Civs in RtR: Thread 2

[Krill]

One option may be to swap the merchant library of Ethiopia with the Malian Mint, buff the Mint a little bit and call it a day? +15% beakers and gold? Merchants on a library only really work fo the Currency Bulb, otherwise all then power remains on the Skirmisher for Mali, but Ethiopia kinda feels right at that power level.

[superdeath]

Does Mali need a buff tho? Thought their skirms were powerful enough. Ethiopia feels like it should be a UB granary change, or a very powerful UU to be more... historically accurate? While also being fun to play. Although id be fine with 2 merchant slot libraries. Is that in addition to scientists? or just Merchants.

[Krill]

Fuck historical accuracy. Balance Uber allies.

That said, I only posted that idea because the mint can be buffed, if it needs it, to cover a weakness in the oromo if it is not felt to be string enough. Just how strong are merchants at writing compared to that? I don't think that such a change is a buff to Mali.

[RefSteel]

Oromo warrior. Starts with Drill 2 and Drill 4.

This is in some respects a nerf from the original for leaders that are neither Agg nor Pro; e.g. drafted Oromos can't take Shock or Pinch even with XP civics except in a city with SoZ or multiple settled GGs. Could make D2 an alternate prereq for those promos like D1 and C1 are already, but the fact that we're bending over backward to make the Oromos fit with Pro highlights a much bigger problem with Inca and especially Babylon:

For a snake pick, it's better to have a single-trait-plus-civ combination that nobody would pick than one that nearly everyone would pick, so the Incan terrace change makes sense from that perspective. But for Random Pool Selection, it's entirely possible to wind up with Inca or Babylon of Effectively Only One Trait. Even in a snake pick, Babylon has an archer UU, and would love to be protective for the synergy there, but can't unless it wants to play with one hand tied behind its back.

Mongolia and Zulu aren't nearly as bad: Agg is still a decent trait even when it gives no bonus to barracks or especially stables, and those civs are fun to play with or without it. The problem with the new Inca and Babs is that nearly all of Pro's value comes from the granary bonus, so if a civ takes that away, it becomes an unplayable combination with that civ.

Alternate suggestions for those two civs in case you agree with the above and any suggestions help:

Incan Terrace: (Maybe rename "Tambo") - Granary replacement with +1 EP (no bonus culture). This is still a potentially powerful bonus, but it's (essentially) an information advantage instead of a settling advantage.

Babylonian Garden: Monument replacement with +1 Happiness and +1 Health, available at Agriculture, does not expire. This enables Babylon to delay the religious line without Cre. (And I like the flavor.)

[Krill]

Oromo warrior. Starts with Drill 2 and Drill 4.

This is in some respects a nerf from the original for leaders that are neither Agg nor Pro; e.g. drafted Oromos can't take Shock or Pinch even with XP civics except in a city with SoZ or multiple settled GGs.  Could make D2 an alternate prereq for those promos like D1 and C1 are already, but the fact that we're bending over backward to make the Oromos fit with Pro highlights a much bigger problem with Inca and especially Babylon:

I actually thought that was a buff (+10% against mounted on D4), but I see your point. I don't see an issue with playing around with the Oromo, for example making it have C1 is just as reasonable for the UU, the fact it would overlap with AGG is irrelevant to me. For example, the Zerk used to have free C1; that was removed due to the level of power on the unit, rather than because of feature overlap. I would hold it is better to alter just the UU, rather than altering systems which have wide ranging effects.

For a snake pick, it's better to have a single-trait-plus-civ combination that nobody would pick than one that nearly everyone would pick, so the Incan terrace change makes sense from that perspective.  But for Random Pool Selection, it's entirely possible to wind up with Inca or Babylon of Effectively Only One Trait.  Even in a snake pick, Babylon has an archer UU, and would love to be protective for the synergy there, but can't unless it wants to play with one hand tied behind its back.

Mongolia and Zulu aren't nearly as bad:  Agg is still a decent trait even when it gives no bonus to barracks or especially stables, and those civs are fun to play with or without it.  The problem with the new Inca and Babs is that nearly all of Pro's value comes from the granary bonus, so if a civ takes that away, it becomes an unplayable combination with that civ.

This is not a problem with the mod. This is a problem with randomly selecting leaders and civs. The pick method is what needs changing, not the mod.

The mod sits above the base game, to streamline and balance the choices that players can make. It has to work for various game and map types, number of players, it has to be flexible. The pick method OTOH can be varied as needed for each game. It needs to be suitable for the game type. For example, using an RPS pick method in a small game is counterproductive, and I'd even go so far as to say stupid. The level of variance between the usefulness of the leaders and civs needed makes a mockery of the other attempts at balance, such as balancing the starts, the maps, and the game. Small games, or games that have more unusual settings should not have such an important part of the game strategy decided by an RNG.

What would need to happen is that in something like the RPS method, which only really has a place in a large game, is that it is a multiple step procedure for generating the player options. First of all a standing order list of leaders or traits that should not be offered with specifics civs should be made before available, then the civs are allocated to each player, and then each player has the random list of leaders generated. That fixes any of these problems from occurring, but does not affect other games.

[Krill]

And just to be clear: the Zulu, Mongolia, Inca and Babylon changes to AGG and PRO are to do with the power level of combining those traits with a buffed UB.

The default position I think is better for civ balance, is actually that ALL UB should not be affected by trait production bonuses. Everything. Malian Mints, French Salon. All of them. Because we are balancing civs for two power levels, but I reckon that for most of the UB, the two power levels aren't that dissimilar, which is why it's only really the early UB that have most of a civs power that need to have this done.

[Cheater Hater]

If you want to keep bending over backwards to stop certain trait pairs either from being broken or not synergizing, why not just stop using Unrestricted Leaders as a baseline? The synergies are the whole point of the setting. There are always going to be better and worse combos, and certain traits are always going to be better with certain leaders. If balance is your #1 goal, reducing the number of combinations should be the start.

[Krill]

Balance is not about everything being equal, because then there far fewer meaningful choices. Balance, at least in RtR, is about removing, or at least limiting, the number of one right choices that occur, and removing definitive wrong choices, or traps.

That boils down to removing tall poppies. And unrestricted leaders is the base on which replayability exists. Restricted leaders themselves are not as able to be balanced given various other settings such as map type, game era, map size or number of players.

[RefSteel]

That argument makes sense to me. We're balancing for two power levels either way really, but for snakepick purposes, it's better to have e.g. the proposed Inca (which doesn't like Cre and renders Pro worthless, but is balanced with any other trait combinations) than to have an Inca that (like the old RtR's) that is balanced only without Pro and supercharged with it. And that's also better than to have an Inca (like ToW's) that's balanced only with Exp and not worth playing without it.

(I don't have a strong opinion about Oromos; I just misunderstood the reason for choosing D2+D4 - thanks for explaining!)

On RPS, I think you underestimate the appeal of random selection when civs and traits are reasonably well-balanced, regardless of the size of the game, but it probably doesn't matter either way: Whether or not the picking method is appropriate for a given game size, a standard list of civ/trait match-ups to never offer any player would presumably solve the problem. My hope for a more elegant or in-game solution was probably silly, at least so long as any trait give a +100% build bonus to granaries and any civ has a granary UB.

[Cheater Hater]

I guess, though there's always going to be a tallest poppy (at least as long as mapmakers keep normalizing the map, and thus you rarely need to drastically adjust your evaluations).