State of the Mod: 7/24v3

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
11,095
So I've been gone a long time, and just got a few games under my belt with the latest version. Thought I'd give my perspective on how the mod is running from someone who hasn't touch it in a while.

Leaders: I played China both times, definately a fun and powerful civ. The only thing I can is just looking through the list of leaders there were a lot more of them I was interested in playing. So the "feel" is good, I can't comment too much on the strength yet.

Religion: I am enjoying Religion a lot more than the base game. The religious choices seem a lot more interesting and balanced (I chose Dance of the Aurora for the first time ever!), and I like how your religious national building gives you a strong incentive to spread your religion.

As far as spreading religion, Missionaries are a lot better now, and quickly become the default way to spread. I am having more success spreading religion, though moving your religion to another continent can be difficult even with trade routes and missionaries. But its a difficult push....not a hopeless endeavor, which is what I wanted to see.

Military: I can't say much here just yet, both of my games were very passive (I was on an isolated start so it made sense). My only feedback, I do like the weakening of ranged units overall. I do think the spearmen is a bit strong at 11, 10 might be good for him. I find that he kills everything, archers can't scratch him, warriors die to him as do horsemen.

Policies: Overall, a huge improvement from the base game. I've tried both Might and Liberty as my starts, and enjoyed both of them a good amount. For my Might start, I actually wound up on an island with no barbs, so I moved over to Liberty. However, I found the tribute bonus and the free settler still made it a good investment.

I question whether Rationalism is too strong. 10% bonuses are now very rare in the game so that's a strong bonus, plus the golden age. And the +2 science per specialist is actually an incredibly good bonus.

Terraforming: The Farm Adjacency bonus is interesting, and I put it to good use. Villages seem interesting for the culture, though I think gold is lacking (see below).

I do think that jungle removal at metal casting is too late, I had a jungle start (with good jungle resources) that I quit once I realized how long it would take to clear them and put down plantations.

I found the Great Merchant Towns to be very useful because of the food, and I settled most of those. I built a few academies early, but then bulbed the rest.

Gold: I thought the investment system was neat when I saw it on paper, but after a few games I find it very tedious.

Mid to Late game I am swimming in money, so I can invest all the time, which is just a boring waste of clicks to me. It would be something if I could invest in multiple buildings on the same round so I don't have to keep coming back. I don't need it for CS with CSD, so that is basically all I am doing with my gold.

So overall I don't value gold at all. I would rather have more expensive buys than the constant investments.

Buildings: Just a few building notes.

Seaport: Very interesting what you all did with this one. Its very very powerful, but costs coal. I am liking it so far.

Stockyard: Good use of horses late game. It comes at a point where I still need horses for my military units so there is a strategic choice. And then late game I can start adding the building to my lesser cities.

Well/WaterMill: My general comment is about all of the nonriver/river buildings. I don't see the point of this. Rivers are still better in this mod...except now there is one more building added in at a time when there are already plenty of things to build. I would rather just have the weaker watermill....or just create 1 building type for all cities....and just allow the river starts natural advantage to be its differentiators.

Culture Buildings: I find them all general more useful, and build them now.

Stoneworks: This building is a hella powerful now!

Trade Routes: Right now Internal Trade Routes just seem a lot better than external ones. Growth is a big deal now, so funneling food into a city is huge. That and gold again feels weak overall. I didn't try any land trade routes, the sea ones are still very strong.

Happiness: Overall, I found happiness to be a nonissue. First thing, expanding in this version is so much easier than the base game....and I think that's a bad thing. You start recreating the land grab from Civ 4, and I preferred a Civ having to develop some infrastructure after 2-3 cities before pushing some more.

But beyond that, I never had to do anything to attend to my cities' happiness. I never built a Colosseum or a zoo, didn't need to. I got to 10 happiness pretty easily and stayed that way through the majority of the game.

I recognize all of the work that has gone into that system....but I'm going back to some of my original arguments made a long time ago. The system is more fiddly, its harder for new players to understand....and I am not seeing the benefits.

The scaling luxury idea makes sense and I like how it reduces their need early on. Perhaps you could incorporate the +1 happiness per X people idea to the coliseum and zoo to again promote Tall play. But the original system is simpler and works pretty well...I've never had a big issue with it.

