First things first: this is an awesome mod and i really love to play it.

I have played it dozens of times (multi and single player, always in immtral/deity mode), and here are some things i noticed which could use some balacing.


1 Trade routes make coastal cities way too powerfull. Since trade routes are always 30-60% of your total commerce, haveing 8 possible extra trade routes in coastal cities (in comparisson to inland cities) just makes them inbalanced (+2 from lighthouse, +1 from Foreign Trade, +2 Greater Lighthouse and +50% from harbour). I think the harbour effect is allready strong enough since it allready increases your effective trade route income by 50%.
So the suggestion for this would be to take away at least the 2 trade routes you get from the lighthouse, and maybe change the greater lighhouse to +1 trade route in costal cities, or maye +3 trade routes for the city its build in.
Another idea would be to give the lighthouse/Greater lighthouse some trade route bonuses with later techs (optics or even astronomy)

2 Ring of fire/Crown of Brilliance/Crush need some serious rebalance. They need max number of targets becouse 2 units with those abilites can destroy any stack, no matter the size.
I suggest to have Ring of Fire max target = 3, crown of billiance and crush mabye 5.
Another idea would be to have the units with those abilites function like siege weapons. They can weaken an enemy stack but can die in the process (then mabye the max targets should be 5 and 10). Makeing the units go into "siege mode" could also mabye help the ai to use them.


I downloaded the svn and i am makeing myself familiar with the project atm, so if you dont mind i can try to make the changes myself.

Otherwise the mod is really good balanced, keep on the great work!

these suggestions definitely sound reasonable and well thought.

I agree that coastal cities get too many trade routes. Suggestion: Make Lighthouse and GL only give one trade route each. This is enough. The main problem is not that coastal cities are too good, but that inland cities are so bad. The coastal cities have many buildings that only they can build, but there is no special buildings only available to inland cities. Such buildings could include Farmer's Market 100 tools, available at Festivals (+1 Trade route, +2 commerce) and City Garden 120 tools, available at Medicine (+2 Food, +1 Health).

1. agreed, toned down trade routes in coastal cities (lighthouse only +1, great lighthouse is national wonder and doesn't give trade routes in all coastal cities anymore)

2. If Ring of Flames only targets Y units, you could still build a huge amount of AV priests. OTOH dwarven druids could become pointless when you face huge armies. I think the biggger problem with spells is that Ring of Flames hurts a Phalanx much more than a Warrior. (16->9.6 compared to 4->2.4). Fireball is much better balanced imho as it can kill a warrior but barely hurts a Phalanx. Maybe Ring of Flames limit should be set to 2 below max strength. For a bronze Axeman that means 5 -> 3, while a Mithril Champion endures much better 10 -> 8. Late Game Promotions like Channeling3 could decrease the limit.

have fun taking a look at the SVN. The game is highly moddable :)

I agree that coastal cities get too many trade routes. Suggestion: Make Lighthouse and GL only give one trade route each. This is enough. The main problem is not that coastal cities are too good, but that inland cities are so bad. The coastal cities have many buildings that only they can build, but there is no special buildings only available to inland cities. Such buildings could include Farmer's Market 100 tools, available at Festivals (+1 Trade route, +2 commerce) and City Garden 120 tools, available at Medicine (+2 Food, +1 Health).
Keep in mind Inland Cities have much better tile yields. Practically any improvement beats an ocean tile ;)

1. agreed, toned down trade routes in coastal cities (lighthouse only +1, great lighthouse is national wonder and doesn't give trade routes in all coastal cities anymore)

2. If Ring of Flames only targets Y units, you could still build a huge amount of AV priests. OTOH dwarven druids could become pointless when you face huge armies. I think the biggger problem with spells is that Ring of Flames hurts a Phalanx much more than a Warrior. (16->9.6 compared to 4->2.4). Fireball is much better balanced imho as it can kill a warrior but barely hurts a Phalanx. Maybe Ring of Flames limit should be set to 2 below max strength. For a bronze Axeman that means 5 -> 3, while a Mithril Champion endures much better 10 -> 8. Late Game Promotions like Channeling3 could decrease the limit.

have fun taking a look at the SVN. The game is highly moddable :)

2 sounds like a good idea. But i still think the units should take some risk for beeing able to decimate whole stacks.

