You have created this interested situation where you somehow got a 1 tile coast and gained several fish-tiles? That seems extremely optimistic to me.
The AI knows how to use E&D and uses it well from what I've seen so far.
Hello again
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
pthieu1986
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2012
- Messages
- 241
I'm not sure i like this. It's weird when Rome DoW another civ and a city is captured and recaptured endless times without a single building destroyed (because the original owner of a city doesn't destroy buildings when it is recaptured --? EDIT: I'm not sure this rule was included in CBP because i haven't noticed this for a long time). Moreover, as a human player, i will let Rome take my city and then i will get it back so that i could own "additional territory" too.
My suggestion to Rome's UA: -15% production cost to all buildings that have been constructed in the capital. When making a peace treaty, a puppeted or annexed city will claim all tiles within three hexes.
Strigvir
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2013
- Messages
- 1,299
But it's for your interests to have as less adjacent coastal tiles as possible. You seem to expect that you can max out the number of terrain-based UIs on every city in your empire, which isn't any less optimistic.
I think the best design for a UB NW is one where it is as separated as possible from the effects of a UA. Even the early UB are a bit guilty of this. The stele is almost equivalent to just having '+faith in every city' baked into the UA. For Carthage 'gain 2 trade routes' sounds like it could be in the UA, whereas '+lots of gold in this city' is a building trait and acts to differentiate the city in which it is built from all the others.
So I really like the +culture +production on the Rome NW. Extra gold from trade routes? Only if the gold is added as a yield to this building, in that city.
Equally I'm not a fan of the MoMA 'give all museums +culture'. Why not just have a museum UB at that point? Why not instead have MoMA gains +culture for every other museum. In this way it is centralising and behaving like a building.
---------
On the Kasbah on the coast debate, it's already in your interest to be adjacent to as few coastal tiles as possible because that is the best defence/most workable land. I don't see this being an issue unless the Kasbah is so ridiculously good that not even a fish tile can make up for the loss of one.
-------
Unrelated thought: now we have the Grocer, do you think the Coffee House should replace that, and Austria can have Windmills? It seems so silly to me, atm.
So I really like the +culture +production on the Rome NW. Extra gold from trade routes? Only if the gold is added as a yield to this building, in that city.
Equally I'm not a fan of the MoMA 'give all museums +culture'. Why not just have a museum UB at that point? Why not instead have MoMA gains +culture for every other museum. In this way it is centralising and behaving like a building.
---------
On the Kasbah on the coast debate, it's already in your interest to be adjacent to as few coastal tiles as possible because that is the best defence/most workable land. I don't see this being an issue unless the Kasbah is so ridiculously good that not even a fish tile can make up for the loss of one.
-------
Unrelated thought: now we have the Grocer, do you think the Coffee House should replace that, and Austria can have Windmills? It seems so silly to me, atm.
Damirith
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2015
- Messages
- 379
It's sounding like the current idea for the Kasbah puts no imitation on what tiles you build it on, that it is pretty universal as long as it's next to your cities and that it will connect everything on that tile to you. If ocean tiles are the only thing it cant be built on then yes I'll say it again, tough titties if you build costal yet want to milk the Kasbah as much as possible.
Like others have said, coastal raiding is nothing unique to Morocco and having ocean is the best defense against land units so why shouldn't there be an ocean limitation to their UI? No other civ builds an ocean UI. What if you are playing France and your starting area has 2-3 luxury items right on the coast? Again tough titties, that is how the map generated. You want to milk the chateau? Grab more inland luxury items so you can build your 3 chateaus.
The game is full of risk/reward situations and doing what you can to get the most out of where you started in the world. It's why there is such a variation in the pantheon founder beliefs. So it's your call on how you want to handle your tiles to set yourself up the best. All the other Civs that have a UI have restrictions on where they can go, so losing a few tiles because you went coastal isn't that big of a deal to say the UI cant work.
Like others have said, coastal raiding is nothing unique to Morocco and having ocean is the best defense against land units so why shouldn't there be an ocean limitation to their UI? No other civ builds an ocean UI. What if you are playing France and your starting area has 2-3 luxury items right on the coast? Again tough titties, that is how the map generated. You want to milk the chateau? Grab more inland luxury items so you can build your 3 chateaus.
The game is full of risk/reward situations and doing what you can to get the most out of where you started in the world. It's why there is such a variation in the pantheon founder beliefs. So it's your call on how you want to handle your tiles to set yourself up the best. All the other Civs that have a UI have restrictions on where they can go, so losing a few tiles because you went coastal isn't that big of a deal to say the UI cant work.
jma22tb
Prince
Agreed on Rome. Pretty much any land acquisition by a major civ in history has been in tandem with military protection / aggression against foreign groups. Russia did it, America did it, the Spanish did it, Rome did it... they didn't claim land without sending military to secure it, put down resistance, keep the peace, etc.
