The next beta- changelog

[Txurce]

"First adopters now only get 1 free tenet - used to be 2"

With this change there seems to be no advantage to founding an ideology. Why wouldn't everyone just pick the same one as everyone else?

I can imagine some reasons why you wouldn't, but this is a good point regardless.

And I second the various OB questions above.

 

[CrazyG]

G, I really think progress needs to get for citizens already born when it takes the opener. The issue with progress currently isn't a lack of power. When the timing with policy choices and capital growth works well its a very strong and fun to play tree.

What it lacks is consistency. When the timing on capital growth and the first social goes poorly the opener just provides extremely few yields early on. I don't think the additional 5 per citizen outside the capital is a good addition. Long term its a great bonus, but the tree doesn't need more long term power, it needs a more consistent opening.

Giving such a big reward to citizen growth in the capital is a very swingy effect, because sometimes within the first 30 turns that opener gives me 120 , but sometimes it gives me 0. I think granting something like 20 for all existing citizens would be a good addition.

 

[Gazebo]

I can imagine some reasons why you wouldn't, but this is a good point regardless.

And I second the various OB questions above.

OBs will be slightly more flexible in the next version.

G, I really think progress needs to get for citizens already born when it takes the opener. The issue with progress currently isn't a lack of power. When the timing with policy choices and capital growth works well its a very strong and fun to play tree.

What it lacks is consistency. When the timing on capital growth and the first social goes poorly the opener just provides extremely few yields early on. I don't think the additional 5 per citizen outside the capital is a good addition. Long term its a great bonus, but the tree doesn't need more long term power, it needs a more consistent opening.

Giving such a big reward to citizen growth in the capital is a very swingy effect, because sometimes within the first 30 turns that opener gives me 120 , but sometimes it gives me 0. I think granting something like 20 for all existing citizens would be a good addition.

I was under the impression that this solution had been torpedoed. It is the solution I prefer, but for some reason I thought there was push back against it.

G

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Classic G.

Like when everybody just agreed that zoos adding tourism to forest was bogus, then he goes ahead and changes the extra bonus tourism on zoo completion without addressing the issue at all. But if you take yourself out of the shoes of a "player", and put yourself into the shoes of a person who runs a bunch of simulated games looking at the overall end results, then some of his changes begin to make at least a little sense to you. It's the same reason he's probably not concerned about open borders right now, overall in sim games it's likely having the desired effect he was looking for, even though it's obviously untenable for somebody playing the game.

All the random, needless changes that fail to hit the mark of issues sprinkled in every patch have this mod continuously moving in the wrong direction, just constantly making new problems to address. This mod needs the -community- put back into -vox populi-, have someone like ElliotS (or anyone who actually plays the game and knows whats up from a players perspective) be put in charge of the balancing, and if G wants to contribute he can continue to handle bugs and implement things like the fog of war change they just did, things that improve AI functions. Let G continue to do the things like that he's actually good at, and delegate some responsibility for the balancing aspect because he continues to show just time and time again balance isn't something he can get a grasp on.

I heavily disagree, it's astounding how many times I give Gazebo suggestions and then he actually implements them. It happened during several betas already and is always pretty nice. I'd argue he's one of the few mod devs who actually listens, even. I do partially agree about simulation overreliance though, especially considering how runawAIs behave.

My reply is to both you and Enrico, since your commentary is similar (and appreciated). As an aside, I never take criticism of mod changes personally. Why would I? I only take it personally if someone makes it personal, which is silly.

In any case, yeah, Autocracy is nerfed in this outline (code hasn't been written yet, this is just a draft). Why? Because war is a zero-sum game, and tenets that make late-game war virtually trivial for the player take away any amount of challenge. If the game, up to ideologies, requires hard choices and decisions, and suddenly you can just say 'screw it,' grab autocracy + lightning warfare + any other tenet and steamroll your neighbors (ignoring diplo penalties, etc)...that kinda defeats the point of turns 0-300 no, right?

