Rebalancing Civ4: RtR Mod

[Commodore]

Hey, horse-ninjas are awesome.

I agree. Actually, much as they aren't very great in BtS MP, I think the original immortals would be buffed in RBmod. Cheaper archery means a lot more archers are around, it seems, and getting defensive bonuses are nice. I'd love to see that change reverted, honestly.

[Krill]

Actually Archery isn't any cheaper to get to unless you start with Hunting, but your point holds.

[Commodore]

Actually Archery isn't any cheaper to get to unless you start with Hunting, but your point holds.

I guess that's just because Hunting is much less ignorable now. Which actually is a buff to Persia in general, as well as the Zulu...Agri/Hunting is a nice start in RBmod.

[SevenSpirits]

Issue: I disagree that EXP is irretrivably UP. The aim of EXP is to gain a turn advantage on every other leader, from T0 with the worker/workboat builds. The trait as implemented does that: the issue is then restated that EXP does not give a big enough advantage; counter-issue: increasing worker bonus to +50% means that in most plains hill starts can get 6 turn turn advantage over normal starts (15 turn worker v 9 turn worker). In Warlords MP EXP was considered madatory because in close starts (as in any PBEM) EXP turn advantage created unassailable leads.

EXP in this scenario is giving a 3t advantage. The plains hill start is also giving a 3t advantage. What I'm getting out of this is that +50% worker production would be comparable in strength to a trait of starting positions which we hand out at random. I pick EXP, another player randomly gets a PH start which is approximately as strong as my whole trait... I'm not feeling too excited about my trait.

The majority of EXP's power was always from the granaries.

[pindicator]

Seven originally suggested the change, because with the change in tech costs (50% for the first rank techs then 100% for the rest) meant that Astro could be rushed by a GS and there was no counter to this other than to rush to Astro yourself: basically the side effect of the tech costs was that rushing Astro, on maps where galleons would normally be a good option, became the one right choice because they didn't need CoL, or Aesthetics and Lit to become available so a galleon invasion became a much safer strategy.

Making Paper a prerequisite means that Astro has a similar level of required tech to the other techs at the same "level" as it, but yes, it does remove the GS bulb option. But it removes it for everyone, so this is more of a nerf to those that can't produce a constant bpt rate; that said, Astro is being lowered in cost.

Maybe something besides Paper then? Right now the whole tech tree is bottlenecked through Paper. It feels like we're eliminating a lot of choice in the middle of the game, when early on and late the tech tree is more wide open.

The issue with giving AGG a bonus other than a building improvement is that this would have to be an economic benefit to have any effect, but it would also have to be a bonus that had it's main effect early in the game rather than late. The three options you outlined do not manage the weaknesses in AGG, that is almost always unable to reach the mid or late game in a good position. Giving more militaristic boni isn't on the cards, because it will not solve that problem. This is why only a few options are worth considering for AGG, but for EXP they are worth considering.

I didn't intend to mitigate the weakness of AGG, but I think that's because philosophically I'm okay with a little more variance in trait strength if it means sticking to thematic differences. I probably think like this because of the current use of RBMod has been to roll random maps and random leaders and play the hand you're dealt. If the goal is to get something truly balanced and not just "close enough to be playable" then I probably would have a philosophy closer to what you're proposing.

I thought cheap courthouses invited REXing rather than being aggressive. I suppose we could call that aggressive settling

Definitely agree that a complete redesign of AGG is a bad idea. Just wish we could find a way that helps it out and not make it feel like we're turning AGG into the same thing as every other trait. It seems whenever we want to balance something, the answer is always "what building can we give a bonus to?"

I'm feel like the person who's dragging the collective foot of the process rather than having any solid ideas to push, though...

[Krill]

EXP in this scenario is giving a 3t advantage. The plains hill start is also giving a 3t advantage. What I'm getting out of this is that +50% worker production would be comparable in strength to a trait of starting positions which we hand out at random. I pick EXP, another player randomly gets a PH start which is approximately as strong as my whole trait... I'm not feeling too excited about my trait.

The majority of EXP's power was always from the granaries.

In happiness constrained starts the granary is of less use because the cities can not be slaved for more than 2 pop at a time. This is even worse when slavery then gets nerfed, so whilst I agree that granaries are strong, I disagree that they are always worth rushing to get and build.