Misc: Astronomy doesn't tell you that all of your units can cross ocean now...which confused me.

All of the terrain reveals tied to tech....I don't understand the point of this. All of the early techs are good for one thing or another, I don't need all of the tile reveals tied to it as well.
 
So I've been gone a long time, and just got a few games under my belt with the latest version. Thought I'd give my perspective on how the mod is running from someone who hasn't touch it in a while.

Leaders: I played China both times, definately a fun and powerful civ. The only thing I can is just looking through the list of leaders there were a lot more of them I was interested in playing. So the "feel" is good, I can't comment too much on the strength yet.

Policies: Overall, a huge improvement from the base game. I've tried both Might and Liberty as my starts, and enjoyed both of them a good amount. For my Might start, I actually wound up on an island with no barbs, so I moved over to Liberty. However, I found the tribute bonus and the free settler still made it a good investment.

I question whether Rationalism is too strong. 10% bonuses are now very rare in the game so that's a strong bonus, plus the golden age. And the +2 science per specialist is actually an incredibly good bonus.
For some reason this makes me proud and happy, which is strange considering I had no part in it :D.

You came back here at a weird time tbh, the forummigration happened right as a few major changes were made, including the piety and the rationalism tree, I would say they are in more or less of a beta-stage currently.
I completely agree that a total of 30% science from rationalism feels like way too much, one 10%er should probably go. On the other hand both other renaissance era trees are extremely strong.The investment improvement in industry for example pretty much cuts all your build-times in half, and the farmingbonus in imperialism is pretty insane.

Religion: I am enjoying Religion a lot more than the base game. The religious choices seem a lot more interesting and balanced (I chose Dance of the Aurora for the first time ever!), and I like how your religious national building gives you a strong incentive to spread your religion.

As far as spreading religion, Missionaries are a lot better now, and quickly become the default way to spread. I am having more success spreading religion, though moving your religion to another continent can be difficult even with trade routes and missionaries. But its a difficult push....not a hopeless endeavor, which is what I wanted to see.
I feel like the current Piety-tree makes religion a little bit more unstable than it was in the previous versions, but in general you're completely on-point, the follower-beliefs are so powerful that you almost feel bad about spreading your religion to your neighbors :D

Military: I can't say much here just yet, both of my games were very passive (I was on an isolated start so it made sense). My only feedback, I do like the weakening of ranged units overall. I do think the spearmen is a bit strong at 11, 10 might be good for him. I find that he kills everything, archers can't scratch him, warriors die to him as do horsemen.
I think the real problem is that the jump between spearman and pikeman (in number of techs) is too big. The spearman needs to be strong so that people with unique swordsment or people reaching steel first just don't roll over their neighbors.


Terraforming: The Farm Adjacency bonus is interesting, and I put it to good use. Villages seem interesting for the culture, though I think gold is lacking (see below).

I do think that jungle removal at metal casting is too late, I had a jungle start (with good jungle resources) that I quit once I realized how long it would take to clear them and put down plantations.

I found the Great Merchant Towns to be very useful because of the food, and I settled most of those. I built a few academies early, but then bulbed the rest.
Academies scale extremely well, they outclass mostly everything. I really rarely bulb my scientists anymore, that's possibly because I've always liked the longterm solution however.
Jungle removal is really late, I don't really know a better tech to place it on however. One thing I find way worse than the late jungle-removal is the late jungle improvement, you get access to jungle lumber-mills at metallurgy, that's imho way too late into the game for you to motivate not just cutting it all down to farm. (especially since the jungle lumber-mill isn't very good)

Gold: I thought the investment system was neat when I saw it on paper, but after a few games I find it very tedious.

Mid to Late game I am swimming in money, so I can invest all the time, which is just a boring waste of clicks to me. It would be something if I could invest in multiple buildings on the same round so I don't have to keep coming back. I don't need it for CS with CSD, so that is basically all I am doing with my gold.

So overall I don't value gold at all. I would rather have more expensive buys than the constant investments.
Gold is kinda bugged in this version as well from what I've gathered, early prices doubled from the last version I played.
I really disliked the investment system from the start but I've kinda warmed up to it. I however completely agree with you that there is nowhere near enough stuff to use your money for, especially if support from E&D is dropped(since that's pretty much where my money go atm).
I also still find it extremely annoying that you can't invest in multiple buildings or queue up multiple investments. I understand that the AI can't do that, so it wouldn't be fair, but honestly unless you severely abuse it, it isn't going to affect the game at all other than that you wont have to go through every city every turn to invest in a new building.

