Posts: 23,379
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
3 hammer plants exist for everyone for a 2/3/1 start. Why should EXP be penalised for settling on a resource and getting a 3/2/1 start?
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
Posts: 10,028
Threads: 82
Joined: May 2012
And a 3f plant involves giving up a resource.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
Posts: 15,058
Threads: 110
Joined: Apr 2007
Waitwait. You mean EXP gets 2 hammer plants on the CAPITAL only right? Or do you literally mean every single city planted by an EXP leader on a 1 hammer tile becomes 2 hammer?
July 12th, 2013, 15:36
(This post was last modified: July 12th, 2013, 15:37 by Krill.)
Posts: 23,379
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
The latter, though I understand there are arguments for and against capital only and every city.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
July 12th, 2013, 15:38
(This post was last modified: July 12th, 2013, 15:38 by plako.)
Posts: 6,893
Threads: 42
Joined: Oct 2009
Why not keep it simple? Is the current Expansive really so bad you need this above markets?
Posts: 23,379
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
According to Seven, yes, EXP and AGG are junk.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
Posts: 1,250
Threads: 7
Joined: Dec 2012
You're right; I forgot 35% bonus to workers which would make plains hill bonus the special case.
My logic was 2/3/1=3/2/1 and 0/6/1=1/5/1 so why draw the distinction. Sorry.
July 12th, 2013, 15:44
(This post was last modified: July 12th, 2013, 15:45 by plako.)
Posts: 6,893
Threads: 42
Joined: Oct 2009
And we're beliving Seven like he has the only wisdom? It might have been junk, but now after you've already added Aqueducts and Markets you put up yet another boost. I can't help feeling this is getting overboard.
Posts: 23,379
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
(July 12th, 2013, 15:44)plako Wrote: And we're beliving Seven like he has the only wisdom? It might have been junk, but now after you've already added Aqueducts and Markets you put up yet another boost. I can't help feeling this is getting overboard.
I think it's far to say that EXP in PB8 and PB5 fell off pretty quickly, and the starting strength of the trait at T0 wasn't that strong. The main disagreement between players was how useful the trait was when used in different strategies. But as you say, perhaps Aqueducts, Markets and hammers in cities is too much, if not from the PoV of power but from bloat.
Well, if I try to quantify what those additions do for the trait, it's easy to conclude Aqueducts are still junk and basically are added for flavour. They don't have to be added if that helps cut down on bloat.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
Posts: 1,718
Threads: 4
Joined: Apr 2012
So now Aggressive Zulu (with ikhanda almost) and HRE (with Rathaus) don't pay city maintenance? 
|