Maybe changing the spell this way would work out:
Make Ring of Flames, Crush etc a self buff which gives 50% retreat chance and a (berserker like) ability to cause coleteral damage up to a certain level. So the unit will have to attack and risk death to weaken the enemy stack.

Sephi, I like your idea for spell strength there. ;)

Keep in mind Inland Cities have much better tile yields. Practically any improvement beats an ocean tile ;)

This is the biggest issue with coastal cities to me. They have so bad of tiles that the trade routes have a hard time overcoming the lack of improvements.

However I concede a city on a inlet with only 2 or 3 coastal tiles can add all the trade routes while minimizing the disadvantages.

However I concede a city on a inlet with only 2 or 3 coastal tiles can add all the trade routes while minimizing the disadvantages.

I like to think of those cities as ports with natural (sheltered) harbors. They tend to be significant naval bases due to the production in the city and the well defended coast.

true and not all that common

Direct damage spells could all use a unit cap. Yes, you can still get around the problem with more priests, but that's fine. You can do the same thing with more catapults.
I disagree that you should have to risk the unit. Having them on the front lines is risky enough with all the nasty things that can happen to them. Enemy spells, assassins, et cetera.
Side note: Pire Zombie explosion REALLY need a unit cap implemented. Maybe even a damage cap. Those guys are insane.

I have no problem with coastal cities being a boon to trade. Coastal cities have always been hubs of commerce in the real world and a boon to whomever controls them. Don't forget that, in addition to losing out on some workable tiles, they are also more vulnerable to conquest. Ships can bombarb defenses with impunity from any land units and armies can be dropped off without having to navigate through enemy territory. The current AI doesn't really do naval invasions, so that balancing factor doesn't have much opportunity to come into play. Just give it time.

Direct damage spells could all use a unit cap. Yes, you can still get around the problem with more priests, but that's fine. You can do the same thing with more catapults.
I disagree that you should have to risk the unit. Having them on the front lines is risky enough with all the nasty things that can happen to them. Enemy spells, assassins, et cetera.
Side note: Pire Zombie explosion REALLY need a unit cap implemented. Maybe even a damage cap. Those guys are insane.

I have no problem with coastal cities being a boon to trade. Coastal cities have always been hubs of commerce in the real world and a boon to whomever controls them. Don't forget that, in addition to losing out on some workable tiles, they are also more vulnerable to conquest. Ships can bombarb defenses with impunity from any land units and armies can be dropped off without having to navigate through enemy territory. The current AI doesn't really do naval invasions, so that balancing factor doesn't have much opportunity to come into play. Just give it time.

The loss on tiles is pretty minimal. Especialy if you have 1 or 2 food ressources in water, and considering kelp and fishing villages. The problem is that trade routes are a huge factor when it comes to commerce. Coastal cities have allready 50% higher income from them (with harbour), giving them too many trade routes in addition to that is the main problem.

This is all very easy to spot if you play some games. Play 150 turns and try building only coastal cities in comparisson with building only inland cities. You will see that its always the coastal cities that win in commerce (you have at least the double commerce).

I don't think coastal city commerce is a problem so much as coastal city commerce *with* the Great Lighthouse. +2 trade routes per coastal city is a crazy good bonus.

Think about it: what do you have to build in a coastal city for it to start pulling in good profit (assuming you don't have the GLH)? A lighthouse and a harbor at the minimum. You may also need anywhere from 1-4 work boats to get nets and fishing villages set up. Most (but not all) coastal cities end up a bit hammer poor, so they take some time to produce these things (unless rushed or built elsewhere). In other words, coastal cities pay off in the long run but they take investment and protection to get set up, more so than other new cities.

With the GLH, the moment a settler digs a firepit on the coastline and calls it his hovel traders show up wanting the charcoal. I'm being colourful but I think this wonder is probably a bit too good.

Some suggestions for the GLH:
* The Great Lighthouse provides +3 trade routes for the city it is constructed
* Water tiles worked by the city with the Great Lighthouse provide +1 food
* Remove the +2 trade routes per coastal city

If this was done the GLH would still be a strong wonder because it could be built early on and would provide a strong source of commerce for a growing empire. In the long run, the civ that builds the GLH is almost guaranteed to have one of the mightiest commercial cities in Erebus. It would not however guarantee commercial dominance to the civ building it.

Do you guys actually realize how trade routes work? A coastal city can get a maximum of 6 more trade routes, and 50% more trade than a non-coastal city. Sounds like alot? Not enough to make up for all those poor ocean squares IMO. To indicate where commerce from trade comes from, I'll point out all the sources.

