Balance tile imps and city imps?

[MrBaggins]

Just reading a thread it struck me about a fundamental game balance that just, to me, seems out of whack.

Because of the numeric system of increments of 5, and the multiple levels of improvement, Tile Imps tend to be the most significant part of improving the productivity of a city. They cost a fair bit... but you can build a lot of them, because of the expanding radii of cities.

City Improvements are limited... on per type, per city, and are pretty underwhelming, and... "so what" ish.

My feeling is that we might consider toning TileImps down just a little, and beefing up City Imps generally quite a bit, to make them worthwhile... even if we increase costs a bit.

Thoughts?

[Solver]

I loved it how much the CtP1 city improvements were better. Generally, I'd love to see Academies provide a, say, 25% boost to Science instead of 10%... hmm, might well mod that in myself.

[Maquiladora]

I think all percentage buildings should provide +50% like civ2 and all tile improvements should be halved in the resources they give, but not their price to build in public works.

City Walls should also be changed to +300% Defence and Ballista Towers to +100% Attack, that should make them useful.

Also make the Airport city improvement produce veteran Air units and heal air units in 1 turn in a city with an airport.

I think we should get the list of all buildings and all tile imps typed down and we can chop and change then, something abit more active than throwing concepts around anyway.

[Death 2000]

TILE IMPROVEMENTS

Farms: 200 PW, +10 Food
Advanced Farms: 500 PW, +20 Food
Hydroponic Farms: 1,400 PW, +30 Food

Nets: 200-400 PW, +10 Food
Fisheries: 500-900 PW, +20/30 Food
Automated Fisheries: 1,400-2,000 PW, +30/45 Food

Trading Post: 250 PW, +10 Commerce
Outlet Mall: 600 PW, +20 Commerce
Nature Preserve: 1,400 PW, +30 Commerce

Mines: 300-500 PW, +5/10/15 Production
Advanced Mines: 800-1200 PW, +10/20/30 Production, +5 Commerce.
Mega Mines: 1600-2400 PW, +15/30/45 Production, +5 Commerce.

Undersea Mines: 400-600 PW, +15/20/25 Production
Advanced Undersea Mines: 1000-1400 PW, +30/45/60 Production, +5 Commerce
Mega Undersea Mines: 2200-2800 PW, +45/60/90 Production, +5 Commerce

Port: 350 PW, +15 Commerce
Drilling Platform: 800 PW, +25 Commerce

Roads: 60-400 PW, 1/3rd Movement Cost
Railroads: 120-800 PW, 1/5th Movement Cost
Maglevs: 240-1600 PW, 1/10th Movement Cost
Undersea Tunnels: 1200-2400 PW, 1/10th Movement Cost

Listening Post: 800 PW, 3 Tile Vision Radius.
Radar Station: 1200 PW, 8 Tile Vision Radius.
Sonar Buoy: 1000 PW, 4 Tile Vision Radius (Sees Underwater Units).

Air Bases: 1000 PW, Refuels Aerial Unit, 3 Tile Vision Radius.
Fortifications: 1000 PW, +50% Defense.
Obelisk: 3000 PW, Required for the Gaia Controller.



CITY IMPROVEMENTS

Academy:
Cost: 540
Maint: 1
Preq: Philosophy
Bonus: +10% Science in City

Airport:
Cost: 3000
Maint: 8
Preq: Aerodynamics
Bonus: +20% Gold in City

Anti-Ballistic Missiles:
Cost: 5000
Maint: 15
Preq: Global Communications
Bonus: Destroys Nukes Near City

Aqua-Filter:
Cost: 8000
Maint: 18
Preq: Nano-Machines
Bonus: +14 Max Population, +6 Overcrowding in City

Aqueduct:
Cost: 875
Maint: 4
Preq: Concrete
Bonus: +14 Max Population, +6 Overcrowding in City

Arcologies:
Cost: 5000
Maint: 12
Preq: Arcologies
Bonus: +14 Max Population, +8 Overcrowding in City

