for luxuries, I usually wait a long time before researching it as other techs are more important. Whereas I can improve deer and bison from basically the very beginning of the game where there aren't many other things to do with your workers. Not to mention that building a camp in itself is much faster than chopping and building a plantation. And crucially, early on every single yield is crucial whereas with time one food or production don't mean that much - I'd rather have extra yields from Deers on turn 10 or 30 than from Bananas on turn 90, even if at turn 90 they get slightly better than Deers and Bananas (and after that it's a see-saw with buffs to forests, camps, plantations etc.). But ultimately changing Bananas isn't that important to me, so I'll live with them as they are

I understand, and that's one of my points - linking elephants to authority would give more incentive to pick authority if you're starting around Shaka, Genghis etc. or if you are Shaka, Genghis. I've seen players mention they can do early conquering just fine as Tradition or Progress before settling into a peaceful game - I'd like to incentivize early Authority, either for defensive or offensive reasons, by giving it exclusive access to Elephants. And Ivory as a luxury is just too fickle - some games there's Ivory, some games there isn't, some games you can get it by turn 40, some games you can, through no fault of your own, get it by turn 120 (I've had games where the only copies of Ivory were in distant CSs or were controlled by a hostile civ that wanted like -1300 for it). No other luxury resource unlocks a unit, why should Ivory be special?

Ok, I suppose it would be more prudent to firstly address whether Stonehenge is suitable from a risk vs. reward point of view! I think Stonehenge and Pyramids aren't suitable, they're too easy to get if you select them as your 2nd or 3rd item, even as Progress. There's no risk in getting them if you're playing against AIs.

I too like building wonders outside my capital, but I shouldn't be "forced" to. Late-game terrain requirements penalize for example non-coastal Tradition capitals, and I don't see a compelling gameplay reason for that?

Ok, I understand re: Centaurus. I almost never get a sea monopoly, so I almost never get to build Centaurus, so I'll live without it being adjusted

It's too easy to found if you can afford to rush shrines in all your cities asap and to rush enough settlers. If I'm starting next to Shaka, I'm instead rushing walls and defensive units, so that means I build fewer cities and in them fewer/later shrines - while Shaka strolls along nicely via faith monopoly. It's rare, but on Deity such things hurt extra where you see someone gain a Religion with very little investment in getting it. Didn't mean to offend anyone by joking about handouts - many of my relatives are/were on social security benefits and I think they're a paramount feature of a healthy society that takes care of all its members. But I grew up on Family Guy and South Park so I often joke about things that I'm supportive of. And as someone on anti-deppresants, I understand stigma. Sorry to hear about your situation and I hope you'll get the pension without problems!

I don't know, I've been encountering this problem for several patches in a row where lots of cities don't have a dominant religions or if they do for only a few turns after being missionaried. But hopefully you're right and it will be changed for the better going forward.

Nope, not all CS will give you a second quest, or they'll make you wait for 50 or more turns for that. Whereas some will give you a second quest 15 turns after the first one. And that's what I'd like to be standardized - how many and how often do you get CS quests.

 

[JamesNinelives]

No other luxury resource unlocks a unit, why should Ivory be special?

Because of what it represents: Elephants. War Elephants were special, and if you weren't used to fighting against them they were terrifying. Which is why I like them being regional rather than policy-based. If all the warmongers had elephants they wouldn't really be as special any more. And honestly I find fighting against Authority civs challenging enough already.

I've seen players mention they can do early conquering just fine as Tradition or Progress before settling into a peaceful game

Of course people can war with other policies, but I don't see how anyone could argue for example that Tradition is just as good for that purpose - it's really not. Authority is designed to reward war and expansion, and that's exactly what it does.

There's no risk in getting them if you're playing against AIs.

There used to be, and I'm willing to bet there will be again. Don't forget that the AI took a significant early-game nerf recently in exchange for more buffs over time. It's understandable if they're not competing for the 1-tech wonders as well any more.

I too like building wonders outside my capital, but I shouldn't be "forced" to.

You don't have to. If you don't want them, don't build them - there are lots of other wonders to build. I guess it's not as easy on Deity level, so perhaps that's where some of our difference in perspective comes from. I can agree that Prora is important enough to want it not to need a terrain requirement, but IMO there should be more than just one late-game terrain-related wonder. One of the reasons I like terrain requirements is that it prevents (or discourages) one player from building every wonder in the game - which tends to just help the leader. For example, Petra and Machu Picchu are often build later than equivalent tech-tier wonders and also often by civs other than those with a tech lead. It also means there's more chance of them turning up somewhere that's thematic! I much prefer to see the Inca build Machu Picchu than some civ with only one mountain for example.

Didn't mean to offend anyone by joking about handouts - many of my relatives are/were on social security benefits and I think they're a paramount feature of a healthy society that takes care of all its members. But I grew up on Family Guy and South Park so I often joke about things that I'm supportive of. And as someone on anti-deppresants, I understand stigma. Sorry to hear about your situation and I hope you'll get the pension without problems!

No harm done! Just wanted to talk about it, because often these things go unsaid. Education really is powerful. I'm actually doing OK at the moment, all things said and done. I'm very grateful to my friends and family for their support. Thanks .

And that's what I'd like to be standardized - how many and how often do you get CS quests.

That's fair! I don't really know how it works.

 

[Tekamthi]

OP has some good ideas in the list -- many of them seek to fix problems that have never really caught my attention, though seem well thought out, and at least a few echo my own thoughts on the state of VP...

theorycrafting aside, to make the best case for these ideas, and to persuade the community that they improve the game, make the modmod and post it here.. its not as hard as it might appear!