Non-City Building Sources of Trade Routes:
All cities get 1 trade route, if they are connected to another city
+1 from trade
+1 from currency
+1 from undercouncil/overcouncil resolution
+1 from free trade
+1 if coastal from free trade
+2 from great lighthouse
+1 from Celestial Compass
This means that just by existing and being part of the trade network, all cities can have 6 trade routes, 9 if coastal. Now for buildings.
+2 from lighthouse
+2 from tavern
+1 from inn
+1 from Obsidian Gates
+1 from smugglers port
Add these buildings (i'm ignoring civ specific ones and the ones from house ghalledia), and all cities can get +4 more trade routes, with another +3 for coastal (smugglers port may require following the undercouncil however, I'm not positive here). So now we have 10 trade routes if on land, 16 if coastal - a difference of 6 trade routes.

Now, on to bonuses (note, base trade increases by size of city, and I believe that it increases base yield by +5-10% starting at size 15)
+25% if connected to capital
+5% per population over 10 (so at size 11, a 5% bonus, size 12, a 10% etc.)
+50% from Tavern
+50% from harbor
+25% from inn
+150% from Foreign Trade
+100% from overseas trade
This means that, not counting population, a city can get +100% from buildings/connection to capital, and +150% if coastal - a difference of a mere 50% (and note, this is all additive, so if you had foreign overseas trade, an inland city would get 250% boost, and a coastal a 300% boost).

So then the question is - is 6 trade routes and a 50% boost too much for a coastal city to have over a non-coastal city? And is it really that bad that you get so much of your commerce from trade routes? For myself, I don't find a problem with this, though I do wonder what exactly you are doing that you get as much as 30% of your commerce from trade - generally, I get maybe 10%, counting gold/science that I get from specialists. Also note, the majority of this trade doesn't appear until midgame - some of it not even until the lategame. On top of all of this, should not a trade based economy be a viable option?

Just my 2 :gold:

-Colin

Assuming mid-to-late game, you can pretty safely assume the average base yield of a trade route to be 1.5. So, using your numbers, a inland city will get 10*1.5*2 = 30 commerce from trade routes, whereas a coastal city will get 16*1.5*2.5 = 60 commerce. Quite a substantial increase, and a substantial amount of :commerce:.

It's also late game, and (IMO) doesn't make up for the sub-par yields that have to be dealt with the entire game.

Yes +30 trade at the cost of maybe 30+? hammers by time you add in all the things they could have built had those ocean squares been a mix of plains, forest, and hills.

Then you could always put the city on Commerce or Research and turn those extra hammers into the exact thing you are getting from the commerce but be much more flexible and a faster developed city.

Keep in mind this is wildmana, so there's also kelp and fishing villages. As a matter of fact, if I have access to water with kelp in the early game I will beeline fishing instead of education for the early commerce, sometimes ignoring education for a long time. Kelp could probably stand to lose the extra commerce, or even be changed to a -1 commerce penalty. Kelp with fishing village and a lighthouse is 3 :food: 5 :commerce: 1 :hammers:, which is very decent, only problem is the pirates it attracts. :)

Kelp and fishing villages did change things some - however, IMO, it only changed it enough to go snatch that 1 city spot, not to switch from a land based economy to a sea based one. Basically, what I'm saying is that even though you can get quite a bit out of trade, you can't get enough to justify the loss in hammers etc. from an interior city, nor enough to make up for the lateness of the trade economy in general.

Looking at it from a timeline point of view:
Teir 1 (everything up to bronze working)
inland cities get 1 trade route, with no bonuses - 1.25 commerce (internal, no overseas), 2.25 (internal overseas), 2.75 (foreign), 3.75 (foreign overseas)
ocean cities get 3-5 trade routes, with a 50% bonus - 5.25-8.75 commerce (internal trade only, no overseas), 8.25-13.75 (internal overseas), 9.75-16.25 (foreign trade), 12.75-21.25(overseas foreign)
Now, if you can get 5 foreign overseas trade routes in all your cities, more power to you. For the most part though, you will only be able to get internal trade, or same continent foreign trade (and even then, you won't be able to have all your trade routes foreign). So you might be able to get 5-8 commerce free in your cities. While this is nice, this is also about the same as getting incense in your borders, without the hammer cost of a lighthouse, a harbor, and the great lighthouse. As for commerce from the sea, considering that you can get only a few hammers from sea squares (whaling boats and fishing villages only), you're left in a situation where you trade the food and hammers of inland with the commerce of the sea - not a bad deal depending upon what you are trying to do IMO.

