That's a good point. Also, an improvement takes time to be done and you get more yields, so it's definitely not useless.And note that this gap is part of the reason for the proposal in the first place. This is the time in the game when you are often doing second expansions, and if your going to do that in some ways to acquire coal (which is devilishly rare on many maps), you need to know where it is. You need the time to go found those cities before you actually need the material, and that's where the extra gap proves useful.
Precedents that are dumb don’t excuse making more of them.
I see no good reason to reproduce bad decisions elsewhere.
Yeah, but moving it to the bottom part of the tree when it was in the middle and Train Station is in the upper part?You state that these precedents are dumb or that these decisions are bad as a fact, but that's an opinion. Getting more yields alone is not dumb. Discovering a resource first and finding a use for it later also makes sense.
Then it's just more techs between discovering coal and using it (except for yields that you get with just discovering it). I don't see anything inherently wrong with that. You may not like it, but calling it bad or dumb is not accurate imho.Yeah, but moving it to the bottom part of the tree when it was in the middle and Train Station is in the upper part?
I didn't say it is dumb. I would rather call it "very questionnable".Then it's just more techs between discovering coal and using it (except for yields that you get with just discovering it). I don't see anything inherently wrong with that. You may not like it, but calling it bad or dumb is not accurate imho.
I know. I was referring to pineappledan.I didn't say it is dumb. I would rather call it "very questionnable".
It's not for 3 reasons, 2 already stated:then unlocking a resource before you can use it is dumb.
the main issue there is that it doesn't solve the pioneer problem. you are already going to have done your 2nd wave of expansion long before you get acousticsIf I had spent much time thinking about it, I would have suggested putting the reveal on Economics (fairly sparse tech), then swapping it with Acoustics.
What specifically is your objection to revealing a resource before it can be used?- Iron’s early unlock is bad too. Precedents that are dumb don’t excuse making more of them. It doesn’t even make sense, unlocking at Bronze, of all things. I already tried to rectify this, but you dogged sword-rushers won’t allow it.
- arguably uranium/atomic theory do have a thematic uranium unlock on the same tech: Manhattan Project.
Uranium and Aluminum have very strong thematic - IRL reasons to be on the techs where they are: Aluminum refinement requiring a lot of electricity, and uranium having strong links to atomic theory.
Coal and Chemistry has no such thematic tie-in.
This doesn’t solve a problem, it just makes the tech tree uglier and looser for no material gain.
In game terms, it's like giving player ammo at an earlier stage than when the gun that shoots that ammo appears. Unless you have a specific story purpose for doing it, then it's a waste.What specifically is your objection to revealing a resource before it can be used?
Except, yields and more information about potential expansion is not waste, so it doesn't apply here. Also, there is still argument that it takes time to do improvements.In game terms, it's like giving player ammo at an earlier stage than when the gun that shoots that ammo appears. Unless you have a specific story purpose for doing it, then it's a waste.
re: coal (and iron), unless you have a 'story reason', ie. a strong thematic link between the resource and the technology, then it makes the most sense to unlock things when they can be used.
Such pedantic reasoning. None of that is material. None of that makes a lick of difference when considered against the historical irrelevance of coal prior to the industrial age and the uselessness of the resource outside of yields.Except, yields and more information about potential expansion is not waste, so it doesn't apply here. Also, there is still argument that it takes time to do improvements.
Another thing to modmod.Such pedantic reasoning. None of that is material. None of that makes a lick of difference when considered against the historical irrelevance of coal prior to the industrial age and the uselessness of the resource outside of yields.
The Sumerians used bitumen for fuel and as building material. Do you want us to unlock oil early too? Why are you content with only bringing coal forward a whole era when you could just have every strategic unlocked at the same time as horses? You are already proposing to dislocate 1 resource from its historic use and from its game components, and using another dislocated resource to justify it. Using nonsense to justify further nonsense. So why not just burn the whole thing down while you’re at it?
I’m done. This is embarrassing. I guess this is the Congress I start rolling back changes in earnest.
I’m done. This is embarrassing.
"Bad", "dumb", "embarrassing", "nonsense"...Using nonsense to justify further nonsense.
What @pinappledan says, even if several words used can be hurtful, is well contained in his argument and it is important. We MUST respect a historical structure in VP, even if in the opinion of some it undermines the gameplay."Bad", "dumb", "embarrassing", "nonsense"...
Do you really think that using such terms will help your case? Those are without any substance. In every case when you used such term it was only *your opinion*. Don't state it as a fact that you use as your argument. Calm down.
Imagine an argument: "We cannot remove 1 production yield from mines, because it's bad/dump/embarrassing/nonsense". That's not even a weak argument, that's not an argument at all, lol.
Are actually saying that historical flavor is more important than gameplay/balance? That's a bold assumption, definitely not everyone thinks the same.What @pinappledan says, even if several words used can be hurtful, is well contained in his argument and it is important. We MUST respect a historical structure in VP, even if in the opinion of some it undermines the gameplay.
An Aztec building donated by a Mayan wonder is already plenty enough.
I really think that any historically flawed proposal should be discussed before it is even proposed. Maybe at the magi level?
I'm well aware of this, but we're playing Civilization. There are plenty of other games where historical coherence is not an important criterion, so we might as well go for those. But I agree that gameplay/balance is important (although very subjective in my opinion) so it must be thought about but to serve the History, not the opposite.There are certainly plenty of solutions to “balance”, if one is historically questionable, we must find another.Are actually saying that historical flavor is more important than gameplay/balance? That's a bold assumption, definitely not everyone thinks the same.