EitB v12 Mastery PBEM?

[Dreylin]

Yeah, there were. I think if not for Bob's extra node, I had a decent chance of winning (via concession). But that was wholly to do with the time differential Bob and I were spending on our turns. I'm not quite sure why I was able to expand so much quicker than you and plako, especially early on.

I was looking at work, so couldn't see the pictures in either your thread or Bob's, but how many nodes did each of you have? I know that plako & I only had one each at a fair distance, and you had 2 relatively close to the start - because plako reported on it.

Also, I gather that some of you had contact from t1 and used it to trade maps!? Why didn't we restart for that?

I think my slow initial expansion was due to my innate love of infrastructure, and not building enough Workers fast enough.

I want to make it possible to build either hamlets or villages in the late era.

That would certainly help. Would you have the same improve time as a cottage or would they need more Worker turns?

I am not a fan of the free building mechanic. I think it removes choices from the player and it especially doesn't work with most of the unit-based FFH buildings.

Well I'd certainly discount any of the unit-enablers; as you say it takes away choice. Actually it's mostly the ones that you almost have to build in every city that I would suggest. Referencing the BTS list for Industrial (PB33):

Granary, Forge, Market, Aqueduct, (Lighthouse & Harbour if applicable)

Now I'm not sure if we need to go as far as Harbours or Aqueducts, but I think Forges & Lighthouses are valid pre-builds. Markets maybe not since then you'd be on negative research, or you could add Elder Councils as well. Granary/Smokehouse is probably a judgement on how fast you'd want growth to occur - they are probably not needed because there is a higher access to food through civics & Sanitation.

What wonders did you have in mind?

Well, Guild of Hammers and Infernal Grimoire were the ones that sprang to mind (because they came up during the game), but I think there are quite a few (e.g Crown, Catacomb Libralus) that should be considered. Both of these produce a significant effect for the player who builds them that sets them well ahead of their opponents. How many hammers did the Guild save you from putting into Forges? And how many additional hammers did your cities generate because they had Forges from the turn they were founded? If any one thing prevented Bob running away with the game (and we can talk about Clan balancing another time) then it was your Guild build. I'm just thankful that you somehow spaced about Druids requiring Neutral otherwise you'd have taken an actually useful tech and stomped over us. All because you grabbed two first-to bonuses that had no cost to open up.

Now in a typical game in order to land one of these first-to bonuses you have to prioritise a tech path and make a significant investment in a particular research direction in order to get a head-start to guarantee the build, but in a late era start there's no trade-off except verses expansion, and the power of the some of the first-tos is such that it will always be worth going for it - then you're left with one winner & x losers.

Bone Palace on the other had is an interesting balancing act; if you build it early it costs more in lost potential and returns less, but then a later build is more likely to be competitive. I guess the raw power & ROI is something which would have to be reviewed for each.

Other things:

Pillar of Chains was not cancelling out the Civics anger.

Form of Titan does no give free xp to non-produced units. I presume that this is to prevent it triggering for Summons, but it does mean that the units granted from Order spread and Recruit do not receive the bonus. Overall I probably had fewer units that received the bonus than did not, although for ships it was certainly useful.

Paladins obsolete Crusaders, so I was unable to build Crusaders until I had 4 Paladins - I think that should be changed.

Overcouncil / Undercouncil resolutions need reworking. Maybe have both councils vote in the same elections, just restrict the possible voting options by alignment?

Saw your comment about ships vs. Disciples; I was never sure why that was narrowed to just Cultists in the first place.

Barb needs reviewing.

Also Clan...


Do you plan to try to get some set of changes implemented in the mod before running another one, or put in place some bans / limits in place and go relatively soon? I'd be interested in playing either way, and I have a slot for a start in the near future.

[Qgqqqqq]

I was looking at work, so couldn't see the pictures in either your thread or Bob's, but how many nodes did each of you have? I know that plako & I only had one each at a fair distance, and you had 2 relatively close to the start - because plako reported on it.