I'd happily help test, troubleshoot code etc., though my time for starting to code new mods from scratch is pretty much non-existant, and I get the sense that others are similarly focused on their existing projects with whatever time is available to them.

 

[Stalker0]

Quite the laundry list! I will comment in line.

1. Increase the GA modifiers from monopolies to 30% . Currently 25% means 2 extra turns of GA on standard, so you lose 5% for nothing. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks

--Depends on how this effects other speeds. The GA monopolies are weaker than some other bonuses but that is already accounted for in the base bonuses of some of those resources.

1. Give great prophets more movement points, so they'd be equal to missionaries in that regard. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweak

--I always considered this a feature. It makes a forced conversion just a little bit more difficult than through raw missionaries. That said, I don't have a strong feeling either way.

1. Give one extra food to (unworked) bananas, they're currently the only bonus resource that doesn't offer any bonus on its own. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just twea

--Bananas are fine.

1. Merge the tundra pantheon and the desert pantheon so you'd have one pantheon giving bonus for tundra&desert(& snow, add bonus resources on snow tiles!) tiles with resources. In VP, tundras and deserts are often fairly close to each other, so you'll often end up with not enough tiles of one type for the pantheon to work, but if it were merged, it'd be viable. To avoid making the merged pantheon too strong, we could nerf it somewhat. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--I respect the idea of making a pantheon more accessible. However, the issue is that you place more pressure on the one pantheon to help you with your terrain. Now a desert civ might snipe the pantheon for themselves, and now the tundra civ no longer has access.

1. Make War Elephants exclusive to Authority tree (opener or one of the first policies), replace ivory requirement with horse requirement. Currently it's too random whether the game itself will have ivory at all and, if it does, whether you'll be able to get it quickly enough to matter – also it makes no sense that one ivory can build you 10 units, but you can build the weaker unit (horseman) only for 1 horse per unit. This would make Authority more appealing vs. Progress/Tradition for early conquering. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.
   

--Authority is already appealing for early conquest, I would argue its later on that Authority starts to suffer. I used to think War Elephants were OP but honestly their cost is a major balancing factor, it takes a lot of hammers to produce a WE at a time when every hammer is so precious.

1. Make strategic balance affect all strategic resources, not just iron and horses. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--Agreed. I was very surprised when Tu_79 taught me this was not the case.

1. Add more coal to the map, there's too few sources of coal on standard maps. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweak

--This is really a map editor request, not a general request to the mods. I know that the Communitas_79 team has been looking at resource allocation adjustments.

1. Make Hagia Sophia buildable only in Holy Cities (like Borobodur). I think non-founders have no special use for a free great prophet. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--While I don't agree with your rationale, I do think it would be nice to divide the pressure on these wonders, as they are both pretty saught after. This would increase the chance of getting one, and greatly decrease the chance of getting both, so I like it for that reason.

1. Change Hubble from a „more science for science leaders“ wonder to a wonder meant for other victory conditions, for example have it grant a huge sum of tourism with all civs. CERN is so late you should be granted win-now assets, for example have CERN grant you free GDRs and/or nuclear missiles. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--It is important to note that Hubble has a pretty heft culture requirement, you can't blitz science and guarrantee this wonder, so I don't think a complete rethink is necessary. That said, I do think a reduction in the wonder benefit is prudent.

1. Remove free social policy from Ideology wonders, they're currently „more culture for culture leaders“, instead grant them more unique benefits like the ones they currently have. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--Strongly Disagree. Completely changes the culture landscape, and for no good reason. Many policies give more culture to culture leaders, just as science unlocks more buildings that give more yields. That is in the nature of civ, and I don't think this area is a break point that needs to be fixed.

1. Stonehenge is too strong, it gives you a free pantheon, a free council and a free shrine's worth of faith; Terracota's culture bonus is too high and the AIs ignore the wonder for too long; Temple of Artemis' food bonus is too strong, it's basically a monopoly bonus; Borobodur is too strong with the extra missionary spread; Oracle shouldn't scale with era and should be nerfed slightly; Slater mill should lose its river requirement because you've already rewarded fresh water starts with water mills and Baths, late game wonders shouldn't have terrain requirements (also Prora and Sydney); Chichen Itza's GA modifier should be nerfed to 30% and it should get some other bonus to compensate for that; Bletchley park should come sooner; usually I already have research labs in my main cities so no need for a free research lab from certain wonders, I'd instead change it to a free medical lab or something like that; Broadway is great, it gives you plenty of culture; make Brandeburg gate a Fealty policy wonder, have Red fort be buildable by militarily weaker civs that took statecraft or artistry. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.
   

--Looks break this up a bit:
a) Stonehenge: Disagree. Its a fine wonder, but it has a definite cost this early in the game, as it slows down your early expansion.
b) Terracotta: Possibly, we did just lower the culture but it could still be too high.
c) ToA: I actually think ToA is one of the weaker wonders for the time, committing to wonders at this point in the game is a big cost and Hallicanarrus has some wonderful late game scaling.
d) Borobodur: Disagree, its simply doing what a wonder should do.
e) Oracle: The era scale I think is fair. You never get to use it on high difficulties but it might be too much on lower diffs. I think the yields are fine, if you wanted a slight nerf you could remove the free temple.
f) Slater/Prora/Sydney Resource Requirements: I agree. I think it makes sense for early wonders just to thin the competition a bit, but by this point that is really not needed. Its just flavor, and lots of other wonders that were built in specific places do not have such requirements.

1. If the AI you're at war with stops being an ally of a CS, you automatically make peace with that CS (prevents exploit where you intentionally stay at war with that CS so you can deal with it later when you've made peace with the AI). AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.
   

