Suggestions and Requests

[BogdanRo]

I've been thinking about some changes to the Byzantine starting situation, to add a bunch of bells and whistles, in order to make the whole player experience even better - would this be of interest?

@Leoreth
Before I flesh this out, a question - to what extent can AI units be pre-programmed to do a certain move on the first turn? (e.g. making sure a barbarian unit, which starts out pre-placed on the map, always sacks the nearby city on its first turn, instead of wandering off aimlessly)

 

[Leoreth]

They cannot, and I would not want the game to be this scripted anyway.

 

[Dracosolon]

Don't know about the AI but I feel like the new tech start for 600 AD France is too easy for the player. It's four extra techs compared to the 500 AD start, and Feudalism in particular is a bit much.

 

[AOS9001]

The Arabia nerf has had an unintended side-effect: Arabia is usually dead by the time you get your first Great Merchant as Mali. And because it's collapsed...

You get situations like this, where Jerusalem and Mecca are barbarian cities. And do you know who can't enter barbarian cities? (I gave my GM back his movement points to illustrate this before he died)

Your Great Merchant, because you're always at war with barbs.

Suggestion: what if holy cities always became indies when their owner collapses?

Also I personally think the Arabia core nerf should be undone, it's becoming rare to see them even last until 1000. Maybe a modifier nerf instead of a core nerf?

 

[Orbii]

Two quick comments on Central America after an Aztec attempt and Spain game (on the second most recent commit).

1. I don't know if the Aztec UHV is possible anymore, particularly the 'make Tenonchtitlan the biggest city' goal. The best I could get was 'maybe' 20 population if I settled a few GMs. Meanwhile, Java was pushing size 24 in a city. Maybe change this to a 'Have a population of 17 in Tenonchtitlan BY X date'? The Aztecs have no ability to affect the other civs pushing big cities after all (usually China, France, Java, Japan) so the UHV Is just hoping the AI collapses. I chose 17 arbitrarily and there's probably a more exact number that could be chosen. I think a 'by' goal mitigates frustration from plague timing.
2. Could the Miami seafood be moved 1S? Havana right now can't access that seafood (it is 2NE) but the city 1E of it can (while also getting the Cuban Iron and losing no other resource coverage). The 1E city will still be better even if Havana can access the Miami seafood, but at least now it's slightly closer.

 

[Leoreth]

I was thinking already about making the 1E city be Havana despite the geographical inaccuracy. It is hard to justify founding on the accurate Havana tile.

 

[AOS9001]

I was thinking already about making the 1E city be Havana despite the geographical inaccuracy. It is hard to justify founding on the accurate Havana tile.

I like two found two Cuba cities, one on Havana as it is now, and the other on top of the iron so I can block the British from settling Jamaica or the Bahamas and stealing said iron with their culture while grabbing the sugar and salt for myself.

 

[Orbii]

I like two found two Cuba cities, one on Havana as it is now, and the other on top of the iron so I can block the British from settling Jamaica or the Bahamas and stealing said iron with their culture while grabbing the sugar and salt for myself.

Is there a civ that has Cuba as historical but not Hispaniola? In my Spain run I settled the 1E Havana, and a city on the Amber in Hispaniola, as that city gets the salt and iron.

 

[Dracosolon]

What about moving the sea resources around?

- West of Cuba to justify settling Havana (though you end up with one tile out of reach, which then shouldn't have the Iron),
- South of Hispaniola to justify settling to the south (as opposed to settling north, to get the Salt).

Florida could also lose its jungle and marsh eventually, though I'm not sure to what. Rainforest, flood plains? Even then there probably isn't enough space for Miami.

 

[Leoreth]

I don't know if the Aztec UHV is possible anymore, particularly the 'make Tenonchtitlan the biggest city' goal. The best I could get was 'maybe' 20 population if I settled a few GMs. Meanwhile, Java was pushing size 24 in a city. Maybe change this to a 'Have a population of 17 in Tenonchtitlan BY X date'? The Aztecs have no ability to affect the other civs pushing big cities after all (usually China, France, Java, Japan) so the UHV Is just hoping the AI collapses. I chose 17 arbitrarily and there's probably a more exact number that could be chosen. I think a 'by' goal mitigates frustration from plague timing.

Using world builder, the highest food output I could push the site to was 52 food using Floating Gardens but no additional settled specialists. Leaving health and happiness aside, this allows reaching size 26. This is obviously a constructed example, but reaching 20-21 should be enough to win this goal if not for Wilwatikta. Which I think could stand to lose a food resource anyway.

 

[AOS9001]

We have finally reached this point. From now on, I will focus my efforts on the last steps of getting v1.18 ready for release.

This doesn't mean that the release will come in the next few days. There is still a lot to do, like performance improvements, getting the modules ready for release, improving tests and addressing debug issues, and updating the documentation. Nevertheless, it means that more substantive changes will be deprioritized until after release.

