C3C 1.13 beta

[col]

A 1.13 beta has just been posted in a private forum at CFC by Tavis (Jesse Smith) It appears to be going the way Anarres wanted.

v1.13 BETA
* Fixed Random Civ MP Launch OOS
* Adjusted Corruption Calculations
Capitals (Palace, FP, SPHQ) have very little corruption
Max Corruption is now 90%
FP & SPHQ now give 50% more cities to your optimal city count (This makes it extremely valuable to the AI)
* Secret Police HQ no longer gives effects when player leaves Communism
* Updated Civilopedia.txt Forbidden Palace to explain that all cities are still affected by distance from the Real Capital.
* Fixed Credit Typos

A 1.13 beta has just been posted in a private forum at CFC by Tavis (Jesse Smith) It appears to be going the way Anarres wanted.

Since Tavis says anyone can download it

http://www.civfanatics.net/~tavis/files/C3Cv1.13BETA.zip

if you want to play with it.

AIf you have any comments, I can post them back into the beta forum.

[Aggie]

Wow. A lot of changes! I really do hope that they nailed it now AND that this then is the last change in the corruption calculation.

I tend to be happy with how they solved things. But I await remarks and comments from here and CFC before I switch my PBEM's to 1.13...

[Stapel]

ah, good!

So, no 2 (or 3) cores! Only the distance to the real captiol counts. That means a major change in gameplay for most of us! It also makes military leaders even less useful, as jumping the palace out of your original core will hardly ever be a smart thing to do.

Just a decent raise of ONC. This pretty much means that building your FP asap in city 2, 3 or 4 is (still) a good plan.

[anarres]

[lol] Yea!!! I will play with this tonight!!

[Skyfish]

Wow ! Great ! Am switching NOW !

[col]

This Version requires that v1.12 has been installed.

[ERIKK]

I will switch too, lets all do it, to avoid any problems...

[col]

Just be aware that this is in no sense an official beta.

[digger760]

Can somebody tell me what ONC stands for [blush]

[col]

ONC = Optimum number of cities

Once you go past this number of cities , corruption begins to bite.

[Skyfish]

ONC I dont know ...
but OCN, I do :D

[col]

[wallbash]

[Skyfish]

I think its just great that the OCN bonus increase is a suggestion made by our own national anarres guys !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All the Qitais, DaviddesJ and Sir Plebs can go cry mama now [lol]

[Aggie]

quote:Originally posted by Skyfish

I think its just great that the OCN bonus increase is a suggestion made by our own national anarres guys !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All the Qitais, DaviddesJ and Sir Plebs can go cry mama now [lol]


So according to you Firaxis changed the coding yesterday after anarres' suggestion? I love the fact that Firaxis lets us share in the discussion about the FP, corruption, etc... OTOH: they have brains for themselves and are surely capable to come up with these ideas. I'm not saying that annares' initial idea (keep the FP function as it is in 1.12) didn't trigger this though.

[Matrix]

Making a game doesn't make you the best player, Aggie. http://www.straland.com/images/smilies/smallsmile.gif So for some things I do not accuse them of being thoughtless.

On the other hand I do agree that they are sometimes a bit neglectant. [rolleyes]

[Stapel]

quote:Originally posted by col


Once you go past this number of cities , corruption begins to bite.


Is there a good thread on the exact working of it on CFC?

I mean, once I grow past this Optimal Number of Cities, I understand my extra cities will be useless for production purposes. But will it have a negative effect on my existing cities?

[Lt. Killer M]

:D

this looks great, installing now!

[Aggie]

Hmmm when killer and Sky decide to install, then I have no choice but to install as well. I hope that this beta 1.13 is worth it [:o]

[Lt. Killer M]

aggie, I am only installing to test - atm.

[Lt. Killer M]

quick reading: FP cities have very low corruption now, but the rest of the second core is hit hard - between 40% (with courthouse) and 90% (without).

better than before, and, I think, somethine the AI can deal with!


:D


thanx again to Dan da man for that suggestion!

[Aggie]

Still I must say that I hate the fact that they bring out all these beta's. Suppose that one plays at 1.12 and another at 1.13. Does the person with 1.13 have an advantage because of the change in corruption calculation?