Autocracy wasn't really a better choice even before, but now its problems mostly aren't fixed and it's strength is weakened to the point the choppiest of its policies which admittedly was too strong won't be worth picking at all. Sure, zero-sum game, but this late if you want to win domination most of your conquest is done or you have to suddenly conquer most of the world in a short period of time which will be bordering on impossible. As it is, Order might arguably become better even for warmongering - sure, no big combat bonuses at all, but it does have way superior yields and great technological edge. What made the late-game war trivial was only the FOC ignoring on tanks in this policy. It'd be better to just take that from both land troops and vehicles and grant the policy a secondary benefit as otherwise it'll be just 1 mov 15% attack, and that's not really better than what's in authority in ancient era. Even if combat bonuses can't be big, at least turn Autocracy more scientific. If you turn Autocracy inferior at yields, city growth, culture, golden ages (as it is now pretty much) while it's only real edge is a tiny amount of +CS, people will just pick Order.

[Autarky is tough. I don't love my rewrite, but I also find that yet more base yields to cities is a really boring solution. A buff to international and internal trade routes at least generates player choices and can be used in interesting ways.

United Front and Gunboat are buffed versions of their former selves. And yes, the 'increase influence from bullying' is a bear, as I'd have to teach the AI. Happy to consider other solutions, but AI work takes a lot of time.

How does Autarky generate player choice? It actively takes it away. With it buffing both international and internal ones, it doesn't change which one you'll end up using (probably international since internals are inferior anyway), and it makes it so your choice in who is your trade partner is reduced as you can only do it with irrelevant civs heavily behind in culture (vassals?) or those who also took Autocracy. The solution fixes nothing as AI might still take a policy that is even worse than it used to be when it already was seriously bad even compared to suff found in ancient era before the nerf, heavily hurting itself, while a player will just look at Autarky and say nope. Same with United Front, Gunboat, draft-Lightning Warfare etc. It's also just as boring. Does it matter if the yields are on city connections, which you are going to be using anyway unless enemies pillage them, or on Trade Routes which you will be using anyway unless the enemies pillage them? I see nothing more interesting about one or the other, just that the former is better for a wide empire and the latter would be maybe welcome for a tall one.

Also United Front is not on the draft though? It got no buffs. What do you mean by that? Gunboat is buffed, sure, but it's still nothing I'd ever pick. That's two text-taking effects which do not work in practice and one that seems like it'd be a third or maybe a half of a T1 tenet.

 

[ashendashin]

My reply is to both you and Enrico, since your commentary is similar (and appreciated). As an aside, I never take criticism of mod changes personally. Why would I? I only take it personally if someone makes it personal, which is silly.

In any case, yeah, Autocracy is nerfed in this outline (code hasn't been written yet, this is just a draft). Why? Because war is a zero-sum game, and tenets that make late-game war virtually trivial for the player take away any amount of challenge. If the game, up to ideologies, requires hard choices and decisions, and suddenly you can just say 'screw it,' grab autocracy + lightning warfare + any other tenet and steamroll your neighbors (ignoring diplo penalties, etc)...that kinda defeats the point of turns 0-300 no, right?

Autarky is tough. I don't love my rewrite, but I also find that yet more base yields to cities is a really boring solution. A buff to international and internal trade routes at least generates player choices and can be used in interesting ways.

United Front and Gunboat are buffed versions of their former selves. And yes, the 'increase influence from bullying' is a bear, as I'd have to teach the AI. Happy to consider other solutions, but AI work takes a lot of time.

G

I love this post. I didn't participate much in the Autocracy yields discussion because since when was it hard to win with Autocracy? War is always an option in civ and further city buffs to something that encourages massive empires would make the autocratic snowball faster.

Nevertheless, I also dislike your approach. The whole tree is actually very boring compared to Order and these slight nerfs just make me wonder why I'd ever pick Autocracy. There's nothing in there that Freedom and Order doesn't do better. Lightning Warfare would still be good in my opinion, but overall these changes don't improve the situation, which was agreed on needing improvements.

