An idea for AGG that came out of left field: start with Animal Husbandry researched.
That would be an economic boost (early game beakers) and a military boost because it would reveal where horses are. Since AH now enables camps instead of pastures, it wouldn't be as big a boost to food generation. I worry that the beaker boost would be a little excessive though
Edit: A Hunting/Wheel AGG civ could probably wreck the early game, wouldn't it?
Yeah, in the original release of CIV horses were visible from T0. Everyone died to chariot rushes because the correct move was to wander around looking for horses to settle on top of them build chariots. The other issue with giving techs to leaders is that it's either impossible, or there is a way I don't know of that involves moving a shitload of XML around because the leaders XML file has almost no tags to mess about with. The other second rank techs would also be very swingy, Sailing would do nothing, Pottery would make PRO go overboard and wouldn't do that much for anyone else, AH is broken as said, religious techs are obviously a no-no, and BW is just right out.
(March 24th, 2013, 12:39)Krill Wrote: Yeah, in the original release of CIV horses were visible from T0. Everyone died to chariot rushes because the correct move was to wander around looking for horses to settle on top of them build chariots. The other issue with giving techs to leaders is that it's either impossible, or there is a way I don't know of that involves moving a shitload of XML around because the leaders XML file has almost no tags to mess about with. The other second rank techs would also be very swingy, Sailing would do nothing, Pottery would make PRO go overboard and wouldn't do that much for anyone else, AH is broken as said, religious techs are obviously a no-no, and BW is just right out.
Giving trait techs can be done with python. But AH looks too much. Maybe a random 3rd tech from lvl1 techs that the leader doesn't start with?
(March 24th, 2013, 11:45)pindicator Wrote: I kind of want to see the barracks culture eliminated, tbh.
Seconded. Barracks should have no culture.
How about Aggressive giving +1 gold per city, or +1 EP? And Creative giving +1 research per city?
1) +1 gold per city for Agg is gamey, but it could work.
2) Creative is fine as it is or at least only needs a very minor boost. +1 research per city is gamey and makes the trait overpowered (although still weaker on a lot of maps than Org with cheap libraries)
(March 24th, 2013, 12:25)Qgqqqqq Wrote: Eh, remember the two are only equal if your aggressive, otherwise its just a more expensive monument.
CRE doesn't really need any boost pre-Paper, it's good enough. The only potential issue with CRE is that when traits have no boosts in the late game, they have to be capable of allowing that leader to win the game in the early game, which is why many CIV games are effectively over by T75. That's why EXP and CRE both kinda needed nerfing, and every trait tries to have both early and later game boosts, but CRE...doesn't.
The issue with AGG is that making barracks more and more cheaper and giving it more culture is it turns AGG into CRE mark 2, which I agree isn't really warranted, fun, interesting or even good balance. The problem with removing culture from barracks is that the trait that is arguably the worst in the game get nerfed relative to the other traits and it makes AGG even less likely to use what benefits it has. The barracks culture at 1cpt though IMO means that most players deciding to not pop borders are usually short sighted, they aren't considering the economic benefits. There are instances where it makes a bit of a difference, but not many for that first border pop in the early game.
T-hawk Wrote:That's exactly the problem. How can you "balance" something that by definition is meant to forcibly seize and deprive someone else of their assets?
Well...the best way to do it is to give that trait boni to playing in a specific fashion. There are playstyles involving settling land, culturally controlling land and limiting another players options, which is my preferred playstyle. The focus there though is on being able to afford the units to back up the cities, and still keep a tech rate good enough to get the minimum tech to have relevant units and long term stronger bpt and hpt. AGG doesn't have anything to do with that, it's all about the units being stronger as the trait concept but that does not make the trait playable. Contrast to PRO were the concept is making cities viable investments, a concept that works even if it needs a different implementation.
If I were completely redesigning the traits, I'd have considered the unit boni in PRO, AGG and CHM as secondary boni to strengthen weak traits opposed to the main function of the traits. AGG and PRO would benefit from stuff like cheap court houses, workers, work boats, benefits that improve control of the map, so it would be an amalgam of EXP, CRE and ORG. PRO basically got the granary bonus simply because it was a convenient way to nerf EXP and PRO needed a huge boost, and it kinda worked even if EXP needed a small boost because of the sheer power of cheap granaries and the effect of loss of them to the overall trait.
TL;DR: AGG, PRO and CHM need steal something from an expansion trait to be balanced better, PRO already did and it worked out well, CHM doesn't really need it and everyone hates any of the simple options to improve AGG.
(March 24th, 2013, 12:39)Krill Wrote: Yeah, in the original release of CIV horses were visible from T0. Everyone died to chariot rushes because the correct move was to wander around looking for horses to settle on top of them build chariots. The other issue with giving techs to leaders is that it's either impossible, or there is a way I don't know of that involves moving a shitload of XML around because the leaders XML file has almost no tags to mess about with. The other second rank techs would also be very swingy, Sailing would do nothing, Pottery would make PRO go overboard and wouldn't do that much for anyone else, AH is broken as said, religious techs are obviously a no-no, and BW is just right out.
Giving trait techs can be done with python. But AH looks too much. Maybe a random 3rd tech from lvl1 techs that the leader doesn't start with?
TBH that is a really bad idea. Random tech? So can end up with Fishing on a landlocked start or get Hunting/Agri as the perfect food starting tech. It's too swingy, and there is zero strategy involved in that.
What difficulty level, map size, and amount of ocean water do you want for the ratings?
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
Three map types, all of which with unknown starting locations and Monarch difficulty and NTT.
Large map, Big and Small, 8-11 players. Same sort of settings as PB5 and PB8 (so medium or low sea level to ensure about 200 land tiles per player). Cylindrical. Random map (map maker to look over but not change anything)
General PBEM settings, 5 player, hall of mirrors (or a highly balanced map where everyone is on the same continent). Toroidal. I think most PBEMs are run on Standard map, so use that.
Pangaea map, 12+ players, huge map, no map maker supervision, but between 200 and 300 land tiles per player
I think some folks are looking too hard to problems here. A lot of us are power gamers, but not all things can be equal.
A minimalist mod (so we don't need to keep banning whole sub-systems) is great, and I like that PRO is no longer a death sentence. But the more complicated and gamey this gets, the less likely I'm going to join a game with the mod.
Edit: this was a response to the AGG discussion, not Krill recent challenge.
Map 1: Almost equal in power - in a random draw, synergy with UB would overwhelm any minor differences in power, or if there's anti-synergy in the two traits (i.e., Exp, Agg, and Cre all have "ways to pop borders easily"). So if you want me to put numbers, I'm going to be a tool and say 100, 100, 100.
Map 2: Agg = 100, Exp = 90, Org = 80. Lighthouses aren't a big deal, and warfare is a little more important in a smaller game.
Map 3: Exp = 100, Agg = 80 (I want to farmer's gambit here), Org = 80 (Pangaea = lighthouses aren't a big deal).
Also, trait pairs matter a lot. Fin/Org is pretty weak because both traits are slow. But Fin/Exp isn't too bad - you start quick with Exp, and have the health and workers to grow tall reasonably quickly.