--I disagree with it being automatic, I don't consider it an exploit I just think its the business of war. That said, I would love a modmod that gave me a "peace with all CS button", as that is an annoyance when you have to keep an eye on the CS menu constantly to see if they drop out of ally and would allow a peace.

1. If you liberate a CS from another AI/CS, you should be granted a sphere of influence with it (removable only if it's captured again, not by WC). If you liberate it from barbarians, it should be granted open doors policy. That way you'd have more incentive to liberate CS, but still less incentive to allow barbarians to capture CS and only then liberating them. New code needed, but I hope it's not too hard to code that given that we already have open doors/sphere of influence code present.

--Agree. My only dissension is the protection against the WC. I think its perfectly reasonable for your Sphere to be contested in the WC as any other sphere can...that's politics.

1. Way of the Pilgrim is broken in human hands (intentionally weakening your missionaries before using them - EDIT: See more here - https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...how-would-you-change-it.663940/#post-15947254), I'd change it for example so it'd become a „wide“ GA founder, i.e. it'd give some GAP to all shrines and temples, it'd increase the GA length by 1 turn for every (2? 3?) follower city (with a cap) and give 10% or 15% extra culture or science during GA.

--I've been watching the thread but I'm not fully convinced yet.

1. GDs can be expended for influence only when no embassy places are available anymore. In 99% of the time it's better to expend it for embassy, so it's be better for the AI. Less code-heavy for AIs who won't have to decide whether to go for influence or embassy.
   

--There are cases where I burn my first GD for influence. Allying with a culture civ early on for example can give me a solid boost and provide some extra faith when I need it (through the national wonder). That said, I do agree that the AI does not prioritize embassies as a human does. I am torn on the issue. On the one hand, its true that the AI is playing sub optimally. On the other, humans have a massive disadvantage in the WC at base, as AIs can flood CS with diplo units. If AIs wised up to embassy making, humans would probably get 1-2 embassies at best.

1. Orthodoxy and churches 40% pressure are too strong, they should be changed/nerfed. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--Considering there was a confirmed bug to religious pressure in this last version, I am loathe to do this just yet. Also, watching feedback its clear a lot of people still don't really know how pressure works, and that ignorance often translates into something is wrong. I do think it needs to stay on the watch list.

1. Certaing corporations are still too strong, for example Firaxite or Giorgio. Also certain monopoly resources don't make sense, for example why does Ivory grant you the Centaurus corporation? AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--The corporation that increases your GP % is too strong, its bonuses scale crazily. Everything else is fine (2K may still be a little on the weak side, but that happiness change definitely helped).

1. World fair should lose the free social policy and increased culture bonuses, they're way too strong compared to other WC projects. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--I like the free policy bonus, as its a way for science focused civs to actually catchup enough in culture to snag wonders. Otherwise, the culture civs can often snag them all. That said, removing the culture bonus is probably a good idea, the two together is really potent.

1. Limit buying mercenary units to 1 per turn per city. Or teach the AI how to buy 10 mercenaries in the same city one by one, sending each off via (rail)roads before buying the next.

--Seems prudent, we did similar things with diplo units and the like.

1. Implement a true Casus Belli system, insofar it's possible. If you're caught spying and you promise not to spy anymore, but then you do and you're caught again, or if you refuse to promise to stop spying, you should either be forced to declare war on the spied nation or the spied nation should have an option of declaring a justifiable war (with lower war weariness/warmonger penalties etc.). The same should go for missionary/GP spreading, digging artifacts, stealing territories via GGs or America's UA or declaring war/demanding tribute/attacking a protected city state. We could make it so that for a set number of turns (20? 40?) after such a DoW and/or until you've taken one city from the perpetrator/aggressor, the „victim“ should be exempted from war weariness and warmonger penalties. Remove war weariness/warmongering penalty for injurying/killing foreign troops in your own lands (unless you declared a war that wasn't „justifiable“) - if you're only defending yourself and you're not losing units, why should your people be unhappy or other civs consider you warmongers? You should be viewed as the plucky underdog (even if you're not quite that – see UK in 1940). Code: We already have some code available (for example when you drop a bomb and you touch third-party units, when you get less warmongering via Hunnic UA or policies/tenets), but that would require some new code/AI teaching.

--Too big an ask at this stage in the game, that's a lot of consider..

1. Implement a more dynamic and realistic CS diplomacy system. Currently a CS may be tributed 10 times by one civ without any long-term/permanent effects of that on their relationship. Conversely, one civ can be a CS's ally for 100 turns or it can liberate it without any long-term benefical effects of that on their relationship. Neither is realistic and seems boring because it doesn't incentivize any kind of behaviour towards CS. We already have in-game mechanics for lowering/increasing resting points of influence and increasing/lowering the decay/recovery rate. I'd propose that certain actions yield beneficial permanent effects and certain yield detrimental effects. If you liberate that CS, you'd get a sphere of influence with it that can only be removed if the CS is captured again. If you liberate another CS, you gain benefits (higher resting point and better decay/recovery rate) with all other CS in the game. You gain those benefits also every time you pledge protection, „stand up“ for a CS you've pledged protection to, fullfilled its quest, expended a GD in that CS. You'd gain those benefits for every xyz number of turns you've been their friend/ally. You'd gain big negative permanent effects if you demanded tribute, DoW-ed, stolen territory or directly attacked units/city of the CS; you'd gain smaller negative permanent effects for every time you've done that to OTHER city states (kinda mimicking the „non-aligned movement during the cold war where they were aligned in their non-alignedness). Negative influence shouldn't be limited to only -60, but quite lower if it's the result of your actions (GDs only lower it to -60, not further). That way you'd have more long-term/permanent incentive to „be nice“ to all/most city states. Some new code required, but we already have a lot of it through religious beliefs etc.
   