The whole deal on buffing straight yields doesn't sit right with me. Why not a more autocratic solution? Something I was going for in the tuning thread was encouraging different sets of the standard unit approach. Right now it's all about the tanks, so I thought giving gun and air units unique abilities would be a new, but slower way to establish your dominance. Would that approach be too AI heavy? I also think it would be pretty damn awesome if there was a way to take control of city-state resources without conquering them for once.

 

[Gazebo]

I heavily disagree, it's astounding how many times I give Gazebo suggestions and then he actually implements them. It happened during several betas already and is always pretty nice. I'd argue he's one of the few mod devs who actually listens, even.



Autocracy wasn't really a better choice even before, but now its problems mostly aren't fixed and it's strength is weakened to the point the choppiest of its policies which admittedly was too strong won't be worth picking at all. Sure, zero-sum game, but this late if you want to win domination most of your conquest is done or you have to suddenly conquer most of the world in a short period of time which will be bordering on impossible. As it is, Order might arguably become better even for warmongering - sure, no big combat bonuses at all, but it does have way superior yields and great technological edge. What made the late-game war trivial was only the FOC ignoring on tanks in this policy. It'd be better to just take that from both land troops and vehicles and grant the policy a secondary benefit as otherwise it'll be just 1 mov 15% attack, and that's not really better than what's in authority in ancient era. Even if combat bonuses can't be big, at least turn Autocracy more scientific. If you turn Autocracy inferior at yields, city growth, culture, golden ages (as it is now pretty much) while it's only real edge is a tiny amount of +CS, people will just pick Order.



How does Autarky generate player choice? It actively takes it away. With it buffing both international and internal ones, it doesn't change which one you'll end up using (probably international since internals are inferior anyway), and it makes it so your choice in who is your trade partner is reduced as you can only do it with irrelevant civs heavily behind in culture (vassals?) or those who also took Autocracy. The solution fixes nothing as AI might still take a policy that is even worse than it used to be when it already was seriously bad even compared to suff found in ancient era before the nerf, heavily hurting itself, while a player will just look at Autarky and say nope. Same with United Front, Gunboat, draft-Lightning Warfare etc. It's also just as boring. Does it matter if the yields are on city connections, which you are going to be using anyway unless enemies pillage them, or on Trade Routes which you will be using anyway unless the enemies pillage them? I see nothing more interesting about one or the other, just that the former is better for a wide empire and the latter would be maybe welcome for a tall one.

Also United Front is not on the draft though? It got no buffs. What do you mean by that? Gunboat is buffed, sure, but it's still nothing I'd ever pick. That's two text-taking effects which do not work in practice and one that seems like it'd be a third or maybe a half of a T1 tenet.

Autarky has more player choice relative to what it was before and/or any suggested changes. Sorry, wasn't clear. There are synergies with tourism/wonders/buildings/other policies with trade routes that don't really happen with city connection buffs.

United Front should be in patch notes, missed it. It gets 300% rate of units gifted from CSs, and +50% worker improvement. So it's an infrastructure/diplo tenet.

Total War's Warscore buff is better than it looks, as you can get to 100 Warscore really quickly (either to capitulate foes or use it for a culture victory).

Lightning Warfare seems to be the sticking point, and I get that. It was a super fun tenet. We could give it back its ZOC for tanks, move it to Tier 3, move Air Supremacy down to Tier 2 and make it +100% production of airports instead of free airports. Might balance things out a bit.

G

 

[Beniito]

OBs will be slightly more flexible in the next version.

yay

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Autarky has more player choice relative to what it was before and/or any suggested changes. Sorry, wasn't clear. There are synergies with tourism/wonders/buildings/other policies with trade routes that don't really happen with city connection buffs.

United Front should be in patch notes, missed it. It gets 300% rate of units gifted from CSs, and +50% worker improvement. So it's an infrastructure/diplo tenet.

Total War's Warscore buff is better than it looks, as you can get to 100 Warscore really quickly (either to capitulate foes or use it for a culture victory).

Lightning Warfare seems to be the sticking point, and I get that. It was a super fun tenet. We could give it back its ZOC for tanks, move it to Tier 3, move Air Supremacy down to Tier 2 and make it +100% production of airports instead of free airports. Might balance things out a bit.

