A new mod enters the ring - Introducing "Close to Home"

[Old Harry]

Once you finish researching AH, just like you get +1 commerce from Mysticism right now.

I take it that just reducing the cost of the tech wouldn't do the job?

[Charriu]

I fear that that just throws of the balance for early rushes with chariots and horse units in general.

[Wyatan]

I don't think "in one very niche and specific scenario a Cataphract barely out-performs a Knight" is even a serious thought at all.

My first impulse was to say that said "niche" scenario is the main use case for them in SP... but truth be told, knights (or cataphracts) make for bad breakout units. If I need to blitz, I'll just wait for the much better cuirassiers, and if I bring a lot of siege... knights are overkill and just not needed.
But anyway, that's why I said: "So I guess it depends on which use case is prevalent in your MP games."

Ask yourself this - how would you aim to get odds in a hammer-efficient way while attacking a Shock Cataphract?

Anyway, it's all moot since I got curious and ran my own test.
9 knights / cataphracts: 4 CI / cover, 2 C2, 3 CI
attacking 3 unfortified CGII longbows in a city with walls.

On flat ground, the cataphracts clearly outperformed the knights, taking on average 2 fewer losses.
It was less flagrant when attacking on a hill, though.
Which stands to reason: "first strike" is a "win more" ability.

So contrary to what was said in the post I linked to, cataphracts losing immunity to first strike does not mean they're always no better than knights against units with a first strike ability.
It might be true, but only in the cases where the knight / cataphract has poor odds to start with.

[Charriu]

Just a quick thought of mine and I need to write it down real quick. What about keeping Cataphract at 12 with no immunity, but reduce their strength when they are defending?

EDIT: And another quick one. We could also increase their cost like praetorians are increased in cost.

[Wyatan]

Just a quick thought of mine and I need to write it down real quick. What about keeping Cataphract at 12 with no immunity, but reduce their strength when they are defending?

EDIT: And another quick one. We could also increase their cost like praetorians are increased in cost.

Add Divine Right as a requirement.  

[Serdoa]

I admit to not reading all pages, but as for the current discussion I would like to chime in with a few points:

1) Discussions should be centered around an use-case, for RB I guess that is mp games with 6 - 12 players .
2) Changes should be evaluated on a per game basis not per player. 
3) Changes should be considered with an equal skill level in mind.

Especially the second and third point I found a little bit lacking. For example: Cataphracts are strong. Especially against the one player that has the unfortunate luck to be your neighbor. But will it win a player the game, just with that UU, in a game with 6 equally skilled players and an ancient start? Has every game played since they have be reinstated to old glory started with the first player picking Byz? I wager a guess: No. And I don't think this is because players didn't realize that it was good. 

The thing is: They are good, and they are easier to use to their full extent than many others units. But they don't win you the game, they let you kill an opponent - or finish a game with weaker opponents (skill-wise) faster. But using the additional land is a whole different story. Staying alive and undisturbed might also not be easy. 

Therefore I don't think they need a change necessarily. You could just give Byz Fishing instead of The Wheel. Together with the weakening of Myst (which I btw disagree with) makes it have the probably worst techs possible.

As for Myst: Myst was never the go to starting tech. Monuments, Stonehenge and a shot at the religious game non-withstanding. I don't think that making it more expensive would change much about that, you simply can go some time about your business without it and when you finally get it, it makes no discernible difference if you spend 50 or 60 base beakers for it. The only reason to pick it is to go for a religion. Adding +1 commerce though made it an interesting choice and offset the drawback of not starting with an immediate useful tech (for workers) a little bit. Additionally if too many players pick it, it starts cannibalizing itself, as most will try to land a religion and whoever loses out, loses out big.

------

Another point: I believe many players to overvalue new "toys". If something was changed, players will pick it, especially if it's value is not easily gauged. That doesn't necessarily mean those picks are an indication that something is overpowered. It might just be interesting to many to test out things that do change your approach to the (early) game.

[NobleHelium]

I was chatting with Scooter and had the idea to give AGG a discount on upgrading units. How much? I don't know.

[civac2]

I wasn't sure if to make this post but there are some issue cropping up/I was thinking about.

Scouts without hunting are extremely weak. After animals appear I started crawling around with them 1 tile each turn on flatland so I could retreat if there was an animal. This does not work if you encounter hills or forests and there can be panthers on tiles you can't see in certain situations. Even on a forrested hill a non-hunting Scout loses to a lion. Is this a problem regarding scouting/map info in MP? It did crop up in a recent PB here.

I'd be curious what's the reasoning behind disallowing fail gold if you build wonders/national wonders yourself. With strategic resources nerfed this tactic is weaker anyway. Also a nerf to IND.

I was unable to group a scout with military units. Is this a bug feature? Couldn't find it in the bug settings.

The game consistently stalls when viewing the culture graph at the end of the game.

[Cyneheard]

I'd be curious what's the reasoning behind disallowing fail gold if you build wonders/national wonders yourself. With strategic resources nerfed this tactic is weaker anyway. Also a nerf to IND.

I'm not sure how much that was actually exploited in MP play when we fixed this, but if you want to build wealth, just build wealth. It's an aesthetic judgment that this is attempting to exploit a loophole in the failgold system - it's closer to a bugfix than a balance fix.

[Charriu]

I wasn't sure if to make this post but there are some issue cropping up/I was thinking about.

Scouts without hunting are extremely weak. After animals appear I started crawling around with them 1 tile each turn on flatland so I could retreat if there was an animal. This does not work if you encounter hills or forests and there can be panthers on tiles you can't see in certain situations. Even on a forrested hill a non-hunting Scout loses to a lion. Is this a problem regarding scouting/map info in MP? It did crop up in a recent PB here.

I'd be curious what's the reasoning behind disallowing fail gold if you build wonders/national wonders yourself. With strategic resources nerfed this tactic is weaker anyway. Also a nerf to IND.

I was unable to group a scout with military units. Is this a bug feature? Couldn't find it in the bug settings.

The game consistently stalls when viewing the culture graph at the end of the game.

The Scout will receive their standard 100% vs animal in the next version and an additional 100% vs animals from Hunting.

The fail gold was already explained by Cyneheard. Nothing to add from my side.

Grouping the scout with other military units is most likely a bug. Noted.

The culture graph is also a bug. To be honest I didn't check that as I viewed it as unimportant. Can you send me a save file from near the end of the game, so that I can reproduce it?

Thanks so far.