Arena
Cost: 675
Maint: 2
Preq: Masonry
Bonus: +2 Happiness in City

Ballista Towers
Cost: 525
Maint: 2
Preq: Ballistics
Bonus: +20 Attack versus Land Units in City

Bank:
Cost: 1225
Maint: 4
Preq: Banking
Bonus: +15% Gold in City

Basilica:
Cost: 1450
Maint: 4
Preq: Theology
Bonus: +3 Happiness in City

Battlements:
Cost: 1800
Maint: 5
Preq: Naval Tactics
Bonus: +25 Attack versus Naval Units

Bazaar:
Cost: 525
Maint: 1
Preq: Trade
Bonus: +10% Gold in City

Behavioral Modification Center:
Cost: 4500
Maint: 18
Preq: Neural Reprogramming
Bonus: -30% Crime in City

Body Exchange:
Cost: 7500
Maint: 15
Preq: Life Extension
Bonus: +12 Overcrowding in City

Brokerage:
Cost: 1600
Maint: 4
Preq: Economics
Bonus: +20% Gold

Capitalization:
Cost: N/A
Maint: N/a
Preq: Global Economics
Bonus: Converts City's Production into Gold

Capitol:
Cost: 550
Maint: 0
Preq: Feudalism
Bonus: +1 Happiness in City (Becomes Center of Empire)

City Wall:
Cost: 450
Maint: 2
Preq: Stone Working
Bonus: +15 Defense in City

Computer Center:
Cost: 2400
Maint: 6
Preq: Computer
Bonus: +20% Science in City

Cornucopic Vats:
Cost: 3500
Maint: 15
Preq: Genetic Tailoring
Bonus: Prevents Starvation in City

Correctional Facility:
Cost: 1400
Maint: 5
Preq: Criminal Code
Bonus: -20% Crime in City

Courthouse:
Cost: 330
Maint: 1
Preq: Jurisprudence
Bonus: -10% Crime in City

Drug Store:
Cost: 1400
Maint: 5
Preq: Pharmaceuticals
Bonus: +4 Overcrowding in City

E-Bank:
Cost: 4000
Maint: 12
Preq: Digital Encryption
Bonus: +25% Gold in City

Eco-Transit:
Cost: 3500
Maint: 10
Preq: Fuel Cells
Bonus: -30% Pollution from Populace in City

Factory:
Cost: 2025
Maint: 8
Preq: Industrial Revolution
Bonus: +15% Production in City

Flak Towers:
Cost: 2500
Maint: 8
Preq: Radar
Bonus: +40 Attack versus Aerial Units in City

Food Silo:
Cost: 1200
Maint: 4
Preq: Railroad
Bonus: +15% Food in City, 10 Turns of Starvation Protection in City

Forcefield:
Cost: 10000
Maint: 20
Preq: Unified Physics
Bonus: +80 Defense in City

Fusion Plant:
Cost: 10000
Maint: 20
Preq: Fusion
Bonus: +25% Production in City

Granary:
Cost: 300
Maint: 1
Preq: Agriculture
Bonus: +10% Food in City, 5 Turns of Starvation Protection in City

Hospital:
Cost: 2375
Maint: 8
Preq: Medicine
Bonus: +8 Overcrowding in City

Incubation Center:
Cost: 5500
Maint: 15
Preq: Human Cloning
Bonus: +12 Overcrowding in City

Infrastructure:
Cost: N/A
Maint: N/A
Preq: Mass Production
Bonus: Converts City's Production into Public Works

Matter Decompiler:
Cost: 4500
Maint: 15
Preq: Ecotopia
Bonus: -30% Production Pollution in City

Micro Defense:
Cost: 8500
Maint: 18
Preq: Nano-Warfare
Bonus: Protects City against Nano-Attack & Infect City

Mill:
Cost: 1125
Maint: 4
Preq: Agricultural Revolution
Bonus: +10% Production in City