I think Morocco is kind of tricky because I can already imagine them founding 5 or 6 cities, spamming Kasbahs, and being able to handle a war on multiple fronts because the massive defensive bonuses. I'd test it to see how strong it is, but I am a little wary of it being too good. They could potentially be unconquerable until Artillery comes around, but if Morocco can protect themselves that well, they might be too far ahead. That said, it is a genuinely unique and cool idea.
When did people suddenly start thinking exactly like me? Seriously this is starting to creep me out.
While I actually feel exactly this way, I still don't like unique NWs and prefer buildings or Improvements.
MY issue was mostly that the Kasbash buffed nearby Kasbah tiles, meaning you don't only lose the yield for the ocean-tile but also lose yields on all nearby Kasbah aswell.
Honestly I don't understand why it would replace either of those, a Coffee House is nothing like a windmill and nothing like a grocery shop. My only reason for preferring the windmill at the moment is because of tradition.
The big difference being that the Chateau is based around a luck-system where you could end up with less than 9 Chateau around your capital, less than 2 or 3 even, while you can possibly get way more if you lucked out with spawns, or have bordering luxuries that you can build next to. The French UI is based around you getting to build around 6-7 of them in your capital while the Moroccan UA is based around you building exactly 6 of them, every time.
Again I'm not suggesting that they should be buildable in water or should make ocean-connections, even if that would be awesome, to be honest. I'm just suggesting that nearby Kasbah shouldn't suffer just because of ocean-tiles.
Again this is exactly what I said/think/feel like, the world is crazy.
They would actually need bonuses to actually get ahead, and currently their only bonus is from traderoutes, which you can effectively pillage during warfare.
Without them they are in the same boat as oldschool Ethiopia, good defensive bonuses and no reason to defend because they clearly can't get ahead by defending.
Riot_Starter
Warlord
- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Messages
- 169
I think it's not a good idea to expect a UI to always work at full capacity. Yes, you lose some Kasbah spam on coastal cities, but so what? Then don't build on the coast if you want to milk Kasbahs. Build coastal cities for other reasons and be happy you have a good improvement for the land tiles you do have.
The closest analogue would be the Maoi. They only work on coastal tiles and you are heavily incentivized to milk those with clever city placement. And sometimes you don't get much our of it in a single city because of how the lay of the land is in that city. It becomes a trade-off: milk Maois or settle in this spot because I want X. Inland cities don't even get to use Maois period. That is another trade off: inland city because I want X vs somewhere to milk my Maois. I think it's not worthwhile to complain that inland cities can't use Maois and that they should have an inland alternative. It devalues their uniqueness and takes away the interesting decision-making with regards to city placement.
The closest analogue would be the Maoi. They only work on coastal tiles and you are heavily incentivized to milk those with clever city placement. And sometimes you don't get much our of it in a single city because of how the lay of the land is in that city. It becomes a trade-off: milk Maois or settle in this spot because I want X. Inland cities don't even get to use Maois period. That is another trade off: inland city because I want X vs somewhere to milk my Maois. I think it's not worthwhile to complain that inland cities can't use Maois and that they should have an inland alternative. It devalues their uniqueness and takes away the interesting decision-making with regards to city placement.
Again, Maoi is a risk-reward system, you can get way more Maoi or way less depending on your luck/location, with the Kasbah you can only get less.
Damirith
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2015
- Messages
- 379
Yes, but the Moai doesn't connect anything if you build it over coal or whatever. So it's your call, do you want that 4 extra coal or put a Moai there to get another +4 culture? I like that you really need to plan this out and figure out what is best for the city.
With the idea for the Kasbah, it's sounding like there is no draw back to just spamming them around your cities. It is a no brainer to just build them because there is no downside in doing so. This is why I feel that having some loss with ocean tiles is fine and it's just something you will have to deal with. If the Kasbah cant connect SRs or luxury items, then I could better understand your point of view.
With the idea for the Kasbah, it's sounding like there is no draw back to just spamming them around your cities. It is a no brainer to just build them because there is no downside in doing so. This is why I feel that having some loss with ocean tiles is fine and it's just something you will have to deal with. If the Kasbah cant connect SRs or luxury items, then I could better understand your point of view.
Riot_Starter
Warlord
- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Messages
- 169
Uhh, how is that any different? Using your own sentence I could say: "Again, Kashab is a risk-reward system, you can get way more Kasbah or way less depending on your luck/location, with the Maoi you can only get less." You're assuming a player is "owed" 6 kasbahs per city. I want to point out that every unique-anything of a civ isn't owed. It's something you work to take advantage of. If a player is "owed" 6 kasbahs and "gets less" when they settle on a city on the coast and should be compensated for "getting less", then it becomes a meaningless feature and loses all decision-making. This goes for all uniqueness of the civs. To focus on the UIs: You play to optimize them and if you are dealt a bad hand, then you roll with it until you can. Attack a neighbor with delicious coastal lands for Maois, settle further to get some sweet land for your Chateaus, etc.