Buildings:
Well/WaterMill: My general comment is about all of the nonriver/river buildings. I don't see the point of this. Rivers are still better in this mod...except now there is one more building added in at a time when there are already plenty of things to build. I would rather just have the weaker watermill....or just create 1 building type for all cities....and just allow the river starts natural advantage to be its differentiators.
I really don't see the problem here, the mod doesn't add any extra building for you to build unless you're not in a river start. It acts as a slight buff to non-river start cities, which was kinda needed truth be told.

Trade Routes: Right now Internal Trade Routes just seem a lot better than external ones. Growth is a big deal now, so funneling food into a city is huge. That and gold again feels weak overall. I didn't try any land trade routes, the sea ones are still very strong.
Pretty ironic considering I never find myself using internal trade routes anymore, and I pretty much only use land-based traderoutes anyways as they are cheaper to get going and usually provide about the same, if not more gold.

Happiness: Overall, I found happiness to be a nonissue. First thing, expanding in this version is so much easier than the base game....and I think that's a bad thing. You start recreating the land grab from Civ 4, and I preferred a Civ having to develop some infrastructure after 2-3 cities before pushing some more.

But beyond that, I never had to do anything to attend to my cities' happiness. I never built a Colosseum or a zoo, didn't need to. I got to 10 happiness pretty easily and stayed that way through the majority of the game.

I recognize all of the work that has gone into that system....but I'm going back to some of my original arguments made a long time ago. The system is more fiddly, its harder for new players to understand....and I am not seeing the benefits.

The scaling luxury idea makes sense and I like how it reduces their need early on. Perhaps you could incorporate the +1 happiness per X people idea to the coliseum and zoo to again promote Tall play. But the original system is simpler and works pretty well...I've never had a big issue with it.
While I wouldn't exactly claim to never have happiness-problems, early game is usually a killer, especially if you expand too quickly. However one thing that in my opinion have fallen completely flat is the scaling luxuries, I just never see them leveling up. Sure I tend to be more on the expanding side than the passive side, mostly because my neighbors usually find some way to annoy me and I find the need to liberate their people from their stupid rules.
However with the luxuries usually staying at 1 happiness each I just don't find the reason to bother. I find myself settling cities out of strategic positioning or for bonus-resources rather than actually gather unique luxuries.

Misc: Astronomy doesn't tell you that all of your units can cross ocean now...which confused me.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I'm not quite sure why that was removed.

All of the terrain reveals tied to tech....I don't understand the point of this. All of the early techs are good for one thing or another, I don't need all of the tile reveals tied to it as well.
Honestly I really feel the same way, nothing bother me more than moving my first settler to the coast only to finally reach sailing and realize I have no fish anyways, at the same time I moved away from 3 deer-tiles that I couldn't see either.
 
While I wouldn't exactly claim to never have happiness-problems, early game is usually a killer, especially if you expand too quickly. However one thing that in my opinion have fallen completely flat is the scaling luxuries, I just never see them leveling up.

As for the luxuries, I had noticed that too, I was wondering if that was a UI bug or they were in fact not scaling. It would explain why the AIs won't give me crap for them anymore:)

As for early game, I'd like to set what you mean by "killer" for early expansion.

If I look at the base game, in general after my second city (if I have a decently growing first 2 cities), or at best my third city....I have to invest in luxuries and/or Colosseum to stay in positive happiness.

In the mod, I find I can have 4 cities total before happiness becomes a concern...and by concern I mean stays in the light negatives (-1 to -5). Overall I still feel like this is a weaker penalty than the base game's -75% to growth. Later game, the -% to all yields is more painful....but this early in the game that growth is critical so the penalty overall is not that bad.

Once I stabilize I also find that I can then expand again in the mod faster than I can in the base game and stay in good happiness. That's because your growth doesn't really affect your happiness in the mod, while it will continue to eat you in the base game. 3 growing cities can quickly eat the happiness that a 4th city would take.
 