Movie Palace:
Cost: 1500
Maint: 5
Preq: Electricity
Bonus: -20% War Discontent in City

Nanite Factory:
Cost: 8000
Maint: 18
Preq: Nano-Assembly
Bonus: +25% Production in City

Nuclear Plant:
Cost: 4500
Maint: 12
Preq: Nuclear Power
Bonus: +20% Production in City

Oil Refinery:
Cost: 3500
Maint: 8
Preq: Oil Refining
Bonus: +15% Production in City

Orbital Laboratory:
Cost: 3000
Maint: 10
Preq: Space Flight
Bonus: +30% Science in City

Public Transportation:
Cost: 2400
Maint: 6
Preq: Mass Transit
Bonus: -15% Pollution from Populace in City

Publishing House:
Cost: 1375
Maint: 3
Preq: Printing Press
Bonus: +15% Science in City

Recycling Center:
Cost: 3000
Maint: 8
Preq: Conservation
Bonus: -15% Pollution from Production in City

Robotic Plant:
Cost: 5500
Maint: 15
Preq: Robotics
Bonus: +20% Production in City

Security Monitor:
Cost: 4000
Maint: 12
Preq: AI Surveillance
Bonus: -3 Happiness in City, -30% Crime in City

Shrine:
Cost: 270
Maint: 1
Preq: Religion
Bonus: +1 Happiness in City

Television:
Cost: 2500
Maint: 5
Preq: Mass Media
Bonus: +1 Happiness in City, +5 Gold per Citizen in City.

Theater:
Cost: 495
Maint: 1
Preq: Drama
Bonus: +2 Happiness in City

University:
Cost: 1350
Maint: 3
Preq: Classical Education
Bonus: +15% Science in City

VR Amusement Park:
Cost: 3500
Maint: 10
Preq: Neural Interface
Bonus: +5 Happiness in City


Whew, my fingers ache.

Yes, I think the improvements could use a little sprucing up..

[Solver]

My initial thought would be to improve city improvements without weakening the tile improvements... true, this would result in larger and more productive cities, more like CtP1, but that's how I liked it .

[MrBaggins]

Its pretty apparent that the TI's are overpowered... if you just glance. They are often doubling and tripling (if not more) whatever base terrain stat.

This means not only city improvements, but also city placement is less meaningful.

[Maquiladora]

This means not only city improvements, but also city placement is less meaningful.

I agree that it does make city sites less meaningful to an extent, but that extent isnt that far IMO. For example mountains are invaluable as natural production. BUT if you coders can implement Trade Goods with resources (like CtP1/Martin G's goodmod) that will make city sites more important, and also less like a pattern on the terrain to conserve city space and terraform the bad tiles later.

In CtP1 there is more production on tiles and smaller build times and so roughly is 2 times faster than CtP2 builds? Just going on regular things like Settlers, Warriors and Granaries. But that isnt how i believe CtP2 was intended, if we wanted fast build times like CtP1 we'd only need to lower shield cost, but i believe the testers did at least some balancing before the game escaped for release, so id like to see the general build time lengths stay close to the original (with a few exceptions to some units but thats for later...)

Thanks Death 2000

edit: fingers went wrong

[MrBaggins]

In terms of the kind of numbers I'd like to see I'd personally like to see a basic +5/+10/+15 scheme for , and a max of +30... rather than +45 for MegaMines.

I'd leave the deep sea fisheries and deep sea mine numbers where they were, at least until we could get a real handle on Sea Cities.

I'd up the effects of the city improvements to the 25% to 50% range for the gold/science/production improvements (25% for the 10% ones, and 50% for the 20% ones.)

[Solver]

I'd think that the times in CtP2 need to be speeded up a bit, maybe by 25% or so, for most stuff. When an average smallie city takes 20 turn for an Aqueduct... also, early Settlers are very expensive.

It was true, though, that CtP1 cities able to produce anything in 2 turns were a bit over the line, too.

[MrBaggins]

/me nods...

