(March 19th, 2013, 19:52)Krill Wrote: The problem with AGG is that even if every city came with free barracks, it would not have the economic output to be better than the other traits. It still has to build full price granaries, workers, settlers, and doesn't have the extra commerce of FIN, saved, extra GPP of PHI or cheaper wonders.
The traits always go in pairs, so there is something economic from the 2nd trait. Unless it is Creative which doesn't get anything of those economic cookies too. Maybe Creative could get +5% or +10% research bonus?
Another option for Aggressive is to make upgrades cheaper. Maybe without +20 extra gold? This is economic.
(March 19th, 2013, 19:52)Krill Wrote: The problem with AGG is that even if every city came with free barracks, it would not have the economic output to be better than the other traits. It still has to build full price granaries, workers, settlers, and doesn't have the extra commerce of FIN, saved, extra GPP of PHI or cheaper wonders.
The traits always go in pairs, so there is something economic from the 2nd trait. Unless it is Creative which doesn't get anything of those economic cookies too. Maybe Creative could get +5% or +10% research bonus?
Another option for Aggressive is to make upgrades cheaper. Maybe without +20 extra gold? This is economic.
Your suggestion for Creative is ridiculously overpowered, unless you want to eliminate the fact that it gets free border pops, and in that case you are just better off making a new trait. Making upgrades cheaper is more reasonable, but I am not sure if it would be balanced. I would have to think about 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.
(March 20th, 2013, 18:09)Hesmyrr Wrote: I thought the idea about unit maintenance reduction was interesting, any particular reason it wouldn't be better than cheaper upgrades?
I like this idea, personally.
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.
The issue with that philosophy is that the AGG player still needs to invest in the units. Units are only economically useful whilst they are attacking or defending tiles that are either under immediate threat or are taking cities, units that are built to inflate the power rating are effectively acting as a deterrent but alter other players economic tactics (ie force them to build units to defend). Simply making units cheaper to hold onto would just increase the usefulness of a cold war, not actually improve AGGs ability to gain land via warfare.
(March 20th, 2013, 19:37)Krill Wrote: The issue with that philosophy is that the AGG player still needs to invest in the units. Units are only economically useful whilst they are attacking or defending tiles that are either under immediate threat or are taking cities, units that are built to inflate the power rating are effectively acting as a deterrent but alter other players economic tactics (ie force them to build units to defend). Simply making units cheaper to hold onto would just increase the usefulness of a cold war, not actually improve AGGs ability to gain land via warfare.
And in a pseudo-farmer's gambit situation (which is where Agg is crap), how much gpt is one saving? Not enough to really change anything.
If Agg is getting a boost, it needs to be something that isn't dependent on fighting, so not unit-based. That leaves:
- Tile boosts. I don't think +1 hammer to large yields (say, 4+ hammers) is a good solution in an RBMod Slavery Not Required setting, because of how it screws with civic/tile balance (Agg means get out of Slavery ASAP so you can get more workshops and mines boosted). Might require toning down one of Agg's boosts.
- Buildings. Markets and aqueducts are the ones that are left.
Aqueducts: if they're not you're UB, what are the odds that you're building more than one of them (i.e., HG) pre-Factories? And compare a half-price Hammam (50 base hammers, +2health and happy) to a half-price Ball Court (+3 happy, 40 base hammers). All we've done is make Agg Ottos stronger.
Markets: It could be done. Hard to justify with the rest of Agg, but theme isn't a huge focus here.
Just give agressive the market bonus and remove the barracks culture + restore original cost. Also cheap library to Org was too much. Vanilla version was good enough.
As for AGG, just make Barracks and economic building as well, giving +1 trade routes or something. If that benefit can be made unique to AGG civs, even better, otherwise, work around it by restoring the old barracks, and make a superbarracks building that gives culture, trade routes and xp, and costs 150 hammers for non-AGG civs and 30 hammers for AGG civs.
