Posts: 23,426
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
The issues with that are that civics are affected by and influence tech decisions but if it is linked to size and not tech era or the civics themselves then it can exacerbate map issues and trait balance. And civ balance to effect. I personally prefer changing slots to be on the civics so Serfdom and Emancipation give 2 slots a piece and that's it. It feels cleaner as it doesn't introduces new mechanic.
I mean it's probably viable to link it to city size to some extent but there is going to be a couple of scenarios that make you think it's clunky.
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 21st, 2015, 08:30
(This post was last modified: July 21st, 2015, 08:30 by Gavagai.)
Posts: 4,671
Threads: 36
Joined: Feb 2013
Krill, what do you think about removing a cap on the increase of number of cities maintenance ("conquerer's plato")? I think, it's a good way to reduce snowball effect and make big empires a little less broken. This change is implemented in K-Mod and from my limited SP experience with it I quite like it: it does make a difference but, on the other hand, doesn't break the balance completely (it is still good to be big).
Also, it may have subtler effects which, I think, are positive. For example, there is a growing consensus that Org is the best trait in Rtr and increased city maintenance will lead to relative decrease in amount of money which Org saves. On the other hand, it will make Courthouses more useful...
Posts: 3,199
Threads: 11
Joined: Jan 2010
I'll reply here since it doesn't belong in a setup thread for a game I'm not even playing in.
Krill Wrote:Most players seem to complain that the luck factor of barbs strips out a lot of fun from the game, and farmers gambits are called regularly now. No map trading would suggest this would continue.
1. I'm not convinced those players shouldn't study barb mechanics and reason about them in their play. Do you think barbs are that much of a problem? Yes they add a little spice but this is a game with RNG in combat that can swing early outcomes in many other ways too.
2. Who wants to play a game without barbs? Not me, at first glance. It's a small minority, right? And it's a relatively unexplored metagame. My feeling is it will be more different than is obvious. And it's a highly unstable metagame where if you know your opponent will settle an unguarded city very early, you should send out an early warrior, if you know he's sending out the warrior, you should build defensive warriors. If you know he's building defensive warriors, you should settle an unguarded city, and so on. Yes this exists in normal strategy but it's magnified when these factors come into play right on like turn 25. This, opposed to the current strategy, which is you just don't settle a new city without at least warrior there.
3. Why the heck can't I want to play the kind of game I want to play, if I find a group of people who also want to play that way? Barbs, no map trading? Because it's distasteful to you? What the fuck? Especially since this control is easier to implement than the binding you want?
Posts: 13,563
Threads: 49
Joined: Oct 2009
Playing with no barbs is common, many players prefer it.
I have to run.
Posts: 3,199
Threads: 11
Joined: Jan 2010
(July 21st, 2015, 14:41)novice Wrote: Playing with no barbs is common, many players prefer it.
Are you being devil's advocate or are you one of them? Not many (any?) PB games here have had barbs off, right?
Posts: 10,036
Threads: 82
Joined: May 2012
PB games aren't the only games this site puts on. And there's a reason the no-barbs games are generally (but not always) PBEM rather than PB - because PB are by their very nature much more random and often incorporate more of the less-balanced settings, such as random maps, Barbs, huts, events and so on, compared to the more competitive nature of PBEMs.
It's not devils advocate to say that, by any means. A significant portion of players prefer no barbs. (I, for one, am not among them, but I play FFH anyway.)
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
Posts: 3,199
Threads: 11
Joined: Jan 2010
(July 21st, 2015, 16:35)Qgqqqqq Wrote: It's not devils advocate to say that, by any means. ... (I, for one, am not among them)
If you don't agree with the stance your arguing for, you've pretty much defined the term. But sure, some players prefer barbs off. Just (seemingly) nobody in this thread who's actually arguing, certainly not me.
Posts: 13,563
Threads: 49
Joined: Oct 2009
My preference is no barbs, yes. And no huts and no events.
I have to run.
Posts: 10,036
Threads: 82
Joined: May 2012
You're saying that no barbs is a very small minority, I'm disagreeing. It would be devils advocate if I were arguing that we should play without barbs. The same is true fo novice - whatever his stance on barbs, it's not devils advocate to point out that many players want them off.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
July 21st, 2015, 20:44
(This post was last modified: July 21st, 2015, 20:46 by WilliamLP.)
Posts: 3,199
Threads: 11
Joined: Jan 2010
Ok, semantics isn't really what I'm shooting for here. Maybe it's all moot anyway, since I guess it would be possible to negotiate a game in some version of the mod, where map trading was just disallowed by rule set outside of the game, and there's not a thing Krill could do to stop people playing the game they want, muhaha.
(And for the record I think vanilla has map trading at about the right place, and also I support efforts to lower the risk of early scouting a little, e.g. by buffing scouts v animals and nerfing bears. I made that suggestion a couple of years ago but got shot down.)
|