Can we prevent it (different patch versions) anyway? I don't like the idea that I'm doing my best in 1.12 while not having a chance, because someone else has the newer beta installed!

[Skyfish]

quote:they have brains for themselves and are surely capable to come up with these ideas
Sorry but I totally disagree. I dont like dissing the guys that made the best strategy game ever but on this issue they got it totally wrong since we found the inner workings of corruption...
That is why Tavis opened this thread at CFC and even made part of their code public !
On this precise issue of FP and corruption they want experienced players to give them their opinion. Sir Pleb offered a code change but they followed anarres' suggestion which is even simpler to implement.
Tavis made it clear that the betas are for testing different solution so that they can have the best possible solution for the patch release in June. Next month they might implement Sir Pleb's change just to see if ppl like it better.

You are totally right Aggie that it does have a negative effect on our games which go on for more than one month... Players will have to agree what they should do about it beforehand [sad]

[Aggie]

To be fair to SirPleb: he made a poll in which he asked all the CFC-ers to vote for either the old FP or the solution that anarres suggested (keep the 1.12 FP). 75% of the posters wanted the old FP back. I was one the the voters for the old FP, with the argument that the 1.12 idea was to complicated for a large number of civvers (non-fanatic players). I must say that I REALLY like the solution of the newest patch, because the benefit of the FP will be more clear this way.

PS. You took my quote out of it's context. I was not suggesting that they themselves decided that theír mistake was in fact a good solution! I only said that they maybe thought of the increased OCN themselves!

PS PS. I get sick of the higher math in the corruption breakdown thread!

[col]

I can understand why 75% of regualr players will vote to keep things the way that they know. It takes time to come to undertand the strategy of the game and to have to tear up the rulebook and start again is not what most people want.

I'm inclined to agree with Anarres. The new solution looks to be a good one. Increasing the OCN with a FP is always going to be worth doing - but the ability to build it in the inner core takes away a lot of the randomness of that early leader. It also takes away much of the need to palace jump to get two cores. That just isnt going to happen.

The concept seems sound to me.

[Stapel]

So, what you say Sky, is that Firaxis is experimenting with different solutions? In itself a very good idea, but I would like a proper working version of C3C, and I still don't have it.

Especially the fact that corruption was messed up, after the beta testing of c3c 1.00, makes me a bit suspicious when Firaxis tells about their intentions.

[col]

As far as I know, the change to the corruption model happened very late and after the beta program.

[Beam]

So with the corruption model in this patch it does not really matter where the FP is build? There should be a very good reason then to have one productive city on a remote location imo. Like if it is a strategic location where units are difficult to transfer to.

[Aggie]

What about a city where iron and coal are in the borders Beam?

EDIT: And also why would you build the FP in a non-corrupt city near your core? That city will not benefit greatly from the fact that a FP city is almost non-corrupt. I think that the best thing to do is to rush the FP in a corrupt but promising city whenever possible.

[Beam]

The iron and coal one is indeed another very good reasom Aggie. It also very much depends on the availability of a Leader. In that case the FP can be build instantaniously at a remote site, otherwise imo it is more beneficial to have the FP quickly build near the core and have cities benefit from its effect for a longer time, thus compensating the marginal effect for the city where it is build.

Also consider that armies are so powerfull now that you might want to save leaders for that purpose.

[Stapel]

What is different with armies??

[Beam]

quote:Originally posted by Stapel

What is different with armies??


Armies preC3C basically used to be a stack of units with little added value.

In C3C an army gets an extra mp (based on the slowest unit), gets a 7/6 power bonus and heals much faster compared to preC3C. Also there are nice small wonders that further enhance army capabilities like adding an extra unit to an army.

Just imagine what this means for a 4-unit elite Knight or Cav. army.

[anarres]

I tried to post this last night but CDZ was playing up...

Hmm, I loaded the new patch and corruption was minimal in the FP (5%) and very low around the FP. At first I thought it was back to the 'old' style, but I build a new city 2 tiles from my Palace and the corruption around the FP increased!