I'm going to explain this again, really slowly this time. In 98% of the cases, you're going to get 6 Kasbah per city, you can't settle next to lakes or mountains or oasis or national wonders, but that's fine. That means the Kasbah is going to be designed around you getting 6 of them per city every time. This means that if you're forced to settle a city on the coast(something that you don't actually have a choice of on quite a few maps) you're getting punished for it.
Even assuming you can settle a city with only one tile coast (which is nowhere near guaranteed, those tiles are rare, especially if you're trying to actually fit resources within your border) you're not only losing 1 tile Kasbah for it, you're also losing the bonus that kasbah would provide to nearby Kasbahs. Meaning instead of having 6 tiles with full yields you have 3 tiles with full yields, 1 with no yields and 2 with subpar yields. That in my opinion is way too harsh.
With more realistic locations where you settle a city with 2 coast tiles you end up with 2 full yield tiles, 2 subpar ones and 2 with no yields.
If you up that to 3 coast tiles you suddenly only have 1 kasbah providing full yields, is that even worth building at that point?
On the other hand if we're talking about the Maoi, there is possibilities of getting citylocations where you can fit Maois into more than half the workable tiles in a city, sure it isn't likely, but the chance still exists.
There isn't any maptype that really forces you to expand inland as Polynesia, so you're never forced to suffer punishment just because of the maptype. Sure you might run out of coastal space to expand to, but that's part of the game really.
Also you have a flexibility with the Maoi to move one or two tiles inland and still be able to build them because they don't require your city to be coastal to work.
Delekhan
Prince
I like Rome's unique NW. It's like being able to build a UA, and it harmonizes with their actual UA. Sounds fun, I'll be playing it.
Regarding the kasbah: that would not stop me from settling on coasts. So I lose out on 2 or maybe 3 Kasbahs, big deal? in exchange I get access to fish, pearls or whales, as well as the ocean - a trade I'd make any day. If it bothers you that much just settle one coastal city and build your precious kasbahs inland. If coastal cities are super important to you, play as England, Japan, Polynesia or Carthage, which likewise lose out on their unique goodies if they DON'T build on the coast.
I think that seeing Moroccan cities ringed with beautiful forts will make the map much more interesting.
Regarding the kasbah: that would not stop me from settling on coasts. So I lose out on 2 or maybe 3 Kasbahs, big deal? in exchange I get access to fish, pearls or whales, as well as the ocean - a trade I'd make any day. If it bothers you that much just settle one coastal city and build your precious kasbahs inland. If coastal cities are super important to you, play as England, Japan, Polynesia or Carthage, which likewise lose out on their unique goodies if they DON'T build on the coast.
I think that seeing Moroccan cities ringed with beautiful forts will make the map much more interesting.
Riot_Starter
Warlord
- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Messages
- 169
I'm going to point out something again, really slowly this time. Not really, I just wanted to highlight that you're kind of douchy. There's no need. We are just analyzing stuff. 
You're analysis is spot on, but the point of my post (badly presented) was to point out that having kasbahs be a foregone "get 6 around every city" is an uninteresting feature. There's no real decision-making involved since you just auto-build 6 in every city (even this might be a little tough if they don't harvest strategic resources). If you can't fit 6, then you get hit hard like you pointed out because they'll have to be balanced on the assumption of 6 per city.
I think instead of compensating a player for not being able to fit 6, the kasbahs should be just redesigned to not be such a boring feature (adjacent bonuses are tough as well since they are usually feast or famine as you pointed out). Something that promotes actual decision-making, which I feel is something that UIs have capability of doing. UB are pretty straightforward and you always build them when available (for the most part). UIs have an interesting design space in that you can lose something by trying to maximize a civ's unique flavor.
Edit: Delekhan has a great point, which echoes what I said on playing to a civ's uniqueness. I had a mental lapse and forgot that the decision making can come from the city placement itself and not on every individual tile. Maybe having Morocco want to settle inland and avoid seas is a fine choice (if a little out of character, but w/e). I think having the kasbahs be 6 around every city might actually be cool. I didn't see the upside to having a civ always want a ring of mini-forts around their city. That could be a fun thing to see in-game. That would just be their "thing". Balance them for 6 around every city and you lose out if you can't manage that just like everyone else.
You're analysis is spot on, but the point of my post (badly presented) was to point out that having kasbahs be a foregone "get 6 around every city" is an uninteresting feature. There's no real decision-making involved since you just auto-build 6 in every city (even this might be a little tough if they don't harvest strategic resources). If you can't fit 6, then you get hit hard like you pointed out because they'll have to be balanced on the assumption of 6 per city.
