Rebalancing Civ4: RtR Mod

[Cyneheard]

How the Great General points work:

They work like any other Great Person points. They go into your Great People pool, and when you get 100 Great People points, a GG pops out unless you've been running Scientists or some such, and the Great General becomes a mixed-odds Great Person like any other.

Slavery: We'll try simple first; I'm not sure that 30/50/70 for 1, 2, and 3-pop whips is all that complicated, but you're right, KISS does apply.

I'm not sure that Agg or Imp are all that weak. Agg stays useful for the entire game, and Imp is solid on many Noble maps, which is the default NTT difficulty.

Spi and Phi may end up being too strong. Especially since the two traits do have strong synergy. Cheap universities (which really means a quicker and cheaper Oxford) could go, and cheap temples could get shifted to Cha (undoing the buff to Cha). If someone finds that they can really abuse Gandhi, please let me know.

[scooter]

I'm not sure that Agg or Imp are all that weak. Agg stays useful for the entire game, and Imp is solid on many Noble maps, which is the default NTT difficulty.

I guess for me, my meter is this - how many people have you seen picking an Aggressive leader in the no tech trading games? Only a couple, and those are only in games where some combo of Fin/Phi/Exp are banned.

My thinking has been this - any trait that is not even considered in the MP games run here needs to get juiced up, and any trait that is considered a no brainer needs to be brought down a notch. This is why I think Aggressive is probably still iffy, although with the nerfs to the top-tier traits I may be wrong. An equal balancing of the trait is the #1 selling point for this mod, honestly I'm much less interested in mechanics changes like re-writing Slavery. I'd say just switch it to 25h and let it be. If players have to re-learn completely how to use Slavery, that might turn many of them away from the mod (possibly myself).

I think there's a good bit of UU tinkering that could be done too, like maybe making the Cossack halfway decent again (its awful now, with the nerf to its strength AND the BtS nerf to Cavalry), making Jaguar Warriors not suck, etc.

Cyneheard, you mentioned Praetorians now have a -10% city attack penalty. They (and all swords) previously had a +10% bonus... So is that -10% merely removing that bonus, or is it removing that bonus AND adding a 10% penalty?

I know we haven't talked much about corporations yet in this thread, but is it an unreasonable idea to just totally remove them from the game? They are so gamebreaking that it'd be nice to just axe them completely.

[SevenSpirits]

I'm not sure that Agg or Imp are all that weak. Agg stays useful for the entire game, and Imp is solid on many Noble maps, which is the default NTT difficulty.

Hm, I'm having trouble looking up the difficulties that games have been playing at. So many games don't list their settings anywhere obvious. But anyway, my point was that either Imp or Org was going to be underpowered.

Edit: Also agree with Scooter.

Scooter, Praets previously lacked the 10% city attack bonus. (You don't notice because they are strength 8!) So this is another 10% penalty. Personally I think this is poor flavor for a unit that's a swordsman replacement.

[regoarrarr]

Some thoughts:

I think with all the tweaks to civics, making more of them more viable, that Spiritual is getting a big boost (to allow you to swap back and forth w/o anarchy)

Also, an early great general (from TGW) seems awfully powerful

[McClure]

I had a thought to buffing the Protective trait ... change the two free promotions. If the trait automatically gave Combat I and II it would be useful both offensively and defensively, and give the trait a flavor of "Expert Archers" rather than "Expert City Squatters". Or at least really strong explorers/barb fighters.

It might even bring back the dreaded Longobow rush from Civ3.

[SevenSpirits]

I had a thought to buffing the Protective trait ... change the two free promotions. If the trait automatically gave Combat I and II it would be useful both offensively and defensively, and give the trait a flavor of "Expert Archers" rather than "Expert City Squatters". Or at least really strong explorers/barb fighters.

It might even bring back the dreaded Longobow rush from Civ3.

Alternately, improve Drill so that it's actually better than the combat line in a decent number of cases.

[Cyneheard]

Re: Traits: If the 11 traits aren't equally good in all games, that's fine. As long as there are real choices, no consensus best traits (at least on par of Fin/Exp in the status quo) and all 11 of the traits do get used in some games.

Praets did not have the +10% City Attack bonus to begin with. The other option is to make Praets more vulnerable to axes (say, 7 str, but making them like other swordsmen with +10% City Attack).

I think the UU (and UB) balancing is going to have to be led and organized by someone else. That's just too much work for me.
However, three ground rules for UUs (and UBs):
1) The unit needs to replace the same unit as before; same for buildings. Possible exceptions: Quechua (Inca), America (UU and/or UB), and the Research Institute (Russia)
2) Good UUs and UBs that aren't overpowered (such as, say, ChoKoNus or Janissaries) should be left unchanged.
3) UUs and UBs should probably be looked at as part of a Civ whole. Except for the really overpowered ones (and those have already been hit, with one exception: India. What, if anything, should be done about the Fast Worker? It needs to stay at a 3-move worker, but that doesn't mean there aren't other options)

For the BtS expansion features, let's see:
Espionage: We're trying to enable a No-Espionage mode that actually works. I rest my case.
Corporations: Either going to get hit hard with a nerf or removed...what would people want corporations to be like? If we did get rid of corps, then we need to take a very careful look at State Property. The fewer changes to the DLL required, the better, so that will influence how corporations may be changed.
Random Events: Off for MP games. Makes sense.
Colonies: We don't play with Vassal States (at least, I hope we remember to use that setting), again, not a good MP idea. See Puppet States, Civ5.
So, what did BtS add in terms of game features? Not a whole lot that we want to keep. The rebalancing that it did was, on net, good, except for the truly new features, which were broken.