I think there has been a little bit of an overreaction by the developers to how quick things happen, and how good trade monopolies *used to* be.

Incidentally, just to illustrate the whole concept, if you've got a city at the limit of its first ring of expansion (on, say, plains), and have built a ring of trading posts, 1800PW=1800 production, then you're already at a better point that if you had built all the gold improvements which would have given you a 90% bonus for gold alone (at 9600 production,) rather than the 100%plus income (gold or science depending on slider.) The TI's don't reqiure upkeep, but can be pillaged...

[Maquiladora]

I'd think that the times in CtP2 need to be speeded up a bit, maybe by 25% or so, for most stuff. When an average smallie city takes 20 turn for an Aqueduct... also, early Settlers are very expensive.

It was true, though, that CtP1 cities able to produce anything in 2 turns were a bit over the line, too.

When did a small city need an Aqueduct?

Settlers are the most expensive in any civ game by far, i can only think that its because of the lower government city limits. I know this frustrates alot of civ2 players, god even the civ3 settler times frustrate them, but theres always a reason for these things.

Ill do some tests with the numbers you mentioned Mr Baggins when i get the chance, and we can even try cutting all shield costs on everything 25%, see how that goes.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
I think all percentage buildings should provide +50% like civ2 and all tile improvements should be halved in the resources they give, but not their price to build in public works.

City Walls should also be changed to +300% Defence and Ballista Towers to +100% Attack, that should make them useful.

The discussion in my End Game Options thread got me to do some preliminary testing and number crunching, and my conclusion from that was exactly this. (I'd post my calculations but I made most of them on paper, not on my PC, and I don't have time to digitize it now).

A bit off-topic perhaps but these same tests got me to seriously consider a few other changes (but those probably require more testing):
- Settlers killing 2 pop instead of 1 upon creation (like Civ3, IIRC);
- Changing the combat system so that defending units always use their defensive stats in combat, both when they're defending and when they're counteracctking (currently they use their offensive stats when they're counterattacking); this makes offensive stacks more vulnerable to counterattack and defensive stacks tougher in defense.

[Maquiladora]

The discussion in my End Game Options thread got me to do some preliminary testing and number crunching, and my conclusion from that was exactly this. (I'd post my calculations but I made most of them on paper, not on my PC, and I don't have time to digitize it now).

Which part met your calculations, the combat bonuses or the building % or both? I stole them from civ2

- Settlers killing 2 pop instead of 1 upon creation (like Civ3, IIRC);

Didnt they do it in civ3 to help stop ReXing/ICS? anyhow ICS is non-existant in CtP2 and ReXing is somewhat non-existant too because of the way combat is you cant leave all your cities with one warrior. Is there any reason you were thinking to include it?

- Changing the combat system so that defending units always use their defensive stats in combat, both when they're defending and when they're counteracctking (currently they use their offensive stats when they're counterattacking); this makes offensive stacks more vulnerable to counterattack and defensive stacks tougher in defense.

It makes sense for a Defensive unit to use its defensive stats (its strength) for counterattacking, but if you choose (or youre desperate enough) to attack with defenders, you pay the price. Id like to see it in action though.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Which part met your calculations, the combat bonuses or the building % or both? I stole them from civ2

Both, though my most thorough tests were economy-related, not military.

Didnt they do it in civ3 to help stop ReXing/ICS? anyhow ICS is non-existant in CtP2 and ReXing is somewhat non-existant too because of the way combat is you cant leave all your cities with one warrior. Is there any reason you were thinking to include it?

Two reasons:
1) Because currently the city limit is the only reason ICS doesn't work, and if I'm happily out founding and conquering lots of cities, I find it frustrating when I can't continue simply because of some artificial and unintuitive limit. Making it actually harder to found new cities will make the limit feel more natural and sensible, not something that is artificially enforced on you against your will.