There were apparently 3 in my quarter (Bob telling me), though it wasn't something I looked at often. I only had two by the end of the game, with none close enough for me to be looking at getting, and had to specifically expand towards them maybe 10t before the end. Then again, I settled far more conservatively than you did.

Also, I gather that some of you had contact from t1 and used it to trade maps!? shakehead Why didn't we restart for that?

Council members get contact. Another reason to follow the Undercouncil bandwagon :P

Granary, Forge, Market, Aqueduct, (Lighthouse & Harbour if applicable)

Now I'm not sure if we need to go as far as Harbours or Aqueducts, but I think Forges & Lighthouses are valid pre-builds. Markets maybe not since then you'd be on negative research, or you could add Elder Councils as well. Granary/Smokehouse is probably a judgement on how fast you'd want growth to occur - they are probably not needed because there is a higher access to food through civics & Sanitation.

A lift helps a lot, thanks.

Forge: no, Guild of Hammers. Also, Dwarves too powerful; and wonders too easy to get.

No to Markets/EC, for the reasons you mentioned. Also too REXy in a very REXy period.

Lighthouse/Harbor I can see the argument for. Certainly it is difficult to justify coastal spots in the mass workshop era.

Agree with no Granary/Smokehouse. Also because it removes the health penalty. (Did you build any, btw? I don't think I did.)


And if you do go with those few buildings, you have to raise the cost of settlers as BTS does, a mechanic I loathe. Or if not, than it is another big boost to expansion, and a big boost to Expansive at the cost of many other traits regardless.

Broadly, I don't think it's worth it.




I'll get to the rest tomorrow (this time for real, already quoted), but need to sleep.

[Qgqqqqq]

Look at this, you get an extra reply tonight, lucky you. Mostly because it would be nice to get a game rolling faster. Wonder stuff will have to wait, as I disagree in a pretty fundamental way with your interpretation of how this game went.

I want to make it possible to build either hamlets or villages in the late era.

That would certainly help. Would you have the same improve time as a cottage or would they need more Worker turns?

The same. I'll introduce it with hamlets first, and then roll from there as required.

Do you plan to try to get some set of changes implemented in the mod before running another one, or put in place some bans / limits in place and go relatively soon? I'd be interested in playing either way, and I have a slot for a start in the near future.

I'm pretty burned out on civ right now, so I won't be joining/proposing any games, and there hasn't really been any progress on the mod, which is not something I expect to change for a while. (June/July I might get some stuff done.)

If you start a game, I'd be happy to chip in on bans/limits, maybe even throw together a (mirrored, non-themed, low expectations) map. But I've not been checking RB daily since this game finished, basically (so flick me an email if you do start one).

[Dreylin]

Council members get contact. Another reason to follow the Undercouncil bandwagon :P that the Councils are unbalanced and broken

FTFY

Forge: no, Guild of Hammers. Also, Dwarves too powerful; and wonders too easy to get.

Well you & I disagree on Guild of Hammers, and I really don't see +25% making a great difference to Wonders, but Dwarves I can see to some extent - although by saying they are too strong if free, you're also implicitly saying that they are too strong if not free - since they cost the same to build as a regular Forge - and probably gain a production boost due to the Vaults mechanic.

And if you do go with those few buildings, you have to raise the cost of settlers as BTS does, a mechanic I loathe. Or if not, than it is another big boost to expansion, and a big boost to Expansive at the cost of many other traits regardless.

Broadly, I don't think it's worth it.

Well Expansive certainly doesn't need a boost, I agree. I can broadly get behind no free buildings, but it does accomplish the same thing as the advanced position in the tech tree - pushing you faster towards being able to do stuff.

Look at this, you get an extra reply tonight, lucky you. Mostly because it would be nice to get a game rolling faster. Wonder stuff will have to wait, as I disagree in a pretty fundamental way with your interpretation of how this game went.

I shall look forward to that; getting the different POV on the game was one of the reasons I signed up and then was so disappointed that no-one else was really reporting.

I'm pretty burned out on civ right now, so I won't be joining/proposing any games, and there hasn't really been any progress on the mod, which is not something I expect to change for a while. (June/July I might get some stuff done.)

