Leaders first draft

[to_xp]Gekko

[to_xp]Gekko

QCT junkie
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
7,950
Location
Seyda Neen, Vvardenfell
We can use this to start discussing some Leaders changes so Thal already has some info already collected for when he starts the "official" thread alongside with work on this section of the mod.


mystikx21 already posted a couple related issues in the current version of the mod:


1) Austrian UB costs 450P instead of 220P like other workshops do
2) Persian UB has +20%G instead of +30%G like other banks though ( easy fix until it gets changed to market UB like VEM did )


I think somebody had posted a couple more similar issues lately but unfortunately I can't find those posts, please repost here so we can keep track of those :)






now a couple points I'd like to make:


1) Indian UA: Thal and Ahriman had an insteresting discussion about this not long ago. as one who loves to play as India, I'll give my 2 cents.

I agree with Ahriman that the VEM version of their UA didn't capture their "tall" nature like the vanilla UA does. however, the vanilla UA also has it drawbacks:

a) it's not fun. this is the only UA that comes with a penalty, and we all know people don't like those.
b) it's not synergic with the tradition opener, which is the first go-to policy tree for tall civs. as India, you'll get a lot less culture from it than everyone else.


I think a nice solution here would be to somewhat merge the vanilla and VEM UAs:

a) nerfed vanilla UA: either 4 unhappy per city and 0.75 unhappy per citizen, or 6 unhappy per city and 0.66 unhappy per citizen. I prefer the first. this encourages the player to go tall without limiting early expansion too much via un-fun punishing penalties.
+
b) nerfed VEM UA: remove population boost from granary, since this would benefit wide empires much more. if still too powerful, you can either also remove the boost from aqueduct UB ( I don't like this as I think a benefit from their UB is fitting ) , or remove boost from the food building right after the aqueduct.

I guess the ideal solution here would be to remove pop boost from granary only, and balance the "wide" flavour this gives with 6 unhappy per city and 0.75 unhappy per citizen. this should successfully give them a "tall" focus while keeping them flexible for those who want to try a wide India.


edit: actually I guess it could be enough to make their UA give 4 unhappy per city and 0.75 unhappy per pop and give the +1pop to the UB itself. I prefer this tbh :D




oh and btw: what is the reasoning behind having the war elephant be a horseman UU instead of chariot archer? it makes only sense to me to have a mounted archer replace a mounted archer instead of a mounted melee. in VEM India has no fast early melee unit which seems wrong. also why would I ever build chariot archers when I have war elephants?






2) Montezuma personality: I really dislike how right now he's a much different beast than all other leaders. I don't think this is a good choice at all, and feel his "lunatic" personality needs to be toned down a lot till it's in line with the other leaders.

it just seems wrong to have aztec AI handicapped by its weirdo leader personality. this does NOT improve gameplay, the personality of the leader is just a minor flavor aspect that should always be a lot less important than actual gameplay considerations.

if you like to have a weirdo Monty to add some fun to your game it's perfectly fine, but I really think that should be in a "Crazy Monty" modmod and NOT in the regular game. ;)
 
More information and notes
1) Mayan UA is affected by game turns - years change. (Suggest we eliminate the turns-years change for now at least)
2) Sweden AI is too warmonger for its UA to be useful. At least one of its UUs should be replaced. Hakkas in my opinion have a strange effect most likely to benefit humans rather than be useful to the AI
3) Ethiopia both UU and UA should be overhauled.
4) Byzantium could use its UUs being improved or changed with unique effects.
5) I agree on the India point above, I suggest the sanitation system can give +1 pop. It was playing way too strongly for a wide civ for rapid expansion. I'm not sure the Aztecs need a huge change. Whatever they were doing in VEM is probably fine. Thal had them set up as a coalition power rather than a completely insane warmonger. Mostly insane is fine with me. Those are probably the only two VEM leaders changes I can think of off hand to emerge in debate. Germany's barbarian one or Ottomans' naval one maybe? Any changes because of combat detection? Otherwise, just port over the VEM leaders, UU, UB changes, and look for other bugs.
6) Huns, Mayans (apart from the bug) and Celts seem fine to me. Adjustments only to their AI flavors/priorities for now seem necessary. Pictish Warriors are slightly different than spearmen though and should stay distinct (+1 :c5strength:?, no defence/anti-horse bonus, useful for pillaging and early aggression). I'm not sure how the battering ram is classed either.
7) Carthage will need adjustment because of changes to the harbor.
8) Austria's UA needs some mechanical fine-tuning to make cost adjustments in addition to changing the coffee house cost.
9) Dutch UA may need balance. I'm not sure how well the AI handles it. Haven't tested it. Polder and terrace farms would need changes relating to resources as well.
 