--I think the sphere idea is solid, and covers the most key element here. I think the other parts are a bit fluffy.

1. Remove faith bonuses from monopolies. After we've lowered the bonus yields from religious CS, this is the only remaining big random factor of volatility in the religion race. The difference between starting next to incense/wine/tobacco vs. starting next to a normal resource is the same as night and day – it's the difference between founding (first) or not founding. Give those resources monopolies other bonuses, change so that temples would give all worked improved luxury resources tiles 1 or 2 faith. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--It takes a lot of work to develop a monopoly in time for it to have a big impact on the religion race, I would argue that is a valid strategy, not an exploit.

1. Disable cultural, science and gold processes upon entering the industrial era. The AI doesn't know when to switch most/all of its cities to those for the purposes of rushing a policy or a tech or a GS/GW or simply for ending the game ASAP, and doesn't know the trick of using the gold process in enough cities to bring you above zero GPT, buying what you need from the AI for GPT, then in the same turn reverting back your cities. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--Actually this would hurt the AI a lot. While the AI doesn't use processes as intelligently as a human, it actually uses them a lot because its production bonuses means its often runs out of things to build in the late game.

1. Have the benefits from most great persons attrition over time after a grace period of 5-10 turns after its creation. That would help the AI be more competitive vs. the human player that „saves up“ their great persons for the optimal time to expend them. Some AI teaching needed, but we already have „attrition“ for missionaries, so perhaps we could use that code.

--GP benefits are set when they are created, there is no way to optimize them for more yields after they are made.

1. Change the tourism system to a more „turn based“, wide-friendly one vs. the current (tourism event) one. Have the great musicians be the (almost – perhaps some wonders/buldings) only source of insta tourism with all civs, but otherwise give more tourism to turn based ones. For example have each current tourism event (finishing a TR, birth of a GP) grant each city a certain number of tourism yields – that way it'll be easier for big empires to compete in tourism and harder for small tradition empires.

--Some changes were made recently towards this end, but I do agree that the tourism system is very opaque, as it relies on lots of instant bonuses floating in the background.

1. Upon declaration of war, have all trade units to enemy cities be transported back to the home cities. Currently the system is a bit wonky, sometimes they get back immediately, sometimes not, sometimes they get pillaged, sometimes not. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--I agree the system does seem wonky at the moment. It does not feel consistent in play.

1. Have more distinction between classes of units until the modern times where realistically they get more blurred. Siege units should be extremely brittle to melee combat, much more than they are now, and they should be primarily used against cities and units in cities, forts and citadels (bonuses for that). Archer units should be much less effective against cities/units in cities, forts and citadels than they are now. Melee infantry and mounted units should be much less effective against (walled) cities and units in forts&citadels.

--I think you need to be more specific here. I would focus on specific units you think need adjustment.

1. Have Pagodas be buildable exclusively by non-founders. If you capture a holy city, all pagodas in your cities disappear (for coding use existing mechanic from removal of corporation offices). That would help non-founders whose cities get stuck in „no man's land“ where their cities don't have any majority religions.

--I put out this idea a while ago and it didn't get a lot of community support. I think people like Pagodas the way they are.

1. Have the game be less „all or nothing“ where possible, more granular. Currently if your approval rating is 49% or 41%, you get the same combat malus. I'd prefer if it were more granular, nuanced, for example each % point under 50% you get 1% combat malus. You either steal a technology/great work or not – I'd prefer if the range of success/failure of spies was more on a spectrum/continium, with you getting more yields with more successful missions, and less (or in some cases no) yields when the opponent has more anti-spy protection. You either get a cultural bomb hidden artifact or you get a normal artifact, but the difference is huge – I'd prefer if each hidden artifact gave a small amount of instant culture and a great work/landmark.
   

--(Spy) I think I would need to see a more detailed system for how this would work. I will admit that the spy system is one of my least favorite systems.

1. Slower unit production/more expensive purchase of units should be a function of war weariness, not of general unhappiness. It's counterproductive when you get dog-piled by AIs so you drop into unhappiness (because you lose luxuries from AIs and CSs) and then you can't produce units to defend yourself even though you don't have any war weariness (yet).

--I like this.

1. Remove Kilimanjaro, Sri Pada and FoY promotions, they're too strong.

-- I would say they are strong but not gamebreaking.

1. Forts are currently too strong, I'd prefer if they were more useful for defensive purposes instead of getting more buffed by yields. I'd have them buildable faster, grant 5hp when healing, grant 5HP damage to adjacent enemy units, enemy units expend all movement points when entering a fort (this should also apply to citadels).

--I do think the science buff was probably a little too strong, but we don't need an overhaul to forts. I think a slightly weaker bonus and they will be good to go.

1. Make baths universally buildable, but with a later tech for non-fresh water settlements to retain a bit of an advantage to fresh water settling locations.

--I say just pull the bandaid and allow baths in all cities period. Especially if you are playing Tradition, if you don't have fresh water on your capital, its a game changer in terms of lost culture.

1. Range and logistics should be eliminated from the game, they're simply too strong in human hands vs. the AI, for example given 3 siege units with range I'll conquer almost any AI.
   

--The counterargument is, they are also some of the most fun promotions in the game. I agree with you that I don't think they can ever be truly balanced, but their exploits have been toned down a lot over time. But a lot of people like the promotions.

1. City health upon capture should be standardized, it seems that sometimes it's a bit random how strong a city's health will be when you (re)capture it.
   

--Agreed, this is wonky at the moment.