You are also not considering that a plains hill start doesn't get an advantage on the second worker, the next chop...you are also not considering that not everyone gets the plains hill starts: when a random map is used, and the EXP leader lucks out into the plains hill start, and a None EXP leader doesn't, what happens then? If EXP gains a huge turn advantage off the first worker, is that enough of an advantage to control the game? The general answer is that yes, it is enough that the none EXP player doesn't have any method of catching up. On random maps, or just on maps with starts that are not balanced, that 6 turn lead can basically be equivalent to getting a second worker out up to 8, 9 turns sooner and accelerate from there. The point is how that turn advantage is then used: cramming settlers down in someone's face or getting a few chariots out to scout and delay another players expansion can be more effective than rushing to Mids or to grab an academy. It is similar in effect to vanilla AGG Rome: it might not be the best thing for that player, but it is definitely not good for the other players in the game.

[Krill]

Seven originally suggested the change, because with the change in tech costs (50% for the first rank techs then 100% for the rest) meant that Astro could be rushed by a GS and there was no counter to this other than to rush to Astro yourself: basically the side effect of the tech costs was that rushing Astro, on maps where galleons would normally be a good option, became the one right choice because they didn't need CoL, or Aesthetics and Lit to become available so a galleon invasion became a much safer strategy.

Making Paper a prerequisite means that Astro has a similar level of required tech to the other techs at the same "level" as it, but yes, it does remove the GS bulb option. But it removes it for everyone, so this is more of a nerf to those that can't produce a constant bpt rate; that said, Astro is being lowered in cost.

Maybe something besides Paper then? Right now the whole tech tree is bottlenecked through Paper. It feels like we're eliminating a lot of choice in the middle of the game, when early on and late the tech tree is more wide open.

To be totally honest, you could question if that level of bottleneck is entirely necessary. It was originally implemented when the full 150 known tech bonus was on Paper, rather than having it split over 3 techs. Don't get me wrong, a beeline through Paper is not something that ought to be encouraged, but still...

The issue with giving AGG a bonus other than a building improvement is that this would have to be an economic benefit to have any effect, but it would also have to be a bonus that had it's main effect early in the game rather than late. The three options you outlined do not manage the weaknesses in AGG, that is almost always unable to reach the mid or late game in a good position. Giving more militaristic boni isn't on the cards, because it will not solve that problem. This is why only a few options are worth considering for AGG, but for EXP they are worth considering.

I didn't intend to mitigate the weakness of AGG, but I think that's because philosophically I'm okay with a little more variance in trait strength if it means sticking to thematic differences. I probably think like this because of the current use of RBMod has been to roll random maps and random leaders and play the hand you're dealt. If the goal is to get something truly balanced and not just "close enough to be playable" then I probably would have a philosophy closer to what you're proposing.

I thought cheap courthouses invited REXing rather than being aggressive. I suppose we could call that aggressive settling [/quote]

Exactly I don't actually care about making everything perfectly balanced. I do want people to have not lost game on T0 though. If that can be done for a good chunk of the map scripts, then I'm happy with that outcome.

Definitely agree that a complete redesign of AGG is a bad idea. Just wish we could find a way that helps it out and not make it feel like we're turning AGG into the same thing as every other trait. It seems whenever we want to balance something, the answer is always "what building can we give a bonus to?"

I'm feel like the person who's dragging the collective foot of the process rather than having any solid ideas to push, though...

As far as I am concerned, I am not in a rush to get this thing done right now. Once PB8 is finished, I fully expect people to have things to say about what worked and what didn't, and at that point I'll want to ensure everything is capable of being made ready for another PB game, if people are interested. I would rather spend another 1000 posts in this thread figuring things out than in 10 months time bitching about stuff we (or I) missed.

[Oxyphenbutazone]

For EXP, is it possible to just give upgrade all 1-hammer city tiles to 2-hammer? That way you're garunteed an earlier worker and early game hammer edge which makes some thematic sense...

[Krill]

EXP gets +35% production of workers, so only needs to find 3 hammers to get a bonus. That's a plains forest, plains hill forest, grass hill forest on a normal start, or any forest on a plains hill start.

[Oxyphenbutazone]

I know, but making every capital a 2-hammer plant+EXP bonus still makes for a faster worker than a 1-hammer plant+EXP bonus.