[Tuning] Simple number tweaks

[Moi Magnus]

It would be convenient if you and others would start compiling a list of 'little tweaks' like this in a thread. Realistic, simple numbers tweaks. I don't have the time or energy to trawl the forum a.) looking for these and b.) figuring out what the number might be reduced/increased to. It'd be nice.
G

Here is a thread. I will edit this post to take in account suggestions in this thread, but I will not make suggestions by myself.
I no longer play enough to have a clear understanding of the which number should be tweaked and how.

Things to tweak, with suggestions, with strong consensus:

• None

Things to tweak, with suggestions:

• Ceremonial burial (founder) : Buff : 20 faith / 10 culture.
• Barbarian assault, decrease the production loss to city by ~50% (http://www.strawpoll.me/14963159)

Things to tweak, without suggestions:

• None

Contested or rejected suggestions:

• Herbalist buff from niche to universal.

(Current beta version : 1-26)

 

[CrazyG]

I think Carthage should get less gold on founding. I propose 100 instead of 175

Forests should provide fewer hammers when settled on. I propose 10 instead of current 37
For jungle I propose 5

Zeaolotry is really good, now that gold purchased units have less XP. I propose it loses those strategic resources.

CS bonuses (when being met) are too high. I propose we remove the possiblity of gaining 36 influence. The other options can remain as is. Siam should not be changed.

 

[Mad Madigan]

While we're on the topic of small number tweaks, can we lower the production stolen when barbarians attack one of your cities? When they steal gold it's only like 1-4 gold (essentially nothing) and when they steal science/culture it's usually like 2-6 (again, maybe a turn or two's worth of these yields), but when they take production it's usually in the range of 6-10, which is a devastating amount early in the game (setting back whatever you were building 3-6 turns on Epic). Could the barbarian attacks be capped so that they can steal no more than 4 science/culture/production (scaling with era) per attack?

 

[Txurce]

I think Carthage should get less gold on founding. I propose 100 instead of 175

Forests should provide fewer hammers when settled on. I propose 10 instead of current 37
For jungle I propose 5

Zeaolotry is really good, now that gold purchased units have less XP. I propose it loses those strategic resources.

CS bonuses (when being met) are too high. I propose we remove the possiblity of gaining 36 influence. The other options can remain as is. Siam should not be changed.

As far as I know civs are locked -- but for the record, cutting Carthage's founding gold by almost half implies that it is OP, which it demonstrably is not. It's a top civ (just like all the other top civs). Unless we are going to do yet another round of adustments to bring up Siam and push down the Iroquois, etc, I'm against this.

There are so many random factors in openings -- what sort of luxuries you have, who your neighbors are, how close they are, the quality of the land available -- that to single out chopping forests and meeting CS for nerfs (but not ruins!) makes no sense to me. I would have no problems if meeting-CS bonuses were optional, like disabling ruins.

I don't have enough experience with Zealotry to have an opinion on it being changed.

 

[RAuer2]

Zeaolotry is really good, now that gold purchased units have less XP. I propose it loses those strategic resources.

I choose Zealotry more often than other Enhancers. To me, the main benefit of Zealotry is the bonus strategic resources. Depending on the map/game, this bonus can support a larger military, decrease the impact of having an empire with no (or hardly any) coal/oil, and increases the odds of reaching one or more strategic resource monopolies. I think losing that weakens the belief too much. Am I in the minority in valuing Zealotry this way?

 

[Giza]

Here's my observations :

Ceremonial burial (founder) : Needs a little punch. I suggest 20 faith / 10 culture.

To the Glory of God (reformation) : Bonus to GP expand is very insignificant. I would just remove it. It's already a good belief.

Tradition : It would be nice to have a bonus for war. Faster generation of GGs (or flat GG points) would be nice. It could also be a valid choice for some warmongering/artistic civs (Japan, France).

Great scientists : Reduce amount awarded for bulbing.

 

[Stalker0]

I choose Zealotry more often than other Enhancers. To me, the main benefit of Zealotry is the bonus strategic resources. Depending on the map/game, this bonus can support a larger military, decrease the impact of having an empire with no (or hardly any) coal/oil, and increases the odds of reaching one or more strategic resource monopolies. I think losing that weakens the belief too much. Am I in the minority in valuing Zealotry this way?

