Colonialism II - General Discussion

[Sephiroth]

Whoa, I just found out some major "bug" (I don't think it's meant to be like that):
The Fighting Sail Age technology, which is a key technology completely within the heart of the tech tree is the vanilla "Navigation" tech, which reduces trade outcome by 50 percent!!!
Not just that it imho doesn't make much sense to lower trade outcome at a very early state of game it - gets even more bizarre:
England as well as Habsburg are researching that tech from turn 1 on. So there is not even a chance to circumnavigate the malus. Consequently that brings a huge disadvantage for both civs.

For our game my proposal would be to play on from a fixed rules file I created, which changes Fighting Sail Age and Military Engineering (which was originally a useless tech at the end of the tree), so researching Fighting Sail Age won't destroy gameplay anymore.
All players who have already researched Fighting Sail Age, which will be shown as "Military Enginerring" after replacing the rules file, please open cheat menue and after that open the "edit technologies" menue. There you can switch both technologies.

It may not be too late yet to secure a funny game, though I am a bit sad about the disbalanced game play which came so early without that we would've realized.

[Civilionaut]

deswegen kommt kaum was in meine Schatulle

[Sephiroth]

deswegen kommt kaum was in meine Schatulle

Ja das ist wirklich extrem ärgerlich! Mein Kickstart macht mir auch nur noch halb so viel Freude. Scheiße!

[Eivind]

I honestly can't remember what I thought about, if it was intentional or if it was a mistake, it's been such a long while since I worked on it. But as far as I can remember revenues were very good regardless once the cities were developed with roads and railway station. Check it out in SP and give me some feedback!

I guess it can somehow be rationalised with a change from trade focus to war focus and that you somehow get penalised for it. But I see the point about this beeing a start tech for some civs, that's not fair.

[Historical Atze]

Not quite. But Seppi stated that he researches rather too fast than too slow all in all and that rather all should have this tech than no one.ö

[Sephiroth]

Not quite. But Seppi stated that he researches rather too fast than too slow all in all and that rather all should have this tech than no one.ö

That for you might have to underline that my skills are extraordinary and you perhaps shouldn't take that as a criteria

If all had the reducing tech, trade would start shabby and become average with time - for experienced players. Others wouldn't stand any chance, I guess. I think at our PBEM 2 players with malus researched 2 and 1 tech yet. 2 players without malus researched 2 or 3 techs (I guess. Don't know about McMonkey). Just me made 10 techs yet with a rhythm of 1 tech/turn right now - but that for again you have to regard that I had no agressive settling antagonist at "US"-East coast, so I have a mass production of traders over there which probately wouldn't exist like that in another constellation.

Look at Bk36: Trade starts much more lucrative than here and gets even more lucrative during the game. Noone would propose the malus tech.

Just my 2 Cents

[Eivind]

Like I said, I'm not sure if it is a bug. Please ask me first (and of course wait for an answer) and at the least test it in SP before you make bombastic conclusions and throw around unofficial updates. How much does a freight yield at your late point in the game with the tech and how much does it yield without the tech? This is information I need. How many science beakers with and how many without?

My personal opinion however is that introducing unofficial updates that have major effects on the game play late in the game is unfair for those civs who have played with this limitation the whole game. I never ment for a quick 1 tech a turn progress for this game anyway (unless you're dario of course ), so having the tech in that slot may have been intentional. Not quite sure, but I think there is a chance it might have been. I agree with HA that all should have the tech rather than no one.

What you all decide to do is asolutely yp to you, I'm just responding to the issue directly.

[Sephiroth]

What exactley should I test in SP? Trade outcome variates from so much factors. But with the Navigation tech your average trade undemanded from a city size ~3 in Middle America to a bigger city in Europe is like 200 gold I guess.

Without it, it might be 400 then.

Also I think the coincidence of the original tech name "Navigation" and the new name "Fighting Sail Age" may be an evidence for that you perhaps just chose that one because of its similar name Though I don't know how your creation progress does look like.

My personal opinion however is that introducing unofficial updates that have major effects on the game play late in the game is unfair for those civs who have played with this limitation the whole game. I never ment for a quick 1 tech a turn progress for this game anyway (unless you're dario of course ), so having the tech in that slot may have been intentional. Not quite sure, but I think there is a chance it might have been.

It's the other way around. It would be unfair to let those civs who have had the limitation from beginning on just stay with it. Because that way me would get even more bigger every turn meanwhile England and Habsburg wouldn't have a chance to grow.
However I am not Dario but yet I seem to be the only one researching that fast - as I told you at the post before.

