Lanun old vs new vs newer

[Zechnophobe]

This thread is intended to discuss the comparative strength of the Lanun previous to .33, where they were changed from using workers to build coves, to using workboats to build coves. The bonus yield of coves was also increased slightly at this point.

Discussion also whether or not the decrease in yield of coves in .34 is warranted or not.


Comments thus far:

Blackmantle said:

Many, many complaints about an "utter overpoweredness" that was in reality beeing a nerf. (it was harder to do before, not less powerful. But people just took care to look at the numbers and jumped to conclusions.)

Don't try to discuss this much though (just an advice Lest you wan't to argue with a wall or want to be called a lanun-fanboy who has no clue really.), those people complaining won't really take time to even consider that fact.
If 100 people find this way overpowered because its simple to use (and was likely so hard to effectively use before than many people didn't really bother with it.) and has a big effect there is no point in a few people pointing out that its a nerf sadly. You won't really convince them.


But one thing is to consider which might give the critics credibility.

If those complainers whould have known and taken the time to actually use the real power of the old coves (grand yields from terraforming, including more food + tactical value + acess to sea-buildings for most / all of your cities) they whould have likely complained even far more. So what i wrote above isn't really a proof that their claims are wrong.

Just that the reason why those complaints were raised after a nerf seems rather very very odd. (And the main reason for the first nerf / cove enhancement was AI inability as well as player-comfort. So a very sound one.)
Especially if even just for the economic part the maths isn't all that hard...

Zechnophobe Said:

The difference between worker based coves and non worker based coves:

Worker:
You can do a little terraforming to increase the size of inland lakes, and occasionally connect routes otherwise unconnectable.
Allows some cities to get more ports than they otherwise would, by settling next to inland lakes they couldn't otherwise get to.
Can build a worker while researching fishing, to get an 'insta' cove on turn 25 to 34 (Depending on initial commerce).
Capital is size one when you get fishing. (Maybe two).

Workboat:
Big thing, is the cost difference. A work boat costs 30 production, and a Worker costs 75. You do get to add growth to the worker, but have the major cost of not growing.
City is size 3 or 4 on average when you get fishing, meaning you can work water tiles as well as production tiles while building a work boat. Immediate GNP boost is roughly equivalent.
Further more, a single high production city, such as your capital, can very quickly build cheap 30 prod work boats, to follow after a newly produced settler.


Coverage: At first blush it appears that you can always get more pirate coves from workers than workboats, because workers can work off of inland lakes. This isn't necessarily true.
First of all, a city on a peninsula, can often harber (pun!) 2 or three boats, while not sacrificing its PRECIOUS land squares, which produce hammers. The total productive output of the city increases more when creating a port at sea than from a land square (most of the time).

Consider:

Plains has 1 food 1 production. Old pirate Ports would change this into a 3 food, 1 production, 5 commerce square, a gain of <b>2/0/5</b>. (or 1/1/5 if you converted a grassland)

Coast produces 2 Food and 3 trade. New pirate Ports(.33) upgraded them to 4 food, 2 Prod, 9 commerce, a gain of <b>2/2/6</b>

Note only is the final better in yeild, but the interum effects are also greater. That worker gets to be a pirate cove right away, but turns a grassland or plains (Heaven forbid one with a forest on it!) into a 2 food 3 commerce tile, just like all the coast you have.

Whereas you immediately get a solid +2 commerce boost from the .33 pirate coves.

lastly, I think it is important to note the difference in production again. Any fishing based economy has felt the pangs of productionless that a Lanun empire fields. With the .33 workboats, not only did you get a greater yeild from your pirate ports, but doubled the amount of production you got, which accrues quicker (Due to cheap work boats vs workers).

Blackmantle said:

My experience is mainly with the worker-Lanun from playing quite some games (of highly intensive micromanagement and tests from early-midgame to somewhat around Turn 500. And yes, it was tendious + extremely heavy in planning before coving.
With 10-20 cities being all connected to the ocean as well as sorounded by large lakes of freshwater and quite some ports in the end of the game. Not much land left and also not needed. Lanun Navy is neat. And the overlords kick butt out there on the Sea. ).
The work-boat lanun is a simple-maths affair (i couldn't possibly reach on a global scale what i had been able to reach with cove-terraforming lanun. In all stages expept perhapse some minor! spots in early game around turn 50-80. But those don't stretch for more than 10-20 Turns, the difference in yields is minimal during that time and turn sour all to fast in comparison because of roughly turn 30-50 and roughly turn 80 to games end.).