If you start a game, I'd be happy to chip in on bans/limits, maybe even throw together a (mirrored, non-themed, low expectations) map. But I've not been checking RB daily since this game finished, basically (so flick me an email if you do start one).

Righty-ho, I'll look at when I might be able to take on another game and maybe propose something soon(ish). Probably don't have time until end-April, but maybe it'll take that long to get interest / get going. OTOH, there's only one game going at the moment, so maybe players will jump on it.

[Qgqqqqq]

[quote]

What wonders did you have in mind?

Well, Guild of Hammers and Infernal Grimoire were the ones that sprang to mind (because they came up during the game), but I think there are quite a few (e.g Crown, Catacomb Libralus) that should be considered. Both of these produce a significant effect for the player who builds them that sets them well ahead of their opponents. How many hammers did the Guild save you from putting into Forges? And how many additional hammers did your cities generate because they had Forges from the turn they were founded? If any one thing prevented Bob running away with the game (and we can talk about Clan balancing another time) then it was your Guild build. I'm just thankful that you somehow spaced about Druids requiring Neutral otherwise you'd have taken an actually useful tech and stomped over us. All because you grabbed two first-to bonuses that had no cost to open up.

Now in a typical game in order to land one of these first-to bonuses you have to prioritise a tech path and make a significant investment in a particular research direction in order to get a head-start to guarantee the build, but in a late era start there's no trade-off except verses expansion, and the power of the some of the first-tos is such that it will always be worth going for it - then you're left with one winner & x losers.

Was the guild insanely useful? Yes. But I don't think you can say I didn't have to invest to get it. I put my first capital on building the GoH at a very early stage, and it set me behind considerably. And that's with having easily the best civilization for it, telegraphing my intentions via that pick, and chopping. There's no way you can say that there isn't a substantial tradeoff - leaving aside that most maps will be far smaller, leaving early expansion/military more important and the Guilds leaving less - those early expansions snowball so fast in Mastery.

As with Sanitation in raw, or FotT, some first-tos are always going to be worth going for. It is simply a matter of when you go for them, and thus what they cost you. My entire game centered using wonders to overcome otherwise crippling disadvantages, and even with all those advantages in wonders, I still lost the Titan (by 1t...) when I was trying to recover lost ground in expansion. How can you say the Grimorie had no cost, when it was 1/3-1/2 why I went Veil?

(Not to mention that nothing I could open up would really have shifted the paradigm that much. Distances are too great, and T4 units aren't that good in massive maps. I almost regret not going guilds.)

Bone Palace on the other had is an interesting balancing act; if you build it early it costs more in lost potential and returns less, but then a later build is more likely to be competitive. I guess the raw power & ROI is something which would have to be reviewed for each.

This is what every first-to costs you, in every game! They've been cheapened, sure, but they have for the opponent as well. So the balancing act of when you build it - with as late as possible being best - remains the same, it's just more obvious because they're in your build queues rather than 15 techs away. It's like saying Oracling Astronomy is OP because your opponents left it too long. Or that Falamar getting Drama means Drama was too accessible, leaving aside the whole point of Falamar is his tech speed getting first-tos.

In essence, your argument is that the Guild is simply too strong a RoI, so as to become, or head towards being, a One Right Choice. To which I have two replies: firstly, that such a strong RoI means you should value it as such, and head GoH earlier than your opponents. But if you head too early, you lose out more, especially if you're facing a Luchuirp/Khazad player. So again, the balance that exists is no more than for any other first-to, and I believe this is not a regrettable fact. I believe you overvalue it's RoI, and that it is in a position at the moment where it is a very strong option, but by no means overpowered in general, so I do not accept that it should be taken away.

(I think the examples you gave, the Crown and Catacombs point to the fact that there are not many strong FFH wonders. The Catacombs are widely believed to be a severe waste of resources - especially as ARC leaders find them half as valuable - and the Crown's effect is, leaving aside the fact that a Mastery start is the worst time for it, also very underpowered outside of the Kuriotates.)

