Rebalancing Civ4: RtR Mod

[Krill]

Surely it's obvious that traits can be strong in different ways and still be balanced.

Actually...no. Every single trait in the game either increases the amount of population you can have at a given turn (EXP, IMP, PRO with granary, CHM), or increases the productivity of population (FIN, PHI, SPI, IND, CRE, ORG). All of these boni are there every single turn. AGG is the sole trait that doesn't do this.

[T-hawk]

All I know is that it's off limits because of something T-hawk did to make the Financial change work on land and not coast

Not true. My change included a check for the yield type and only cares about land/water if it is commerce. You could give Agg a Fin-like bonus to hammers just fine.

Do you want the Agg trade route or are you still discussing what to do? I don't really like that (but I'd code it anyway) since it seems so unrelated. What Aggressive should be is good at attacking, like Protective is good at defending. How about free City Raider I for siege? Or some free level of Drill to reduce/avoid collateral damage? Maybe give Pro CG2 and Agg Drill 2? Free Morale for siege to give a chance at striking first against a city without being counter-collateraled? Free Medic for something to keep the momentum going?

[Cyneheard]

Proposal:

For Agg, a tile that produces 3 or more hammers produces +1 commerce.

Gives it an actual econ boost if running mines/workshops. This should be workable, and it's relatively small; Agg doesn't need much of an econ boost, but it needs something.


The problem is what Krill points out:
Agg merely gives you hammer efficiency on offense: your units go a little farther. The problem with Civ combat is that hammer efficiency isn't sufficient. You need either a tech edge, good misdirection which isn't always possible & can't be relied upon, or overwhelming numbers (2-3:1) to get anywhere without wrecking your economy or your offensive force. How does Agg get you any of those?

[luddite]

That is not a solution to the problem. The problem is not AGGs ability to wage war when on an equal footing, it is AGGs ability to have an even footing in the first place. Increasing AGGs military boni does not solve this issue.

Two ways to balance it:
1)give AGG an economic boost, so that it can have an even footing
2)give AGG enough military boost so that it can wage war evenly, despite being at a disadvantage

If you've got fewer units than someone else, but your units are all 2 or 3 levels higher, it should be a more or less equal fight.

[Krill]

Cyneheard explained why 2) doesn't work.

[luddite]

The problem is what Krill points out:
Agg merely gives you hammer efficiency on offense: your units go a little farther. The problem with Civ combat is that hammer efficiency isn't sufficient. You need either a tech edge, good misdirection which isn't always possible & can't be relied upon, or overwhelming numbers (2-3:1) to get anywhere without wrecking your economy or your offensive force. How does Agg get you any of those?

Well, first of all I don't think any trait, by itself, should be enough to give you a 2-3:1 numbers advantage! I was suggesting that having (a few) less units can be made up for by having higher promotions. This is obviously true in the extreme case- what if agg gave EVERY promotion to every unit? That would be a crushing military force, even if you were at a big economic disadvantage.

in a more realistic example, a musket with combat 4 and pinch is stronger than an unpromoted rifleman. That would only take 3 promotions if agg gave combat 2. A tank with combat 3 and ambush is stronger than a modern armor.
Or if you want misdirection, it would allow easy access to commando, which might be downright overpowered.

[SevenSpirits]

Well, first of all I don't think any trait, by itself, should be enough to give you a 2-3:1 numbers advantage! I was suggesting that having (a few) less units can be made up for by having higher promotions. This is obviously true in the extreme case- what if agg gave EVERY promotion to every unit? That would be a crushing military force, even if you were at a big economic disadvantage.

Exactly!

Krill/Cyneheard, I am sure you have good reasons but you're not arguing them well. A good argument would be: in order for AGG to be strong enough, you'd have to give promotions X, Y, and Z or equivalent, and this would change combat too much: combat between AGG and non-AGG civs would be fundamentally different from combat between two civs that are both AGG or both non-AGG. And that is undesirable.

[Twinkletoes89]

I think the main issue is that we need to find a way of giving some kind of peaceful (preferably economic) bonus to the Aggressive trait so that it has a 'fall back strategy' or at least an alternative to the early rush.

We don't want to make Aggressive stronger in terms of promotions or the ability to make war as it is already strong enough in that regard imo.

[scooter]

One issue I see is that there seems to be a general sense of "Aggressive must get an economic boost." I guess my question is, why? Shouldn't a player who picks the Agg trait and then plays peacefully be punished, just like the Fin player who doesn't build cottages is punished? Your "economic boost" should be your neighbors cities. If you're going to buff Aggresssive, buff it by increasing the war machine advantage. Make it terrifying to be next to an Agg civ, because at the moment it's not much more than a nuisance. I just don't get why we should even call it aggressive if the solution to improve it is to give it trade routes or something. I think improving aggressive should be trivial - increase the promotion or build speed advantage. I think the mentality that it needs an economy-specific boost is inaccurate.

[Cyneheard]

I think the main issue is that we need to find a way of giving some kind of peaceful (preferably economic) bonus to the Aggressive trait so that it has a 'fall back strategy' or at least an alternative to the early rush.

We don't want to make Aggressive stronger in terms of promotions or the ability to make war as it is already strong enough in that regard imo.

Right. Agg is a big deal in those early rushes; look at Whosit in PB2 for an example there, and it keeps some value in boosting your military long-term, especially in the non-knight era. But look at Whosit in PB2 for an example of what a lack of economic traits can do to you after the war's over. Whosit made plenty of mistakes, but even without them, was his econ, even after a successful Praet rush, ever going to catch up to Spullla? Even with 2 free cities and after Spullla fought off a massive war? Getting a successful rush off that doesn't wreck your economy is hard, and axe or chariot rushes usually rely on some opponent to succeed.

Any boost to mounted units via Agg means that if Boudica is in the game, and gets a Mounted UU, she's completely changed the balance of combat. 4-promo mounteds (9XP is easy), when non-Agg/Cha players are only getting 2 (i.e., no Formation anywhere)? The new War Elephants or Pikes work reasonably well against 4-promo knights...if Boudica isn't Byzantium (even nerfed to 11 str).