Now for midgame:
For trade routes, you now have foreign trade, trade, currency, great lighthouse, lighthouse, and inn, for a total of 5 interior and 8-10 exterior, and for bonuses you have the inn and the harbor.
Interior city: 7.5 commerce (internal), 12.5 (internal overseas), 15 (foreign), and 20 (foreign overseas)
Coastal: 16-20 (internal), 24-30 (internal overseas), 28-34 (foreign), and 36-42 (foreign overseas).
Now, if you could somehow manage to get 10 foreign overseas trade routes, you might have an argument here. However, in every game I have ever played, my cities will end up with mostly internal, an occasional foreign (then only in my biggest cities), and rarely an overseas trade route (as to get the AI to actually challenge me, we need to be mostly on one continent). Now, a free 9 commerce above and beyond what I would be getting with just the construction of an inn isn't too bad, but once again, not anything worth nerfing trade for. After taxation, that isn't even 2 whole towns. Here though, we might be able to get some increases from population modifiers, but again, its going to prove the difference of 1-2 commerce at most (unless you're playing the calibam, at this time, most cities are less than size 15).

Lategame we could compare. On the other hand, if you haven't won the game by then, you screwed up somewhere earlier.

Now, am I saying that trade is perfectly balanced? No. What I am saying though is that all things being equal, it seems to me to be perfectly balanced that coastal cities produce more in the way of commerce than inland cities. In FFH, this isn't really the case, as a single aristofarm can surpass any non-resource coastal tile (and an aristo-farmed civ will generally grow larger, faster, and get more commerce from trade because of size than a coastal one would because of number of trade routes). Wildmana, between adding to the trade routes, and adding kelp/fishing villages, has actually made coastal cities less "worthless" and more "it has its uses". As for your example of ignoring education - is that really a bad thing that some games you can afford to do that? Is it not nice that you actually HAVE a second option for commerce, instead of being forced to beeline education so that you can build cottages and have an economy?

Now if you insist that the great lighthouse makes coastal cities too OP in general, here are a few ideas that will still keep it worthwhile without nerfing it into oblivion. First, you could have it instead give a free lighthouse in all coastal cities (very useful). Second, you could change it to +1 trade route in all coastal cities, and +2-3 in that city. Third, you could use it to make you're city a center of trade, but have no benefit on other cites - +3-5 trade routes in this city, +100% trade route yields, or maybe a 25% commerce bonus.

On the other hand, if you find that its just coastal cities in general that get too much trade, you could make a few changes here. One, you could remove 1 trade route from lighthouses. Two, you could change free trade from +1 trade route, +1 coastal trade route, to +2 trade routes, or +1 and +50-100% trade route income (+1 and no one would EVER use it again).

I'm sure that there can be more things that you could do, but I just can't think of them right now. But I really don't think that coastal cities having better trade/commerce is really a bad thing.

-Colin

But I really don't think that coastal cities having better trade/commerce is really a bad thing.


totally agreed. You need production too.and desperately. inland cities are for production. IMO there is no need for trade route nerfing, too much work for small change.

If somebody complains that perfectly positioned coastal cities are OP, then choose noncoastal maps.

but I fully support nerfing crush from dwarven druids and chalid's spells. also earthquaque should do little damage for units sitting in the city why, does not even need an explanation, IMO.

posts
Indeed. Coastal cities are not imbalanced, they're actually worth building for once.

I find that perfect coastal cities are about as common as any other "power start". Should floodplains, food resources and gems/gold be nerfed too?

I disagree on traderoutes being too powerful. They are certainly powerful, but not enough of a reason to go out of your way to create coastal cities. I'd love to play a testgame challenge, where you can focus on exploiting coastal cities (i.e. chase traderoute enhancing techs and the great lighthouse/lighthouses) or you can focus on inland cities (aristofarm/cottages). A comparison of different playstyles would be very interesting.

