Tides of War, a balance mod

[SevenSpirits]

I get why we all felt the way we felt about the Grocer change, but I do think that civs that have "later" UU/UB really need to be very good to get chosen. The problem is you get to a point where you're either nerfing everybody who has Ancient/Classical stuff or your buffing everyone. I mean, these three are clearly the worst because everything was late, but nobody takes Spain either, for example.

I agree with your general claim, but maybe not with the specifics.

Spain isn't a good example because its benefits are pretty small, and it has awful starting techs. I think a better example is england, which gets picked primarily for the improved bank, and isn't hamstrung by mysticism. If you look at the free merchant specialist on the frontier post as about a third of a great library, I think it compares favorably with the marginal +15% gold of the stock exchange.

[SevenSpirits]

I want to add a bit more background info about the tech costs / map size thing. "Standard" size seems to be intended for ~7 players, but we routinely use it for 5 player games. The reason is that tech costs are just a bit low on small, and in the late game techs fly by too quickly. Similarly, in the duels I played recently, "duel" size wasn't even under consideration. We chose between "tiny" and "small", again because of tech costs.

Using higher map sizes like this also has effects on maintenance. Higher map size means less #cities maintenance and more distance maintenance. I would say that part of the reason we've had such high distance maintenance in lots of recent games (the main factor being toroidal map wrap) is that we've been playing on these higher map sizes. It would make some sense to play PBEMs on small, and have a bit more #cities maintenance and less distance maintenance, but this would also lower tech costs across the board, and that's why I'm normally disinclined to do it.

Conversely, when we play some of these pitboss games, "huge" size would probably be most appropriate, and we often settle on "large" as a compromise. Both sizes have a big drawback in that early tech costs are incredibly high. I still think of PB4 as the best example of how annoying this is. At least the first-row tech costs are shuffled around so agriculture is cheaper in this mod, which relieves some of the pain. But it's still really painful and kind of bizarre to have to play a tech-starved early game just because the map is big.

Gaspar, I totally see your point about being skeptical of this change, since it's just another thing, and it's kind of complex. Maybe it doesn't belong. But there's my extended explanation for why I wanted to put it up for consideration.

[Gaspar]

I think maybe the best thing here is to define what we would ideally like a game of MP Civ4 to look like and then try and fit that. I don't think the answer is to try and answer what we'd ideally like the game Civilization to look like, which is what I think a lot of "balance" mods try to do.

I think if there is a problem that's not addressed in this mod, you're in the neighborhood of it. The game goes slow-slow-FAST. This leads to more and more ancient/classical war from bored players and so on and games ending before we get to the second half of the tech tree. Is the solution to that lower early tech costs and faster late tech costs? I don't know. I think one of the things I'm cautious about there is that one of Civ4 successes is that it avoids the way a lot of 4X games mitigate that - adding punishment for success, so if I had any reservation about a change it would be that. But I do think slowing down the mid-game is something worthy of pursuit.

[NobleHelium]

I don't think it makes sense to give CHA double speed monuments, that's infringing on CRE territory.

[Ceiliazul]

I feel like the mod is creeping away from this:

Tides of War is a mod for Civ IV:BtS. Its goal is to increase strategic options with minimal changes.

But a transparent tech-cost formula change would be, well, transparent and Seven's way seems about right.

[SevenSpirits]

Man, lots of opinions here. I don't want to screw anything up. I've thrown together a poll about the stuff I'm thinking of adding to the mod imminently. If you want to check it out and answer any or all of the questions, I'd appreciate it very much!

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1j05bYNs...k/viewform

[SevenSpirits]

Maybe the opinions are less strong than I thought - I'm sensing mostly indifference now. I do understand why these changes are less agreed-upon than the initial set. They are more marginal and less needed. It's the same reason I left them for a later update.

I think I'll finish implementing the civ changes as in my last post, decide on something for CHA (it's still up in the air at this point, but I'm unlikely to do the monument discount as several people looked at me funny about that), and consider adding the proposed tech cost changes but only as a game option.

Anyone want to play a game?

[pindicator]

OH yeah, i forgot to vote.

And definitely would like to play a game.

[SevenSpirits]

Thanks for the additional feedback (and the comments in this thread count as feedback too)!

Changes are almost all done. I ran into one unexpected snag: the Viking UB. The way free promotions work is they are given to every unit which can get the promotion. So navigation 1 is given to all boats, because navigation 1 is a boats-only promotion. If I wanted to give all boats flanking 1 instead... I'd have to choose between giving horse archers and other units the promotion too, or writing a lot more code. Meanwhile I'm wanting to minimize civ nerfs (and I got some feedback in this vein too), and so I'm thinking I'll just leave Vikings as is for the moment. If it turns out they are too good I'll take another look later.

The other civ nerfs got a mixed reception too. Surprisingly to me, the war chariot nerf was least liked: a MAJORITY of people said they wanted it left as is. Guys: I'm sorry, but this is one item where I'm not going to leave it as is. Just look our past games - I wouldn't be surprised if Egypt was the single most commonly picked civ. That's because it's pretty solidly one of the top four civs. It's below inca and india, but IMO tied for third with Sumeria, the civ which has the best UB out of all the civs with the best starting techs. The war chariot is a completely ridiculous unit, having +25% base strength more than the unit it replaces, and getting first strike immunity on top of that. (By comparison, the amazing cataphract gets +20% base strength and LOSES first strike immunity.) The obelisk is an above-average UB; the effect is situational, but specialist slots are not easy to come by, and in particular priest slots are very rare. Even leaving out the fact that I want the game to be balanced for duels as well, there is no doubt in my mind that egypt needs to be toned down a bit. (And for the record, a chariot with two free first strikes is still a pretty good UU, in my opinion. I think the nerf leaves Egypt solidly above average.) Egypt rant done with, I did get the general feedback about the nerfs being unpopular. So as mentioned above, I'm currently thinking to cancel the Viking nerf, which isn't critical. I'm also reducing the Skirmisher nerf to only losing the first strikes and not costing more too. (This nerf is mainly for duels. If they weren't a huge issue in duels due to beating 4-strength units straight up, I'd drop it as not needed.)

The impi and sumeria starting tech changes are staying as is. The new UUs/UBs are staying as I last posted too. They seem well-liked.

CHA I still don't have a clear answer for. People were really split on which versions they preferred. I think for the next game I will pick the 3 happiness, -25% XP requirements version (with nothing else - no barracks/drydock discounts). My main reasons for choosing this version are 1) it doesn't require additional coding, and 2) I think it's on the strong side, while the 2 happy barracks discount version is weaker, and I want it to get played.

The tech cost changes are planned for a game option, and I'm not necessarily going to rush to finish that unless the next game that starts wants to use it. I also want to add a game option that forces the maintenance calculation to pretend the map is a cylinder - same deal there.

[SevenSpirits]

Clarification: -25% unit cost means reduced gpt upkeep of units. Specifically, the line item in your financial advisor labeled "Unit Cost" - that number is reduced by 25%.

It does not mean reduced hammer cost of units, which for the record I would have written as +33% unit production.