Too many Great People?

I'm playing with rev677 and I feel that there are probably too many Great People. Well, not really TOO many, but probably a little fewer would be better. I mean, in my current game I've got a lot of them by tech discovering, but very often I could use that GP to discover another tech granting another GP... which doesn't look fair to me as it's giving too much advantage to the tech leader. Tech diffusion helps keeping things balanced, but... Well, I don't know, maybe it's just me. Or is there someone else feeling this way?

I suppose it depends on how fast the player manages to get to these techs, where faster and more skilled (Or very lucky) players will get to them and see it as unfair since they can secure the free Great People easily, where newer players or players with poorer starts might struggle to get one or any of the free people.

In the two games I've had so far since the latest change, I've gotten only one of the new great people, the rest going to various AI. In my latest game though, I got more - but only because it was a Huge map with three civilizations at start.


So my thoughts are pretty much it could be unbalanced/unfair to players who are exceptionally skilled at the game since they can get these GP easily (And could always intentionally avoid getting them if they can regularly reach them first...), but for everyone else? We'll have to see.
I'm neutral on this personally. Not sure what to think about it myself just yet

That was a concern of mine when I posted the original Great Person re-balance. We could go back to Option A and get rid of most of the Ancient/Classical Great Persons (leave the GA at Music and get rid of the one at Perspective). I'll wait for everyone else to chime in.

I'm not sure there's too many Great Persons by themselves, but there may be a problem when you combine it with other aspects. For example, the Golden Age extension wonders, Mausoleum of Mausolus and Cheomseongdae.

I generaly dislike using GPs for bulbing techs as you mention, it always seems like a waste to me. So, when you combine a civ that builds both of those wonders (more on that later) with all the free GPs you can get from the techs and add in my playstyle, you can get some insanely long golden ages going. In my current game, I had a GA going for well over 200 turns both from events, spending GPs and wonders, it was insane and broke the game. I'm going to have to purposely not build those wonders anymore as they synergize too well with my play style, leading me to game where I'm completely stomping on the AI if I build them and manage to get some/many/all of the free GPs from techs which can happen if you're the tech leader and already starting to pull away or are beelining for specific techs just to get the free GPs.

So to your question, by themselves I don't think that the many free GPs are a serious problem although as you say there may be a few too many of them right now, but adding in other factors can make for some real issues if you hit things just right (or wrong depending on your viewpoint). If possible, they should be spread out a bit more or reduced in number if that's the easier solution.

Now for the "later" - those two wonders I mentioned need to be either toned down a LOT or widely separated so it becomes very difficult to nab them both and not have both open up at Calendar. I went against my better judgement from past experience and built them both in my latest game and I regret it now as it broke the game open for me - the AI was just left in the dust as I was in the loooong GAs I mentioned and simply powered past them, founding city after city and taking out barb cities and weak newly settled civs as I came to dominate my continent. They are too good as it stands now, and if you get them both look out.

The only reason the game was even remotely close at that point was some pretty serious tech diffusion help the AI was getting (which seems to be working nicely btw), without that I would have been a full era ahead or more, with double or even triple the number of cities as any other AI on the map and then it really would have been a joke at that point.

I agree with the two Golden Age wonders being too powerful if stacked. What if we move Cheomseongdae from Calendar to Alchemy? Cheomseongdae dates to the 7th century, which is not in the Classical Era, but the Medieval. Optics is further along the Medieval Era than I would like, but I think Alchemy is a good fit.

Vokarya said:

That was a concern of mine when I posted the original Great Person re-balance. We could go back to Option A and get rid of most of the Ancient/Classical Great Persons (leave the GA at Music and get rid of the one at Perspective). I'll wait for everyone else to chime in.

Click to expand...

Yes, they seem just too many.

Maybe it's a very stupid idea, but how about using events to give the free GPs not to the 1st but the 2nd civ discovering the tech
That would be a little more random. Be the first to know a tech is already a great advantage since you can start building wonders ahead of the others etc.

I changed my mind. Reading: "Second to discover recevies a free GP" sounds very stupid.
But "A small chance to recevie a free GP" sounds good IMO.
I think all the free GPs could stay were they are, but changing the method how to get them. Instead of only the first discoverer getting one, every civ, when discovering the tech could have 10% chance. The event should work repetedly, so the fisrt, the second, the third and the 22dn newly spawend, two eras behind civ has the same chance.

Is it possible through XML to limit what techs can GPs bulb? i.e now GA cannot bulb Music or something like this.

I like that idea, gives everyone a chance.

Tolni said:

Is it possible through XML to limit what techs can GPs bulb? i.e now GA cannot bulb Music or something like this.

Click to expand...

I looked through the XML and I cannot find which techs are available to which Great People.

Do you think that removing most of the very early Great People (the Artist from Perspective, the Engineer from City Planning, the Merchant from Currency, the Prophet from Scriptures, and the Spy from Alphabet), along with moving Cheomseongdae to the Medieval Era, will be enough to bring this back into line?

I would rather keep the Great General at Warfare and remove the one from Warmachines -- in the end game, Great Generals don't really matter that much. It also gives a reason not to go down the Writing - Mathematics or early religion paths that the AI's all seem to go down.

Vokarya said:

Do you think that removing most of the very early Great People (the Artist from Perspective, the Engineer from City Planning, the Merchant from Currency, the Prophet from Scriptures, and the Spy from Alphabet), along with moving Cheomseongdae to the Medieval Era, will be enough to bring this back into line?

I would rather keep the Great General at Warfare and remove the one from Warmachines -- in the end game, Great Generals don't really matter that much. It also gives a reason not to go down the Writing - Mathematics or early religion paths that the AI's all seem to go down.

Click to expand...

Enough.
However I still think that it would be more balanced to give everyone a small chance to get a free GP rather than only 100% for the first one, who is already on the lead (at least a bit). I know it is extra work and not so necessary, but I think it would be better that way.
IMHO

Vokarya said:

Do you think that removing most of the very early Great People (the Artist from Perspective, the Engineer from City Planning, the Merchant from Currency, the Prophet from Scriptures, and the Spy from Alphabet), along with moving Cheomseongdae to the Medieval Era, will be enough to bring this back into line?

I would rather keep the Great General at Warfare and remove the one from Warmachines -- in the end game, Great Generals don't really matter that much. It also gives a reason not to go down the Writing - Mathematics or early religion paths that the AI's all seem to go down.

Click to expand...

Looks good to me, we can try this way.