I do undemanded between 900 and 1100 every trader but first Amsterdam is maximized to full trade and second, I do have Tax Census (superhighway) in every city. Also my cities grow fast and all cities do the day of the king party which gives more trade.
without all these factors it would be like 600 gold I guess. So it's my management and diplomacy which bring big money. Not wrong stats.
Imagine 600/2 ~ 300 gold trade outcome for an undemanded good.

Like I said, I'm not sure if it is a bug. Please ask me first (and of course wait for an answer) and at the least test it in SP before you make bombastic conclusions and throw around unofficial updates.

Bombastic conclusions? Yo, homie! Half of my competitors was slown down for almost 50 turns without I would've realized. I wouldn't have even started the game under these circumstances. My major antagonist Habsburg now is eons of techs away. So no wonder, I react as fast as possible. I dont want the game to get super-boring.
Also you said yourself it would be unfair for some civs to have the limitation from start on, so at least this one MUST BE a bug. So I call it a bug.
Also it's no real update, it's just responding to one PBEM. If I would try an update - of course I would ask you for permission before.

[Eivind]

Ok, first of all, you responded before I got to update my post

And secondly, not I'm not sure that it's a bug just because two civs have it from the start. That's the shortcut to England's Francis Drake and Spain's Armada. And like I will tell you below, I know from experience other civ's can become inferior through clever playing even with this tech. That's why I'm not agreeing with you that this neccessarily is a bug.

Listen, I need you to make "scientific" tests, not just asume what the result would be. I need you to take a trade route in the game you have, open it in SP and tell me how the ; SE tech affects the revenues. That's the only way I can give you sensable replies. That's why your assumptions are bombastic, you havn't tested anything. I was the one who wrote into that rules file you have peaked in that the tech reduces trade with 50%. I may even have been mistaken there (even though I think not). Do you understand what I mean? You need to make concrete tests from many different trade routes, and then base your conclusion on that.

I can tell you that I once played France and Dario played the Habsburg. Now I'm no spring chicken in PBEMing, but Dario brought the Habsburg to an incredible strenght, that in the end made the game boring (as it often does with him in empire building scenarios). That's again why your conclusions are bombastic, and not rooted in reality. Give me concrete evidences! And even then, take this fact into account.

And you don't have to ask me to make updates, I don't care, just don't add them to the SL page or asociate them with my original versions. There I want my original scenarios to rest and dust away you see. Feel free to modify my scenarios as much as you like here. I may protest and tell you why I think some changes are bad ideas, but I won't veto anything. You dig? Peace and love my friends! I'm not a fascist, but I'm not a communist either...Ça va!

[Sephiroth]

Ok, first of all, you responded before I got to update my post

Pas de problème C'est bien en tout càs.

And secondly, not I'm not sure that it's a bug just because two civs have it from the start. That's the shortcut to England's Francis Drake and Spain's Armada. And like I will tell you below, I know from experience other civ's can become inferior through clever playing even with this tech. That's why I'm not agreeing with you that this neccessarily is a bug.

In that case you would have to divide civilizations after player skills. Best players: Habsburg and England. You will get half the trade reward.
Less good players: Take the rest. I don't think that was intended?
I don't think it works to take conclusion about a comprehensive situation, focussed from an isolated case. If Michael Jordan does perform a 360° monsterdunk in high heels, that doesn't say I can play basketball in high heels.That shortcut to Armada and Sir Francis brings nothing if you get half trade reward compared to others.

Listen, I need you to make "scientific" tests, not just asume what the result would be. I need you to take a trade route in the game you have, open it in SP and tell me how the :nav tech affects the revenues. That's the only way I can give you sensable replies. That's why your assumptions are bombastic, you havn't tested anything. I was the one who wrote into that rules file you have peaked in that the tech reduces trade with 50%. I may even have been mistaken there (even though I think not). Do you understand what I mean? You need to make concrete tests from many different trade routes, and then base your conclusion on that.

First of all it's known that the navigation tech does reduce trade by 50%. I didn't peak into the rules. In fact it was Lenin who aksed me about the navigation tech, which I had forgotten just focussing on railroad tech and invention. Second I did scientific test, sorry if I dind't say that clearly enough. I tested a lot! Not just trade revenues. But regarding them: Undemanded trade gets reduced to half. That's a fact. Regarding demanded trade my 3800 got reduced to 2700 which is like 33% reduced, right? Im not that kind of mathematics type.
But demanded goods are rare. The normal trade good gets reduced exactly by 50%.