"Easy expand" is a noob trap. Each city adds 2% needs threshold and you can shoot yourself in the foot if you over-expand too early.
 
I've been gone for quite a bit this month, so the forum migration came at a good time for me. Teaching picks back up for me in mid-August, so mod changes will come a bit more slowly after that time. That, said, I've got a few things in the pipeline:

  • Github bugfixes and crash diagnosis
  • Tune Rationalism a bit (reduce % bonuses)
  • Tune gold costs a bit
  • UI fixes
  • Celt UA refresh

The investment system works - it isn't perfect, mind you, but it gets the job done, and it (along with the purchase cooldown for units) fixes one of my least favorite exploits: insta-buying a dozen buildings in the same city in the same turn. I just don't like it, at all. So the investment system isn't going away any time soon. Gold values will continue to be tweaked, but the system will remain. If you don't like it, you can disable it manually.

I am considering removing the cooldown penalty on buildings, however, so that players can 'invest' in multiple buildings in the same city per turn (and/or buy units). This might be a fair compromise.

As far as 'fixing' gold is concerned, Civ 5 simply made Gold superfluous by separating it from the science and culture sliders of civ 4 (which is, of course, why the CS 'gold sinks' were created). Beyond adding an entirely new structure to the game (not gonna happen at this point in the mod's life-cycle), Gold is, and will likely continue to be superfluous, as it has no direct bearing on any other game mechanic (unlike science or culture).

For the Celts, I find their UA very boring. My current plan is to give the Celts a unique selection of Pantheons to pull from (each with Druidic/Celtic themes) instead of the standard set. That, plus the NW bonus, will make them a little more interesting. If this is appalling and/or appealing, let's take the conversation to the Celts leader subforum.

All in all, everyone having fun? That's the primary goal here, ultimately.

Cheers,
G
 
I'm having loads of fun and so is my brother - outside of the inevitable crashes playing with mods, in hot seat, on huge maps, the game is more entertaining and more dynamic than it's ever been in our thousands of hours of playing Civilization V.

I mean, yeah, there's still a bunch of things that I feel need tweaking, but in a game as carefully balanced as Civilization that's basically unavoidable. Overall, we both want to play Civilization V with the CBP more than any of the other games we own and we can't imagine going back to vanilla BNW, so I'd consider the mod a huge success.
 
The investment system works - it isn't perfect, mind you, but it gets the job done, and it (along with the purchase cooldown for units) fixes one of my least favorite exploits: insta-buying a dozen buildings in the same city in the same turn. I just don't like it, at all. So the investment system isn't going away any time soon. Gold values will continue to be tweaked, but the system will remain. If you don't like it, you can disable it manually.

My counter thought would be....if you have so much gold that you can insta buy that many buildings....then you earned the right to do it. Its not really an exploit....that is a very very expensive flush of gold for that ability.

But you mention that you can disable it manually, which sounds good to me. If I do that, will it also adjust the buying costs back to baseline...or would that be another set of tweaks?

I am considering removing the cooldown penalty on buildings, however, so that players can 'invest' in multiple buildings in the same city per turn (and/or buy units). This might be a fair compromise.

My thought here is...what would you lose by adding this in? Since I still have to spend production turns to get all of those buildings, the exploit you are concerned about still goes away. All it does is add convenience to the player. This technically would be the same is if the player queue up a series of buildings, and went to invest the second each building started building.
 
One specific question regarding gold investments in buildings...

Is the hammer to gold ratio the same for both buildings and units? Or, are the costs the same for both (full price) yet buildings reduce by half while units are instant?
 
Surely one of the main uses of gold now is buying units relatively quickly when you get surprised by a war. It gives a great tactical balance to strike to save up enough gold to react when needed, while also upgrading units as needed. You also have to balance pushing all your units through your city with the most experience adding buildings, but taking longer, or pushing them out of all of your buildings but having lower initial promotions. I find this adds a really exciting element to warfare when you are playing peacefully, but also when you change gears and decide it is time to stomp on another civ.

And don't forget you can also buy diplomacy units, so gold is still useful for allying city states, so they are still potential gold sinks (though you need to invest in wonders/policies/buildings to make the most of that approach). Maybe if you could also use gold to buy religious units (add it to piety policies?) then gold would have plenty of uses. Another add on could be making sure the AI is willing to trade gold for diplomatic effects like declaring war on others (maybe remove the declaration of friendship requirement for lump sum payments under some circumstances?). Tech trading for gold could be another option, as would the possibility of buying unique units from other civs (maybe a useful role for militaristic city states now they have unique units?).
 