G

Concerning Autarky I still disagree because it changes nothing. If the bonus is equal, you'll keep sending the TRs wherever you were sending them anyway, and the synergies still benefit international routes more to spread franchises and whatnots.

UF is not that bad then. Pickable for a T1 if it still keeps the unit influence. What about Creative Expression from Freedom? That one was Freedom's Autarky/Gunboat, along with capitalism.

Total War I've misread, it's warscore not war weariness? I thought you make your enemies way more weary way more fast. The current form is a bit more interesting, but the production bonus will make AIs with that really insufferable especially after Imperialism. No way to take them down without nukes. Maybe it'd be best to tune that down a bit, replacing stuff?

Total War (new) - +25% Production when building land units. +25% Warscore (from city capture, plunder, etc.). +25HP, Science and Culture when you pillage tiles. - encourages pillaging, doesn't annoy everyone, fits the name still.

Air Supremacy without free Airports and with only +Production towards them would be at most worth a T1 spot imho because the entire point of the tenet is having them ASAP everywhere you conquer to move your stuff around however you please. That's the primary benefit of the policy and if that's gone, all that remains is Zero and +Air Production, and it's all not worth much. Take out +air production instead of free airports and it'll be okay I guess. Concerning LW tno ZOC is imho a bad idea on a tank which is fast by definition, but if it's gone it should probably be replaced by something.

 

[ElliotS]

Classic G.

Like when everybody just agreed that zoos adding tourism to forest was bogus, then he goes ahead and changes the extra bonus tourism on zoo completion without addressing the issue at all. But if you take yourself out of the shoes of a "player", and put yourself into the shoes of a person who runs a bunch of simulated games looking at the overall end results, then some of his changes begin to make at least a little sense to you. It's the same reason he's probably not concerned about open borders right now, overall in sim games it's likely having the desired effect he was looking for, even though it's obviously untenable for somebody playing the game.

All the random, needless changes that fail to hit the mark of issues sprinkled in every patch have this mod continuously moving in the wrong direction, just constantly making new problems to address. This mod needs the -community- put back into -vox populi-, have someone like ElliotS (or anyone who actually plays the game and knows whats up from a players perspective) be put in charge of the balancing, and if G wants to contribute he can continue to handle bugs and implement things like the fog of war change they just did, things that improve AI functions. Let G continue to do the things like that he's actually good at, and delegate some responsibility for the balancing aspect because he continues to show just time and time again balance isn't something he can get a grasp on.

G is much better than I am at balancing than I am. I'm too nerf adverse and would power-creep the project like crazy. G takes community feedback better than any dev I've ever seen, and I think the mod has progressed wonderfully.

"First adopters now only get 1 free tenet - used to be 2"

With this change there seems to be no advantage to founding an ideology. Why wouldn't everyone just pick the same one as everyone else?

Because you're not going for the same VC or in the same situation as everyone else? It's not like having access to a free policy for 15+ turns over everyone else isn't a pretty good reward for being in the lead culturally, and it means they run away a bit less. I'm in favor it this change.

My reply is to both you and Enrico, since your commentary is similar (and appreciated). As an aside, I never take criticism of mod changes personally. Why would I? I only take it personally if someone makes it personal, which is silly.

In any case, yeah, Autocracy is nerfed in this outline (code hasn't been written yet, this is just a draft). Why? Because war is a zero-sum game, and tenets that make late-game war virtually trivial for the player take away any amount of challenge. If the game, up to ideologies, requires hard choices and decisions, and suddenly you can just say 'screw it,' grab autocracy + lightning warfare + any other tenet and steamroll your neighbors (ignoring diplo penalties, etc)...that kinda defeats the point of turns 0-300 no, right?

Autarky is tough. I don't love my rewrite, but I also find that yet more base yields to cities is a really boring solution. A buff to international and internal trade routes at least generates player choices and can be used in interesting ways.

United Front and Gunboat are buffed versions of their former selves. And yes, the 'increase influence from bullying' is a bear, as I'd have to teach the AI. Happy to consider other solutions, but AI work takes a lot of time.

