Rebalancing Civ4: RtR Mod

[pindicator]

Free walls in each city?

That's more of a lateral move since walls cap at 50%. So better for new cities at the edge of your empire but worse for established cultural borders.
This makes me want to suggest free castles but that is probably too good a buff

[Krill]

I think the issue with extending it past Rifling is that +25% extra city makes it really harder for a tech inferior player to attack a tech superior enemy, as rifles are diffficult to get though. I'd be a bit iffy about how that would change pretty much all late game combat. That said, I think a good starting point is deciding if the effect of CI is useful and if it is the cost that is prohibitive. After all, if the effect is useful but niche, that would be a strike against altering it.

[T-hawk]

Trade route bug fix: Check to see if it has been implemented, if not then implement as per Seven's solution.

It hasn't, I've never possessed the code for it. If Seven is up for some technical work, he could push it in to the project on github. https://github.com/erikmooney/Civ4Realms...BalanceMod Either of us should be able to compile it from there.

[pindicator]

I think the issue with extending it past Rifling is that +25% extra city makes it really harder for a tech inferior player to attack a tech superior enemy, as rifles are diffficult to get though. I'd be a bit iffy about how that would change pretty much all late game combat. That said, I think a good starting point is deciding if the effect of CI is useful and if it is the cost that is prohibitive. After all, if the effect is useful but niche, that would be a strike against altering it.

I can't think of a time where someone built it for the extra defense. It's even considered a bad wonder in SP, iirc.
The argumnt i've heard is that if you're defending in your cities then you're losing anyway and +25% isn't going to do much but maybe that is more of a SP argument.

Still, i can't think of a time someone wanted to build CI

[novice]

I think the issue with extending it past Rifling is that +25% extra city makes it really harder for a tech inferior player to attack a tech superior enemy, as rifles are diffficult to get though. I'd be a bit iffy about how that would change pretty much all late game combat. That said, I think a good starting point is deciding if the effect of CI is useful and if it is the cost that is prohibitive. After all, if the effect is useful but niche, that would be a strike against altering it.

I can't think of a time where someone built it for the extra defense. It's even considered a bad wonder in SP, iirc.
The argumnt i've heard is that if you're defending in your cities then you're losing anyway and +25% isn't going to do much but maybe that is more of a SP argument.

Still, i can't think of a time someone wanted to build CI

I can think of a game where I'd welcome CI right now.

[pindicator]

I think the issue with extending it past Rifling is that +25% extra city makes it really harder for a tech inferior player to attack a tech superior enemy, as rifles are diffficult to get though. I'd be a bit iffy about how that would change pretty much all late game combat. That said, I think a good starting point is deciding if the effect of CI is useful and if it is the cost that is prohibitive. After all, if the effect is useful but niche, that would be a strike against altering it.

I can't think of a time where someone built it for the extra defense. It's even considered a bad wonder in SP, iirc.
The argumnt i've heard is that if you're defending in your cities then you're losing anyway and +25% isn't going to do much but maybe that is more of a SP argument.

Still, i can't think of a time someone wanted to build CI

I can think of a game where I'd welcome CI right now.

Yeah, it's certainly possible that it isn't being built in cases where it'd be beneficial to due to groupthink. Now you've got me wondering what situation it'd be useful in, and if it'd be worth the hammer cost.

Edit: Maybe simply lowering the hammer cost to 400h is enough for CI?

[flugauto]

So, just to round up the ideas:


What will happen unless people find bugs, or fatal complications

Arabia: Change starting techs from Myst/Wheel to Myst/Agri
Kublai: Change traits from AGG/CRE to CHM/CRE
Trade route bug fix: Check to see if it has been implemented, if not then implement as per Seven's solution.
Known Tech bonus: Remove the NTT known tech bonus restriction for hte NTT game option


What needs continued discussion

EXP: Any additional cheap buildings (Aquaduct, Monument)
CRE: Any additional cheap buildings (Observatory)
AGG: Any additional cheap buildings (Stables, Airport)
AGG/ORG: Moving cheap court house from ORG to AGG


Plus other ideas.

So barracks keep +1 culture?

[Krill]

Yes. The only way AGG gets any nerfs is if it gets a huge boost that would make it OP. Giving AGG gamey boni like free culture (copying CRE), gold or beakers is basically out, and boosts to military units can be of changeable usefulness, so it's not reasonable to make that change.

[plako]

There are plentiful of suggestion to make AGR better. I'll add yet another one. What about affecting to maintenance parts that are left out from ORG e.g. They could get -25% for number of cities+distance maintenance costs. Note that with Rathaus every city would be totally free of maintenance costs for AGR leaders. This would strengthen their nature of claiming cities via warfare. The percentage could be changed and it could only affect to e.g. number of cities maintenace, if affecting both gets too strong.

Again I would take the +1 culture away from Barracks.

[Krill]

That would be a reasonable option, I checked the XML the other day for how to do that and I don't see a method to implement such a change. (That said, I envisaged such a change being more suitable to EXP if it was more needed there).