Surely one of the main uses of gold now is buying units relatively quickly when you get surprised by a war. It gives a great tactical balance to strike to save up enough gold to react when needed, while also upgrading units as needed. You also have to balance pushing all your units through your city with the most experience adding buildings, but taking longer, or pushing them out of all of your buildings but having lower initial promotions. I find this adds a really exciting element to warfare when you are playing peacefully, but also when you change gears and decide it is time to stomp on another civ.

And don't forget you can also buy diplomacy units, so gold is still useful for allying city states, so they are still potential gold sinks (though you need to invest in wonders/policies/buildings to make the most of that approach). Maybe if you could also use gold to buy religious units (add it to piety policies?) then gold would have plenty of uses. Another add on could be making sure the AI is willing to trade gold for diplomatic effects like declaring war on others (maybe remove the declaration of friendship requirement for lump sum payments under some circumstances?). Tech trading for gold could be another option, as would the possibility of buying unique units from other civs (maybe a useful role for militaristic city states now they have unique units?).
 
The investment system works - it isn't perfect, mind you, but it gets the job done, and it (along with the purchase cooldown for units) fixes one of my least favorite exploits: insta-buying a dozen buildings in the same city in the same turn. I just don't like it, at all. So the investment system isn't going away any time soon. Gold values will continue to be tweaked, but the system will remain. If you don't like it, you can disable it manually.
Again, you could have just put a 1 per turn limit on the building purchase, that would solve your least favorite exploit as well :D. I'm kinda fine with the investmentsystem however, especially if the buildingcooldown goes away. I really think the goldvalues from the older versions for earlygame stuff was completely fine, 80ish for a scout, 100 for a warrior 150 for a worker, 100 for most earlygame buildings. The prices at the moment are pretty much double that, making earlygame gold pretty much useless.
I'm still not a fan of investing in wonders, I just like to put that out here while we're discussing the investment-system.

I am considering removing the cooldown penalty on buildings, however, so that players can 'invest' in multiple buildings in the same city per turn (and/or buy units). This might be a fair compromise.
Just do it, it will somewhat solve the gold problem as well, since at least in my cast most of my huge gold-surpluses comes from it being way too annoying to micromanage investments in multiple cities. Being able to dump all your gold in one turn by investing in everything and making a production-queue would at least help.

As far as 'fixing' gold is concerned, Civ 5 simply made Gold superfluous by separating it from the science and culture sliders of civ 4 (which is, of course, why the CS 'gold sinks' were created). Beyond adding an entirely new structure to the game (not gonna happen at this point in the mod's life-cycle), Gold is, and will likely continue to be superfluous, as it has no direct bearing on any other game mechanic (unlike science or culture).
I wonder what would make a good gold-sink. Making it something weird like superincreased unit maintenance in later eras would mostly hurt the AI as they are both terrible at warfare and terrible at economy. Fixing/reworking the E&D system would probably be the easiest solution (and yes I'm aware you don't want to do that, I'm just thinking out loud). Do you have no ideas on the matter?

For the Celts, I find their UA very boring. My current plan is to give the Celts a unique selection of Pantheons to pull from (each with Druidic/Celtic themes) instead of the standard set. That, plus the NW bonus, will make them a little more interesting. If this is appalling and/or appealing, let's take the conversation to the Celts leader subforum.
Not sure I'm a fan of this actually, pantheons exists and should probably be used. You're however completely right about the celtic UA, it just doesn't feel very fun.
You're also right about this being better to handle in the leaders subforum.

My thought here is...what would you lose by adding this in? Since I still have to spend production turns to get all of those buildings, the exploit you are concerned about still goes away. All it does is add convenience to the player. This technically would be the same is if the player queue up a series of buildings, and went to invest the second each building started building.

There is only one really argument against it, and that's the fact that the AI can't do invest in or purchase more than one thing per city per turn. This doesn't really matter if you only invest in buildings, but there are some situations where you come out ahead. The chief among those being that if you invest in multiple buildings at the same turn you can use your next turn to purchase units, meaning you're basically getting the building-investment turns for free. I'm however fairly certain that this won't actually make enough of a difference to matter in the long run. It might be a minor buff to OCC, but it's not like OCC is balanced in this mod anyways.
 
