Txurce
Deity
I wholeheartedly agree that Spain is not the civ for you, Ahriman!
Leaders
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
I wholeheartedly agree that Spain is not the civ for you, Ahriman!
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I thought Tercios were a Pikeman replacement... do they replace muskets?
It'd be helpful if someone could attach the XML folder for spain and inca so I could see how things are set up.
It'd be helpful if someone could attach the XML folder for spain and inca so I could see how things are set up.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Yes, Tercios are basically muskets with a pikemen bonus vs mounted units.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I plan on doing more work balancing leaders in the next testing cycle, so to everyone out there, please take a moment to answer the 5 Favorite Leaders Poll when you have an opportunity. 
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Continuing discussion from the 5 Favorite Leaders Poll.
I didn't realize the AI had issues with the US settler, thank you for bringing it up. I'm concerned moving the US's settling bonus to an era where the map is already settled (on most map scripts) might not be any more useful, however. There does seem to be a recurring desire by many people to have a unique building representing immigration in some way.
I'd prefer to find different bonuses for an immigration UB. The food bonus is similar to to the Aztec's, flat culture increases are rather standard, and a coastal requirement reduces map locations the US would be good at. Immigration to non-coastal regions is actually quite realistic. I live in North Texas hundreds of miles from the coast, an area settled by German immigrants because it has similar climate to Germany.
These things don't necessarily have to match the timeperiod they appeared either. There's plenty of precedence:
Homestead (Replaces Granary)
Growth: +50%
Food: 2
Food: +1 on Wheat, Spices, Sugar, Bananas
No player has a building increasing surplus food in cities (growth rate) so it would be completely unique, and this synergizes well with the US's rex-friendly trait. Combined with the Aqueduct US cities would grow super-fast, yet in a way distinctively different from Aztec cities (which grow slower but larger).
I did something like that by giving the capability for melee units to move at normal movement speed through any forests or jungle regardless of borders. We can't just make that stuff act like roads everywhere though, there isn't an option to do so. What I could do is extend it to archer units as well, but that would be an unusual buff to chariots. This is one reason why I'm hoping Sneaks and I can figure out a way to create a "mounted archer" combat class so ranged, mounted units are in a separate category.
I agree about Bismark. The reason I hadn't done much with him in November is he wasn't particularly underpowered, and my lua coding skills were non-existent at the time. My main thought for him is to change his trait to something along the lines of:
- Barbarians surrender to your side instead of being killed.
How this would work is each barbarian unit, upon "death" would spawn a new low-health copy of itself under Bismark's control and grant a small amount of gold tribute. The new unit would have an "untrained" promotion or something similar to slightly reduce damage in combat. Since promotions don't carry over when upgraded, it'd be a normal unit after upgrading. - Barbarian brutes, spears, and archers will upgrade to Landsknechts for Bismark. Landsknechts were mercenaries so it makes perfect sense, and Landsknechts have a 50% cost reduction so the upgrade is super-inexpensive.
I didn't realize the AI had issues with the US settler, thank you for bringing it up. I'm concerned moving the US's settling bonus to an era where the map is already settled (on most map scripts) might not be any more useful, however. There does seem to be a recurring desire by many people to have a unique building representing immigration in some way.
I'd prefer to find different bonuses for an immigration UB. The food bonus is similar to to the Aztec's, flat culture increases are rather standard, and a coastal requirement reduces map locations the US would be good at. Immigration to non-coastal regions is actually quite realistic. I live in North Texas hundreds of miles from the coast, an area settled by German immigrants because it has similar climate to Germany.
These things don't necessarily have to match the timeperiod they appeared either. There's plenty of precedence:
- Krepost
- Aztec UU and UB
- Iroquois UU and UB
- etc
Homestead (Replaces Granary)
Growth: +50% Food: 2 Food: +1 on Wheat, Spices, Sugar, BananasNo player has a building increasing surplus food in cities (growth rate) so it would be completely unique, and this synergizes well with the US's rex-friendly trait. Combined with the Aqueduct US cities would grow super-fast, yet in a way distinctively different from Aztec cities (which grow slower but larger).
Hmm, I do like the homestead idea, but in a slightly different way. What about instead of a granary replacement, you replace the wall with a Frontier Fort? Still give it the growth bonus, and make it cheaper than regular walls.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
That's a fantastic idea! It'd be great synergy for both growing and defending cities for an early game rapid-expansion strategy. A 20% cost reduction to 80
should be good, same as barracks and libraries.
should be good, same as barracks and libraries.
rhammer640
Russian Monk
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2010
- Messages
- 386
I really like this as well. I think it goes well with american expansionism and makes america more unique to play. I would build a granery/smokehouse anyway but playing them with a unique 'walls' would be something i might not build before which i always find fun.
Txurce
Deity
I like the "dead barbs R us" SA for Germany, because it feels clear and makes Germany very distinct. I wouldn't think the non-camp barbs would need to give gold as well - the basic improvement seems pretty powerful.
I also like the Frontier Fort combo - another clear boost that makes you want to play with the civ. Both these ideas earn that compliment.
I also like the Frontier Fort combo - another clear boost that makes you want to play with the civ. Both these ideas earn that compliment.