G

I get what you're saying about war being great, but you do realize this only means everyone will choose order for war? War hasn't been made worse, but Autocracy is now a dumpster.

I agree that Lightning Warfare needs a nerf, but not that much. It's useless as you've described.

As for Autarky: I agree with Enrico. This change either makes it actually hurt you or changes nothing. It's exactly as boring as flat yields. If you want to make it interesting have it give an extra trade route for every capital you take and every vassal you take. (Not Retroactive and can loose a lot of the current bonuses.)

I think you guys could start with a meh AI for demanding tribute late game and would improve it pretty quickly. I seem to remember a similar discussion about some other feature a little while back. Is it that hard to make the AI demand tribute 24/7 once he gets that policy? The AI might miss some of the grand strategy, but he would at least know the instant he could Tribute again and gain yields over the player that way.

As for United Front: Could you make it: "Whenever a City State Allied to you gains a city via conquest, they become permanent allies as long as they control more than their starting city." That would actually change gameplay and be fun and counter-playable.

I was under the impression that this solution had been torpedoed. It is the solution I prefer, but for some reason I thought there was push back against it.

G

No there were just some people worried it could be used as a late-game great scientist and some proposed solutions. I also prefer that solution, with or without limits for late game.

 

[Txurce]

The issue with progress currently isn't a lack of power. When the timing with policy choices and capital growth works well its a very strong and fun to play tree... What it lacks is consistency. When the timing on capital growth and the first social goes poorly the opener just provides extremely few yields early on. I don't think the additional 5 per citizen outside the capital is a good addition. Long term its a great bonus, but the tree doesn't need more long term power, it needs a more consistent opening.

Could you expand more specifically on the timing issue? Thanks in advance.

 

[tu_79]

First of all, I really appreciate that G gives an insight for the next release.

This one looks like it aims two things:
Restore Progress balance (which was harsher in early game) and rebalance Ideologies.

I like that Order is as much capable at war than Autocracy, since autocrats are not inherently better at war. But I have the impression that ideologies kind of replicate starting social policies. One for great people, other for all purpose and the last for fighting. This somehow limits which ideology to pick for the chosen victory path, but it's absurdly limiting for Autocracy.

Autocracy, in theory in vanilla, is able to achieve Domination, Science and Culture victories, but all I see is a focus on warfare. Of course, a player could kill every one civ but the weakest and achieve any victory he/she likes, but that accounts as domination in my book.

If one thinks of the reasons for a country to go autocratic, almost always there's social restlessness, people is too unhappy to be able to solve their problems in a few years, fault the old government, and then the army kicks in. By fear, autocratics governments put unrest back to some normality (just some, because the problems aren't gone, people is still hungry and die of famine), so people get back to their poor lifes. Corruption is usually high, and free thinking is discouraged. A strong emphasis is made upon religion. Autocracies love to invest in arms, research weapons, and have little interest in tourism.

What I'm missing in Autocracy is unhappiness reduction not related to crime (workers might be unhappy in north korea, but they are put to work as if they were happy), and some extra benefits from being religious, both to holy sites and faith per turn production. Something that could make an empire achieve a scientific or even diplomatic victory, not fighting, but excelling at faith production or at raw population. Right now, as it is, I always ignore Autocracy, as it has nothing that helps or rewards my game play style.

 

[Jarula]

Great Idea Gazebo why not load down on the tenets. First adopter 4 free, second 3 third 2 fourth and subsequent 1

You want to encourage more diversity in ideologies being chosen meaning more players choosing different ideologies right??
Honestly if you have a 43 civ game wouldn't it be cool if everyone was choosing different ideologies that way theres more ideology competition.

I will say though if the ideological wonders were moved up that would be better. That way you ensure that every game someone builds one of them.

Oh and Progress balance it already is it is BY far the best starter when combined with Authority. I would change if anything give Progress an additional +5 culture scaled with era per policy and give Authority a decent finisher like maybe a large bonus scaling with era when winning a war...

Oh and progress grants bigger yields than any other... in the long run.

