v3.0.3 Discussion

[ExpiredReign]

My 2 cents on the "Healing" promotion.

No!

Whilst it is historically true that units did overcome tremendous odds and fight off an enemy I think it is a bit of a stretch to call that a "Promotion". If the mechanics of combat incorporated a random effect of giving health back to an injured unit based on 'whatever' then I would accept it. But getting healed after 10, 20, 30,... XP. No.

The division of promotions into 'Rough/Plains' is also a bit strange.

What about 'Accuracy' vs 'Cover' for ranged and 'Parry' vs 'Power' for melee.

Not sure about the values yet. Or for that matter if it actually would make a difference to how the combat mechanics work. Basically though it is along the line of Offense/Defense choice.

Will we build up units to sustain an onslaught or are we doing the slaughtering.

 

[Brannock]

Mentor's Hall needs to go IMO. It doesn't add an interesting decision to the early game, which already has many other competition decisions (Settler, Worker, Scout, military, Monument, Shrine, Granary), and I don't really see the need for boosted science in BNW vanilla.

 

[stackpointer]

I'm actually glad that the GEM promotion tree is being used sans healing. It's just too bad that the scouts don't upgrade into anything and any promotions are basically wasted.

The increased policy acquisition might be a little too high (at least in the early game). My first game had at least three of the AI go through Piety first, which caused them to acquire their religions and reformation beliefs (and some enhancers) while I was barely able to grab the last religion slot as the Maya with a tradition first start. But then again, maybe the AI should be awarded with a super early religion for going Piety first.

Also does CEP_Options.sql work? I would like to set barbarian experience and city distances again like in GEM.

 

[albie_123]

Yeah, I don't like that people are getting reformation beliefs before getting religions. Piety could be moved back to classical.

 

[stackpointer]

Yeah, I don't like that people are getting reformation beliefs before getting religions. Piety could be moved back to classical.

Actually, it sort of works out since the finisher of Piety is a Great Prophet, the AI would never be more than a policy away from getting their reformation belief with their religion.

 

[albie_123]

But still... I would've thought reformation beliefs should happen later in the game. The issue comes from the AI picking Piety and then having to finish it before going to another tree.

 

[Tomice]

I didn't add the changes early, but it's hard to know how to explain why.

I'll put it this way - I recommend completing several games of standard BNW before starting mods. I base everything in the project on extensive playtesting and experience.

@rhammer640: Since Thal obviously can't talk about it, I'll give you a hint:

Every game has a closed beta, sometimes they anounce it on a big scale and hand out thousands of access codes to gaming magazines for giveaway (Blizzard style), but sometimes they just secretly ask the most prominent community members - preferably those that understand a bit about programming.

Got it?

And now let's quickly bury that discussion again... Just remember Thal usually knows what he's doing

 

[Tomice]

Another topic:
Haven't seen any discussion yet about the reintroduction of extra yields on ALL riverside improvements (not just farms at civil service).

I like it - a lot!

There's no reason to reduce extra yields to farms. In vanilla, we'll just build farms on almost every riverside tile, getting the same raw number of extra yields, but it will all be food. In CEP we have the same number of yields, but more strategic choice and more variety.
I also doubt that the AI would exploit riverside farms as good as a human could, so Thal's change should help the AI.

Do we all agree?

 

[albie_123]

I certainly do! I almost forgot that it wasn't a vanilla feature after playing VEM/GEM since, well, Thal's Mod came out. Before BNW it made river cities very, very strong, but now that the extra yields from rivers are gone, it's actually more balanced.

 

[tedoll78]

Another topic:
Haven't seen any discussion yet about the reintroduction of extra yields on ALL riverside improvements (not just farms at civil service).

I like it.

There's no reason to reduce extra yields to farms. In vanilla, we'll just build farms on almost every riverside tile, getting the same raw number of extra yields, but it will all be food. In CEP we have the same number of yields, but more strategic choice and more variety.
I also doubt that the AI would exploit riverside farms as good as a human could, so Thal's change should help the AI.

Do we all agree?

This is precisely what I was going to propose. Mines, farms, great person improvements.. it makes perfect sense they'd all benefit from being built along a river. I also like that it would add another layer of strategy when choosing the order in which the player will develop tiles. If you have a needed Resource X on a non-river tile, but you have really-good-to-have Resource Y along a river tile, you'd have to weigh this factor when making your next decision. I like being faced with those kinds of decisions.

The availability of such a benefit could even be tied to a relatively early technology, to represent when mankind began building docks and other riverside infrastructures (Optics?).