2) At present peaceful expansion is IMO too easy. This change will make it harder to grow fast in the early game, and force you to make the strategic choice of guns or butter. Currently I find that a (if not the only) successful strategy to expand my empire early on is to focus almost entirely on military units and mixing in Settlers whenever a city hits size 3 (or 2 or 4, depending on circumstances). City improvements are not worth building at all in the early game, so you're only pumping out units (and maybe the occassional wonder) anyway. In my experience this strategy is easily doable in the current game and allows you to have both peaceful expansion and development and aggressive conquest at the same time; you don't really have (to make) a choice.

If Settlers kill more pop (and city improvements are actually an attractive (but expensive) option early on), this will force you more to choose between focussing on developing your existing cities and founding cities peacefully, or on expanding through conquest with military units but building and developing your own cities less. Or compromise and do a little bit of both of course, but at the expense of efficiency in both areas. Either way, now you can't do them at the same time anymore and be very successful at both.

It makes sense for a Defensive unit to use its defensive stats (its strength) for counterattacking, but if you choose (or youre desperate enough) to attack with defenders, you pay the price. Id like to see it in action though.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Not surprsingly, since it's a rather confusing situation and I could've been clearer

When I say counterattacking, I mean during the same battle. As you know, the attacker and defender take turns in attacking each other during a battle, where both units use their Attack value to match their opponent's Defense value and try to damage their opponent. If this is changed so that units that are defending a tile/city would get to use their Defense value when it's their turn to attack the invading force, this will give defenders an advantage over invaders, assuming you're using the proper units to defend.

So when defensive units get their turn to attack, they will be able to use their strong Defense value against the weak Defense value of their offensive invaders, giving them an advantage. When these invading offensive units are on the attack, both sides use their strongest stats and they will be roughly evenly matched (all things equal). So during the course of an entire battle, defensive units have a distinct advantage.

Of course, when you would use defensive units (e.g. Hoplites) to attack other units and initiate the battle themselves, they would end up using their weak Attack value when attacking and not be able to inflict much damage on their opponents.

So there are 4 basic battle situations (assuming 1v1 battles, works the same for stacks of course), where I assume that a Hoplite is a defensive unit (e.g. stats A:1 D:3 R:0) and a Legion is an offensive unit (e.g. stats A: 3 D:1 R:0):

1. Legion attacks Hoplite. When it's the Legion's turn to attack, its strong Attack value is matched against the strong Defense value of the Hoplite: the Legion does limited damage to the Hoplite (very limited if the Hoplite is protected by City Walls, entrenchment, terrain, etc). When it's the Hoplite's turn to attack, its strong Defense value is matched against the weak Defense value of the Legion: the Hoplite can seriously damage the Legion (which doesn't have defensive advantages to hide behind). Overall, the defending Hoplite has the advantage, but will sustain damage (though not too much if it's dug in deep).

2. Hoplite attacks Hoplite. When it's the attacker's turn to attack, its weak Attack value is matched against the strong Defense value of the defender: the defender will suffer little damage (very little if dug in). When it's the defender's turn to attack, its strong Defense value is matched against the strong Defense value of the attacker: the attacker will suffer limited damage (but have no defensive bonuses to soften the blow). Overall, the defending Hoplite has a significant advantage, suffering little to very little damage.

So, when a defensive unit is attacked, it always has the advantage, a huge advantage even if it gets high defensive bonuses.

3. Legion attacks Legion. When it's the attacker's turn to attack, its strong Attack value is matched against the weak Defense value of the defender: the defender suffers significant damage (though less so if dug in). When it's the defender's turn to attack, its weak Defense value is matched against the weak Defense value of the attacker: the attacker suffers limited damage. Overall, the attacking Legion has the advantage, but will sustain damage (how much largely depend on how long the defending Legion can protract the battle by being dug in).