Zealotry is good, but there are other ones I use just as much if not more. I love one world one religion combined with spreader religions...it is much easier to mass convert and then the votes late game are great

 

[Stalker0]

I mentioned a small tune on happiness yields, I think it’s a little too easy to maintain happy on wide right now. But I stress, just a small tune...so curious what other people think here.

There was not much consensus on the building and policy reviews I did, so it looks like those should remain stable

 

[Txurce]

I mentioned a small tune on happiness yields, I think it’s a little too easy to maintain happy on wide right now. But I stress, just a small tune...so curious what other people think here.

There was not much consensus on the building and policy reviews I did, so it looks like those should remain stable

It feels about right to me, but that's as subjective as your view. I wouldn't change anything at this point that isn't already earmarked for change, unless there was a lot of feedback in one direction.

 

[Stalker0]

It feels about right to me, but that's as subjective as your view. I wouldn't change anything at this point that isn't already earmarked for change, unless there was a lot of feedback in one direction.

I agree, I didn’t see anyone else jump on the happy bandwagon, so best to leave it for now

 

[MorphBer]

I would suggest 125 gold for carthage, still a cut by almost 30%. 100 might be too harsh

 

[Mad Madigan]

Re: Carthage - I agree 175 gold is too much, especially with building investment cost no longer scaling with # of cities. 100 - 125 gold seems more than reasonable as it is still enough to invest in a single building as soon as the new city is settled. Carthage is just so, so powerful in human hands right now that I don't think a small nerf would hurt it too much.

Siam is definitely still on the weaker side, but all I could think to suggest as a tweak would be to slightly increase the value of the starting CS influence from 35 to 40 to give a few extra turns of CS yields. Their UU is still pretty 'meh' too, but that's fine because the Wat UB is really, really good (especially with how forest/jungle yields have changed with the latest several beta patches).

Iroquois still seem to be doing very well as the Longhouse UB just got even better in comparison to the Herbalist, and the Mohawk Warrior is still a solid UU. The Longhouse almost feels OP in comparison to the beta version of the Herbalist now, but given that their UU and UA are just "okay" it might still be fine. As a small tweak, maybe the Longhouse could be changed to "+1 production to forests, and +1 food to jungles" rather than +1 food/production to both.

 

[IcyAngel]

I think Carthage should get less gold on founding. I propose 100 instead of 175

Forests should provide fewer hammers when settled on. I propose 10 instead of current 37
For jungle I propose 5

Zeaolotry is really good, now that gold purchased units have less XP. I propose it loses those strategic resources.

CS bonuses (when being met) are too high. I propose we remove the possiblity of gaining 36 influence. The other options can remain as is. Siam should not be changed.

100 is too little; I agree with 125, perhaps 130-135.

Yeah, too drastic again; 25 and 12, maybe?

The opportunity cost of zealotry is huge - you're giving up on a lot of great people. I think the strategic resources should stay (they're the sole reason I pick the belief tbh).

Agreed.

Here's my observations :

Ceremonial burial (founder) : Needs a little punch. I suggest 20 faith / 10 culture.

To the Glory of God (reformation) : Bonus to GP expand is very insignificant. I would just remove it. It's already a good belief.

Tradition : It would be nice to have a bonus for war. Faster generation of GGs (or flat GG points) would be nice. It could also be a valid choice for some warmongering/artistic civs (Japan, France).

Great scientists : Reduce amount awarded for bulbing.

Agree;

unnecessary - as you said, it's kind of unsignificant and nice flavour;

in Tradition/defensive spirit, perhaps a small buff to HP regeneration (5HP) in one's lands?;

they don't grant that much already, if we nerf it should be very small.

I mentioned a small tune on happiness yields, I think it’s a little too easy to maintain happy on wide right now. But I stress, just a small tune...so curious what other people think here.

There was not much consensus on the building and policy reviews I did, so it looks like those should remain stable

Yeah, the Circus Maximus change was a bit much; wide didn't have happiness problems for me, but maybe the AIs told a different story. Hard to nerf without reverting the change altogether, though.