I built my FP only 9.5 tiles from the capital (for the 1.12 patch), so that explains why it looked like the old style FP. I have to say the OCN increase is incredible! My very corrupt FP cities are now very powerful, almost as good as with an 'ol-style' FP core at this distance.

To check my test:

SPOILER! This save is from the KoD2 challenge!
- Load the save (http://www.civ3duelzone.com/forum/uploaded/anarres/20041703116_test.sav) and set tax to 0%.
- Find the city Der and by adding/removing citizens note down how many shields and commerce are left uncorrupted. I went from 2 shields to 12, and from 8 commerce to 22.
- Move the active unit (settler in Nineveh) and settle close to the capital.
- Go back to Der and repeat the measurements.

Here are my results, note that the only difference I found in shields was when you got 7 shields total (it went from 4 productive to 3), and in commerce when you got 13, 18 or 20 commerce. Tiny changes, but definite proof the FP isn't holding it's own city ranks.

Der:

Shields (# shields / #uncorrupted before / uncorrupted after)
2 / 1 / 1
3 / 2 / 2
4 / 2 / 2
5 / 3 / 3
6 / 4 / 3
7 / 4 / 4
8 / 5 / 5
9 / 5 / 5
10 / 6 / 6
11 / 6 / 6
12 / 7 / 7

Commerce (# commerce / #uncorrupted before / uncorrupted after)
8 / 5 / 5
9 / 5 / 5
10 / 6 / 6
11 / 6 / 6
12 / 7 / 7
13 / 8 / 7
14 / 8 / 8
15 / 9 / 9
16 / 9 / 9
17 / 10 / 10
18 / 11 / 10
19 / 11 / 11
20 / 12 / 11
21 / 12 / 12
22 / 13 / 13

[Lt. Killer M]

BUG ALERT:

there seems to be a bug in trading with AIs in PBEM in 1.13. I am currently testing that, but I must email back and forth with Erik.

what I know for sure: I got a turn from him, built a harbour, traded for several lux, adjusted lux rate.
saved
sent
Erik played
I get the turn, load it and there are no imported lux!!!!!
I could do the same deals again, so they just were inexistent!

[Pastorius]

I am scared. Hold me

Seriously, that looks like a serious one, and given what anarres reported on the corruption part, I was kind of hoping 1.13 would be a good update

[anarres]

hehe. I prefer the FP like this, so I guess for me it *is* an update...

[ERIKK]

quote:Originally posted by Lt. Killer M

BUG ALERT:

there seems to be a bug in trading with AIs in PBEM in 1.13. I am currently testing that, but I must email back and forth with Erik.

what I know for sure: I got a turn from him, built a harbour, traded for several lux, adjusted lux rate.
saved
sent
Erik played
I get the turn, load it and there are no imported lux!!!!!
I could do the same deals again, so they just were inexistent!
Seen this before in PTW... In my other C3C games I saw no lux bugs on 1.13 yet. All deals are ok.

[Aggie]

ERIKK could refer to the issue i had in a game with him (our 2nd...)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52444

[Grille]

quote:Originally posted by anarres

hehe. I prefer the FP like this, so I guess for me it *is* an update...

Agreed, finally... at least there's some reasonable gain now.:)

V1.12 mechanics plus a bigger OCN benefit from FP may have been *roughly* the same as two (or more) seperated rank lists with FP "OCN-penalty", i.e. lowering OCN-related variable (I mean influencing the 'Ncity <= or > fn*Nopt' case determination in alexman's formula, e.g. lowering fn) in each list when a Palace-like structure is completed; but that *sounds* too bad to promote, but it would work.

Anyways, for clarity, I assume I must still place the FP in a low-rank city now(?).

[anarres]

Yep Grille. An FP far away will still be highly corrupt (unless you have few cities).

[Lt. Killer M]

OK, I downgraded, and my colleague here entered the admin PW and Shift-Entered the turn for erik.
the bug is poresent in 1.12, too :(

[Grille]

Ok, thanks.

The seperated lists would allow FP close to Palace or distant to Palace (in case there's some cities around FP and P)...[mischief]
- But I shut my gosh about this thing for the time being.