(March 19th, 2013, 16:27)Commodore Wrote: Point about interestingness...I'd rate Darius as the best leader by far, but I'd be happier playing Monty of some abysmal civ like Persia over Darius of India any day. As it stands today, even.
thats funny, I'd rank about 20 leaders above darius (including a couple of AGG leaders)
Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.
Giving C1 to ships would either be irrelevant or ridiculously overpowered, depending on the map, since naval units have a very hard time getting promos until drydocks come into play.
Giving C1 to recon units would be fine, effectively a very, very, minor boost, no inherent problems.
Giving C1 to mounted units would probably be too strong, but I could be wrong. I could see that working in lieu of other changes.
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
(March 19th, 2013, 16:53)flugauto Wrote: Why Aggressive doesn't give C1 to mounted units, to scouts, to ships?
Scouts wouldn't do anything, to ships it would potentially break naval combat quite badly (due to lack of terrain modifiers) and mounted...oh god the horror.
(March 19th, 2013, 16:53)flugauto Wrote: Why Aggressive doesn't give C1 to mounted units, to scouts, to ships?
Scouts wouldn't do anything, to ships it would potentially break naval combat quite badly (due to lack of terrain modifiers) and mounted...oh god the horror.
What if Aggressive didn't have cheap barracks, but had C1 naval and mounted?
(March 19th, 2013, 16:53)flugauto Wrote: Why Aggressive doesn't give C1 to mounted units, to scouts, to ships?
Scouts wouldn't do anything, to ships it would potentially break naval combat quite badly (due to lack of terrain modifiers) and mounted...oh god the horror.
What if Aggressive didn't have cheap barracks, but had C1 naval and mounted?
Giving C1 to naval units is still overpowered, due to lack of terrain modifiers and easy access to promotions. Also, cheap barracks is literally the only economic (well, technically expansion) benefit Aggressive has in RB mod, why eliminate that?
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
There isn't counter play to free C1 on naval units, until you can get civics and even dry docks in place. Mounted, there are times, christ, just think about C1 on war chariots, Boudicca getting C4 knights, Cataphracts being back to strength 12. Mounted units generally have high strength so benefit more from the free combat promotion, to the extent that it can end up breaking the combat system. And it would still be crap at the same time, it could get run over by another leader that could outexpand them and zerg with weaker units by attacking earlier, when the AGG leader isn't ready to build the necessary units.
(March 19th, 2013, 16:53)flugauto Wrote: Why Aggressive doesn't give C1 to mounted units, to scouts, to ships?
Scouts wouldn't do anything, to ships it would potentially break naval combat quite badly (due to lack of terrain modifiers) and mounted...oh god the horror.
What if Aggressive didn't have cheap barracks, but had C1 naval and mounted?
Giving C1 to naval units is still overpowered, due to lack of terrain modifiers and easy access to promotions. Also, cheap barracks is literally the only economic (well, technically expansion) benefit Aggressive has in RB mod, why eliminate that?
There is a defensive naval bonus, isn't it? Removing Barracks is the cost of adding C1 naval and mounted.
(March 19th, 2013, 17:16)Krill Wrote: There isn't counter play to free C1 on naval units, until you can get civics and even dry docks in place. Mounted, there are times, christ, just think about C1 on war chariots, Boudicca getting C4 knights, Cataphracts being back to strength 12. Mounted units generally have high strength so benefit more from the free combat promotion, to the extent that it can end up breaking the combat system. And it would still be crap at the same time, it could get run over by another leader that could outexpand them and zerg with weaker units by attacking earlier, when the AGG leader isn't ready to build the necessary units.
Well, this description makes Aggressive look like a good trait.
I think just making more buildings built cheaply is the only way you can go w/ agg. not sure about airport, but for sure stables - why wouldnt that be fast built for agg civ? castles, eh.. who builds castles? I guess it couldnt hurt
Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.