 

[Funak]

Great Idea Gazebo why not load down on the tenets. First adopter 4 free, second 3 third 2 fourth and subsequent 1

You want to encourage more diversity in ideologies being chosen meaning more players choosing different ideologies right??
Honestly if you have a 43 civ game wouldn't it be cool if everyone was choosing different ideologies that way theres more ideology competition.

I will say though if the ideological wonders were moved up that would be better. That way you ensure that every game someone builds one of them.

Oh and Progress balance it already is it is BY far the best starter when combined with Authority. I would change if anything give Progress an additional +5 culture scaled with era per policy and give Authority a decent finisher like maybe a large bonus scaling with era when winning a war...

Oh and progress grants bigger yields than any other... in the long run.

Probably because early adopter ideologies made balancing wondercosts completely impossible, also probably because grabbing an ideology early is already a huge boon, you don't need the added benefit of also getting a multiple tenet jump as well.

I can totally see the point of how this just encourages everyone to stack in the same ideology, especially with the increased cost of switching, but giving the leaders bigger advantages was a terrible way of discouraging it in the first place.

 

[Jarula]

or how about increasing the number of policies needed?

 

[Txurce]

or how about increasing the number of policies needed?

What does this solve? Whoever gets there first, still gets there first.

 

[CrazyG]

Could you expand more specifically on the timing issue? Thanks in advance.

Let's say that culture ruins speed up your first policy by 5 turns

For tradition, that means those ruins earn 10 and 10
For authority, those ruins earn 5 and maybe 6-12 if you get some kills. You should be smart enough not to clear a camp yet
The numbers are pretty similar for any start/situation. But because progress is all bonus yields, the math isn't easy to do. When something happens is really important. If you grow during those 5 turns, it means that you picked up 30 , which is worth a few points of as well. But those 5 turns might have no growth or tech discovered, in which case the ruins didn't do much at all. Progress just opens so inconsistently, and there isn't too much you can do to plan around this (because ruins are CS are random).

Sometimes I'll end up playing a game where within the first 50 turns, my opener only gives me 30, which is pretty pitiful compared to what I'd get from the other two options (which generally provide more culture as well). But sometimes I get like 120 in that time period, which can lead to a really strong start. I think something should be done to mediate how much science you get early on

@Gazebo
I didn't really see any opposition. There was debate as to whether the should be capped somehow, just in case people tried to take progress late in the game. But regardless of what is done there, I think the feature should be added

 

[bigcat88]

Gazebo will u allow to build herbalist in cities with plantations?
And will u increase the penalty to the world wonder cost from the same/previous era?

 

[Txurce]

Let's say that culture ruins speed up your first policy by 5 turns

For tradition, that means those ruins earn 10 and 10
For authority, those ruins earn 5 and maybe 6-12 if you get some kills. You should be smart enough not to clear a camp yet
The numbers are pretty similar for any start/situation. But because progress is all bonus yields, the math isn't easy to do. When something happens is really important. If you grow during those 5 turns, it means that you picked up 30 , which is worth a few points of as well. But those 5 turns might have no growth or tech discovered, in which case the ruins didn't do much at all. Progress just opens so inconsistently, and there isn't too much you can do to plan around this (because ruins are CS are random).

Sometimes I'll end up playing a game where within the first 50 turns, my opener only gives me 30, which is pretty pitiful compared to what I'd get from the other two options (which generally provide more culture as well). But sometimes I get like 120 in that time period, which can lead to a really strong start. I think something should be done to mediate how much science you get early on.

Thanks a lot. I have the same sort of results -- lately, playing Babylon on Progress -- and guessed this was one of those times where not gaming the numbers was really hurting me. Good to know there's not much I could have done about it!

 

[Gazebo]

Concerning Autarky I still disagree because it changes nothing. If the bonus is equal, you'll keep sending the TRs wherever you were sending them anyway, and the synergies still benefit international routes more to spread franchises and whatnots.

UF is not that bad then. Pickable for a T1 if it still keeps the unit influence. What about Creative Expression from Freedom? That one was Freedom's Autarky/Gunboat, along with capitalism.

