Upcoming Version Changelog

[JamesNinelives]

There is nothing to clarify here, the intended effect is very clear.

Doesn't make sense to me at all. Everyone here seems to agree that it's bad. So why would Gazebo have thought it was good? What was the rationale for including it?

We are looking purely at the changelog here so speculating about how it will affect gameplay on the basis that we're right in our assumptions really seems like we're getting ahead of ourselves. You've said a lot about code, but all the changelog says is "Adjusted TechCost based on map size to not modify value(s)". That sounds very different to what everyone is talking about right now.

 

[Deljade]

@JamesNinelives
You can check the github code for 9-29 there's this line exactly in cbp/worlds that does exactly set all tech costs to 100% effectively reducing tech cost for standard+. Gazebo said that it was supposed to be like this (but wasn't) the patch isn't out yet so there might be adjustments but there might not be. We just don't know yet.

 

[CrazyG]

Tech would probably be faster on larger settings with the changes. I'm not sure how much faster though. Just putting this out there, my fastest science victories involve purposely not putting cities on perfectly good land. That's why I support to change to 5% on standard size maps.

Doesn't make sense to me at all. Everyone here seems to agree that it's bad. So why would Gazebo have thought it was good? What was the rationale for including it?

I would guess that G wants the tech costs on standard to be "100%" moving forward, because standard settings are standard and 100% is a more logical baseline than 110%.

If, after this change, tech is too fast/slow changes could be made to the base costs of each tech column.

 

[HixBozo]

I am not sure I understand the tech scaling increase change.

But in general my opinion is that an increase in research time by 5% benefits standard speed because as someone said before the research feels too fast to keep up. So the idea is to make room on standard for warmongering. It is one way to bridge the gap between standard and epic speeds regarding the feel of time.

But I am not sure. Is this increase also to be for epic ? Because epic doesn't need further research increase. I dunno

 

[gozar]

UPDATE Worlds
SET ResearchPercent = '100';

There is nothing to clarify here, the intended effect is very clear. And honestly I can not see any case when this does not make science go faster. Reducing the tech cost can only make techs go faster unless it comes with other changes that affect it (it comes with another change that reduces tech cost in Standard and smaller maps and a moderately spammable improvement in Forts).

Which file contains that code? I might try altering it. From what I am seeing, it sounds like quite a few others might as well.

 

[JamesNinelives]

there might be adjustments but there might not be. We just don't know yet.

I would guess

Seems like a good reason to ask for clarification to me.

 

[arievillo]

EDIT: ̷M̷a̷y̷b̷e̷ ̷s̷o̷m̷e̷ ̷ ̷̷̷l̷̷̷o̷̷̷v̷̷̷e̷̷̷ ̷(̷n̷e̷w̷ ̷v̷e̷r̷s̷i̷o̷n̷)̷ ̷f̷o̷r̷ ̷u̷s̷ ̷p̷l̷a̷y̷a̷s̷ ̷t̷h̷i̷s̷ ̷w̷e̷e̷k̷e̷n̷d̷?̷

 

[Guynemer]

It'll be done when it is done. Give these guys a break already.

 

[arievillo]

It'll be done when it is done. Give these guys a break already.

You must be mistaking me for some troll. Since i started playing this game and using this mod, i never asked that and always been patient.
For a lapse of anxiety and problems that i face in life i wrote the question. My fault. The game and the mod calm me down and make me happy.

I apologize to the developers. Thanks for the hard work.

 

[tothePAIN]

Any changes to Ships of the Line? England has quick access to logistics now via indomitable, which Ships of the Line start with

Also, I think Denmark's Runestones still dont give +1 supply like Lighthouses.

 

[HixBozo]

There is nothing to apologize for. You ain't done any harm to anybody. And you are right the new version is overdue unfortunately. But there is a valid reason, that modder Gazebo has been injured his arm in the backyard of his home while cleaning the autumn yard from leafs and since has been slow on computing that requires typing etc.

I personally play other games in the meantime. Been installing many mods for Skyrim recently and playing on Legendary difficulty. It is like Civilization 5, never gets old.

 

[ChefBRD]

I have been thinking about the empire size penalty, and I think there's a flaw there. No matter how easy we set the values, there's an inherent unhappiness wall upon reaching a certain number of cities, due to the exponential increase of its effect.
To lower the exponential increase I think we could try using the square root of the number of cities, or even a logarithm, for calculating the empire size penalty. This way the effect of 'too many cities' will not happen so suddenly.

I find this idea intriguing.

 

[chicorbeef]

I actually didn't know that Standard map size had a 110% tech cost modifier. If removing this throws things off, shouldn't it be possible to make every base tech cost 10% more to correct things back?I think standardizing city penalties makes sense and was a good decision.

 

[LarryAR]

Whether the techs come too slow, too fast, or just right depends on the individual. I trust the work being done to balance the program.