Iroquois still seem to be doing very well as the Longhouse UB just got even better in comparison to the Herbalist, and the Mohawk Warrior is still a solid UU. The Longhouse almost feels OP in comparison to the beta version of the Herbalist now, but given that their UU and UA are just "okay" it might still be fine. As a small tweak, maybe the Longhouse could be changed to "+1 production to forests, and +1 food to jungles" rather than +1 food/production to both.

I think the food/production to tiles on the Longhouse absolutely shouldn't be touched, to keep the civ's specificity intact; perhaps remove one culture and one flat food from it?

 

[Ziad]

Herbalist: +2 so in the event that you do build it with no jungles and plantations, its net base yield isn't 0. (+1 -1 ).

Carthage: 125 on settlement down from 175 to stem their early game power somewhat. 125 at least covers all possible units you would want to buy in the early game.

 

[Stalker0]

I would be fine trying Carthage at 125.

 

[IcyAngel]

Herbalist: +2 so in the event that you do build it with no jungles and plantations, its net base yield isn't 0. (+1 -1 ).

I disagree - I think moving away from universal buildings is a very good thing. The herbalist fills a powerful niche atm.

 

[lunker]

Chanceries can give too much for one building. Maybe introduce a cap of 5 Allies 10 friends or something like that.

 

[CrazyG]

There are so many random factors in openings -- what sort of luxuries you have, who your neighbors are, how close they are, the quality of the land available -- that to single out chopping forests and meeting CS for nerfs (but not ruins!) makes no sense to me. I would have no problems if meeting-CS bonuses were optional, like disabling ruins

I'd settle for disabling them if ruins are disabled. I reroll a start if I get 2 culture allies its a boringly good start (I honeslty feel like I just win when this happens).

If chopping bonuses are reduced, I'm fine with Carthage only going down to 125. We can discuss more in the Carthage thread if people wish, but I think I could win 100 games in a row as Carthage on deity (maybe I'll lose a game if I begin inland). The AI doesn't do that well because they don't abuse the settling bonus that well. I also don't think the AI knows to always rush the science for city connections

I agree with others that the cirucs maximus change overdid things a little bit.

 

[Txurce]

I'd settle for disabling them if ruins are disabled. I reroll a start if I get 2 culture allies its a boringly good start (I honeslty feel like I just win when this happens).

If chopping bonuses are reduced, I'm fine with Carthage only going down to 125. We can discuss more in the Carthage thread if people wish, but I think I could win 100 games in a row as Carthage on deity (maybe I'll lose a game if I begin inland). The AI doesn't do that well because they don't abuse the settling bonus that well. I also don't think the AI knows to always rush the science for city connections

I agree with others that the cirucs maximus change overdid things a little bit.

I think Carthage is a no-brainer for you, but you're the best player here. (China is also incomparably better in your hands than in that of the AI.) I'd guess that they would have been reduced long ago if 175g made them such a no-brainer for everyone else. Again, they're top tier -- but some civs have to be. Otherwise why not have a poll, see who comes in at the top, and auto-nerf the top 4?

I may have misunderstood Gazebo's intent re: this thread, but... to me, knocking off 50-75g from Carthage's founding bonus is not a "simple number tweak." It's a major nerf. The AI may not use that as well as humans do, but it's still what they use best in the early game.

 

[Ziad]

Agree. It's not comfortable. I'm fine with forge, great for tradition, good for mine heavy cities. I'm not fine with workshop, just a few hammers, another engineer, which you probably won't be able to work at the moment, and buff to forests that you may have chopped early game. Then there are windmills, this building looks like it should be the prerequesite for factory. Windmills is what I need when I'm low in production and infrastructure... so pretty much always I want windmills, plus it adds food, and then I can work another specialist or two. Probably workshop should be left optional, so you only build it when you are in a heavy forested land, or have excess food and happiness and want another engineer.
About forests, see my answer to ellliots.


No, they shouldn't. They can be chopped for an early production boost, so if you keep them you should be rewarded. They were too strong before. They are slightly weak now. I'd say add 1 gold with the herbalist, much weaker that +1food in the long term, but not crap.

I disagree - I think moving away from universal buildings is a very good thing. The herbalist fills a powerful niche atm.

As I said in another thread, it can't be called a niche building if it's part of a policy, because the decision to construct it is now influenced by factors beyond the building's own baseline contribution.

Honestly I have yet to hear an argument beyond "I like it" and "don't build it". I would think we're beyond that.