But what you depict as disadvantages are actually mostly advantages.


Mainly workers building with food actually makes Workers (from early-midgame until conquest / slavery or some other way to rush / utilize food as production) a faster build than boats for some time (in the old best city-setup which is different from what is now) despite their way higher cost (also note that workers can be captured from other civs while workboats cannot. And quite improtantly for early coves beeing able to be pre-built and pre-used for other things as seen fit. As soon as you get fishing you can build your first cove. I belive even earlier / that you didn't need to work them actively. But that might have been a bug and wasn't all that viable really because workers could do other valuable things.).
You clearly seem to underestimate how easy it was (as worker-cove Lanun) to get to the point were you could build a worker in 1-3 turns. I mean it! Firsthand experience.


Happycap and Healthcap are hard limits (which were very easy to reach as Lanun with the old coves and freshwater yields + early-cove output) so utilizing food as production is soo good that conquest and slavery (which are also not very late civics especially for a civ with a heavy focus on economy.) have been very viable for them. (unlike now and unlike quite some other civs).
In a way that xp-giving civics are for Sidar and aristocracy + agriculture + farm-economy are for quite some financial civs.


Also note that for Lanun lakes with coves were rather 5/1/5 squares (base 2, Lanun 1, port 1, Lighthouse 1) quite fast thanks to lighthouses (and the first cove or 2 comes earlier since you can't pre-build or pre-capture a workboat.) which are an early build for lanun (at least for the old lanun.).


You might be right that in some rare instances a city might be able to run more ports or at least with much less investment (which whould hard-force you to settle there which i belive should be clearly weaker than free-choice settling and still having all! the benefits of costal cities + lots of water).


But on Empire scale you could overall run 3-4 Ports per city (yes i mean every single city in your whole empire. Yes this takes very very long to get realized and is extremely intensive in micromanagement and planning, hence me saying i can see quite some sensible reasons for a change both from AI-perspective as from player-perspective) instead of a bit less than 2 on average (unless you strongly let your settling been dictated by outline of terrain which is a disadvantage in and of itself unlike an actual advantage of terrain before). Roughly a bit less than double the ammount of ports per city overall possible in max + all the terraformed lakes which are produced after razing ports.
(which all offer an additional food makeing those tiles 4/0/2 tiles (with lighthouses) modified by trait even without a cove (so 4/0/3 with Hannah). All in all yielding an additional food per tile at least.) + offer all! the additional advantages of costal cities (like Harbors + Lighthouses).


Then add that you can't conveniently pick on a single tile-yield but have to substract the measly yield of non-lake water-tiles on a whole-city tile-yield as well. Especially those not adjacent to Land which can easily make the additional commerce-yield of one full port moot (for example in case of Hannah and 3 Ocean-Tiles Which means 6 commerce! and 3 Food lost in comparison to worker-coves. Or in a more average case of 2 ocean-squares still 4 commerce and 2 Food. Which is roughly the difference between an old port and a new one.).


Is it easier to utilize the new coves (not in terms of power / net yields but by sheer time)? Clearly yes (you needed really lots of workers with the old coves. But with one built a turn or 2 (in bigger improved cities 3-4 in nonimproved) quite fast that is not taking a long time. Also note that non-costal cities can't build workboats. While inland-cities can. Further enhancing the number of workers which can be build in a comparable time.).


Is it stronger overall? Very very rarely it might in case of some few cities. On Empire Scale? Clearly no.
On experience with the old lanun. Their economy easily trumphed most other civs. That it was possible with the new coves still (as per 0.33.) is nice (i whould have liked to see further improvements like the new wonder without making the new coves weaker. But many other players seem to disagree for various reasons. Sadly.).
But that doesn't mean its better than with the old coves (+ the old coves also added quite a hefty tactical value which is completely gone.) now with the new values that doesn't seem all so much true anymore. (In fact i can't really see a huge incentive anymore to go much costal (costal cities still seem somewhat viable unlike for other civs. But not exeptional anymore) now with those new values. Especially with Hannah.)