Ahriman
Tyrant
<briefly plugging stock exchange UB for America again>
It just feels wrong to me for America to be about early game advantages, whereas the most important thing in their history is their status as a 20th century superpower.
Its weird for all their characteristics to be based around 18th and 19th century expansionism. It would be like having Rome based entirely around its Kingdom/Early Republic period, and not the Empire, or Mongols having nothing to do with their massive conquests, or having England's abilities all be pre-Elizabethan.
It just feels wrong to me for America to be about early game advantages, whereas the most important thing in their history is their status as a 20th century superpower.
Its weird for all their characteristics to be based around 18th and 19th century expansionism. It would be like having Rome based entirely around its Kingdom/Early Republic period, and not the Empire, or Mongols having nothing to do with their massive conquests, or having England's abilities all be pre-Elizabethan.
Txurce
Deity
The Stock Exchange is an equally viable buff - the Frontier Fort is just more fun. But I think it's worth considering how to make the SE powerful enough to make up for its late arrival, since the game should ideally be balanced between early, mid and late bloomers. The answer may be partly in buffing the American SA.
I understand, but don't necessarily think that needs to be the way to filter what should apply. For Rome, Ballistae and Legions were around long before empire (though still used during), as well as the UA concept. The need to encompass the full importance of each empire I think is a bit forced upon Civ V due to the 1 leader 1 civ restriction. Otherwise, I would love this unique set for Washington, and would apply thinks like a stock exchange to an FDR.
rhammer640
Russian Monk
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2010
- Messages
- 386
Maybe this would be a good time to start adding in some additional leaders if possible. I dont think it effects balance that much, just adds more choice. We could add one at a time till all have 2. I think this would help make the game more unique each time as who you play with changes that. I know it would be a lot of work though, just figured i would through it out there.
Adding leaders I would say is really outside the intended scope of "balancing". However, adding functionality to allow multiple leaders to exist for a single civ would fall within the scope of this mod.
Txurce
Deity
It never occurred to me that civs' traits were temporally based on their leaders - probably because of the obvious exceptions: Napoleon, Bismarck, and Gandhi. From that perspective, Washington feels as appropriate as most because of the Minutemen.
What I took from Ahriman's post is that some civs are later bloomers than others, based not on their leaders but on when we popularly associate their golden era to have been. This does help to differentiate the game. Following that line, most of the American traits should come later in the game than Rome's. However, there are exceptions to this all over the place in Civ, and if we choose to view to ignore the golden-era corollary, then Frontier Forts are an inspired suggestion for a UB.
What I took from Ahriman's post is that some civs are later bloomers than others, based not on their leaders but on when we popularly associate their golden era to have been. This does help to differentiate the game. Following that line, most of the American traits should come later in the game than Rome's. However, there are exceptions to this all over the place in Civ, and if we choose to view to ignore the golden-era corollary, then Frontier Forts are an inspired suggestion for a UB.
rhammer640
Russian Monk
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2010
- Messages
- 386
Oops, thats what i meant, lol. Id rather have multiple leaders then new civs anyway.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
@Txurce
I understand that, my point is just the Aztecs and Iroquois have all their stuff (trait, unit and building) millenia before those civilizations existed. Slavic states weren't formed by the Vikings until ~1000 CE, yet Catherine get Kreposts in ~3000 BCE. Sometimes gameplay is more important than aesthetics.
I understand that, my point is just the Aztecs and Iroquois have all their stuff (trait, unit and building) millenia before those civilizations existed. Slavic states weren't formed by the Vikings until ~1000 CE, yet Catherine get Kreposts in ~3000 BCE. Sometimes gameplay is more important than aesthetics.
Txurce
Deity
@Txurce
I understand that, my point is just the Aztecs and Iroquois have UUs/UBs millenia before any of those civilization existed. Slavic states weren't formed by the Vikings until ~1000 CE, yet Catherine get Kreposts in ~3000 BCE. Sometimes gameplay is more important than aesthetics.
Yes, it is, and I have zero problem with this approach - note my enthusiasm for these proposed changes in my earlier posts. I was only acknowledging the validity of trying to space out the civs' peaks, which I think was part of Ahriman's thrust. That would seemingly be the ideal... but again, some balance (like needing to compete or just have fun being your civ early on) is pretty essential for optimal game play.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Yes, this is my general thrust, combined with the fact that there is *no* civ that gets late-game boosts (except possibly Arabian oil), and that America is the blindingly obvious choice for a late-game superpower.
Yes, gameplay is important, but I fail to see how having one aspect of the American civ be a late-game boost would be bad for gameplay. A large extra gold income in the modern era would be a big boost to any late-game strategy.
Gameplay is more important than aesthetics, but why not have both?
But the point is that civ abilities are trying to access multiple parts of the core flavor of a Civ. England now is nice in that it captures their naval tradition and colonial expansionism, their medieval power, and their industrialism. Rome is nice in that it supports a strong early game presence and then gradual decline in relative value over time (Byzantines, anyone?).
But the American benefits really capture only a tiny fraction of the core of American history, and miss the part of it that is most important to the world, its 20th century economic and thus military dominance.
Anyway, I've made this point, don't want to belabor.
Similar threads