On India, I think that
either 4 unhappy per city and 0.75 unhappy per citizen
Click to expand...
is already still quite powerful.

I think that:
edit: actually I guess it could be enough to make their UA give 4 unhappy per city and 0.75 unhappy per pop and give the +1pop to the UB itself. I prefer this tbh
Click to expand...
would be fine.

I think it is fine to have one consistently hyper-aggressive opponent. But I think it would make more sense for this to be Attila (who is also designed for this) than Montezuma; better for both a gameplay and a realism perspective (were the Aztecs really any more aggressive than any other empire?).

Otherwise I generally agree with mystikx.

But I'd also say that there are several UBs and UAs that need adjustment because of the culture cost changes. France is the most obvious candidate.
 
But I'd also say that there are several UBs and UAs that need adjustment because of the culture cost changes. France is the most obvious candidate.
Click to expand...

UB's should all be scaling correctly on culture at least but if they haven't (Stele/Mud Mosque?), that's something to take care of yes. I haven't verified that this is at issue but it seemed like it was working as intended with changes. Celt's opera house was already adjusted for example.

France's UA would be left over, yes. I agree it should be adjusted.

I assume the Aztecs' culture from kills scaled to the new (mostly higher) early unit strengths. That should be fine.

Austria's workshop I believe doesn't scale production to GEM level (it is slightly reduced from the building it replaced in GK but is unchanged by GEM and thus significantly lower). This may be fine as it does offer GP rate adjustments.

There's also the question of whether any civ should get an extra spy as part of their UA. England isn't a good candidate for it.
 
I haven't doublechecked the UBs; if it's done already, then ignore that part.

I don't think an extra spy as part of UA is really necessary. In terms of flavor, the best candidate is probably the Byzantines.
 
mystikx21 said:
Austria's workshop I believe doesn't scale production to GEM level (it is slightly reduced from the building it replaced in GK but is unchanged by GEM and thus significantly lower). This may be fine as it does offer GP rate adjustments.
Click to expand...


not sure what you mean here? you had reported the 450 instead of 220 cost issue, and indeed right now it's a pretty big nerf for Austria when their UB is double the cost it should have. I fixed it in my copy by simply adding it with 220 cost in the cities/buildings/production.xml file. I've also increased the satrap court gold percentage to 30 like other banks :)
 
The workshop (windmill) adds +15% :c5production: in GEM for buildings, which was increased from 10%. The Coffee House which replaces it is a straight +5% to all.

I think that's probably fine since it also adds GP rate and because it's a "to all" function. But like the cost change, there's no change to the building's productive capacity. Which needs at least to be noted when considering the civ and UB changes that are out there.
 
[to_xp]Gekko;11804770 said:
I agree with Ahriman that the VEM version of their UA didn't capture their "tall" nature like the vanilla UA does. however, the vanilla UA also has it drawbacks:

a) it's not fun. this is the only UA that comes with a penalty, and we all know people don't like those.
b) it's not synergic with the tradition opener, which is the first go-to policy tree for tall civs. as India, you'll get a lot less culture from it than everyone else.