World Wonders: I think we're trying to avoid messing with these. There aren't really many wonders which need something done to them (Temple of Artemis is about it IMO: It was never built in PB3, and we'd passed SciMeth where it obsoletes, and it's not been all that great in other games, where it usually languishes until someone decides to just grab it. Poor Man's GLib for OCC games where you don't always care what Great Person type you get (except Artists)). And what to do with the Great Wall. I'm tempted to say "Show me" (SP is fine, but at least Monarch/Emperor) before undoing the GG change (Great Merchant leads to Civil Service bulb in record time with how early TGW comes in). If the GG change is a problem, then we may have to go to no Great People points from TGW (at least for No Espionage), since the Spy is one of the weakest Great People.

Drill Promotion line: Going to have to think about that. Two things that can be done with Drill:
1) Improving how many FS it gives.
- If Drill I gave 1 First Strike, and turned Drill IV into 1 FS + 1 FS Chance (instead of 2FS), would that make a big difference? See below for when a First Strike is equivalent to (or marginally better than) a Combat level.
2) Changing how it works as a pre-requisite for other promotions.
Current promotions where Combat X unlocks it, but Drill X does not:
Ambush (+25% vs. Armored Units): Combat II
Amphibious: Combat II
Charge (+25% vs. Siege Units): Combat I
Commando: Combat IV
March: Combat III
Sentry: Combat III

Unlocking them for drill also makes them more available for Pro Gunpowder units, so even where it's a little silly to put them on Archers (i.e., March and likely Amphibious), it helps Pro overall.

Looking at how First Strikes work, in cases where two units have the same base strength, but one has a small situational modifier (say, fortification), a full First Strike is about as good as a level of Combat. However, for, say, Crossbow vs. Mace, no terrain modifiers or other promotions, a first strike is better for the crossbow than Combat I would be.

Having Protective give different boosts to Archers and Gunpowder units would be messy. Having Protective give the same boost as Aggressive does to Gunpowder units is not a good idea, especially for Tokugawa.

[SevenSpirits]

Looking at how First Strikes work, in cases where two units have the same base strength, but one has a small situational modifier (say, fortification), a full First Strike is about as good as a level of Combat. However, for, say, Crossbow vs. Mace, no terrain modifiers or other promotions, a first strike is better for the crossbow than Combat I would be.

If a FS is about as good as Combat I in an even fight (and worse in an uphill battle, better in a favorable battle) then Drill I should absolutely give 1 FS (and Drill IV could give 1.5). It will still be worse than C1 most of the time because some units are immune to them.

If you think that makes Toku too good, I think you're wrong, but in any case something else could be done about that. I definitely think it's sad that you never take the drill promotions.

[SevenSpirits]

I think the UU (and UB) balancing is going to have to be led and organized by someone else. That's just too much work for me.
However, three ground rules for UUs (and UBs):
1) The unit needs to replace the same unit as before; same for buildings. Possible exceptions: Quechua (Inca), America (UU and/or UB), and the Research Institute (Russia)
2) Good UUs and UBs that aren't overpowered (such as, say, ChoKoNus or Janissaries) should be left unchanged.
3) UUs and UBs should probably be looked at as part of a Civ whole. Except for the really overpowered ones (and those have already been hit, with one exception: India. What, if anything, should be done about the Fast Worker? It needs to stay at a 3-move worker, but that doesn't mean there aren't other options)

I made a spreadsheet of all the Civs, with reference info and space for ratings and comments, so we can try to agree on which civs are better than others currently. I added ratings and a few comments myself actually, but I'm sure I got a lot wrong. Please, anyone, add your own perspective. (Just don't remove the correct and indisputable data on the left.) It's open for editing:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=...y=COWQ7vwK

(Note: don't forget that some starting techs are better than others.)

After gaining a bit more perspective, we can think about how to change them.

[novice]

World Wonders: I think we're trying to avoid messing with these. There aren't really many wonders which need something done to them (Temple of Artemis is about it IMO: It was never built in PB3, and we'd passed SciMeth where it obsoletes, and it's not been all that great in other games, where it usually languishes until someone decides to just grab it. Poor Man's GLib for OCC games where you don't always care what Great Person type you get (except Artists)). And what to do with the Great Wall. I'm tempted to say "Show me" (SP is fine, but at least Monarch/Emperor) before undoing the GG change (Great Merchant leads to Civil Service bulb in record time with how early TGW comes in). If the GG change is a problem, then we may have to go to no Great People points from TGW (at least for No Espionage), since the Spy is one of the weakest Great People.

I was thinking that the Internet and Christo Redentor would have to go.

For ToA and Great Lighthouse I had the idea that GL could give +1 trade routes to coastal cities, and ToA could give +1 trade routes to non-coastal cities.

Phi and Spi seem a bit overpowered with the (very) nerfed Fin and Exp. I don't see a big problem with simply reducing Phi's bonus to +75% GPP.

Spi is more tricky... It could give -1 turn length of anarchy, it would still be quite powerful though.