Is it possible to 'buy' golden age, WLTKD, or GP Points with gold? Food gets loosely converted into all other resources by having population work tiles. Production gets loosely converted into all other resources by making buildings which give yields. Science and Culture buy techs and policies which convert to all other yields. Gold currently just converts to production. Why not let gold buy the things that production isn't very good at producing?

You already have to produce gold because of poverty, so now you just need something to spend it on that *feels* impactful without actually being too big of a deal. These are the things I suggested because it is difficult to get them otherwise but they only provide small bonuses.
 
Would it be possible to fix the irrelevancy of gold in the mid/late game by almost exponentially ramping up unit and building maintenance costs? Military maintenance has ballooned up in the modern era, so it would make sense in terms of realism. And if increased building maintenance would make certain buildings not cost-effective like banks and stock exchanges, how about only making key buildings (those that affect science and growth) much more expensive in terms of maintenance?

Obviously for the AI, who rarely have a good economy as the player, it may be better for just them to have vanilla building maintenance costs.
 
For what it's worth, I would vastly prefer a 1-turn cooldown over the investment mechanic and leave the investment for wonders only (subject to the same cooldown as buildings). That makes it more alluring to buy things and makes wonders into a partial gold sink.

I also don't like the terrain reveals for bonus resources, they are just un-fun and have no strategic impact. With strategics, it's different: not having strategics in your early cities doesn't hurt the cities but it provides an incentive to push for another wave of settling - especially since strategics benefit the whole civ.

Bonus resources only (directly) benefit one city, so all it does is making you not settle or feel frustrated. It never creates interesting moments or forces choices, it just makes you go "meh".

Regarding gold sinks in general: an obvious choice would be making corporations more dependent on buying the offices and your overall treasury. Another idea would be tying it into war weariness, making it increase unit maintenance as well - protracted wars are a lot more expensive than short skirmishes or a standing peacetime army. That way, having lots of gold "buys" you the ability to have long wars - or potentially bleed dry enemies if you have bigger coffers (this effect should, of course, scale with era - early game wars are penalised enough by the war monger penalty).
 
I think there should be an option to invest gpt for science/faith/culture in appropriate proportion.
 
I think there should be an option to invest gpt for science/faith/culture in appropriate proportion.
Sounds like the return of the sliders, which Gazebo ruled out. Don't think it's an entirely off-base idea, though: one idea that came up as part of the mod a long time ago were temporary buy-only buildings. I think that would be done better with the Events & Decisions system, though.
 
I am considering removing the cooldown penalty on buildings, however, so that players can 'invest' in multiple buildings in the same city per turn (and/or buy units). This might be a fair compromise.

How would this work? You can still only buy e.g. half of the production cost - are you going to make it possible to add more than one item to the production queue, all of them something you've invested in? Sorry if I'm talking rubbish here. Have a hard time explaining this in English. I'd just like to add that I really like the new system where items are only partially bought with gold.

\Skodkim
 
Another few positives I wanted to throw in there:

1) AI: Definately stronger than the base AI. I was playing Emperor in the base game, now I find Prince a decent challenge, with King a very nice challenge.

2) Early Warfare: I am loving Classical Warfare now. I love that I don't have to have catapults for everything, that walls are a significant bonus, that 3 spearmen are a force to be reckoned with.

I recently found the one of the best city spots I can ever remember finding (3 wheat, 3 sheep, 3 diamonds..all around flood plained rivers). I instantly made it my 2nd city...and then Japan declared war and slapped the city away from me. I got it back only to have Assyria come and take it for themselves. Much more exciting than I am used to in the early game.
 
Sounds like the return of the sliders, which Gazebo ruled out. Don't think it's an entirely off-base idea, though: one idea that came up as part of the mod a long time ago were temporary buy-only buildings. I think that would be done better with the Events & Decisions system, though.

E&D is, ultimately, the obvious answer for a gold-sink. The problem with it is that I hate LUA, and it is all LUA. Blurgh.

Also, welcome back, Tirian! Good to see you around again.
G
 
Back
Top Bottom