4. Hoplite attacks Legion. When it's the Hoplite's turn to attack, its weak Attack value is matched against the weak Defense value of the Legion: the Legion suffers limited damage (very limited if dug in). When it's the Legion's turn to attack, its weak Defense value is matched against the strong Defense value of the Hoplite: the Hoplite suffers little damage. Overall, the attacking Hoplite has the advantage, but it's a tight balance where much depends on various defensive and offensive modifiers. Especially if the Legion is in open terrain without defensive bonuses, it's vulnerable.

So, when an offensive unit is attacked, it is often vulnerable. Offensive stacks can suffer greatly from sneak attacks, ambushes, etc when they're out in the field but don't have the initiative.

This gives players a good opportunity to play defensively and to stop enemy invasions: by digging in in defensive positions and by counter-attacking invaders when they're exposed. Of course, some measures like effective siege warfare will also need to be present to not make aggressive conquest completely impossible.

(I stress again that much of this is based on speculation and it remains to be seen how it works out in practice, and there's of course always the issue of making the AI deal)

[MrBaggins]

Locutus>


ICS-Rex & 2 pop-point Settlers>

ICS can be absolutely solved in CTP2 right now. Just change the city bonus of each terrain for (food,production,income) to be a negative value, matching the underlying terrain, and you've got it.

Cities then always grow at a constant rate, for each growth delta (ring)... (although if thats all you change, its horridly low, so a complete food/growth rebalance would be necessary.)

I wrote a thread about this a while back.

I don't have a problem with keeping the current system though for what its worth: the system at the moment means your first few pop points grow like they are on insta-crack, then it gets somewhat sensible, and regresses. If you have constant growth then the city stays at one for a looong time, by default, generally speaking, unless you have good growth TI's to start with, in ring 1. You can't default to quick growth, because you'll have automatic mammoth cities by the Middle Ages.

This is something that the people who talked about removing the city square bonus and ICS didn't actually see the effect on game play, of.

There is, of course a compromise, that just came to me; give a growth bonus to the first 5 (or 10, or so?) cities, for the first few (4?) pop points. A rapid or slow builder get the same advantage, and there is no point to ICS'ing. The player isn't frustrated by lack of growth, early on. They need to be investing in growth PW and especially city growth improvements (these need to be expanded to make up for the lack of the City Square bonus,) by the time they've expanded beyond those initial cities, however.

I still feel that there should be Empire Caps, however. Governments really do have bureacratic limits, that Distance Penalties alone cannot model.

---
Failing that, I'd like to see how a 2-pop point Settler plays out in the game.


=====

Defensive units *ALWAYS* using def to attack and defend with, and visa versa>

Hmmm... tough to know how it would play... without seeing it in action.

My first concern with a gameworld change is... whats the AI effect.

It *should* be able to handle it, but from experience, it doesn't always have *just* Def/Ranged troops as a defensive city guard right now... it will often mix in an offensive unit here or there.

The problem comes in its attacking... or the human exploiting its attacking... that is... The AI sends out a stack to siege or harrass... or whatever.

The player will tend to lay in wait and attack first. Its difficult to set up the heuristic rules to avoid a unit being ambushed.

It might work well... but I think the first step is straighforward... increase city wall (etc.) bonuses.

[MrBaggins]

Just to follow up... as mentioned, solving ICS by removing the city square would mean constant growth. You'd need to have some numerical method to parachute/stop growth as it got near and reached the max pop given the configuration and/or buildings.

You also remove the problem of hunger/starvation automatically, which reduces an important issue that players should be struggling with.

[Maquiladora]

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Not surprsingly, since it's a rather confusing situation and I could've been clearer

I got it exactly, just didnt explain in one paragraph very well

Im particularly interested in how the changes would effect units Vs superior units, on the other hand that could just be a balancing issue.

Also Locutus can you move the combat replies to a new thread?

[Maquiladora]

Two reasons:
1) Because currently the city limit is the only reason ICS doesn't work, and if I'm happily out founding and conquering lots of cities, I find it frustrating when I can't continue simply because of some artificial and unintuitive limit. Making it actually harder to found new cities will make the limit feel more natural and sensible, not something that is artificially enforced on you against your will.