I think a nice solution here would be to somewhat merge the vanilla and VEM UAs:

a) nerfed vanilla UA: either 4 unhappy per city and 0.75 unhappy per citizen, or 6 unhappy per city and 0.66 unhappy per citizen. I prefer the first. this encourages the player to go tall without limiting early expansion too much via un-fun punishing penalties.
+
b) nerfed VEM UA: remove population boost from granary, since this would benefit wide empires much more. if still too powerful, you can either also remove the boost from aqueduct UB ( I don't like this as I think a benefit from their UB is fitting ) , or remove boost from the food building right after the aqueduct.

I guess the ideal solution here would be to remove pop boost from granary only, and balance the "wide" flavour this gives with 6 unhappy per city and 0.75 unhappy per citizen. this should successfully give them a "tall" focus while keeping them flexible for those who want to try a wide India.
Click to expand...

I don't personally like the G&K version of the trait because, ironically, it strongly favors conquest approaches over peaceful growth (tall or wide). This is because it gives a *significant* happiness for doing...nothing at all, just capturing the city from your enemy! You don't even have to build anything to gain significant conquest advantage. On the other hand a peaceful civ that's keeping up with its happiness is already well above zero and then provides only the marginal golden age benefits and not much else. For tall empires the constraint is food *by far*, never happiness.

That's why I love the VEM version where it helps you grow your city throughout the ages but doesn't provide any overpowering benefit to conquest-types. I'd be fine with a bonus like +2-4 food per food building though, that would help growth without making conquering super-lucrative.
 
+food from buildings would favor wide over Tall even more than the +pop (because +pop at least is worth more food in larger cities).
 
while it's easy to give a civ traits that scream "go to war" , it's not much feasible ( or even desirable ) to give them traits that scream "be peaceful" . I think that's why it's better to have them focused on tall vs wide instead of peaceful vs warmongering.

all the other civs can be played any way and are better at their intended playstyle. vanilla India is the only one that specifically prevents the player from playing in a certain style ( REXing ) . I don't think that's fun.
 
I only have a short time (since I want to enjoy my weekend and not spend it in here as a whole ;)), but here's some reactions and then my original post from the first thread on the subject with my proposed Spain-Mongolia-Germany shuffle around.

sukritact said:
Will we be modifying Siam's UA this time? With the addition of the new city-states I worry it would be overpowered, and with too low a bonus it would just be boring...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is, as the total amount of city states doesn't grow, and the acquisations of City states allies is a lot more random in G&K.

mystikx21 said:
More information and notes
1) Mayan UA is affected by game turns - years change. (Suggest we eliminate the turns-years change for now at least) How is it affected? On that note, can we include different calendars as well for Arabia, India, China, Rome, etc.? What's needed for that?
2) Sweden AI is too warmonger for its UA to be useful. At least one of its UUs should be replaced. Hakkas in my opinion have a strange effect most likely to benefit humans rather than be useful to the AI Wouldn't it make more sense to adapt the leader AI then? he seems to me to be a prime example of a "target only major civs" player?
3) Ethiopia both UU and UA should be overhauled. not sure why? because they are not that connected gameplay wise? (religion bonus = wide, the rest = tall?)
4) Byzantium could use its UUs being improved or changed with unique effects. I do feel that Byzantium and Carthage play very similary, so yes, I can see a change here, but in which direction?
Click to expand...

Ahriman said:
+food from buildings would favor wide over Tall even more than the +pop (because +pop at least is worth more food in larger cities).
Click to expand...

Regarding India, would a +growth bonus not be the most appropriate thing for a tall game. (Growth = a % modifier that gets added to the total :c5food: available in the city, right?) Make it 3% per building in the city or 5% per population?

And now, my proposed Spain-Mongols-Germany shuffle:

1) I dislike Germany being displayed as a warmongering horde of low tech units.
2) I feel we have struggled with Spain's ability gameplay wise for a long time.
3) I feel the Mongols being focused on city states, works, but I also feel that the "horde" ability works for them as well, and as the Huns seem balanced for the moment, I wouldn't want to touch them even though the ability would fit even more there. But maybe one can also switch the Mongols and Huns ability...