I can tell you that I once played France and Dario played the Habsburg. Now I'm no spring chicken in PBEMing, but Dario brought the Habsburg to an incredible strenght, that in the end made the game boring (as it often does with him in empire building scenarios). That's again why your conclusions are bombastic, and not rooted in reality. Give me concrete evidences! And even then, take this fact into account.

One more "Michael Jordan comparism." First of all Habsburg is the biggest superpower, that means even with limitation a good player can bring it to a solid victory. Second if it's Dario. Third, my conclusions are rooted in reality: Please compare stats from the other Colonialism (which is now at the year 1585).
1553 (which is our year now):
All civilizations without starting limitation:
Portugal: 4 techs
Dutch: 2 techs
French: 3 techs

Me as French 1553: 11 techs

If Dario is doing it well, it's RESPECT
If I start doing it well it's SUSPECT
(Some Mos Def lyrics)

I just do the game of my life. No direspect, but just because I have handled it, you can't come on and say: "Oh, you do 1 tech per turn right now, trade must be too high! Limitation is right" You have to look at the whole crowd. Also that would still be unfair regarding 2 civs starting with that limitation.

And you don't have to ask me to make updates, I don't care, just don't add them to the SL page or asociate them with my original versions. There I want my original scenarios to rest and dust away you see. Feel free to modify my scenarios as much as you like here. I may protest and tell you why I think some changes are bad ideas, but I won't veto anything. You dig? Peace and love my friends! I'm not a fascist, but I'm not a communist either...Ça va!

I wouldn't even think about adding something to SL league. In fact I just even don't know how to do
I just modify - for PBEM purposes - where I think I detected bugs. At least for fairplay. I hate winnig easy games.
That scenario is awesome. I have really much fun in my freetime just because of your work. I am more than thankful for that. God bless. But for gods sake just please don't feel so attacked, as I think you do sometimes, even more if you say that you are not much into the materia anymore yourself. Having two civs starting with a limitation can't be intended, I am sure. At least England would suffer too much.

[Eivind]

Sorry if I come across as feeling attacked. Let me make it clear that I am not at all. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with every change proposal that is forwarded... I'm always thankful for feedback, without them all my scenarios would probably be at version 1 still. So do understand that I apreciate your feedback very much. If I were still active in the community I would say that a reduction from 3800 to 2700 is only healthy, as I know games can get boring if it is too lopsided. I understand you've played well, but I'm sure you would have done just as well as one of the others' civs. I havn't had the chance to study your game, as you know I don't have civ here. But I still feel this reduction in trade revenue is healthy, for everyone. I could however be willing to accept it beeing a tad unfair that two civs start with this limitation. In reality I think also France should start with this limitation, to allow the Dutch and Portuguese some headway.

[Sephiroth]

In reality I think also France should start with this limitation, to allow the Dutch and Portuguese some headway.

That would be a solution

But please don't forget you pitched on one single super-freight I once had, which was Silk from South Africa to Amsterdam, including 1 superhighways and maximized trade.
I took the starting .scn file, opened it. Placed a Portugese city to US-Eastcoast, made it size 5. Trade#25 arrows. Brought a freight from that city to Amsterdam - not maximized but with its original settings. Trade#57 arrows.

Undemanded: (Cotton) 440 ducats.
Demanded: (Silk)1320 / (Ore) 880 ducats.

That sounds very reasonable for me.

Now stats with the limitation tech (I tested scientificly ):
Undemanded(Cotton): 220
Demanded: (Ore) 440/ (Silk) 660

Does that sound too much? Even Silk was halved to 50% now. I just don't know why it didn't in one other trade test, I did. Sometimes the game machine still seems to bring mysteries with it.

You see? That is "normal" trade outcome. Much lower than in other scenarios. And you think about lowing it down?
Some players still could handle it, others would not even do one tech in 40 turns.

One other question: What was the idea about modern cavalry being weaker than knights? They aren't worthy being researched or being build. That seems a bit strange to me.

[Eivind]

Mondy revenue is not very interesting, but science beakers. 400 in this scenario is not the same as in bk1936 for instance. Lower paradigm and therefore units and improvements are cheaper etc. So how many beakers?

[Historical Atze]

Well ... 400 ... don't you get the amount of money as beakers?

[Sephiroth]

It's the same afaik: money like beakers. But tech paradigm says how much a tech costs, right?
I just took out my spacer:Anno 1516 1cm is 220 beakers (ducats). First tech is about 3500 beakers. (16cm)
But 1553 (10 techs later) 1cm is already 420 beakers. So a tech is about 7000 beakers.