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

[Thoth]

The Mysticism change was quiet a topic in many PBs. After I've seen it play out in PBs I'm ready to let it go. I now think that it makes Mysticism too strong compared to the other starting techs and in addition the Mysticism civs. It mostly depended on when the non-civs researched Mysticism which was on average around turn 70. This in turn means 70 more commerce for the Mysticism civs across the whole game.

I think the players in PBEM 78 over-rated the value of Mysticism.  +1c per turn on an otherwise useless early game tech vs 2 useful techs that will get the food and hammers snowball rolling.  I don't think there are many circumstances where Mysticism as a start tech comes out ahead.

Now at the same time I give this bonus to Animal Husbandry for now. A start with (only) AH resources is considered a bad start by many and with the extra commerce those players that do need to tech it early get a little bit extra to compensate. I don't think the advantage won't be as strong on AH as on Mysticism, because for one almost nobody will research AH very early only for the extra commerce. Because AH also unlocks more food resources other players will tech it sooner then Mysticism, making the advantage for the early adopters smaller over the long game.

Animal Husbandry is already a strong tech, I really don't see any need to buff it.  RtR's approach of swapping pastures/camps between Hunting and Animal Husbandry did a pretty good job of balancing out starting food resources.  I don't see it as being that much further from BTS than adding +1 commerce/turn to an already strong tech.

[Erwin]

Please make MoM obsolete at nationalism or nerf it otherwise somehow. There is a reason it was significantly nerfed in RtR and I fear it's broken in the current iteration.

[pindicator]

Oh yes, that was a big factor in 52 that's why I haven't complained about it here yet.

[Mjmd]

Its fineeeee. Parthenon is the busted wonder

How many people took the noob seriously? Seriously though I like Parthenon.

Anyways I agree with trying to limit too many changes.

Just get rid of the extra commerce to palace on any tech. As has been debated, even if it is balanced (seeing much better players go through openings and debating this, it may be?), it is still creating perception and incentives. Plus I'm always up for getting rid of lines in the change log. EDIT: if players want faster tech pace in the beginning of the game, they can always have map maker put a happy resource on cap.

I've stayed mostly out of balance discussions in the past, but unsure about proposed changes to Inca cost and India cost. I do agree giving expansive that large of a worker bonus clearly pushes it back to the top, maybe 10%? Something not noticeable for the first worker, but that still helps later? If you give it anything, agree with aqueduct bonus removal.

[Gaspar]

General thoughts on discussion:

• In 78, we picked Mysticism not because we think its awesome, but rather because it gave us a reason to pick a Civ we would never otherwise pick. I absolutely 100000000% think 2 worker techs are better than a Mysticism start, even with the 1c at the palace. I think AH does not need anything, it already lets you improve food and reveals horse, its a good tech. I would honestly not change Mysticism because I think Mysticism really, really sucks as a start tech. Its only balanced by making the Civs that start with Myst awesome.
  
• EXP is probably still better than IMP. But its close. And again IMP is interesting now and EXP isn't because we've all played with cheap granaries. I would probably leave EXP and IMP as is. If you give the worker bonus back, even in a smaller form, its clearly the best trait. I guess my point would be that I wouldn't go hog wild over traits in 1 or 2 games, particularly because the novelty of the changes was a factor in their selection.
  
• CRE on the other hand sucks monkey nuts and giving it back colosseums that nobody wants to build doesn't do anything for it. I think you could revert CRE to base BTS and it would be fine. CHM also doesn't need to lose the cols, its good but not that good.
  
• I like the upgrade cost reduction but I'm not sure its meaningful enough to get you to pick it. There's nothing you can give as a boost to mounted that probably isn't too strong. A boost for siege seems fine, but I still wouldn't take AGG.
  

[Bobchillingworth]

Please stop making major updates to your mod when the test games are only a few weeks old.  



I will also second my recommendation for boosting Aggressive by replacing Combat 1 with Combat 2, and making no additional alterations.  But I'd wait for current games to at least get past the early stages before altering any of the traits.  


Generally speaking, what you really should do is wait until enough games open using the same or very similar version of the mod so that you have a feel for which civs are either being neglected (buff) or clearly and consistently favored (maybe nerf).

[GeneralKilCavalry]

I wouldn’t mess around with promos like that. Just tune the unit maintenance cost decrease to agg, maybe free unit supply in enemy territory for unlimited units. It’s an economic benefit, but one that’s only accessible by using the trait in the way it’s intended.

[NobleHelium]

Okay, a few different folks have talked to me about the mod changes and while previously I didn't really care to argue over most things (I am mainly interested in making sure no really bad changes are adopted), I will list out my opinions with some supporting thoughts.  I will not be defending most of these positions vigorously.