Basically, I want to..
1) Give Spain the Mongol Ability of double yield from conquering city states coupled with double yields from natual wonders. This gives Spain a clear directory (conquer city states with Natural wonders) and leads to a globe-spanning empire. Also Spain isn't incredibly early game anymore.
2) Give the Mongols the German (weakened to a third chance or so) ability and make barbs upgrade to vanguard units, resulting in a Keshik-built army and different footfolk from the conquered other people they encounter ;)
3) This makes Germany free for an appropriate (later-game!) special ability and loses the unpopular effects of the gold bonus for natural wonders for Spain.

Here's my original post:

Spoiler :
mitsho said:
I've been thinking of the old civs, particularly Germany which I think has a UA that doesn't fit at all to the historical civ. Since when has Germany been about zerging the enemy? Now that we have the Huns who would fit such an UA very well, why not put that UA, which provides very interesting gameplay, with Atilla?

There's reasons against it, however. The Huns are a very well designed civ as you can rush the hell out of everyone with the early Animal Husbandry and the two UU. The German UA would make them awkward in that if you are collecting early barbarian units, you will have less unit supply to use on your own unique units. So that's bad design. And it would probably result in having battering ram rushes as the brutes upgrade to them. So I'm hesitant to screw with the huns since "what ain't broken yadda yadda yadda".

Maybe one could push the German UA to the Mongols. But they also have a good designed UA, targeting city states. Maybe one could split up the city state part and put it with the Spanish solving the problem of balancing that Spanish UA that has given us problems for a long long time. It would also fit with their history. The Spanish have always had an empire "spanning the globe", meddling with the Netherlands, the Italian States, Portugal and their whole colonial empire. There would also be a synergy with double yields (but not gold on discovery) from natural wonders who are often found with city states.

The Mongols then would have the "collect Barbarians", together with their two uu and a movement bonus on "barbarian units" (not vanguards).

Finally, Germany can receive a UA that fits them. I got some ideas, (logically). Let's start with the worst one:

Elective Monarchy / 7 Prince Electors
The seven "Kurfürsten" were the nobles that elected the German King who then sometimes/usually got promoted to Holy Roman Emperor (of the German Nation) by the Pope. They were 3 bishops and 4 secular Barons. So the UA gives the 7 largest cities a bonus, three receive faith/bonus on faith generation, 2 on commerce and 2 on production. Maybe that's doable with city focus? the UA thus provides a straight bonus to your cities. But you practically need to go wide.

Dichter, Denker und Ingenieure
Germany has been known as the country of Poets and Thinkers (It's a German Saying) and later on known for their engineers and scientists. This UA makes Scientists and Engineers have the same yields (Scientists get production, Engineers get Science), while Artists produce twice the amount of Great Person Points. This way, the UA doesn't provide more yields, unless you have really tall cities and can fill in all the Scientists and Engineer points. So it's a question of opportunity cost. But you can focus in the ancient age on a military way (and still produce science) or focus on science buildings (and still get hammers for wonders). In any case, the Landsknecht provides you with cheap defence or cannon fodder for attacks. So it's a flexible UA and I am not sure wether it's too strong or not.

Prussian Discipline/Precision
Germans are known for their Punctuality, Order and Effectiveness. This UA halves upgrade costs for units and provides military buildings with 1 science. Too Strong?

I'm not sure if it's needed (most probably not, the Germans are popular in the polls), but I nevertheless wanted to post it. I am also not angry if it stays the same, it's a game after all. So the question is twofold: Do we need change? (probably not) and more interesting to me, Are the proposals above too strong and do they give interesting gameplay? Mmy proposal again for overview is as follows:

The Huns
stay the same, maybe a small nerf to Battering Rams?
--> Best rush civ

The Mongols
a chance for Barbarians to switch to your side, Barbarian units (maybe Vanguards as well) have +1 movement points
-> spend early game collecting Barbarians, once the Keshik rolls around, they are the elite part of the Mongolian army whereas the barbs are the cannon fodder and city takers after those have been bombarded by Keshiks

The Spanish
Double Yields from conquering city states, double yields from Natural Wonders
--> Go on search for city states and Natural Wonders, conquer them.