Total War I've misread, it's warscore not war weariness? I thought you make your enemies way more weary way more fast. The current form is a bit more interesting, but the production bonus will make AIs with that really insufferable especially after Imperialism. No way to take them down without nukes. Maybe it'd be best to tune that down a bit, replacing stuff?

Total War (new) - +25% Production when building land units. +25% Warscore (from city capture, plunder, etc.). +25HP, Science and Culture when you pillage tiles. - encourages pillaging, doesn't annoy everyone, fits the name still.

Air Supremacy without free Airports and with only +Production towards them would be at most worth a T1 spot imho because the entire point of the tenet is having them ASAP everywhere you conquer to move your stuff around however you please. That's the primary benefit of the policy and if that's gone, all that remains is Zero and +Air Production, and it's all not worth much. Take out +air production instead of free airports and it'll be okay I guess. Concerning LW tno ZOC is imho a bad idea on a tank which is fast by definition, but if it's gone it should probably be replaced by something.

Well the LW tenet description is miswritten anyways: should be 15% strength for both, ZOC ignore for gun and +1 movement for armor. So they both get the damage bonus, but only gun units get to ignore a gameplay rule.

Creative Expression was updated as-written in the Freedom discussion thread.

G is much better than I am at balancing than I am. I'm too nerf adverse and would power-creep the project like crazy. G takes community feedback better than any dev I've ever seen, and I think the mod has progressed wonderfully.


Because you're not going for the same VC or in the same situation as everyone else? It's not like having access to a free policy for 15+ turns over everyone else isn't a pretty good reward for being in the lead culturally, and it means they run away a bit less. I'm in favor it this change.



I get what you're saying about war being great, but you do realize this only means everyone will choose order for war? War hasn't been made worse, but Autocracy is now a dumpster.

I agree that Lightning Warfare needs a nerf, but not that much. It's useless as you've described.

As for Autarky: I agree with Enrico. This change either makes it actually hurt you or changes nothing. It's exactly as boring as flat yields. If you want to make it interesting have it give an extra trade route for every capital you take and every vassal you take. (Not Retroactive and can loose a lot of the current bonuses.)

I think you guys could start with a meh AI for demanding tribute late game and would improve it pretty quickly. I seem to remember a similar discussion about some other feature a little while back. Is it that hard to make the AI demand tribute 24/7 once he gets that policy? The AI might miss some of the grand strategy, but he would at least know the instant he could Tribute again and gain yields over the player that way.

As for United Front: Could you make it: "Whenever a City State Allied to you gains a city via conquest, they become permanent allies as long as they control more than their starting city." That would actually change gameplay and be fun and counter-playable.

No there were just some people worried it could be used as a late-game great scientist and some proposed solutions. I also prefer that solution, with or without limits for late game.

Well the big difference between Autocracy and Order is that Order has Spaceship victory (felt weird typing SS there) tenets, whereas Autocracy has Diplo victory tenets. If Autocracy feels underwhelming in that regard, it is because the diplo tenets are not effective enough. I'm going to look at that. Might turn Autarky into another diplo tenet so that Autocracy has a bit more variety on that front. I'm going to go ahead and add in the code for autarky as-is (as it is very simple) in the event that it comes into play here or elsewhere.

Gazebo will u allow to build herbalist in cities with plantations?
And will u increase the penalty to the world wonder cost from the same/previous era?

Not planning on either, no. The herbalist is themed around forest/jungle settling.

 

[Txurce]

Well the big difference between Autocracy and Order is that Order has Spaceship victory (felt weird typing SS there) tenets, whereas Autocracy has Diplo victory tenets. If Autocracy feels underwhelming in that regard, it is because the diplo tenets are not effective enough. I'm going to look at that. Might turn Autarky into another diplo tenet so that Autocracy has a bit more variety on that front. I'm going to go ahead and add in the code for autarky as-is (as it is very simple) in the event that it comes into play here or elsewhere.

Very interesting. In hindsight, using those 3 icons as guides seems obvious.