I think some of the incongruence here might be due to different playstyles. I tend to go for a turtle-up builder economic strategy, which is why I almost always end up prioritizing coastal cities, great lighthouse, and foreign trade. With this build, it's quite commonplace to have over 200 research around turn 130-150 or so presuming a coastal spot with decent production for the GLH and access to decent amounts of foreign cities. The latter condition may not always happen, though, and conquering interfering neighbors or barbarian cities blocking coastal trade access is not easy with the slightly gimped production, which makes the strategy a bit risky and more than a little builder-oriented. A trade route strategy leaves no cottages to pillage, though, and allows citizens to concentrate on food/production/great people instead of commerce.

Would anyone be interested in me making an unbiased test game to see what the differences are? Judging from the way that some of the people here are speaking, we are definitely playing in a vastly different manner, which may lead to us not understanding just how powerful the ocean city is, or those who feel it is powerful not having the same kind of comparison for how a well played other economy can be run. Please note that I am not doing this because I feel other players are incompetent - I've run the numbers, but I haven't ever played with a focus on trade, and I'm remarkably poor at the aristocracy economy, so it would be interesting to see how other people play the game and what I'm missing.

-Colin

-Colin

Thank you colin. I disagree with OP. I see nothing wrong with coastal cities. And great lighthouse is fine as is. First, you need to build a lighthouse, second, you need to get sailing, and focus on ship techs, which in FFH is a path less traveled for a reason.

I am always surprised by what people call Overpowered.

While readercolin surely is correct about the maximum number of trade routes, I think one thing is forgotten in this discussion: many of the trade routes unique to coastal cities are very easy to get early, and thus you get much more use of these traderoutes.

Another thing I would like to object to is the idea that coastal cities are bad since the tiles they use are less useful. First, every sea and coasal tile can be used. This is not true for every inland tile: deserts and mountains. Besides, many inland tiles have reduced gain: tundra, march, jungle. This reduced gain can be offset later, by using terraforming magic or technology, but still, this takes time.

Still another is the number of tiles actually used by the cities. Often I tend to use 10-15 of the tiles availible. This means that not every tile need to be good. So, if you have a coastal city, haveing 5 tiles water, and one of these with resources, that is only two or three "useless" tiles, since there are fishing villages.

To conclude, I think that the benefits of the extra traderoutes, as well as the much easier job of connecting these to cities (you only need to discover cities on the coast, no need to build roads to them), by far overshadows the loss of "useful" tiles and the production and research needed to get them, in the long run.

While readercolin surely is correct about the maximum number of trade routes, I think one thing is forgotten in this discussion: many of the trade routes unique to coastal cities are very easy to get early, and thus you get much more use of these traderoutes.



Who goes for sailing early?

The only thing that could be tuned down is lighthouse giving +1 instead of +2 traderoutes.
Rest is fine as it is - makes trading viable :).

How are the values of the trade routes are ROUNED?

The mouseove in city screen states a 1.98 :commerce: trade route as 1:commerce:.
Is that true?

Traderoutes are also threaten by blockade-ships (AI issues ... ofc) and related to allies/enemies and you need to do some diplomacy.

Early game trade routes consist of 1 free one, 2 from lighthouse, and 2 from great lighthouse. I don't know about you, but the possibility of 2 more trade routes before I even get open borders usually doesn't appeal to me as it would tie up my capital for 20+ turns, which I could have instead used to build warriors/settlers/workers, which to me means that the great lighthouse isn't an early game wonder except in the time in which it appears.

So that means that you'll have 3 trade routes, and +50% from harbor, +25% for connection to capital, vs 1 +25%. Woo hoo, you managed to snag 4 more commerce from your city than an inland one would have, for the price of 2 buildings, and food resources/fishing villages for 30 hammers a piece. If you have 1 resource, 2 fishing villages, and 90 hammers for the harbor +120 hammers for the lighthouse, thats 300 hammers spent on getting this city what it needs. 1 worker costs 90 hammers - so you could get 3 workers and a warrior for the price of setting up this one coastal city, or 5 axmen. Now, will your coastal city produce more commerce? I sure hope so after that investment. Will it produce more hammers than an interior city in the early game - probably not, as it is working three water tiles, only two of which produce a hammer, and it would only be able to work 2-4 inland squares in addition depending upon how many happy resources you have managed to find, as opposed to another city working 5-7 inland tiles, which in the early game we can once again assume that at least 2-3 of them are resource tiles (otherwise, we need to have a talk about your city placement scheme).