1. City should not be capture-able until you've destroyed the unit inside it. I hate and don't understand losing my city with a nearly fully healthy advanced unit in it. Ships should contribute only one half or one third of its CS to defense of the city, to represent the limit maneouvrability of ships in ports and lack of sailors' prowess in land combat.

--This is an interesting idea.

1. CS quests should be more standardized. Firstly by when they appear – sometimes a CS won't give me its first quest until T70 while another gives me one on T50, even though I've met both on T30. So I think CS quests should appear a set number of turns (maybe 5?) after the last quest has been fulfilled or has expired. Also all CS expect hostile ones should give two CS quests at all times, with one extra appearing if you've gone the Statecraft route. All CS quests should expire after a while (maybe sooner for some, later for others) to prevent you being stuck with for example „connect porcelain“ or „build 7 hotels“ for 140 turns as the solitary CS quest from Milan. Certain quests should only start appearing from the Medieval era onwards (for example for mercantile luxuries – glass, porcelain, jewelry or to capture an enemy city).

--I do think there is merit to quests appearing more reguarly, as your right sometimes there is a wide a divergence in when the first quests appear. I don't agree as much with the other ideas.

1. Have GAs also serve as medics, because they're not that useful at the moment compared to GGs that can make citadels.

--GAs are the ultimate medic, and are incredibly useful if you are engaging in serious naval combat. The ability to attack with all of your melee ships, take a wave of attacks from the enemy, and then have everything come back to full HP....is battle winning.

1. Edited to add: Have cities heal much more quickly when there's no enemy unit within 3 tiles of the city. It's not realistic nor fun game-wise when your city almost under siege heals at the same rate as when you're at peace or all enemies have been driven away. Often a city won't fully heal in the 10 or 15 turns between the previous war and the new war and to me 10 turns of "peace" should be enough for a city to fully heal, post WW2 Marshall plan style.

--This is a REALLY GOOD IDEA! I've complained a lot about city healing rates in the late game, and the counter has often been we don't want to make sieging a city too onerous. This seems the elegant solution, cities under siege dont' heal quickly, but once the enemy is gone the city heals rapidly. Makes a lot of sense, and if it can be coded seems the perfect solution.

1. Have the AI trade their luxury only for one of your copy of luxury (if you have it). Currently it's too easy to deny the AI your luxuries (and with it WLTKD, happiness, ...) while buying theirs for 3 or 5 gpt. If I were the AI, I'd stop selling my luxuries to a player that only bought my luxuries and never sold me any.

--Its more money in the AIs pocket, I don't think its that exploitive.

1. Have the holy cities be immune to other religions (like the Spanish UA).

--This would make a lot of religious conversion impossible. Holy cities generate significant pressure, if you couldn't touch them they would just reflip the surrounding cities.

 

[LifeOfBrian]

1. Increase the GA modifiers from monopolies to 30% . Currently 25% means 2 extra turns of GA on standard, so you lose 5% for nothing. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks

--Depends on how this effects other speeds. The GA monopolies are weaker than some other bonuses but that is already accounted for in the base bonuses of some of those resources.

----Well, Gazebo can adjust it up or down to his liking, but if we're basing the mod on standard speed, then having that 5% is just irritatingly useless.

1. Give great prophets more movement points, so they'd be equal to missionaries in that regard. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweak

--I always considered this a feature. It makes a forced conversion just a little bit more difficult than through raw missionaries. That said, I don't have a strong feeling either way.

---- Great diplomats move faster than emissaries, so why would great prophets move slower than missionaries?

1. Give one extra food to (unworked) bananas, they're currently the only bonus resource that doesn't offer any bonus on its own. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just twea

--Bananas are fine.

---- Agree to disagree.

1. Merge the tundra pantheon and the desert pantheon so you'd have one pantheon giving bonus for tundra&desert(& snow, add bonus resources on snow tiles!) tiles with resources. In VP, tundras and deserts are often fairly close to each other, so you'll often end up with not enough tiles of one type for the pantheon to work, but if it were merged, it'd be viable. To avoid making the merged pantheon too strong, we could nerf it somewhat. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--I respect the idea of making a pantheon more accessible. However, the issue is that you place more pressure on the one pantheon to help you with your terrain. Now a desert civ might snipe the pantheon for themselves, and now the tundra civ no longer has access.

---- I can't remember the last time I saw both pantheons taken in the same game, I think that would be exceedingly rare.

1. Make War Elephants exclusive to Authority tree (opener or one of the first policies), replace ivory requirement with horse requirement. Currently it's too random whether the game itself will have ivory at all and, if it does, whether you'll be able to get it quickly enough to matter – also it makes no sense that one ivory can build you 10 units, but you can build the weaker unit (horseman) only for 1 horse per unit. This would make Authority more appealing vs. Progress/Tradition for early conquering. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--Authority is already appealing for early conquest, I would argue its later on that Authority starts to suffer. I used to think War Elephants were OP but honestly their cost is a major balancing factor, it takes a lot of hammers to produce a WE at a time when every hammer is so precious.

---- Authority gets weakened considerably if the target tradition/progress civ also has War Elephants.

1. Make strategic balance affect all strategic resources, not just iron and horses. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--Agreed. I was very surprised when Tu_79 taught me this was not the case.

---- Glad that we agree

1. Add more coal to the map, there's too few sources of coal on standard maps. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweak

--This is really a map editor request, not a general request to the mods. I know that the Communitas_79 team has been looking at resource allocation adjustments.

---- Isn't this something that is connected to VP? I mean, I usually play on Pangea/Oval, not on custom maps?

1. Make Hagia Sophia buildable only in Holy Cities (like Borobodur). I think non-founders have no special use for a free great prophet. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--While I don't agree with your rationale, I do think it would be nice to divide the pressure on these wonders, as they are both pretty saught after. This would increase the chance of getting one, and greatly decrease the chance of getting both, so I like it for that reason.

