v131.15 Beta

[Seek]

This is an interesting idea, if it doesn't set back Korea's science too much.

It will blow it through the roof, especially in the early game! I like the idea, but perhaps we should eliminate or lower the specialist bonus rather than remove the GP improvements bonus.

BTW, Thal, any plans on incorporating phtmix's earlier ideas wrt specialist SPs?

 

[Txurce]

I'd like to point out most midgame siege units have at least 2 promotions and a great general. Since these modifiers depend on base strength, Hwach'a are still better against units than cannon/artillery, but not as much as their raw stats imply.

It's clearly advantageous to upgrade high-level hwach'a to artillery if we have sufficient gold reserves. The cost is very high, however, so that's another factor to consider. Artillery come rather late in the game. Korea will likely be focusing on the top half of the tech tree at that point, skipping Artillery.

It's also worth keeping in mind that cannon and artillery are primarily useful for taking cities; killing units is a secondary role for them. In that sense they are much better than hwacha's.

 

[Txurce]

• AIs start with an extra archer for rush defense.

Is this in addition to the extra archers they were already getting in, for example, Emperor? If so, isn't this OP? I assume it's an adjustment to counter some of the unique starting units, but there aren't enough of them to justify this sort of precaution. My worry would be that the extra archer will start a snowball effect forcing the human player to build an archer himself to counter AL rushes (as opposed to vice-versa).

In short, shouldn't we wait to see if there's a balance problem before trying to fix it?

 

[Thalassicus]

I do plan on eventually adding some ideas suggested by phtmix, but my highest priority at the moment is to increase the variety of Opportunities available to us.

After thinking over the Korean granary idea for a while, I realized it would cause happiness difficulties. After all, we'd be building more farms and granaries than normal, which means we'd have higher populations. I think this might restrain it enough so it's not overpowered. Perhaps the trait could become just the free science from buildings/wonders in the capital? Or should we focus on the specialist bonus... or a mix of both?

The extra AI archer is actually because I feel it's too easy to rush the AI right now.

 

[albie_123]

Buildings / Wonders is much more fun in my opinion than the specialist option, for what it's worth. But since you'll no doubt have huge populations from your scientific farms, the specialist option might make more sense. I don't see any need to mix both. One strong ability is more fun than two weaker ones.

 

[Thalassicus]

I agree with you on both points.

 

[Txurce]

After thinking over the Korean granary idea for a while, I realized it would cause happiness difficulties. After all, we'd be building more farms and granaries than normal, which means we'd have higher populations. I think this might restrain it enough so it's not overpowered. Perhaps the trait could become just the free science from buildings/wonders in the capital? Or should we focus on the specialist bonus... or a mix of both?

Agreed that the granary proposal has a built-in limiter. From that pov, reducing the specialist bonus to +1 should roughly even things out without adjusting the capital building bonus.

However, as opposed to how Thal and albie see it, to me there's nothing particularly interesting about the science-building bonus, because I'm always going to build them asap. Specialists, on the other hand, are always a trade-off (vs gains from workers), and are therefore more of a choice. Combined with the somewhat lesser choice of building a farm or granary, it should make playing Korea more interesting. So assuming balance, I would tilt toward leaving specialists at +2 and going with the agricultural bumps (which strongly push Korea toward a tall approach - also a good thing).

 

[Seek]

I do plan on eventually adding some ideas suggested by phtmix, but my highest priority at the moment is to increase the variety of Opportunities available to us.

Sounds good. Speaking of Opportunities, I didn't see anything in the patch notes about the scout/warrior opportunity bug - were you able to fix it?

 

[Thalassicus]

It should have been fixed in v131.14?

 

[Txurce]

The extra AI archer is actually because I feel it's too easy to rush the AI right now.

Really? It would never occur to rush the AI with any civ except maybe Germany, so I haven't tried it. I assume you have, successfully?

 

[Seek]

It should have been fixed in v131.14?

Oh? I've been playing with a modified 131.12 - the patch notes didn't mention it there either, and the other changes were so minimal I just kept on with that. Anyway, that's great news.