That will slow down more settlers, which already appears to be annoying for some players (Solver), as well as the city limit theres a risk of holding the player back artificially too much for little gameplay gains. You mention making it feel more natural to reach the city limit, but in the end the city limit is still there.

2) At present peaceful expansion is IMO too easy. This change will make it harder to grow fast in the early game, and force you to make the strategic choice of guns or butter. Currently I find that a (if not the only) successful strategy to expand my empire early on is to focus almost entirely on military units and mixing in Settlers whenever a city hits size 3 (or 2 or 4, depending on circumstances). City improvements are not worth building at all in the early game, so you're only pumping out units (and maybe the occassional wonder) anyway. In my experience this strategy is easily doable in the current game and allows you to have both peaceful expansion and development and aggressive conquest at the same time; you don't really have (to make) a choice.

If Settlers kill more pop (and city improvements are actually an attractive (but expensive) option early on), this will force you more to choose between focussing on developing your existing cities and founding cities peacefully, or on expanding through conquest with military units but building and developing your own cities less. Or compromise and do a little bit of both of course, but at the expense of efficiency in both areas. Either way, now you can't do them at the same time anymore and be very successful at both.

But will -2 pop really force me to choose buildings and peaceful expansion, instead of martial law units/explorers and settlers only? No matter how powerful city improvements become, settlers and units will always be more important until ive reached the city limit surely? When i reach the city limit all my cities now have extra martial law happiness (to help with empire sliders), units exploring around tipping huts/finding civs and now we put all cities on buildings.

We could make early units cost more in support, that would certainly slow down the early conquest. In their own ways both civ2 (small city shield support) and civ3 (low early empire gold support) both have very small limits in the early game to how many units you can produce, and it really pushes a civ into a strategy one way or the other.

[Solver]

Having defender always use the Defense value sounds like a good idea, but we'd need to play with it for a while to see how it really works. I believe it would lead to more balance in defending cities, something we've brought up in the other thread, defensive units now being really potent defenders, but again, without testing, no way to know.

City improvements are underpowered when we compare them to tile improvements. As it has been pointed out, getting a string of gold tile improvements is much better than building buildings in the city. If the early buildings provided a 50% bonus, then building Bazaars would certainly be a priority for you - and the choice of whether you want more units for an assault on neighbour or Bazaars for *way* more cash would exist.

As it is, though, you're making a mistake if you start building city improvements too early, as taking another city (possibly with ready tile improvements) is much more efficient.

[Maquiladora]

Well ive been playing a game with all +50% city imps and half resource/same PW cost tile imps and i think +50% is definately too much towards any city building. I think cutting tile imp resources in half works but buildings just own everything now. At the moment im half way through Fascism and ive got 7500 production, to put it into perspective ive got around 25 Cavalry, 25 Fire Triremes, 20 Knights and only 6% production support to units with only 23 cities under Fascism, its not just the Mills +50% prod. but the Granaries growing so quickly, worth 9 vanilla farms by themselves.

One thing i did notice is that the AI has SO many units now, its like it thinks its growing so well and producing so well it needs more and more units quickly to fit its unit support %, like scientist personalities are allowed 15% maximum unit support from prod., and warmongers 25% i think.

I started in alot of grassland terrain and i had to terraform alot of the inner rings to plains just to keep up, which makes me agree more that all combat should favour the defender. Ill try another game with something like +25% for some buildings and 20 for others, also improve terrain defence bonuses alot.

[MrBaggins]

What difficulty level is this game played on? Map size? # of civs?

Considering this.. if you've increased CI's from 10% to 50% bonus, and thats a 5 fold (or 400%) increase... which, I'm not surprised is a big production boost.

How is science going? Very quick?

[Maquiladora]

It was Impossible with Raging Hordes, Gigantic Neptune Map with 8 civs, science is bombing along too maybe 1.5 times as fast, i started rush building academies in most of my cities after i built bazaars.