----- So shall we make Borobodur buildable in all cities to encourage competition?

1. Change Hubble from a „more science for science leaders“ wonder to a wonder meant for other victory conditions, for example have it grant a huge sum of tourism with all civs. CERN is so late you should be granted win-now assets, for example have CERN grant you free GDRs and/or nuclear missiles. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--It is important to note that Hubble has a pretty heft culture requirement, you can't blitz science and guarrantee this wonder, so I don't think a complete rethink is necessary. That said, I do think a reduction in the wonder benefit is prudent.

----- AI leaders on Deity imho never struggle with social policies, so the culture requirement actually works in their favour because it prevents those further behind to snipe it.

1. Remove free social policy from Ideology wonders, they're currently „more culture for culture leaders“, instead grant them more unique benefits like the ones they currently have. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--Strongly Disagree. Completely changes the culture landscape, and for no good reason. Many policies give more culture to culture leaders, just as science unlocks more buildings that give more yields. That is in the nature of civ, and I don't think this area is a break point that needs to be fixed.

----- Ok, agree to disagree.

1. Stonehenge is too strong, it gives you a free pantheon, /.../

--Looks break this up a bit:
a) Stonehenge: Disagree. Its a fine wonder, but it has a definite cost this early in the game, as it slows down your early expansion.
b) Terracotta: Possibly, we did just lower the culture but it could still be too high.
c) ToA: I actually think ToA is one of the weaker wonders for the time, committing to wonders at this point in the game is a big cost and Hallicanarrus has some wonderful late game scaling.
d) Borobodur: Disagree, its simply doing what a wonder should do.
e) Oracle: The era scale I think is fair. You never get to use it on high difficulties but it might be too much on lower diffs. I think the yields are fine, if you wanted a slight nerf you could remove the free temple.
f) Slater/Prora/Sydney Resource Requirements: I agree. I think it makes sense for early wonders just to thin the competition a bit, but by this point that is really not needed. Its just flavor, and lots of other wonders that were built in specific places do not have such requirements.

---- Stonehenge can be net-neutral or even beneficial for your early expansion. Yes, you might pump out your first settler 10 turns later, but your 2nd and 3rd will be quicker because you won't have to build a council in your capital and because you'll get benefits from your pantheon much sooner.
---- Borobodur is often the difference between swamping the map with an AIs religion or not. I think most of the time the Borobodur founder becomes the runaway religi

1. If you liberate a CS from another AI/CS, you should be granted a sphere of influence with it (removable only if it's captured again, not by WC). If you liberate it from barbarians, it should be granted open doors policy. That way you'd have more incentive to liberate CS, but still less incentive to allow barbarians to capture CS and only then liberating them. New code needed, but I hope it's not too hard to code that given that we already have open doors/sphere of influence code present.

--Agree. My only dissension is the protection against the WC. I think its perfectly reasonable for your Sphere to be contested in the WC as any other sphere can...that's politics.

---- I'd be ok with it being removable in WC, I just thought it reflects the "dominion/protectorate" aspect much better.

1. GDs can be expended for influence only when no embassy places are available anymore. In 99% of the time it's better to expend it for embassy, so it's be better for the AI. Less code-heavy for AIs who won't have to decide whether to go for influence or embassy.

--There are cases where I burn my first GD for influence. Allying with a culture civ early on for example can give me a solid boost and provide some extra faith when I need it (through the national wonder). That said, I do agree that the AI does not prioritize embassies as a human does. I am torn on the issue. On the one hand, its true that the AI is playing sub optimally. On the other, humans have a massive disadvantage in the WC at base, as AIs can flood CS with diplo units. If AIs wised up to embassy making, humans would probably get 1-2 embassies at best.

----On higher difficulties AI flooding diplo units is part of the spiel, just like being able to flood you with units. I think humans getting 1-2 embassies should be normal, because with 16 CS and 8 civs, it comes to 2 cs per civ, and that's normal. Plus humans are still at an advantage because we know how to steal the tiles with embassies away and build our own there.

1. Orthodoxy and churches 40% pressure are too strong, they should be changed/nerfed. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--Considering there was a confirmed bug to religious pressure in this last version, I am loathe to do this just yet. Also, watching feedback its clear a lot of people still don't really know how pressure works, and that ignorance often translates into something is wrong. I do think it needs to stay on the watch list.

---- Agreed, let's wait and see.

1. Implement a true Casus Belli system, insofar it's possible./.../

--Too big an ask at this stage in the game, that's a lot of consider..

---- I hope at least someone will implement it in a modmod.

1. Implement a more dynamic and realistic CS diplomacy system. /.../

--I think the sphere idea is solid, and covers the most key element here. I think the other parts are a bit fluffy.

---- What do you mean by fluffy? Not a native speaker, I don't understand, thanks for the explanation.

1. Remove faith bonuses from monopolies. After we've lowered the bonus yields from religious CS, this is the only remaining big random factor of volatility in the religion race. The difference between starting next to incense/wine/tobacco vs. starting next to a normal resource is the same as night and day – it's the difference between founding (first) or not founding. Give those resources monopolies other bonuses, change so that temples would give all worked improved luxury resources tiles 1 or 2 faith. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--It takes a lot of work to develop a monopoly in time for it to have a big impact on the religion race, I would argue that is a valid strategy, not an exploit.

----I'm not saying it's an exploit, I'm saying it's very imbalanced RNG.