Secondly, even if I agree that it is too powerful on a Mastery start, I won't be modding the game to get rid of it. This is because there is so much that is different in late-game, that if I start adjusting things too much I basically have to rebuild the game from the ground up. If that is too powerful, why aren't CRE leaders too weak? Perhaps they should get +25% unit production, so that all these leaders are more viable. Aside from general balance tweaks to say religions and tech speed and so on, I don't believe that specific late-era balancing is worth it, even for civs like the Amurites and Clan, which are clearly overpowered. The Guild, which is available for all players, is not something I would do that too.

If you don't think these should be options, than you should handle this when setting up the game with appropriate bans.

Other things:

Pillar of Chains was not cancelling out the Civics anger.

Form of Titan does no give free xp to non-produced units. I presume that this is to prevent it triggering for Summons, but it does mean that the units granted from Order spread and Recruit do not receive the bonus. Overall I probably had fewer units that received the bonus than did not, although for ships it was certainly useful.

Known issues, unlikely to be resolved.

Paladins obsolete Crusaders, so I was unable to build Crusaders until I had 4 Paladins - I think that should be changed.

I agree.

Overcouncil / Undercouncil resolutions need reworking. Maybe have both councils vote in the same elections, just restrict the possible voting options by alignment?

Expand? I'm pretty sure I disagree.

Saw your comment about ships vs. Disciples; I was never sure why that was narrowed to just Cultists in the first place.

Speakers. More broadly, I saw a specific problem and wanted a specific solution; I was not considering the wider scope of units it would affect.

Barb needs reviewing.

Also Clan...

See above. Specifically, nothing will be done to Clan, I'm not rebalancing civs around era starts. I do recommend banning. And Barb is just a trait that is affected by the era, that's not something which is good or bad, as with creative, it's just something you have to be aware of when choosing leaders.

Also, as ludicrous as the barb-fighting was, the slaves captured were a partial remedy. I believe I had twice as many slaves as workers in the end.

[Qgqqqqq]

Council members get contact. Another reason to follow the Undercouncil bandwagon :P that the Councils are unbalanced and broken

FTFY

Please expand.

Well you & I disagree on Guild of Hammers, and I really don't see +25% making a great difference to Wonders, but Dwarves I can see to some extent - although by saying they are too strong if free, you're also implicitly saying that they are too strong if not free - since they cost the same to build as a regular Forge - and probably gain a production boost due to the Vaults mechanic.

No, I'm not. That's like saying Arquebus' are too strong if they cost as much as archers means that arquebus' are too strong. Seriously, repeating a conditional statement and removing one of the conditions does not make any sense.

(Also, Forges are not good enough to build individually in each city, maybe not even Dwarven ones. I get the feeling you went too hard into infrastructure.)


[quoteI shall look forward to that; getting the different POV on the game was one of the reasons I signed up and then was so disappointed that no-one else was really reporting.[/quote]

Feel free to ask any questions. I'm not prepared to write up a broad narrative of this game, generally, though I have my own take on everything. If you want, we could chat about it sometime?

[Dreylin]

Lots of good arguments; not going to reply to each, but broadly I agree with your point that obsoleting any of the Wonders is unnecessary since it can be handled by agreed game ban. I also agree that I probably overvalued infrastructure, but since there was little external pressure it was very tempting to do so.

Also sorry if I gave the impression I was suggesting for you to make changes just based on late-game balance; wasn't my intention at all.

Undercouncil / Overcouncil; I preface this with an admission that I've been unable to find details of the respective Resolutions lists, nor do I have the knowledge to dig for them myself. I guess my issue is that the Undercouncil Resolutions offer actual options, while my impression of the Overcouncil Resolutions is that they do not. Which would be alright if everyone had equal access to them, but they don't - and it's fairly arbitrary whether or not they do. Additionally, part of the power of either is that more than one civ adopts them - which is less likely if one is more powerful than the other ... which leads back around towards a one right choice scenario.

My suggestion was that rather than having two lists of Resolutions which each subset votes on separately, instead just have one list, which both Councils vote on at the same time. i.e adopting either Council entitles you to one vote in a combined Resolution.

I'm sure I explained that badly!