As mentioned before, my general opinion is that you should wait until a full set of games have been completed before passing judgment on most of the recent balance changes.  People picked things based upon their theorycrafting opinions that can and will be wrong, and that will not be apparent until the games are over.  It may not even be apparent after the games are over, but if multiple games are over then the confidence will be greatly increased.  I think you absolutely want to avoid an RtR situation where there are so many constant changes and different versions flying around that nobody remembers what the exact changes are.  RtR also had the additional problem of having a ton of undocumented changes, but that was Krill's failure and it won't be yours.

• Lumbermills: Available at Machinery Metal Casting, +1 commerce with Machinery, +1 commerce with Electricity, Lumber mills now +1 commerce on the corner of rivers
  

Sure, this is fine.  I don't think lumbermills at MC will be worth building except in niche situations like a tundra forest which would otherwise be a dead tile after being chopped, so I don't mind this change and I don't mind that the change is being put in before more games are completed.

• Drafting: Rifles now cost 2 pop to draft. A city must now end a draft at size 6 instead of size 5 (So size 8 to draft a rifle, size 7 to draft a musket).
  

Sure, probably?  I think Cyneheard presented some decent math when talking about this and I am much more convinced by dataless arguments when there is decent math.  I think this change would mainly be for the purpose of getting closer to BTS.

• Mysticism Animal Husbandry: Now adds +1 commerce to Palace
  

As I've mentioned in a few different places, I am unconvinced that Mysticism needs to have its change reverted or that AH needs to be buffed.  I would definitely prefer to see more games (completed) before Mysticism is reverted and I don't really want to be testing any AH changes until we are happier with most of the mod.

• Scout: +0% +100% vs animals (+200% +100% vs Animals gained with Hunting) instead of +100%, no tech required, that way everybody starts with a scout
  

I'm not qualified to comment on this, other than that it seems like a fine change to make without waiting for games to end.

• Serfdom: +1 commerce on Farms, +1 hammer on Watermills and Windmills, available on Monarchy instead of Feudalism
  

Maybe?  This buffs Spiritual a bit more.  Monarchy is not that much cheaper than Code of Laws and it is generally more awkward to research (since Currency leads to CoL) so this is probably OK.

• Expansive: Remove Worker bonus, add +100% production of Aqueduct +20% production of workers instead of 25%
  

I don't think Expansive needs to be changed further until there is more data.  I would have to play a game with Expansive before I would be able to tell you that it needs a buff, and I am certainly willing to pick the trait in its 1.4 form.

• Creative: Reduce Library bonus from 100% to 50%, Remove production bonus for Colosseum
  
• Charismatic: +100% production of Monument, +100% production of Colosseum
  

I think CRE mostly sucks but is a viable pick on tight maps. So it currently has a niche but I would expect it to be picked sparingly overall. You can keep it in its current niche or buff it into a more powerful general trait, like reverting the library bonus but reducing the free culture to 1/turn. I don't care about the business with the colosseums unless they start giving 4 happiness or something, so getting things closer to BTS would be fine.

• Inca UB: Makes city act as a source of fresh water instead of +2 culture, Cost 45
  
• India UU: movement 2 instead of 3, start with Mobility promotion, Cost 70 instead of 60
  

As I mentioned before, I am leery of any cost reductions to the Incan UB but I also agree that nobody is going to pick the civ if it's just the fresh water bonus.  So I definitely think there should be experimentation as to what bonus the Inca get.  Combining the Terrace-at-Agriculture change with the fresh water bonus would be a fine thing to test as well.

I'm fine with the India UU cost being reverted.  With the increased cost I was tempted to call them slow workers when I was testing them.

• Spain UB: Never obsoletes, +2 XP for naval units
  

I previously suggested that the Citadel should lose its Walls requirement, and I still do think that.  Spain has been picked a few times in the current games but I think it is mostly for novelty reasons.  I do think it would be a good change to make to avoid feel bad situations.

New game options

You had an idea to add a game option for No Unit Trading, but this is obviously low on the priority list given that it can just be banned by agreement.

EDIT: I changed the bit about CRE.

[Jowy]

I agree with all of NH's points.

From a design standpoint I would like to see all traits trend towards specialization rather than being universally useful.

Fin/Cre/Agg/Phi/Pro all have their niches currently. Exp did too before reverting it. I don't mean balance but design. Numbers can be tweaked.

Chr/Imp are a bit too universal. Happiness is basically always good, and you always build settlers. The production bonuses are nice though, but not the main part of the traits.

[Charriu]

Ok, thanks guys. I will take your advise to heart and will put my foot on the brake on any further major change. I already did so on FIN/PRO/ORG, but I see that a slower approach is necessary. Maybe I'm just too excited.

I still need to provide a 1.5 version though because of bugfixes and I will only add changes that I think do have enough data or are worth an experiment.