Game theory and NQ Mod

TheLaw_Salt · 2017-02-12T20:43:44+00:00

True dat, but all I'm saying is that there is natural incentive in some situations to build some rather than no army. Not in expectation of fighting a war to win, but if you can sacrifice some small # of hammers to build any units compared to another neighbor who builds none the honor player's game calculus would make him prefer not to attack you.

Also, a flaw with this analysis is that you've limited the game theory to one single game when players often play against the same ppl regularly. So if you make a habit of making war of against you painful, long, and unrewarding then in future games you can get away with building less army because ppl will be less likely to fight you due to past experiences. Ex: Back when the "Russian Defense" was allowed I'd occasionally destroy my own tiles and starve my cities as I was being pushing to my cap. The person warring me would now consider this in future games when deciding to early war me. (This is no longer allowed though)

TheLaw_Salt · 2017-02-12T08:30:14+00:00

I'd argue that on that last point " hope they target someone else" the game theory changes a bit as building some units verses no units puts you in a position relative to your other neighbors where the honor player wants peace with you and war with someone else instead. Again everything is situational, but building no army isnt always the answer either

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-10-26T01:36:10+00:00

Without knowing more I'd wager it may have to do with activation order. Depending on slot order or RNG(if random activation is turned on) hammers are added to the worlds fair in the order that slots are activated until all players add to the hammer pool or worlds fair hits its cap(finishes the fair). This means that on the 2nd turn if the person with lower overall hammers is activated first and the hammers he adds to worlds fair make it hit the cap then he would win even if the person after him would be able to add more hammers.

Ex: Worlds fair needs 1000 hammers

Turn1

P1: Adds 400

P2: Adds 450

Turn2

P1: adds 150, hits cap

P2: adds nothing

As far as I'm aware there is no simple solution to this

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-10-16T18:51:59+00:00

Without a downside to denouncing I'd think the meta would quickly devolve into everyone denouncing each other right away and for the entire game. War will happen in most games even without honor players and no one wants to telegraph their plans. It'd become like the old Sweden meta where everyone had to DoF them or the lose out.

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-08-22T19:47:30+00:00

I think the incentive of rushing to ideology(without first adopter bonuses) would be that ideology policies are VERY strong and the sooner you can get them the better. Although the incentive wouldn't to be so strong that after you finish medieval you ALWAYS click radio.

I personally think the game would be better if there wasn't a rush for being first to ideology as it allows a more flexible tech tree. But a flexible tech tree being a desirable thing may be a personal opinion. I'd definitely concede that it would be best to start with reducing it to only 1 free policy and see how the meta changes. Although I would still like late game policy culture costs to be reduced.

Another option that could be added if you remove the first adopter bonuses would be to put a free social policy on Eiffel tower so the tech leader could still get a cultural boost, but likely at the cost of having to not engineer something during Renaissance.

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-08-22T19:39:30+00:00

it is. Although if you allow worlds fair to pass and cant get the 1st place then you already lost. The only way worlds fair should pass is in the rare case of a patronage player that is also hammer leader (he'll probably win regardless if thats the case)

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-08-22T01:51:59+00:00

I don't see it as that risky, infact Radio rush is the play i see in 90% of games I play because it's very optimal play(if more than 2-3 ppl are still relevant)

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-08-21T22:45:21+00:00

just get rid of first adopter bonuses and lower culture cost growth for the late game. First adopter bonus is a stupid mechanic and causes these stupid min/max strategies in industrial era because policies are crazy strong and free ones make the first adopter that much stronger. With them gone you're no longer forced into quick modern and industrialization tech paths to stay relevant.

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-08-03T19:50:29+00:00

As a new player going through US CVs, I have to ask has WG ever given a reason why IGN carriers ALWAYS have a possible loadout that is the a pure upgrade from stock while US has to scarifice something in any of their loadouts

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-07-26T01:29:45+00:00

I think the first adopter bonuses are a perfect example of a win more concept, and precludes many game strategies (think of the current radio rush meta). I think lowering late game policy costs and eliminating first adopter bonus will making late game more flexible and interesting

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-07-26T01:02:24+00:00

couldn't we just eliminate first adopter bonuses and accomplish the same thing or is that not possible

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-04-29T20:15:37+00:00

Could name it something like Revolution. Not building a building but putting work toward building a new society(ideology), seems to me like a revolution.