1. Disable cultural, science and gold processes upon entering the industrial era. The AI doesn't know when to switch most/all of its cities to those for the purposes of rushing a policy or a tech or a GS/GW or simply for ending the game ASAP, and doesn't know the trick of using the gold process in enough cities to bring you above zero GPT, buying what you need from the AI for GPT, then in the same turn reverting back your cities. AFAIK, no new code/AI teaching needed, just tweaks.

--Actually this would hurt the AI a lot. While the AI doesn't use processes as intelligently as a human, it actually uses them a lot because its production bonuses means its often runs out of things to build in the late game.

---- Hmm, you might be right, I didn't think the AIs use them a lot, my AIs are very aggresive in churning out diplomatic units, so I kind of thought they switch to that when they run out of stuff to build.

1. Have the benefits from most great persons attrition over time after a grace period of 5-10 turns after its creation. That would help the AI be more competitive vs. the human player that „saves up“ their great persons for the optimal time to expend them. Some AI teaching needed, but we already have „attrition“ for missionaries, so perhaps we could use that code.

--GP benefits are set when they are created, there is no way to optimize them for more yields after they are made.

----- Well, you can. For example you can save 4-5 great scientists and then you can wait and see if a wonder you're targeting gets taken or not. If not, you beeline for that tech with your GSs. If yes, you can beeline for something else. Or you can play "possum" and have the AI think you're not a big threat for a science victory, only to pop many GS and take the last 7-8 techs in a few turns, surging ahead and leaving the AI less time to do something about it.

1. Have more distinction between classes of units until the modern times where realistically they get more blurred. Siege units should be extremely brittle to melee combat, much more than they are now, and they should be primarily used against cities and units in cities, forts and citadels (bonuses for that). Archer units should be much less effective against cities/units in cities, forts and citadels than they are now. Melee infantry and mounted units should be much less effective against (walled) cities and units in forts&citadels.

--I think you need to be more specific here. I would focus on specific units you think need adjustment.

----Like I said, siege units (like catapults) should be so brittle to be destroyed in one attack by a contemporary baseline melee unit. I think all siege units are too strong when defending against melee attacks. Mounted units are too good against cities with their ability to retreat after attacking. Melee infantry has been historically ineffective against walled cities (except as a means of starving it out with sieging), so they should be weaker against cities.

1. Have Pagodas be buildable exclusively by non-founders. If you capture a holy city, all pagodas in your cities disappear (for coding use existing mechanic from removal of corporation offices). That would help non-founders whose cities get stuck in „no man's land“ where their cities don't have any majority religions.

--I put out this idea a while ago and it didn't get a lot of community support. I think people like Pagodas the way they are.

---- I hope we can convince people this time

1. Have the game be less „all or nothing“ where possible, more granular. Currently if your approval rating is 49% or 41%, you get the same combat malus. I'd prefer if it were more granular, nuanced, for example each % point under 50% you get 1% combat malus. You either steal a technology/great work or not – I'd prefer if the range of success/failure of spies was more on a spectrum/continium, with you getting more yields with more successful missions, and less (or in some cases no) yields when the opponent has more anti-spy protection. You either get a cultural bomb hidden artifact or you get a normal artifact, but the difference is huge – I'd prefer if each hidden artifact gave a small amount of instant culture and a great work/landmark.

--(Spy) I think I would need to see a more detailed system for how this would work. I will admit that the spy system is one of my least favorite systems.

----Spies would get more yields from actions the stronger they'd be and the weaker the defenses would be. A level 1 spy would for example steal 50 science, while a level 3 spy would steal 120 science. The same with culture and everything. No more "100% success or 100% failure" that comes with stealing techs and great works etc. What about hidden artefacts and combat malus from unhappiness?

1. CS quests should be more standardized. /.../

--I do think there is merit to quests appearing more reguarly, as your right sometimes there is a wide a divergence in when the first quests appear. I don't agree as much with the other ideas.

---- What is something that you think isn't that good in the other ideas?

1. Have the AI trade their luxury only for one of your copy of luxury (if you have it). Currently it's too easy to deny the AI your luxuries (and with it WLTKD, happiness, ...) while buying theirs for 3 or 5 gpt. If I were the AI, I'd stop selling my luxuries to a player that only bought my luxuries and never sold me any.

--Its more money in the AIs pocket, I don't think its that exploitive.

--- When the AI has 250plus gold per turn in the classical era, it needs more luxuries more than it needs extra 5gpt?

1. Have the holy cities be immune to other religions (like the Spanish UA).

--This would make a lot of religious conversion impossible. Holy cities generate significant pressure, if you couldn't touch them they would just reflip the surrounding cities.

---- Well, let's see how the religious game acts after we fix the bugs, because currently they don't do much against even nearby cities.

Thanks for the detailed reply!

 

[Casworon]

CERN doesnt produce new strategic resources but it is a massive collaborative project involving scientist's from many different countries. In my mind giving it a Diplomatic Victory direction is a better choice. Hubble telescope going into a Cultutal Victory direction i also like, Astrophysics is definitely culturally more popular than CERNS particle physics, all those space sci-fi films.

But i do agree that they both shouldn't be science win-more buttons, but ways for a science leading player to pivot towards the other victories if they want.

Lol I actually have an exam on the design of the CERN detectors on monday. I came here to get a break from studying it but it seems i cant escape

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Wow, exam on the design of CERN (detectors), sounds very interesting! Good luck on the exam and no civ till then, young man

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Added two more suggestions to the original post:

Have the pioneer & colonist the option of settling as a puppet city (like the Venice UA), that way you'll be able to claim additional land & resources without incurring extra science and culture cost.

If the other suggestions for religion aren't suitable, perhaps we could&should limit the number of missionaries you can have at any given moment like we did with archeologist, that way we could slow/limit the missionary spam. Have it be increased with wonders, religious buildings and/or Fealty to incentivize religious civs going for those.

