February 12th, 2012, 00:30
Posts: 8,022
Threads: 37
Joined: Jan 2006
Only talking theory here, not practice, but I just don't know how you balance a per-tile yield increase with what the other traits do which is either civ-wide or per city benefits. A tile yield bonus will always be stronger, because you'll always work more tiles than you'll have cities, etc. Isn't the BTS image of a financial civ basically a seafaring one anyway? I'd say either give them +x% gold generation civ wide (i.e. +20% gold) and then maybe move lighthouse/harbor to Fin and give Aqueduct to Exp and I dunno, Markets to Org? Or give them +1 on coast and that's it, along with markets and/or banks.
Though I do think there's issues in MP where Fin is pretty necessary to make a CE compete with SE. Especially as slavery was nerfed and ability to slave for production is part of what makes CE viable. But I haven't touched a game with the mod, so I'm really just talking theory here. Course I also think Mids is more OP than GLH, which you nerfed here.
I've got some dirt on my shoulder, can you brush it off for me?
February 12th, 2012, 10:46
Posts: 23,450
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
Gaspar Wrote:Only talking theory here, not practice, but I just don't know how you balance a per-tile yield increase with what the other traits do which is either civ-wide or per city benefits. A tile yield bonus will always be stronger, because you'll always work more tiles than you'll have cities, etc. Isn't the BTS image of a financial civ basically a seafaring one anyway? I'd say either give them +x% gold generation civ wide (i.e. +20% gold) and then maybe move lighthouse/harbor to Fin and give Aqueduct to Exp and I dunno, Markets to Org? Or give them +1 on coast and that's it, along with markets and/or banks.
Though I do think there's issues in MP where Fin is pretty necessary to make a CE compete with SE. Especially as slavery was nerfed and ability to slave for production is part of what makes CE viable. But I haven't touched a game with the mod, so I'm really just talking theory here. Course I also think Mids is more OP than GLH, which you nerfed here.
The problem with +%age gold is that it favours the expansion traits of EXP/IMP/PRO/CRE, making it easier to fund those early settlers.The reason it isn't such a problem in FFH is that it isn't an expansion orientated game whereas BtS is.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
February 12th, 2012, 22:30
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
Gaspar Wrote:Only talking theory here, not practice, but I just don't know how you balance a per-tile yield increase with what the other traits do which is either civ-wide or per city benefits. A tile yield bonus will always be stronger, because you'll always work more tiles than you'll have cities, etc.
 It's really easy. Here's a silly example: +1c on tiles with 4+ commerce, vs +1000c empire-wide.
There is no inherent problem with per-tile bonuses. Financial is just hard because it's a bit too much per tile, and it's not easy to make it lower while retaining the same effect due to granularity.
I thought Yuri's idea to let FIN leaders build Hamlets was pretty ingenious by the way.
February 12th, 2012, 23:16
Posts: 6,126
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2006
SevenSpirits Wrote:I thought Yuri's idea to let FIN leaders build Hamlets was pretty ingenious by the way. And from a modding point of view is actually very easy to do ... create a new unit (FIN WORKER) that builds hamlets instead of cottages. I think that is the only change that you would need to do.
I have finally decided to put down some cash and register a website. It is www.ruffhi.com. Now I remain free to move the hosting options without having to change the name of the site.
(October 22nd, 2014, 10:52)Caledorn Wrote: And ruff is officially banned from playing in my games as a reward for ruining my big surprise by posting silly and correct theories in the PB18 tech thread.
February 12th, 2012, 23:27
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
Ruff_Hi Wrote:And from a modding point of view is actually very easy to do ... create a new unit (FIN WORKER) that builds hamlets instead of cottages. I think that is the only change that you would need to do.
That actually seems like a pretty difficult way to do it. But yeah none of these small things are that hard once you've started coding in the dll already.
February 12th, 2012, 23:42
Posts: 4,416
Threads: 34
Joined: Dec 2010
I thought it sounded good at first glance too. But looking closer, perhaps it'd be a bit underpowered?
Thinking about it:
Cottage -> Hamlet: 10 turns
Hamlet -> Village: 20 turns
Village -> Town: 40 turns
So for each straight-to-hamlet improvement, you'd gain +1 commerce for the first 10 turns, then nothing for 10 turns, then +1 commerce for 10 turns, then nothing for 30 turns, then +1 commerce for 10 turns, then nothing for the rest of the game. Some of those +1's would become +2's after Printing Press, but you still only get 30 turns worth of bonus commerce for each improvement. Just seems a little on the low side.
Just to throw some other ideas out there, what about...
... +1 commerce from cottages/hamlets/villages/towns only? Perhaps still a bit powerful actually.
... +100% Growth for cottages/hamlets/villages (like Emancipation)? That'd mean you'd get nothing for the first 5 turns, then 5 turns of +1 commerce, 5 turns of nothing, 15 turns of +1 commerce, 5 turns of nothing, 35 turns of +1 commerce, then nothing the rest of the game. That's roughly double the benefit of starting with hamlets (55 turns of bonus commerce per improvement over 70 turns vs only 30 turns of bonus commerce over 70 turns), which might be better balanced. An idea anyway.
February 13th, 2012, 04:28
Posts: 6,457
Threads: 134
Joined: Aug 2004
I agree with Krill's notions above that the changes should stay close to vanilla, only better balanced. Too many radical changes might lower its appeal to newcomers to the mod. If most features feel the same as vanilla it's a lot easier to get into it. Most of the FIN changes above would feel a lot different, whereas cheaper Markets and Banks would fit in effortlessly. Is the main issue with FIN that it eventually becomes a huge bonus? How about +50% gold and cheap markets + banks, scratching the main bonus? Drops in value relative to the commerce bonus, as the commerce bonus can be modded and used for both beakers and gold.
February 13th, 2012, 05:33
Posts: 4,416
Threads: 34
Joined: Dec 2010
Catwalk Wrote:How about +50% gold and cheap markets + banks, scratching the main bonus? Drops in value relative to the commerce bonus, as the commerce bonus can be modded and used for both beakers and gold. +50% gold? Yikes, that's equivalent to 2/3 cost unit upgrades for much of the early-mid game, not to mention a colossal discount on techs... potentially 20% or more off every tech depending on your breakeven slider rate. Probably want to tone that down a bit. 
February 13th, 2012, 05:49
Posts: 6,457
Threads: 134
Joined: Aug 2004
Alright, the 25% Krill mentioned then?
February 13th, 2012, 05:56
Posts: 4,416
Threads: 34
Joined: Dec 2010
Maybe. Or +10% gold, +10% beakers. If we're going for the "feel" of Financial, it's basically a trait where you sit back and get a passive economic benefit regardless of how you use your slider. From that perspective, a smaller bonus to both gold and beakers would probably be better than a larger bonus to just one of them.
|