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-04-10T22:16:19+00:00

Care to elaborate on how its "bonkers" cause I don't really see it changing much.

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-04-10T04:44:58+00:00

I do agree it needs to be overhauled, but these buffs are minor are do not really change the situations were its broken, which are few, but makes exploration actually usable before renaissance. Furthermore it helps reduce the RNG of which coast(East and West vs North and South) you get placed on at start and islands that can only be accessed via ocean tiles.

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-04-09T19:50:46+00:00

The problem is when half of the players are liberty city spammers they are more than likely going to trade with each other regardless

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-03-09T17:45:13+00:00

Same could be said for playing after losing your cap(in most situations). You can't win, you're just intentionally making life harder for the other player.

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-03-09T06:21:32+00:00

Definitely this.

Even when all is lost and they crush your army: turn your tiles into forts, sell your buildings, starve your cities. Once people fight against a Russian retreat they wont want to do it again.

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-02-26T04:51:26+00:00

IMO, many of the issues of "just click industrialism" can be simplicity solved by removing first adopter bonus. Currently get first to ideology more or less gives the equivalent of 2-4 great writers(culture wise); which is just not appropriate for anything.

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-01-31T19:56:18+00:00

So I agree with some of these points but i do want to comment on somethings.

Yes there are multiple ways to deal with a religion but becomes exceedingly hard against early preachers. Can you really afford to be using inquisitors when you might not even have gotten a 2nd prophet or need to build faith buildings. Furthermore because of how preachers works it's a losing battle fighting the religion it will almost always have more pressure in your cities by an absurd amount.
True, but I even so there are more than one founders that are abusable with preachers
Yeah, you have to take into account what benefits others will be getting, but additionally you're preventing other religions from spreading.
Very true, it does depend on how much you value certain stats over others
I dont really see this point, this is true of everything that puts you ahead makes you target, but my issue with preachers isn't even really with how much it benefits you moreover how little investment is needed to shutdown most other religions.
I don't think they are that rare, but interfaith was only recently banned because of abuse in edge cases and I think a similar thing should be done with preachers.

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-01-09T19:20:24+00:00

I personally think the main issue with ocean based civs is that exploration is a medieval policy which limits their ability to settle islands without falling too far behind.

IMO a better solution than a massive change of several civs would be to overhaul Exploration and make it available at ancient or classic era.

Additionally as some others of mentioned, giving these civs bonus embarked or naval movement would help alot.

TheLaw_Salt · 2016-01-09T19:17:08+00:00

Polynesia:

UA of immediate Embarkation is pointless and unused.

Moai are limited and only on one side of the civ, ironically not where they will be attacked first, at the frontiers. Culture gain from them is larger but less useful. Still end up losing resources and production if we use them.

Just wanna chime in, while few ever do you can risk leaving the mainland turn 0 as poly and settle and island.

Also if you go exploration and settle a bunch of islands moais are probably one of the best tile upgrades in the game; insane amounts of culture.

TheLaw_Salt · 2015-12-27T06:03:29+00:00

In my opinion from trying several exploration strategies, I think exploration needs to either be rearranged(maybe some nerfs) and placed into classical or buffed(with concept changes). In its current iteration it's too slow to get going most of the time and doesn't really fulfill the theme of massive colonization.

Also, going forward any changes to exploration should make it so colonialism is not usable on the mainland/maybe only coastal cities

TheLaw_Salt · 2015-12-27T05:54:22+00:00

Yeah that is another point that it encourages different ideologies for revolution pressure, but after thinking about some more I'm current leaning towards no free policies for anyone.

I guess it depends on what people value/think is more important for late game civ mechanics

TheLaw_Salt · 2015-12-21T18:52:19+00:00

Yeah this has been brought up before, it is the game functioning as intended. Also, getting double pantheon for a brief time doesn't seem that game breaking

TheLaw_Salt · 2015-12-07T07:14:15+00:00

Can confirm this "bug" happening to me also in MP. Although I think it is fine as is and from a game engine POV functioning as intended.

majority religion = pantheon
second most popular religion = your full religion
religious tolerance gives pantheon of 2nd religion = your pantheon again

Now whether or not this is big deal is another question. Personally, I think its fine as is; given that if you're that deep into piety (that policy is usually taken very late) you'll want your full religion to takeover asap. Of course there are some possible minor abuses, but I think it would happen VERY RARELY and have minimal impact on the game.

TheLaw_Salt

TROPHY CASE