This is actually one of the changes I want reverted, or at least tweaked again. I'm not a fan of the scaling for diplo and trade units. I think the costs need to be reduced a bit.
Top and Bottom Tier Civs
- Thread starter crdvis16
- Start date
pineappledan
Deity
I like the scaling; im no longer actively avoiding the envoy/diplomat techs as a diplo civ. The cost may need to be tweaked a bit, but IMO the concept is sound
Concept is ok, but the numbers ain't...
I still have plenty of situations where I'm specifically delaying era advancement in order to not inflate the costs of these units (and missionaries, but those are fine). Most times the jump in production costs is excessive to the point where you'll have to resort to solely building those units in your capital. When you advance eras, none of your cities, and especially secondary cities, will have any of that newly unlocked infrastructure for many turns, so unless you're buying 90% of these units at their now inflated cost, you're stuck building them in your capital or having a secondary city take 10+ turns to build a caravan...
This sounds like the wrong solution. If the issue was avoiding some techs as a diplo civ, those units need to be made better instead of making diplo units artificially worse just because you advanced an era, even though nothing else has changed. Trade units scale in cost because the value of trading increases over time, a caravan in Ancient era is just a couple of gold while Information era it could be 40+. But diplo units are actual units unlocked on the tree.
They should be good enough that you'd want to tech and build them, and then scale the production to their increased value, just like we do with all military units without issue.
They should be good enough that you'd want to tech and build them, and then scale the production to their increased value, just like we do with all military units without issue.
Moi Magnus
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2015
- Messages
- 1,867
The problem (from last year):
1) You have more and more production and gold as time advance.
2) Which mean a single diplomatic units is "cheaper and cheaper" as time advance (100
is not worth the same at turn 50 or turn 500).3) However, we do not want inflation on influence. We would like effects like "+1 influence per turn" with a city state should remain relevant in the late game. We want the "30 influence for friend" to not be something you have for almost nothing, even in late game.
There was two solutions:
1) Make everything scale. The threshold for influence would scale with era. Most effect that give influence would scale with era. Except diplomatic units: influence from diplomatic units would scale only by upgrading them.
=> This solution would have required additional coding, in order to modify all the effects. Moreover, having influences values over 1000 the end game would feel quite stupid.
2) Make diplomatic units worse and worse as time advance, in term of production vs influence. (But hopefully better an better in term of opportunity cost, as production is less and less precious as time passes).
2a) Just make the upgraded units worse and worse as time advance. Technologies unlocking them give diplomatic buildings, so that they are still interesting.
2b) Discard the multiple diplomatic units. Just keep one units, which cost increase with time similarly to missionaries/faith buildings/...
As 2a was simpler to implement (mostly already done), and was working good enough, it was considered (last year) that there was no need for a deeper change.
SuperNoobCamper
King
Late UU is not necessarily bad, it comes at the same time the game gets tougher for every civ trying to play defensively with the introduction of gunpowder units.
Although Winged hussar is terrain dependant it's ridiculous when you spam them with the stable; a cataphract on steroids if i might say.
The UA is not as busted as vanilla poland but it's not that bad tbh, yes you are playing the early game as a vanilla civ with nothing special but the powerspike in mid game is kinda ok, not amazing but can help.
I still see ais with a 500-1000 influence on a cs, so the measures we put in to stop influence inflation aren’t working.
I agree that late game cs units are crazy expensive for what influence they grant. But ultimately I think this is just the effect of AI production bonuses. If we make them cheaper, all it will do is force me to create twice as many cs units to combat the 2000 influence on a cs. This is an area where the AI has a very powerful advantage. With units, the human compensates with promotions, kill zones, and a lot of patience. You can’t quite do the same with cs spam.
I agree that late game cs units are crazy expensive for what influence they grant. But ultimately I think this is just the effect of AI production bonuses. If we make them cheaper, all it will do is force me to create twice as many cs units to combat the 2000 influence on a cs. This is an area where the AI has a very powerful advantage. With units, the human compensates with promotions, kill zones, and a lot of patience. You can’t quite do the same with cs spam.
Txurce
Deity
I try to control the WC every game, and I don't even think about cost, because they do the job. In my case I use hammers if a high production city isn't building military units, and gold if I'm dueling the AI for influence just before a vote. But regardless of methodology, there is no question that the units, inefficient as they are, deliver what you are after, as long as you are serious and realistic about how to accomplish it.
chicorbeef
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,548
I think all that should be done is reduce the base starting cost of an emissary by like 50 or so if Emissaries are too expensive. I like the scaling overall.
or so if Emissaries are too expensive. I like the scaling overall.It feels fine trying to control WC, although the late-game inflation is absolutely out of line. Last game I was diplo Shoshone and slowly allied myself with a 4k and then 2k influence CS, so obviously the +1 per turn I was getting from Statecraft wasn't that meaningful. I was able to do so because of massive gold spending and production, and it was worth it because I had more votes than everyone else combined, but it feels weird sometimes to need 30+ diplomats for one CS, and that isn't super uncommon. Half the time I don't pay any attention to diplo without consequence, and start paying attention around late Industrial/Modern when you run out of buildings.
Txurce
Deity
Funny, I'm also usually the last player to sit at the WC poker table as well. Like you said, late entry means very little; the value of early entry is CS alliance perks. With regard to late-game inflation, I don't think there's anything that can or should be done about it, because the AI can still out-produce us, and as you and I have said, we can still prevail. The worst part about it is more impression than reality: it doesn't feel right. But if you view it as lever-pulling, the competitive machine functions as it should.
Txurce
Deity
The logic here would be that influence is a "pay as you go" system, right? So volatility would increase.
If I'm following you, I think this is a very interesting idea — and almost totally decoupled from messing with costs.
BiteInTheMark
Deity
Or the most simple solution.... influence from diplomatic units didnt increase. Simple, or?
Paying 100 hammer in a time you generate only 20 should be rewarded with the same result as spending 1000 hammer in the time you generate 200.
As long as the benefits of CS alliances stay the same, relative to your total yield output, why also increase the amount of influence you gain?
mikes61293
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2015
- Messages
- 107
Later in the game people can have several hundred influence with city states. It would take too many diplo units to flip them without scaling on influence.
phantomaxl1207
King
I would like to agree with you on Envoy costs, but the AI Diplomat spam seems to show that it's not necessary. I would like a decrease in the initial Emissary cost.
BiteInTheMark
Deity
And WHY do they have several hundreds of influence points? Cause diplomats and missions give more influence. If diplomats and mission would always only give 30-50 influence, you wouldnt have to face 1000 influence CS and the "+1 influence per turn" policy from statecraft wouldnt be useless.
phantomaxl1207
King
Since the Hanse has been nerfed, I would like to suggest a Production decrease to the Panzer. Panzers cost 1800 vs the Landship costing 1000 and while being only in the next Tier of Techs, on account of being available at Ballistics instead of Combined Arms. The Hanse assisted in letting you be able to build Panzers in a reasonable amount of time.
What if we returned the Hanse to its former glory but changed the UA in some way? Germany is late game monster because his UA gives culture AND science scaling with era, so late game many civs just outright cannot compete and are forced to war him. It also means that if AI Germany gets a decent start he tends to build all of the wonders.