Production is taken care of by Slavery or Undercouncil Slave-Rushing.
And no, i never had serious production-problems as Lanun. The stop on groth might seem an issue (and is the one point im willing to concede is a clear disadvantage) and is quite micro-intensive. But for me it worked out very well.
I never had serious problems with getting either my units or my buildings build from early midgame on.
Also since getting acess to coast without beeing tied to geography made it easier to settle in production-heavy terrain. No need to convert 3-4 hills each city because you need some strips of land to prevent your lakes from turning ocean anyways (more than 7 tiles for a body of water turn it to an ocean i belive).
My output of buildings and units was on-par with a normal empire from early-midgame on. Exept perhaps for production heavy civs like dwarves or runes-orcs.
Add Guild of the nine into the mix (which i never used intensively since i never really needed it but other players used quite intensively with the lanun) and you get quite some very viable sources of units and buildings even without all so much hammers.


Flat Tile-Yields alone work not so well because you have to take into account all the other sea-tiles which offer less yield than land-tiles (thats the real payoff for the new coves). And Lanun cities do grow quite fast with old ports as they should do with new ones as in 0.33. still.


And yes im all fine with strong civs across! the board. And cities beeing self-sustained early (which was not really hard before).
Im also completely! fine with the economy of the elves and FoL + guardian (for example 5% growth rate whould have really been enough of a nerf. 3 i think is another instance of balance-nerfing gone over the top. Even though im fine with a reduction from 10% which did sound a bit hefty.).

That may be the point were we have to agree to disagree on (and likely have quite different tastes regarding the importance of a game having a really good balance.) since i doubt we whould be able to convince each other here. And i find both opinions / tastes rather valid. If different.
Balance in my opinion is grossly overvalued by many players / testers here. Especially with the AI not fully done. To much balance can indeed impede on fun for quite a number of players. Including me.


If the new wonder on the other hand whouldn't be a wonder but a regular building (able to be built in each city) instead i might change my mind about that change. (or if something additional like that is added for lanun exclusively. a half hammer for such an additional building whould sound ok as well.)

Otherwise i will play the Lanun as just a regular (financial) civ with some possibilities to settle on coast. And be a bit sad about them rather losing their strong flavor. FFH2 will remain playable for sure. But for me the game will overall be less fun. If not on a huge scale. And in my opinion without any! dire need.


PS: Also note that the Turn numbers are not only dependent on initial commoerce but also on spot you settle (Plains-hill and the likes) and difficulty.
In Emperor and above the time to reach fishing could be a bit longer even with good initial commerce and cities usually have been size 5 or 6 (or even right at the cap) before a second worker was churned out (because unlike work-boats additional workers right away werent all so hot for about another 15-30 Turns depending on lay of the land. Hence the advantage of the new coves in about turns 50-80. But those are not all so huge as you seem to belive.).
So you seem to impose the new circumstances on the old strategy for Lanun.
But circumstances have been radically different enough to allow for a different style to build, settle and grow back then. You can't really compare the situation of the old Lanun to that of the new ones. You have to play them utterly different. (Up to the point were by luck the old lanun could cut off bridges radically reducing barb-incursions and thus the need to defend.)

A small example of this beeing that those old lanun could still build a workboat for hooking up a seafood resource while at the same time running a cove. With the new ones you have to decide for the first work-boat (which builds the first cove a bit later as well) if you want a cove or the seafood-resource (or you have to pass on the seafood if the lay of the land demands to build a cove on top of it.) which likely usually means the first cove wins (perhaps even the second one) resulting in the seafood-resource/s (quite often 2 for erebus mapscript) beeing used quite some time later usually. And its far from the only situation were the basics are radically different.


Now what i could see some sense in (if the early advantage is really beeing seen as 'oh so hefty') is reducing the first one or 2 Levels of coves beeing reduced in yields a bit (at worst!).
But i definately think that reducing the yield of the final stage (ports) is a rather major mistake. The cap is also quite important for overall strength of a civ.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Before I post comments based on Blackmantle's last stuff, I'm going to post a few save games from .33 using the Lanun workboat paradigm.

As with any discussion of strategy, difficulty level, and play speed are all relevant to the discussion, so I would ask that if we cite how 'we did' during a game, that we list difficulty, and game speed. For instance, above Blackmantle mentions something about turn 500 in a game. I only play 'standard' speed games, and have never reached turn 500 (Or 400) in such a game, so I'm assuming that was a slower speed, and therefore harder to compare to one of my games at normal speed.

