Upcoming Version Changelog

[skodkim]

Second the voices saying that we shouldn't increase tech speed.

\Skodkim

 

[Deljade]

So if we assume 5 cities is your “standard TALL”, than for most games on standard the tech speed is going to increase 10% for the fastest teching civs (aka your pace cars). This is assuming no other changes slow down the tech rate.

The city penalty changes are coming with a ~9% decrease in the time that it takes to unlock a tech (110% Cost becomes 100%) in the Standard map size, if I understand correctly. So techs will be more than 10 % faster in your example. Of course I think the most affected after very wide standard civ, in the speed at which techs will be researched will be all the huge map players, seeing the time it takes to research a tech reduced by ~23%. And I don't know why we would do this.

 

[tu_79]

I don't have experience with larger maps, so I won't suggest any changes there. Just a reminder that the bigger maps have more room for each player to deploy more cities, which in theory makes them research slowlier, but on the other hand, more civs means easier research from techs already known by your neighbours.

 

[Zanteogo]

Do we want techs to be faster?

I don't. I am against these changes and they don't improve things, other than making playing wide easier.

For some reason 2 or 3 people have started a campaign to make wide play the always better play because, I am assuming, that's their own personal preference. For some reason they have decided to push this, rather than just make a mod mod for themselves. This is actually just one of the changes they proposed, and have aggressively pushed. (check out the settler change thread, same couple people want cities created late game to not only be almost fully formed, but actually to gain bonuses early cities don't have)

Making wide play easier only encourages run away civs and creates a critical mass situation, where once a certain size is reached the civ cannot be stopped because it will just do everything way better.

The wide play restrictions exist for a reason. On a large map we have more space to carve out a larger civ, either with conquest or just getting more settlers out before our neighbors. I know we aren't removing the restrictions, but this change seems like a step backwards.

To be fair, I agree that wide player should be over all slightly more effective than tall play, as it takes on more risk, I don't want to see it become the only play however. I also agree that some aspects of wide play needed a look at and perhaps some small tweaks. I personally would have SLIGHLY adjusted the happiness restrictions of playing wide, because I do find you can fall into an impossible to climb out pit, even though you have perfect infrastructure.

Making tech come even faster, which already comes way too fast at standard, is not the way.

 

[Legen]

Bran, the Sleeping Guardian

• +25% increase to Ranged Combat Strength and +25% Growth in all Cities. +15Culture and Gold when a Citizen is born, scaling with Era. +1 Happiness to Following City
• +5 Food from Ceilidh Hall.
• Changes: Culture increased from 10 to 15, gold added.

Another change, the Ceilidh Hall will give 5 food instead of 4 faith from this pantheon.

 

[stii]

So why are bigger maps expected to have more space per player? Is there any good reason for this?

 

[salty mud]

When's the release?

 

[stii]

I don't. I am against these changes and they don't improve things, other than making playing wide easier.

For some reason 2 or 3 people have started a campaign to make wide play the always better play because, I am assuming, that's their own personal preference. For some reason they have decided to push this, rather than just make a mod mod for themselves. This is actually just one of the changes they proposed, and have aggressively pushed. (check out the settler change thread, same couple people want cities created late game to not only be almost fully formed, but actually to gain bonuses early cities don't have)

Making wide play easier only encourages run away civs and creates a critical mass situation, where once a certain size is reached the civ cannot be stopped because it will just do everything way better.

The wide play restrictions exist for a reason. On a large map we have more space to carve out a larger civ, either with conquest or just getting more settlers out before our neighbors. I know we aren't removing the restrictions, but this change seems like a step backwards.

To be fair, I agree that wide player should be over all slightly more effective than tall play, as it takes on more risk, I don't want to see it become the only play however. I also agree that some aspects of wide play needed a look at and perhaps some small tweaks. I personally would have SLIGHLY adjusted the happiness restrictions of playing wide, because I do find you can fall into an impossible to climb out pit, even though you have perfect infrastructure.

Making tech come even faster, which already comes way too fast at standard, is not the way.

This is rather combative and pushes the idea that only a few people disagree with you so obviously they are wrong. By this logic maybe players who play on bigger maps should make their own mod mod for bigger maps. Do you ever build late game cities, does anyone? Wanting to buff something to is useless makes sense, maybe they went too far but again I am really not a fan of the way you state it.

Lots of people have complained that tradition is just better than progress. Which is not quite the same as wide vs tall but does overlap a lot. Progress has got various buffs due to this recently and it still doesn't seem that close to me. Wide is certainly not the only way to play and win.

 

[Deljade]

Please excuse me for being a bit alarmed but, during the last couple of months, I was already under the impression that games are going a little too fast on my settings and this thread https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/is-epic-tech-speed-too-fast.663351/ brought it to my attention even more, especially after checking my own replays. The data is right there, I can go through them and present it if it's necessary would take a bit of effort on my part, games are getting faster (for these settings, which a lot of players use)
So I apologise for being quite a bit negative on the prospect of having games go EVEN faster by reducing tech cost on Huge.

 

[LifeOfBrian]

I too think the tech speed on standard maps&speed shouldn't be changed.

 

[ICanHasName?]

Agree that science speed was already a little too fast, especially on higher difficulties. Second it seemed to me that the main issues with wide were the tourism penalties (made wide culture victory impractical) and happiness penalties (large empires unhappy no matter how much they invest in infrastructure). Wide should have only a small tech advantage or you get the unstoppable runaway.

This change seems to make forts the science improvement. Is it intended that I may want to build forts somewhere with no defensive relevance?

