[SPOILERS - NO PLAYERS] PB41 Lurker Thread: RNG Roulette with a Shotgun

[Mardoc]

He learnt

I think this is the key .

[Krill]

What would people say to all starting techs being changed to a base cost of 50? So the combined cost of the 6 techs would be the same as in base BTS and the tech cost wouldn't be a reason to favour different civs, the actual tech benefits themselves are what would matter.

[Mardoc]

I haven't seen anyone choosing civs based on free beakers, they already consider the actual tech benefits and UU/UB primarily.  Fishing gets derated mostly because coast tiles aren't often worth working, especially early, not because it's cheap.

My first thought is don't fix what isn't broken.  My second thought is - if I was adjusting costs, I'd want to go the other way. Instead of making all techs equal cost, make the techs that aren't wanted like Fishing and Mysticism *more* expensive than the rest, to try to get away from One Right Answer thinking.

[Krill]

I think Fishing is the only tech where those thoughts hold true though. Myst opens up early religion, Hunting and Agri are food techs, Mining leads to BW and Wheel enables roads and leads to Granaries. So Fishing only fails because we never want to settle for seafood early on because it costs too much to hook, and galleys are never considered important, and Agri leads to Pottery as well.

So increasing the cost of Fishing makes plenty of sense except it makes workboat first weaker even if workboats don't need fishing. This is because we still need fishing to work improved seafood. As it is, lake fish and workboat first comes out around the same as worker first by t13 through t17, trait dependent.

I don't know, I don't see straightforward answers to this. Or is it a problem? Could equalise the other start techs at 50, and then remove Fishing as a start tech from everyone else but that is...invasive.

Would be fun if starting with Fishing granted a second scout though.

[Mardoc]

I don't know, I don't see straightforward answers to this.

I don't think there is a straightforward answer. The real problem is that you generally don't want to work coastal/seafood tiles. Doesn't much help to make that cheaper, you still don't want to do it. So therefore the best solution would be to buff the yields to make them worthwhile...the trick is doing that without unbalancing in the opposite direction.

I will say: in EitB, as Lanun: sea tiles all have 2 food base. There exist buildings that give all BFC sea tiles +1 food, +1 hammer, +1 commerce. Despite all of that, it's often better to work land tiles until you run out of them, with the exception of resources and their resource-equivalent coves. So there's quite a bit of room to buff the sea.

[Krill]

All that I am interested in exploring is the idea of certain civs being considered unpickable due to start tech bias. I don't think anything else, coastal economic balance etc, is an issue that needs resolving in RtR.

Which is why Fishing civs are my focus with that questioning.

Rome is pickable due to Praets. Carthage has Numidian Mercs, but are Portugal, England, Greece issues? Vikings are never questioned either.

[Mardoc]

Current status second round:
superdeath - Isabella (Spi, Exp) of Carthage

Mr. Cairo  Pericles (Cre, Phi) of Reroll

Rusten - Saladin of the Celts

Gavagai - Zara of the Dutch

Commodore  Gilgamesh (Cre, Pro) of Reroll

naufragar - Suryavarman of Babylon

Donovan Zoi - Hannibal of Reroll

BGN/Xenu -

Brennus (Spi, Cha)
Mao Zedong (Exp, Pro)
Persia

With three people decided, and a good chance of a couple more...maybe I do half the civ updates tonight.  Maybe if I do that then I'm making the final edits small enough to do on Monday night.

[Krill]

Izzy of Carthage is legit for Superdeath

Mr. Cairo could take either leader with Arabia and be sound

Commocator will reroll India but might keep either leader.

Nauf will reroll Babylon, it's junk for him.

Donovan takes Hannibal of England, England fits and lots of other civs fit even worse.

Psychotwins take Mao of Persia. They don't have the time to play SPI.

[Mardoc]

All that I am interested in exploring is the idea of certain civs being considered unpickable due to start tech bias. I don't think anything else, coastal economic balance etc, is an issue that needs resolving in RtR.

Which is why Fishing civs are my focus with that questioning.

Rome is pickable due to Praets. Carthage has Numidian Mercs, but are Portugal, England, Greece issues? Vikings are never questioned either.

I understand...I just don't think tech cost is the right knob. Portugal and Greece at least have UUs that are sometimes relevant even if they're not awesome. I think England might be a problem still. No one really cares about Redcoats, by the time you get to rifling you shouldn't be fighting any equal-tech wars anymore. And Stock Exchange...people build a few banks, SE means you want even fewer, so it doesn't turn out relevant very often.

[Krill]

I agree, I don't think it's Fishing that is the problem, it's the civs themselves. You don't pick America, not because it has fishing, but because the UU and UB are essentially blank. Fishing doesn't stop people picking Vikings, or Rome, Carthage, or Byz though. So fix those civs and the problem goes away. With that in mind, the start techs are fine to be left as they are (apart from Japan, Fishing/Wheel never works).