Lets look at this in another way - what if you are going for a conquest style game instead of a builder style one. You just spent 300 hammers on setting up the beginnings of your trade network. I just spent those 300 hammers on warriors - I have 12 more warriors than you would assuming equal numbers of hammers. Or if I spent them on axmen, I have 5 more axmen. Great lighthouse costs 300 or 600 hammers? Once again, 12-24 more warriors or 5-10 more axmen. So for the cost of your building costs you wiping out your nearest neighbor and doubling the number of cities that you have (potentially). This larger industrial base then moves into gear, makes more workers/economic buildings, and proceeds to trudge after you technologically. Your builder style might have an early lead, but double the number of cities, with the right civics/tech path will catch up rather quickly.

If that is the comparison, were those early game trade routes really worth it comparatively?

Now, all that was just addressing your first and third points TowerWizard. Your second point however depends entirely upon city placement. In the early game, most starts will run into a happy cap of around 8:) or so. A higher happy cap will generally then depend more upon expansion or the construction of buildings, leaving further expansion to the midgame. Secondly, the concept of reduced gain that you brought up. Every single inland terrain can be improved, with the sole exception of mountains. A coastal tile can only be improved in one of three ways: kelp (not under your control), resources (again, not under your control), or fishing villages. This means that a city can get 1-4 tiles that produce +1 hammer, +3 commerce, and everything else is solely up to the whims of city placement. An interior tile (say, tundra), can be improved with a farm, a cottage, a workshop, etc. Then later, it can be scorched into a plains tile (if you have improved terraforming on). This means that by midgame, that tundra tile can be a plains tile with +2 food or +1-5 comerce, etc. Comparing this to a coast tile, the coast tile will be producing enough food to feed itself and 2 commerce (3 if financial), with no way of further upgrading it beyond what it started out as.

This all means to me that the only possible way that a coastal city could be considered OP is if it was one of the rarely placed ones with 4 coastal squares that you can get 2 fishing villages and 1 resource one. Why? Because with enough workers and a few adepts, every single interior tile not taken by a mountain will produce far more than a coast square. Are these cities OP? Maybe. On the other hand, they are also rare, and will form central points for your civilization, and every civ has major cities and minor cities.

-Colin

How are the values of the trade routes are ROUNED?

The mouseove in city screen states a 1.98 :commerce: trade route as 1:commerce:.
Is that true?


I believe that either one of the modules that Sephi incorporated, or something that he wrote himself made it so that the 1.98 :commerce: is counted completely into the commerce that the city makes. I am not however completely sure of this. Base civ (and base FFH) count that as just 1 :commerce: however.

@readercolin: wow you sure can talk alot. You totally owned me there. I must humbly beg your forgiveness for ever crossing your path. You are right, and I was the stupid one why just did not se the mistakes you so surely pointed out to me. Of course. 30 warriors. How could I not think of that.

Of course. 30 warriors. How could I not think of that.

Probably because you were too busy being an ass. :rolleyes:

Flaming- warned.

I am not trying to sound like I am disparaging your method of playing. I am just trying to say that an equal number of hammers in a different area can produce significantly different results, leading to a very large difference in play style. As such, the boost to ones economy that 30 warriors doing their thing is approximately the equivalent in the early game to getting the great lighthouse, and building one cities worth of commerce buildings. Because of this hammer cost, I do not believe that the idea that coastal trade cities are OP.

-Colin

It's probably just my pacifist predisposition talking, but it seems to me that conquering neighbors early-mid game tends to do my economy more harm than good for a long time. That is, the city number restriction in FFH is strict, and anything beyond 3 to 4 cities sucks up quite a bit of commerce early on.

Conquered cities can be incorporated with technology and time, of course, but even then I usually prefer to choose my city sites instead of taking retarded AI placements - again, because of the aforementioned limitation.

In other words, trade improves the efficiency of existing cities without necessitating the incorporation of new ones, which is something to consider economics-wise even though it does lead to less production.

Yes, Wits, thank you. Unless you want to either win very fast by just bulldozing everyone, or like to have a crappy economy for a long time, the only reason for killing off civs early is just to reduce competition later on. Couldn't you just reduce the number of AIs instead?

Besides, not everyone likes the warmonger style. There is a lot of folks that, like me, are builder type players. For us, the fun of the game is to make a great empire, much like playing SimCity. 30 warriors does not exactly fit in this picture.