[Maquiladora]

I was also starting to get crippling pollution, i was about 8 times higher on the pollution graph than everyone else, but still 8 times lower on military graph and i know we were all equal on science so they mustve been building units all over.

Anyway im thinking if city imps should really be more powerful, i mean CtP2 collects resources like no other civ game, so thats why they downplayed buildings and made tile imps so powerful, because of the way resources are collected "everywhere". I reckon make them totally equal in importance, otherwise theres no hard choices, the hard part is making them tile imps and city imps equal without totally destroying the later game with all the cumulative city imps.

edit: well thats an idea isnt it, make the next city imp obsolete the previous all the time, although im not sure if id like to see a University obsolete an Academy or an E-Bank replace a Bank, but it would be a heck of a lot easier to balance the game.

[MrBaggins]

Well.. its not surprising that we don't get the values absolutely right first time.

Any increase in CI bonuses will mean the cities be more productive, because we've done nothing with... support costs, building costs, science costs...

Halving the TI's might be offset by a 5% to 10% (so 15% to 20% basic CI improvement.) Even then we might need to nudge up costs just a bit, in some cases.

[Solver]

I think that 15%-20% bonus for CI with TI as they are would serve well. Yeah, increase the speed of production and science, but not too drastically - and should help the AI.

[Maquiladora]

Thats what i thought too Solver, because the AI doesnt know and wouldnt be able to know to choose when the best time is to build tile imps and which type to build, not as accurate as the player anyway without some scripting or something, so city imps are really the AI's best friend because it can choose to build that type of building if one city excels in a certain area, really easily.

Although IIRC at the moment the AI chooses to build a city imp in the lowest city, eg, an Academy in its lowest science city to improve science......

[SMIFFGIG]

i think irrigation should be included

and farms work in some way like in civ2 (with supermarkets)

[Maquiladora]

Ok for a next test ill try something like,

Granary +20% Food (x2 powerful)

Farm F5 200PW (was F10)
Adv Farm F10 500PW (was F15)
----------

These 2 city imps concern balancing commerce in other areas, such as terrain values and commerce tile imps, but commerce tile imps arent really that good, because scientists can do the work, and you can build farms and mines to make up for not rush buying, so it would seem commerce tile imps need to gain some value over food/prod tile imps, so...

Academy +20% Sci (x2 powerful)
Bazaar +20% Gold (x2 powerful)

Trad Posts - C10 400PW (was 250PW)
Ports - C15 550PW (was 350PW)
----------

Mills come fairly late after Mines so ive put them slightly less powerful for now, but say when you build Mills you dont need mines on Hills anymore, so Mills x1.5 effect and TI's x1.5 PW.

Mill +15% Prod (x1.5 powerful)

Plains/Grassland Mine - P5 450PW (was 300PW)
Hills Mine - P10 600PW (was 400PW)
Mountains Mine - P15 750PW (was 500PW)
----------

Im only playing upto the Renaissance so these are the TIs and CI's i need to test.
----------

I was also toying with the idea of mixing TI effects, such as Ports also give P5 or P10, im thinking of the poor civ that starts in all grassland and coastal area, they build settlers so slow its unreal, when really they should be florishing in grassland.

Thoughts?

[child of Thor]

Maq i just blasted through this thread - so i might have missed something, but what about making things LESS powerful than they are in the default game? Maybe we should be going for 0.5 modifiers all around rather than 1.5's etc?

We always seem to end up with TOO much gold/production/science/pollution etc?

Glad to see someone tinkering and play testing the values

he he i bet i've missed the point on this one

EDIT: Ok i did miss something - so just take the thumbs up for play testing

[Maquiladora]

Well the thing is city imps (CI) benefit all through the game, but tile imps only benefit to a maximum point when theyre being fully worked, and thats it. Im only starting to understand the balance needed, if the CI's are powerful they become too powerful, if TI's are powerful, they come to an end eventually, so in some ways i can see the decision originally to make TI's more important.....