Personally I feel the techs come too slow for me and too fast for the other guy.

 

[tu_79]

There is nothing to apologize for. You ain't done any harm to anybody. And you are right the new version is overdue unfortunately. But there is a valid reason, that modder Gazebo has been injured his arm in the backyard of his home while cleaning the autumn yard from leafs and since has been slow on computing that requires typing etc.

I personally play other games in the meantime. Been installing many mods for Skyrim recently and playing on Legendary difficulty. It is like Civilization 5, never gets old.

Nah, he was teasing you.
We pest Gazebo continuously about next releases. Be glad, since there's this thread, next release is usually in one or two weeks.

 

[Voremonger]

Regarding the Celts: I think the new Pantheons are better than the old ones. They feel more balanced and more distinct.
Regarding Science/Culture/Tourism cost per City: I think the scalar should be the same for all map sizes. I think 5% is a good value. I think gaining new Cities should always be beneficial in terms of effective yields, even for players that go for a tall strategy. I think this encourages more opportunistic play.
Regarding changes to Tech cost based on map: I'm not sure whether we should make this the same across map sizes; I would need to play a few games to get a better grip on the consequences.
Regarding Tech speed: I think that on Standard, Large, and Huge (the map sizes I played with) the tech costs are currently too low. I think this leads to less opportunity to use Unique Units. I frequently struggle to build all but the most essential Buildings in my Cities starting in the Medieval Era; it usually stops being a problem in the Industrial Era. I think the low Tech costs also contribute to AI tech runaways starting in the Renaissance Era (although I think that this has become less of a problem recently).
Regarding Forts: I think that with the changes they will once again be worthwhile to build everywhere just for the Yields. I think this makes them too strong. At least as far as I am aware the AI does not build Forts except for defensive reasons.

Something that was not mentioned in the changelog: there will be a new parameter called NumCitiesUnhappinessPercent (found in (2) Community Balance Overhaul/Balance Changes/Worlds/WorldSizes.sql). It has the following values: Duel=150, Tiny=125, Small=115, Standard=100, Large=80, Huge=60. Presumably this parameter will change how the number of Cities affects Happiness. My guess would be that it modifies the 9% Needs increase per City. @Gazebo , please clarify!

Something that is not being discussed: the buff to Public Works. This change is very significant. The way I understand it each new City increases Needs linearly by 9%: 100% with just the capital, 109% with two Cities, 118% with three Cities, and so on. Meanwhile Public works seems to multiplicatively reduce Needs: 95% Needs with 1 Public Works, (95%)² = 90.25% Needs with 2 Public works, and so on. The Production cost of Public works also increases linearly with each one built so the total Production cost scales quadratically with the number of Public Works built. I have calculated and visualized the total Production necessary to completely negate the Needs increase from having more Cities (see the attached image). The plot also shows how the synergy between Factories scales for comparison. Note that the relationship between the Needs reduction from Public Works and the total Production cost is nonlinear. Doubling the reduction more than halves the total Production cost. Some caveats: I neglected the cost increase per Era, the 15% Unhappiness from Needs reduction, and the flat Happiness from Public Works. I think the last two are only relevant if your Cities are moderately unhappy. I think that the change to Public Works is good overall because the conventional use of Public Works is currently kind of useless. I still would have preferred a rework of Public Works though.

 

[Histomen]

Question: are all these changes including the august beta patch changes or excluding whatever doesnt make the list? I really like the increased gpt on liberty policy and border growth.
Also the celt pantheon changes are delicioussssss~
Does the text change to riahhnon impact anything or purely for text clarity.

 

[azum4roll]

Tourism penalty needs to be changed from 1-(n*k%) to 1/(1+(n*k%)) where n is the number of cities and k is the penalty per city. It's too punishing as of now.

 

[Voremonger]

Tourism penalty needs to be changed from 1-(n*k%) to 1/(1+(n*k%)) where n is the number of cities and k is the penalty per city. It's too punishing as of now.

I thought about this too but but one problem I see with this proposal is that it makes the relationship between the number of Cities and the Tourism modifier more difficult to understand.
I think game rules should be kept simple if possible.
If something like this is done there should at the very least be a tooltip along the lines of "Tourism output reduced to x% from number of Cities. Acquiring a new City will reduce empire-wide Tourism output to y%".

 

[azum4roll]

I thought about this too but but one problem I see with this proposal is that it makes the relationship between the number of Cities and the Tourism modifier more difficult to understand.
I think game rules should be kept simple if possible.
If something like this is done there should at the very least be a tooltip along the lines of "Tourism output reduced to x% from number of Cities. Acquiring a new City will reduce empire-wide Tourism output to y%".

It's exactly how tech and policy costs work. Alternatively, "you need k% more tourism to be influential to each civ if you acquire a new city".