In a typical game, I build enough warriors to secure the immidate area around the capital, and then build one or two workers. Then, it is just buildnings and settlers from there on. I groan if I have to spend hammers on another pesky warrior, tools that should have been spent on my new library.

Would you perferred if I had instead said that instead of building the commerce city's buildings/boats, you could have instead built 3 workers and a warrior to guard them? For the cost of the great lighthouse you could instead build 3-6 workers? Instead of 30 warriors, you could have built 10 workers? Instead of building 300 :hammers: worth of buildings and boats, you could have built a settler and 3 warriors, giving you yet another city? Instead of building the great lighthouse, you could have built 1-2 settler sets? Instead of the coastal city set, you could build a pagan temple, elder council, market, and 1 religious temple?

By a direct hammer comparison, it seems to me at least that there is quite a bit that could possibly be better served (in the early game) than by building those buildings. Now, will you want to build those buildings eventually? Yes - but generally you build them because you want that +1 food from the lighthouse, or the extra health from the harbor. Now, in the midgame, it makes sense to build them for the trade routes as it is more likely that you will actually have a worthwhile trade network. But for the early game? I rather doubt it.

-Colin

Quite often than not, it is not a simple matter of choosing to delay building it as to rush to build it first - this is particularly dependent on your play style. I am a builder/mid-late game conquest type player so I like to build my economy first - so I prefer going for commerce.

I agree with the train of thought to reduce lighthouse to +1 trade route only; the great lighthouse maybe should be +1 trade routes in all coastal cities instead of 2 but maybe have free lighthouse in all coastal cities? (probably way too OP; but increase cost to compensate?)

Chilling out the early game area attacks is probably the biggest balance issue in the game right now. Pyre Zombies are a bit absurd. Even if they had a damage cap, they would still be a combined Axeman/Catapult; - the ability to withdraw, + the ability to actually kill their target. Lethal AoE attacks should probably be restricted to Tier III units or world units.

The balance changes I'd most like to see are ones concerning leader traits. Trader in particular. This one should be brought in line with the Lost Lands economic civic; after all leaders with this trait are converting commerce into foodstuffs and labor not creating goods out of thin air.

I don't think a trait should be so powerful that a leader is restricted to one trait. The Lanun leader Mordmorgan should be Trader, Ingenuity, Swashbuckler perhaps. Actually, at least one Lanun leader should have Swashbuckler. I've only seen this trait appear on an Emergent leader.

By the same token, Hippus Tactician should get turned into a minor trait; reduced to Flanking I on mounted units only. Captain Ostanes could get 1-2 other traits. Ingenuity and Organized would be my choices.

Industrious leaders would get +1 hammer from workshops and lumbermills. This trait does need a boost.

I think the only other change I'd advocate is some kind of boost to the Social Order civic. I'm not sure what though; a large + city defense perhaps? Although that's hardly a big deal by the time you have access to the civic.

Actually, one thing I would like to see get a smack to the kneecaps is Savants and Acolytes popping from dungeons. I guess it is a testament to how diligently Sephi has made the AI explore these features, but in my last 3 games both AV and Order have been founded by nations exploring dungeons. Holy cities are pretty significant to be being assigned totally by chance.

I don't seem to find the earlier three religions to have this particular problem though.

What I'd really love to see is the T1 religious units get yanked from the results list for lairs entirely. In their place 3-4 lesser great people could be created: scholar, thespian, judge, and master craftsman. Freeing one of these fellows allows you to create a library, theatre, courthouse, or forge in a city, sort of like supplies only not requiring the technology. If this isn't good enough, allow each building to get +1 of an appropriate resource (beaker, hammer, commerce).

Of course, any new idea like this would require teaching the AI how to use them, so its probably not worth the effort.

How about if a disciple can only pop from a lair *after* the corresponding religion has been researched?

How about if a disciple can only pop from a lair *after* the corresponding religion has been researched?

I agree, it's been proposed before.

How about if a disciple can only pop from a lair *after* the corresponding religion has been researched?

I'd go a step further. If having the religion tech is required, I would make the unit a priest of the appropriate religion.

I think popping the disciple should be like popping the Religion's Tech. If all other prerequisite Techs are known then the Religion would be founded. If not, the disciple could be kept and able to spread the Religion in the city when the Techs are discovered.

I do like the notion of a rescued disciple (should be Priest?) that has knowledge of a Religion becoming benefactor to his saviors.