It also means that now is the best time to report any important issues you still see with the current state of the mod so I can address them before release. Of course, you can still continue interacting with the mod as normal. I will continue to address bugs and relevant balance issues as usual, the only difference is that some things might be implemented later as I focus on the tasks critical for the release.

I'm posting this in this thread since I think more people will see it.

I think there are two issues remaining that will need to be addressed sooner or later:

The first: America and Russia struggling to do anything. Has anyone else noticed this? I know most people don't play to the late game, but on regent/normal these two civs seldom become anything more than regional powers, and seldom expand far beyond their flip zones. They're powerhouses in the hands of a player, but the AI just chokes when using these civs.

The second: England-France-Netherlands tech snowballing. All the New World civs spawn in at least one tech row behind the big three, sometimes two or even three tech rows behind. England routinely gets Film in the 1840s or 1850s and Netherlands has researched Radio well before 1900 in many cases. Brazil is unwinnable on regent/normal and America often gets its non-civic dependent UHV wonders sniped. Many New World wonders are built by Old World civs before the New World civs can get started, or sometimes even spawn.

Does anyone else play to late game frequently enough to notice these trends?

 

[Leoreth]

What scenario, difficulty and gamespeed are these observations from?

 

[AOS9001]

What scenario, difficulty and gamespeed are these observations from?

Regent/normal, all of them. America and Russia failing to thrive is present in both 600 AD and 1700 AD scenarios, and the New World tech lag is mostly on the 1700 AD scenario. It's slightly less in the 600 AD scenario, the New World civs are usually only a few techs to one full row behind when they start spawning. I think this is due to the various inter-European wars that get to happen between 600 and 1776, which accumulates enough delay in teching that the playing field is slightly less uneven for later spawns. In the 1700 scenario, inter-European wars aren't nearly as common so improvements aren't pillaged, cities aren't captured, and economies grow and fuel the tech snowballing.

 

[Leoreth]

Interesting. Perhaps it might help to make European civs start at worse terms with each other in 1700 AD.

I am mostly asking to determine whether the research speed proceeds too fast in general or whether certain European civilizations are two economically powerful.

 

[AOS9001]

I am mostly asking to determine whether the research speed proceeds too fast in general or whether certain European civilizations are two economically powerful.

I think research costs are currently okay, but England/France/Netherlands have such good modifiers that they can blaze through them and leave not only just New World civs and second-rate European civs like Spain and Prussia behind, but also should-be modern world powers like America, Japan, and Russia. The problem isn't the research costs, it's that specific civs don't seem to be slowed down by them like everyone else is.

It's not without precedent (England, France, and the Netherlands all had vast colonial empires to exploit and were early adopters of industrialization), but the fact that the other Western (or Westernized) great powers of the 19th and 20th centuries (Prussia->Germany, America, Russia, Japan, and Italy if they're around) get as left behind as Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Norway-Denmark, and Sweden tells me something is off.
Note on Prussia: they're not as hopeless as the other should-be civs, but they're definitely not on the same tier as the big three techers. Sometimes they do manage to get the Amber Room or Brandenburg Gate before England or France.

Once again I welcome anyone else who plays to late game to share their observations, I don't think I should be the sole voice advocating for change here.

 

[Dracosolon]

Semi-related, but I feel like 1700 AD France starts with too many upgraded Cottages, especially the northern half with Paris and Nantes. In real life the area between Paris, Lyon and Bordeaux in particular has low urbanization (the "Empty diagonal"), and Paris could do with more improvements.

 

[banzay13]

Maybe colonies maintenance with colonialism and monarchy too low?

 

[Zaddy]

I do agree, I usually play Regent/Marathon but want to echo what AOS is saying. Although, I haven't experienced a crazy Netherlands yet (they occasionally build an important wonder or two, but nothing huge). However, it's very true that France/Britain can easily run away with the game. The early steps for some of the late spawning civs like Prussia or America is to destroy Britain/France ASAP, because they're extremely dangerous if you're trying to win a UHV.

America rarely does anything impressive (it often fails to even obtain New Orleans or California) and is not very threatening. I think the AI could use a little more help expanding, although I'm not sure how to encourage that short of scripted sequences. Maybe the AI could start with a larger army? Congresses evidently do not solve the issue at the moment.

I've had one game where Prussia conquered almost all of central and western Europe, but otherwise the AI is very passive as usual and simply gets eclipsed by civs that have a huge head start on them.

To be clear, I don't think either of these civs need a buff - I think France/Britain need moderate nerfs. Specifically to tech speed.

 

[AOS9001]

To be clear, I don't think either of these civs need a buff - I think France/Britain need moderate nerfs. Specifically to tech speed.

Yes, this is exactly what I think. It's not so much that the other civs are bad*, it's that AI France and Britain are too good right now.

*Russia and America could be good in the AI's hands, but it requires the AI to actually expand and develop its empire. You'd think Civ IV AI would be good at this!

 

[Leoreth]

How recent are your expansion observations? There has been another settler AI update in the last week, and they seemed to be doing better after that.