@Txurce, I've only warrior rushed once with the Aztecs, and though it does slow things down to start it's effective and fun!

 

[Thalassicus]

@Txurce
Yeah. I normally start conquest in the classical era, but decided to try it in the ancient era. I feel we should not be able to capture AI capitals in the ancient era because it wins the game. Classical is okay, less of an I-Win button by that point.

@Seek

v131.14 Beta - March 1, 2012

Misc

• Fixed an issue with early replace-unit opportunities.

 

[Txurce]

@Txurce
Yeah. I normally start conquest in the classical era, but decided to try it in the ancient era. I feel we should not be able to capture capitals in the ancient era... it wins the game.

I'm impressed... and agree.

I started a game with Korea in v131.15 and was frustrated by the worker start, because it significantly slowed my local exploration (compounded by the seeming nerf to production - has there been one?).

Edit: the production nerf seems gone with v131.16 (scouts with stone take 5-6 turns, not 8).

I'm also pretty sick of the incessant barb ships on my coast in Continents Plus, but presume that's unavoidable?

 

[Thalassicus]

Starting with a worker instead of a warrior does have its disadvantages. It might be interesting to see how the early farming capability combines with the plans for a Korean granary giving +1 farms... we could conceivably double our science by beelining for the granary while our start-warrior spams farms.

Build a navy and those barbs turn into a source of free Great General Points. And with the Honor policy it's tons of culture. When I start on the coastline I always build at least 2 triremes as soon as I get Sailing. One explores while the other kills barbs. Once I get Optics I send a scout across the sea to capture the barbarian camps my triremes cleared.

 

[Txurce]

Build a navy and those barbs turn into a source of free Great General Points. And with the Honor policy it's tons of culture.

Starting with a worker instead of a warrior does have its disadvantages. It might be interesting to see how the early farming capability combines with the plans for a Korean granary giving +1 farms... we could conceivably double our science by beelining for the granary while our start-warrior spams farms.

Yes, I was thinking how with the proposed granary it becomes a different but powerful start anyway.

Has base production been nerfed?

 

[Thalassicus]

Not that I'm aware of. Income is still the same (city tile, mines, etc). Costs should also be unchanged.

 

[Txurce]

Not that I'm aware of. Income is still the same (city tile, mines, etc). Costs should also be unchanged.

I'd apreciate it if you or someone else could confirm what I'm seeing. Basically, startinng with the worker working stone, I can build a scout in 6 turns - sometimes 5. Now it's 8.

Edit: using v19, with the capital on a hill and the worker on deer, it still takes 7 turns to build a scout.

 

[Thalassicus]

It seems straightforward:

• Income: Vem does not alter the production income from the Palace (3), city tile (1), or the bonus for a city on a hill (1).
• Cost: The scout costs 40. I reloaded a copy of v131.14, and can confirm this is unchanged in v131.15+.

This means the scout should take 40/(3+1) = 10 turns to build if the first tile we work provides no production. I can confirm this is the time indicated by the city. The second example you gave is 40/(3+1+1+1) = 7 turns, which is also accurate.

 

[Txurce]

I'm comparing it to 1.26, on back as far as I can remember. Scouts have always been 8 turns, unless you get a boost from a high-hammer source like a capital settled on a hill or an adjacent stone, pasture, etc., at which point it's 6 (or 5) turns. Isn't this your experience in every game you play?

 

[Thalassicus]

Oh! I thought you were asking if things had changed in v131.15 beta. Last month I slowed down several parts of the game, since feedback in the "Rebalancing Proposal" said games progressed too fast.

v131.7 Beta - February 25, 2012

Cities

• Expensive units and buildings have a higher purchase cost modifier. Click for details.
• Increased production costs 15%. Click for details.
• Increased the base cost to purchase tiles.

Policies

• Increased policy costs 20%. Click for details.

Research

• Increased tech costs 20%. Click for details.

I could change the palace from 3 to 5 if you would like the very early game to be relatively the same as v130.