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Edit to add: Some ideas for the happiness system, where I tried to be as non-radical as possible
- Remove unhappiness from urbanization - you're already penalized for using specialists with the evergrowing food consumption by specialists. Alternatively, limit the urbanization the same way other sources of unhappiness and introduce a few more buildings/options to reduce unhappiness from specialists, I think there are too few at the moment.
- Remove religious distress/unhappiness or add more ways to reduce it -> you're already losing yields (and/or the AI is gaining them) by having fewer and fewer followers of your religion in your cities, not sure why you'd have to be doubly penalized by this unhappiness as well?
- Increase the base happiness effects of luxuries in the late game
- Increase the unhappiness removal effect of mid-late game buildings (so have them remove not one, but two or more unhappiness from illiteracy, distress, poverty, ...)
- Not sure how the median works at the moment, but in my last game as Indonesia all my 7 cities had all the scientific buildings and medical labs, with all the science specialists working and full Rationalism tree, but with a population of around 160, I still had around 80 unhappiness from illiteracy. Perhaps that was because two of the civs were the Maya and Korea, but the other AIs were normal non-science civs. Not sure how that's possible, but if runaways cause a big increase in the thresholds, perhaps we could make an adjustment that the top 2 civs' (by score) yields are, for threshold purposes, replaced by the 3rd civ's values? So if for example Arabia and Songhai are the runaways by score with Portugal as the 3rd civ by score, we would calculate as if Arabia and Songhai had the same yields as Portugal. On larger maps we'd do the same for the top 3 or more civs, depending on the number of civs.

 

[JamesNinelives]

So if for example Arabia and Songhai are the runaways by score with Portugal as the 3rd civ by score, we would calculate as if Arabia and Songhai had the same yields as Portugal.

That is effectively how a median is supposed to work .

you're already penalized for using specialists with the evergrowing food consumption by specialists

If food was the only cost to using specialists, I expect people would be working every specialist slot available in the late-game. I dislike urbanization from a narrative point of view, but mechanically I'd say it makes a lot of sense.

Increase the base happiness effects of luxuries in the late game

This I can agree with! ^.^

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Thanks for the reply, James.

Are you sure about the median? I mean, for me it was extremely odd to have been working every single possible source of science in my cities, be the #3 in score and still have around half my population suffering from illiteracy, so I thought it might have had something to do with Korea&The Maya as the (science) leaders.

Well, I'd be ok with some other additional costs to using specialists, but not (unhappiness). For example we could have each worked specialists cost a certain amount of gold (to represent "subsidies"/"grants" in real life?)? From a gameplay perspective it's much more palatable to bear food & gold costs than unhappiness costs (which also influence food & gold). And isn't specialization the hallmark of human specialization?

 

[Drakle]

Urbanisation unhappiness should still be a thing. The only change should be other ways of actually dealing with it. Once you get Gardens, there is a very large gap of any other methods to deal with it.

That is why I suggested alternative public works, which would be a -1 unhappiness from urbanisation. Because sometimes my happiness is equal to my empire population, and my yield unhappiness isn't too bad, but working specialists is just painful.

Though if we want something more for it, maybe a +5-10% Great Person generation. Not massive, but a little non-happiness related bonus.

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Drakle, I'd be ok with an alternative public works, but I'd want a bit more than -1 unhappiness from urbanisation, maybe rather -2 or even -3? Plus % GP generation is cool, but I'd want something to be strong at reducing urbanisation unhappiness. Like I said in my post: "and introduce a few more buildings/options to reduce unhappiness from specialists, I think there are too few at the moment."

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Edit to add: I sometimes want to observe non-capital AI cities, but I have to risk losing my spies and angering the AI because I can only choose between spies and thieves. It'd be great if we had a "diplomat" option for non-capital cities as well.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Are you sure about the median? I mean, for me it was extremely odd to have been working every single possible source of science in my cities, be the #3 in score and still have around half my population suffering from illiteracy, so I thought it might have had something to do with Korea&The Maya as the (science) leaders.

That's what the median is intended for! I can't be 100% sure if it's working as intended though. I'm not good at reading the code unfortunately. Maybe someone else can confirm?

 

[Valvts]

White Walkers mod please! That is, barbarians survival mod!

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Added some proposals from my other posts to the original posts.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

That's what the median is intended for! I can't be 100% sure if it's working as intended though. I'm not good at reading the code unfortunately. Maybe someone else can confirm?

I remember a game, long ago, where the removal of America(civ) lead to a huge unhappiness jump to me and I investigated what directly lead to that jump.
I found out, that the calculation of the median value was only accurate, if an uneven number of civs existed. In the case, that a even number of civs exists (like in a standard setting), it has always taken the value of the civ above the median, not the middle value of the civs around the median.
That's very likely 2 years ago, I don't know if the mechic which is grabbing the correct median value still exists in the same way or not.

Urbanisation unhappiness should still be a thing. The only change should be other ways of actually dealing with it. Once you get Gardens, there is a very large gap of any other methods to deal with it.

That's very irrational, not? You want, that urbanization stays, but also want more options to reduce it. If more urbanization options are achieved by buildings, very likely that you build most or all of them anyway, then why even bother with it?

Simply adjust the cost/benefit ratio of specialists by yields. Do you really think people would excessively use specialists, if specialist slots where doubled or trippled? Where would all the food for them come from? Alone with base buildings you are able work 20 specialists, looking on some ingame pictures from posts, that's equal to the size of a lot of players cities in industrial age and later.

I would say let them consume +1 gold, increased by every 2 eras, increase base yield by one but decrease GPP generation by one and they should be balanced.