Another odd proposal: I'm not sure if this is precedented, but we could possibly remove the river tile bonus at the advent of a future technology, to represent the decline in importance of water travel as other transportation methods come to rise in significance (Railroad? Combustion?)

Just my random thoughts.. this kind of discussion fascinates me..

 

[rhammer640]

Edit: :facepalm: Disregard post. Thats what I get when I post too early. Thanks for saving some embarrassment albie

 

[albie_123]

Ah, rhammer640, I think you really misunderstood that post. We're not talking about the beta of Communitas here, we're talking about the beta of a certain expansion pack.

 

[ExpiredReign]

@rhammer640

Don't be put off by any comments made here. Everyone's input is appreciated.

I believe what Tomice is alluding to is not the beta to this mod but rather the beta to the core game, Civ V. Thal is a skilled programmer and although he will remain quiet about any input into the core game it is a good bet he knows the ins and outs of the code and how it plays.

While I don't immediately agree with all changes made in the mod I do however know that ALL his changes are well considered.

So keep giving input but also accept changes that you don't think are good.

Or make changes on your own copy like some of us do.

 

[Ahriman]

I would say that riverside bonuses with appropriate techs should realy mean all improvements; there is no reason why cows or sheep should stop being a bonus just because they're riverside, or why gold or salt with a mine should get a bonus but sugar or cotton on a plantation should not.

 

[Tomice]

I would say that riverside bonuses with appropriate techs should realy mean all improvements; there is no reason why cows or sheep should stop being a bonus just because they're riverside, or why gold or salt with a mine should get a bonus but sugar or cotton on a plantation should not.

Wasn't there a graphical limitation with the tech tree? IIRC each improvement that gets a boost will get its own "star" icon, and more than 5 icons per tech cause problems?

If there's no technical issue, I fully agree to you.

 

[albie_123]

We have that, and have had that in all versions of VEM/GEM, at different techs.

It makes more sense to have different techs giving the riverside bonus and subsequent non-fresh water bonus to different improvements. Food from farms, most associated with tall and peaceful empires. is at the top (peaceful side) of the tech tree, hammers from mines is at the bottom (military). Gold from villages is in the middle (useful for everyone). There's some crossover between gold and food but that's pretty understandable.

Also, I'd like to see the tech tree revert to a similar situation as it was in GEM. Right now different techs in the same column aren't always the same beaker cost, and there are some very tenuous dependencies (I don't remember Theology being required for Compass in GEM).

 

[Tomice]

We have that, and have had that in all versions of VEM/GEM, at different techs.

Have to check, at least in the tech tree I haven't seen plantations or camps getting a yield boost from one of the early techs, but I didn't look thoroughly.

 

[mitsho]

well, you can put them on different techs, to spread out the effects.

Though I fear that additional gold on villages might be too strong / clash with the trade system. That one is already in question with the earlier villages in GEM.

I pondered a bit on that which lead me to a whole new idea for villages: The French UI has a ability, that make it require 1 hex of space between each improvement.

Could that be a solution to make villages "okay" in the early game, but boost it more comparatively in the mid- and late-game?

That way, villages on rivers with an add. gold might not be too strong in the early game for trade routes. With the numbers of villages cut down, this way I could also see bringing back the 1 science on villages policy.

The bad side of course would be that the AI will be bad at settling them. I can already see it on a 3 tile long island putting the village in the middle... though of course that might be intended and it does want 2 farms ;-)

Another bonus would be the diversity of improvements as a result.

 

[mystikx21]

I would say that riverside bonuses with appropriate techs should realy mean all improvements; there is no reason why cows or sheep should stop being a bonus just because they're riverside, or why gold or salt with a mine should get a bonus but sugar or cotton on a plantation should not.

This. It would help pastures, camps, and plantations out somewhat too. Doesn't have to be gold, could be extra food or production if that makes more sense.

I'd be fine if these are slightly better the entire game on rivers, as a subtle slight pro-river bias but the main issue is just that they're weaker now than before because there are few improvements for them. Other than horses and ivory (both stable and circus), and in GEM using jungle plantations on bananas, none of these had very many methods of improvement relative to the farm, mine, or village that they felt like decent tiles throughout the game. Fish pretty much destroy any of them, especially in BNW.

 

[Ahriman]

Wasn't there a graphical limitation with the tech tree? IIRC each improvement that gets a boost will get its own "star" icon, and more than 5 icons per tech cause problems?

If there's no technical issue, I fully agree to you.

We would want to spread the bonuses out, they don't all need to be on the same tech as long as they're all medieval era.

Production for mine and lumbermill and camp, food for farm and pasture, gold for trading post and plantation.
It's ok I guess if the great person improvements don't get it, the player can just put them on non-river tiles.