 

[tu_79]

So why are bigger maps expected to have more space per player? Is there any good reason for this?

That's how vanilla map sizes are. For 2, 4, 6 and 8 players the maps scale roughly linearly. But for 10 and 12 players the maps are much bigger. If you want the same player density, you would need to play large with 12 players and huge with 16 players. I complained about this four or five years ago and advocated for a linear increase in player density and only then set the map size penalties, but people were used to the old system and the only thing that got done was some penalty tweaks for more balance.
The number of players also affects the speed of research, but this increase is linear.

Just consider maps up to standard to be standard, while large and huge are maps that play differently for people who like different games, with the values for bigger maps balanced from their fanbase feedback.

 

[Drakle]

I will second the science is progressing a bit too fast. Sometimes I have cities who spend 100% of their production on crucial buildings, with no time left for units or other stuff. Not late settled cities, but ones in the early ancient. And I have to do so because otherwise, they drown in unhappiness.

 

[Deljade]

So why are bigger maps expected to have more space per player? Is there any good reason for this?

I know you mostly play Small size maps so you might want to take a look around the forums in photojournals and screenshots of people that play on Huge. I will tell you right now that most of us do 15-16 players. A few do 20+ and a few do 43. But adding a lot of players severely affects things like religions, wonders, performance and many, many others. So most of the Huge players decided that 15-16 is the correct number for them. Maybe some people forget the default settings and play with 12. But most should be 15-16 Go ahead and check around to confirm.
You were in the thread where I calculated how many tiles per player different sizes provide. And it's very obvious that Huge gives ~4 cities worth of tiles more than Standard when there's 16 players.

 

[stii]

I know you mostly play Small size maps so you might want to take a look around the forums in photojournals and screenshots of people that play on Huge. I will tell you right now that most of us do 15-16 players. A few do 20+ and a few do 43. But adding a lot of players severely affects things like religions, wonders, performance and many, many others. So most of the Huge players decided that 15-16 is the correct number for them. Maybe some people forget the default settings and play with 12. But most should be 15-16 Go ahead and check around to confirm.
You were in the thread where I calculated how many tiles per player different sizes provide. And it's very obvious that Huge gives ~4 cities worth of tiles more than Standard when there's 16 players.

This makes me wonder if the map sizes are just broken, and maybe this could be fixed? If most people play with 16 rather than the default 12 because the default is just wrong, maybe other things should be adjusted up. Like whatever the correct number of religions for 16 player is rather than 12. (9/10 I guess?)

Small being one city smaller by ratio than standard is just about fine but four cities bigger is always going to make it almost impossible to balance both huge and standard maps together in the same mod without a lot of work.

 

[Zuizgond]

To me, forts are mainly for defenses. I don't really want them to become a better improvement than any others. I would even reduce the yields linked to techs and make it an Autocracy or Imperialism only thing.

 

[Patee]

I find science progressing too fast as propably main reason to switch from Standard to Epic.

Would be a bit weird is science speed up in upcoming version

 

[Stalker0]

It seems to me the best way to start would be to change the map size science modifier for all maps to 120% (currently Standard is 110%).

This would (very roughly) give a 5 city tall on standard about the same tech speed, same speed on large, and a 10% speed increase on huge (so curious what the huge players think on that one, is 5 city still a normal tall play on huge maps?).

 

[Kim Dong Un]

For some reason 2 or 3 people have started a campaign to make wide play the always better play because, I am assuming, that's their own personal preference.

Those reasons are valid and were thoroughly laid out within numerous posts throughout our 'campaign'. I'll assume you just chose to disregard them by not even reading in the first place.

For some reason they have decided to push this

Once again, I assure you those reasons do exist within the corresponding thread(s), but continue being ignorant. That or you just have a comprehension issue.

This is actually just one of the changes they proposed, and have aggressively pushed.(check out the settler change thread, same couple people want cities created late game to not only be almost fully formed, but actually to gain bonuses early cities don't have)

Yeah, our vicious tirade knows no bounds; won't somebody please think of the children?

To be fair, I agree that wide player should be over all slightly more effective than tall play, as it takes on more risk

So then why are you even arguing so contentiously against us, as that's all our 'campaign' seeks to establish by bringing a bit more fun/realism to the game. Your game isn't going to suddenly turn into a frenzy over something like a minor Colonist buff...

I don't want to see it become the only play however.

You mean, like how tall is right now?

I also agree that some aspects of wide play needed a look at and perhaps some small tweaks. I personally would have SLIGHLY adjusted the happiness restrictions of playing wide, because I do find you can fall into an impossible to climb out pit, even though you have perfect infrastructure.

This is all that we're basically trying to achieve, so I really don't understand your rebellion. Besides, none of that even came to fruition as the only happiness tweaks were a slight PW buff.

Making tech come even faster, which already comes way too fast at standard, is not the way.

Yup, I'm against the tech increase as well and would've actually liked to see the opposite, with tech slowed down a touch from what the current pace was on standard.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

I switched to epic speed sometime ago and never really went back to standard because the game's pace felt really fast that i was always felt like my cities were endlessly trying to keep up with the new unlocked building and units just obsolete midwar even if i DOW the moment i unlock the unit ... Epic's pace felt about right for me even if the late game teching was just bumping scientists and getting 1 tech per turn.
I'll have to try the new patch first before jumping to conclusions that it will makes teching considerably faster -even if it's suppsed to do that on paper- but generally don't think this is the right direction for a better VP experience.