I think instead of compensating a player for not being able to fit 6, the kasbahs should be just redesigned to not be such a boring feature (adjacent bonuses are tough as well since they are usually feast or famine as you pointed out). Something that promotes actual decision-making, which I feel is something that UIs have capability of doing. UB are pretty straightforward and you always build them when available (for the most part). UIs have an interesting design space in that you can lose something by trying to maximize a civ's unique flavor.
Edit: Delekhan has a great point, which echoes what I said on playing to a civ's uniqueness. I had a mental lapse and forgot that the decision making can come from the city placement itself and not on every individual tile. Maybe having Morocco want to settle inland and avoid seas is a fine choice (if a little out of character, but w/e). I think having the kasbahs be 6 around every city might actually be cool. I didn't see the upside to having a civ always want a ring of mini-forts around their city. That could be a fun thing to see in-game. That would just be their "thing". Balance them for 6 around every city and you lose out if you can't manage that just like everyone else.
I'm going to point out something again, really slowly this time. Not really, I just wanted to highlight that you're kind of douchy. There's no need. We are just analyzing stuff.
You're analysis is spot on, but the point of my post (badly presented) was to point out that having kasbahs be a foregone "get 6 around every city" is an uninteresting feature. There's no real decision-making involved since you just auto-build 6 in every city (even this might be a little tough if they don't harvest strategic resources). If you can't fit 6, then you get hit hard like you pointed out because they'll have to be balanced on the assumption of 6 per city.
I'm just way tired of explaining the same thing over and over again.
The only thing that needs adjustment is the "for every nearby Kasbah", because that is way too punishing. Changing it to "Have a nearby Kasbah" or something similar and you have the same effect but people don't get screwed over as much when they are forced to settle coastal cities.
And Delekhan I understand that you don't think it is a big deal, but on some maps you don't have the choice to not settle any coastal cities. Because some maps require you to build ships, or use naval traderoutes.
Again the difference between Moroccos situation and the situation of Carthage is that nothing ever forces Carthage to build inland, it is a choice you make. It's not like Coastal cities can't build cannons or infantry, or use caravans or something like that.
Yes there are some maps without any water, but considering how many civs they screw over and how badly they screw them over I wouldn't recommend anyone playing them.
However I don't see why I should need to disable Morocco from the AI-pool if I play continents, terra, archipelago, communitas, shuffle, fractal, small continents, tiny islands or Arborea.
Riot_Starter
Warlord
- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Messages
- 169
No problem. Things get frustrating sometimes, but there's no need to be snooty about it.
"Have a nearby Kasbah" is good idea if only the yields mattered (and that seems tough to implement (??) [no idea on this]). The current direction for kasbahs seems to be "have them all around a city for yields, defense, and aesthetics". Maybe even "Kasbah must be adjacent to city and not adjacent to a Kasbah" so every other tile around a city can have one. They can have flat yield (no adjacency bonuses) that can go up with techs and this allows cities to be balanced around 2 of them. If you can fit 3, then awesome! Bonus! If you can fit only 1, then you better have a good reason for settling there. This also opens up neat counter-play to kasbahs: There will be "weak points" in the kasbah armor of every city, which will make both attacking and defending these cities more interesting. Not to mention orienting your allowed kasbahs in such a way to maximize their defensive impact.
I thought the whole idea behind the remake was that Gazebo liked ringforts
Also the only real difference between just having flat yields on the Kasbah or getting bonuses for nearby or a nearby other Kasbah is that the bonuses is that the one with flat yields is easier to get going and less punishing when you're forced to settle coastal.
I'm honestly fine with either flat yields or a bonus for being nearby atleast one other kasbah.
Strigvir
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2013
- Messages
- 1,299
Reminder that kasbah is a straight up bonus which other civs don't have.
And on some maps you don't have a choice to not to settle any land city. What a twist, terrain-based UI is affected by the map terrain.
A map terrain literally can force Carthage to build inland.
Except you HAVE to build ships to protect this city (more so in CBP) along with coastal+normal infrastructure, so in most cases coastal cities rarely produce land units.
AI is pretty bad at naval combat so making maps with less water actually buffs them.
But you are okay with Huns on these maps?
No it's not, its a replacement for the UB that most other civs have.
I have never been forced to settle a city inland as Carthage, ever.
But they can, while inland cities can't produce ships at all.
They are actually pretty fine at water-maps now.
I don't see why those maps would be extremely unfavorable for the Huns at all actually.
Delekhan
Prince
Why don't we just put it in the next version as proposed by Gazebo, play it through, and see what happens. That way when we talk about any problems with the Kasbahs, it won't just be theoretical.
I for one will be playing Rome the moment the new version comes out, I really like their new UA and UB.
I for one will be playing Rome the moment the new version comes out, I really like their new UA and UB.
Similar threads
- Locked