The Germans
See above
-> flexible civ that should go military most of the time.
Click to expand...
 
Sweden's UA has a benefit for alliances, not just city states. Targeting major civs won't help. Given the hacky and weird bonus for Hakkas, it should be replaced or changed.

In general the Mayan UA is only a small reason to negate the calendar change that Thal used in late VEM. Immersion and unnecessary changes from default should also be considered. So far as I can tell it is year based not turn. Which is a substantial change given the major shift in Thal's calendar.

I said Ethiopia UU and UA, not the stele. Those are connected to tall defence but give very boring or small effects.
 
were the VEM tweaks that gave the AI free pillage added to GEM yet? if so the viking UA needs a change so it's not weaker for the AI. perhaps gold from pillaging?
 
Happiness is the main limit on expansion, and happiness buildings are destroyed when we capture a city. This means increasing :c5happy: happiness helps wide empires and conquest, and increasing :c5citizen: population (which usually lowers happiness) helps a peaceful tall empire.
 
well then 6 unhappy per city with 0.66 unhappy per pop should address his point and make for a good compromise imo.

+1 pop still helps wide empires a lot as Ahriman already explained. change it to +X% surplus food maybe? that seems like a buff that Tall empires would die for :D
 
I'm in your camp there. I thought the +1 pop, especially as wide-spread as it was, wasn't tall or wide preference based. It played very strong as wide still even it was supposed to be a tall-based advantage. Rapidly/immediately getting size 5-6 cities up with happiness offsets is a pretty strong wide advantage.

I'd be fine with keeping it as an effect on the UB but it's too strong to keep all over the place and would be too weak as the UA if its just on the sanitation system.
 
I think a peaceful theme makes sense for Gandhi. It's his defining trait as a historical figure, and the big thing about modern India is population. A peaceful population bonus matches this. This peaceful theme is also why I reduced the capability for Gandhi to go on the offensive. His war elephants appear later, are slower, and are more defensive.

The trait is powerful, unique, changes the way we play in a basic way, actively engages us, and is exciting when we see that population boom. It fits him historically, persists throughout the game, works for a variety of strategies, and was easy to implement. His trait, UU, and UB follow a theme of peaceful population. It fits all the criteria for a good leader trait. :)

These are some things to look for when thinking about leader design:

  • Excitement
    Active bonuses are generally more exciting than passive effects.
    .
  • Theme
    Do the leader's unique characteristics fit a cohesive theme?
    .
  • Uniqueness
    Can we play the leader in a fundamentally different way?
    .
  • Realism
    Does it fit the leader and civilization historically?
    .
  • Time
    Early effects are more enjoyable than late ones, since we can use them more. Late effects therefore need to be more powerful than early ones.
    .
  • Persistence
    Bonuses like strength and movement speed are short term, while promotions that persist when upgraded are long term. Buildings are also long term.
    .
  • Generality
    When a leader is better than everyone on a particular map script, and not good on other maps, it's not really a choice at all.
    .
  • Ease of implementation
    Most things fall into two distinct categories of hours to complete (writing new code) or minutes to complete (changing a few numbers).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
War Happiness and Different Governments
Replies
4
Views
693
Spoonwood
S
evonannoredars
Civizations, Leaders, Mementos & Wonders Overview
Replies
3
Views
782
Krikkit1
K
W
Civ Rev for Civ VII - Rise and Fall
Replies
0
Views
318
wuTz
W
V
Custom AI Leaders championship
Replies
12
Views
1K
Thrasybulos
T
GeneralZift
Maybe Civilization should have no Civs.
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
GeneralZift
GeneralZift
Back
Top Bottom