I've attached two save games, on their final (victory) turn. One of them is a victory on turn 282 on Deity, and the other is turn 260 on Immortal (No Building Requirements).

These are two pretty good victories all things considered. Better than I can normally do on these difficulties (Maybe barring the Luchirp or the Svartalfar).

I'm also thinking we could, for comparisons, make the slight change to the game, where we allow workers to cast 'create cove' again, and then both play the same map, using only the option we are championing. Give us a real ground zero to work with.

 

[Blackmantle]

No, it was normal gamespeed but large / huge maps.
Also i play on erebus mapscript mainly (which always! places lanun near the middle ocean with acess to the sea). Another big factor.
Difficulty emperor + immortal mainly (last 2 on immortal for sure. Don't remember the exact difficulties of the first 3 because 0.32 is quite some time ago now. And the lanun-games even longer than the change to 0.33. Some as long ago as early 0.31). Deity is reserved for special civs (sidar and sheaim are the only ones i whould play deity difficulty at all regularly because every other civ (i do like to play since i don't like conquest / domination much barring the strongly-military ones like Orcs, Hippus and the likes for me) for me means it whould be to tendious for me / to less fun to bother playing a game from start to finish. Let alon win which whould require me to finish a game.)


Also mind that i am a very builder-oriented player. Don't rush for victories and win by altar / ToM or the likes rather often. So basically i chose to win when i wan't end the game / have enough of it not aim for it mainly. For me its more fun that way.


I don't belive that i have old saves so i whould have to play a full game (very-micro-intensive with the old worker coves.). Will see if i get to do it. (one at least.) Its not guaranteed though. (and whould be to disadvantage of my point if i didn't )


Both players plaing the same map whould pose a bit of a problem because certain maptypes pose radically different conditions (unless we all play each others maps as well.) favoring certain playing styles and since there is no "golden-rule" which map or playstyle is universally "the best" (down to tastes again) i don't find it to be a good ground for comparison even though same base is needed to sensibly compare overall strength of a strategy. (On Erebus rushing many an AI to death and vice versa is impossible due to no land-connection. That makes it very hard to win that early on large / huge maps in the first place.)


If you just aim for best score or fastest victory you whould disregard some of the builder-players and strongly favor players who like to win by conquest / domination / warmongering and those who strongly play to win as fast and score-heavy as possible.


By raw numbers (empirewide) the old coves allowed for quite a bit more yields (the maths are clear imo if you add it up on empire-level). But there are quite some ifs. I give you that.

The one exeption i could think of right away without testing whould be archipelago maps with many small islands of course (high sea-level scattered small islands) were the new coves are clearly superior because land for coving whould be scarce anyways. That is clear.
(As oposed to a map with just a few lakes were the old coves win by far naturally because you can make your own oceans there. On that note. I find that a clear advantage of the old method since you can play to your strengths on most mapscripts. But thats open to debate naturally.)



So usually the only really fair comparison whould be one and the same player using both strategies to their optimum (and know each strategy well enough in the first place to be able to anyways) on different set of mapscripts 2 tries at a time each (for one and the same generated map each).

Then report back how it worked out for them. (which is one of the reasons i did pointed out that it might be not all such a bad idea have Kael to listen to most of his userbase even though the reason! for their complaints seems a bit (to say the least ) odd.
I only questioned the reason / cause / base that sparked the complaints and a nerf + compensation for that nerf beeing pictured as an unproportional! and irrationaly strong improvement and takeing their own games vs. the non-finished AI as a base to make a general assumtion how things are for the whole game / all players.
(And added my personal opinion that i didn't like the change and why.)

And that whould boil down to 10 or so games for each player comparing to his own play.
Founded in each player having different preferences + the game allowing different routes to victory + this beeing a noncompetative singleplayer-game fun! is the most important factor not who plays best in comparison to each other (since then the more competent player of a given civ is likely winning no matter what to a certain degree).

The game is to nonlinear and noncompetative for that to be such a big point. (and i really don't care at all for competative multiplayer a bit.)
This is the core argument / reason of mine to complain here. I don't find the "civ x is overpowered" argument a very good one to convince me at all.
Im beeing fine with a less than balanced but flavorful game if its fun as compared to a finely balanced game that is not so much fun to play and less flavorful. So im clearly in the fun > balance crowd.

Another point of mine to consider whould be that better balance doesn't automatically translate to more fun. (that stems from me beeing a non-multiplayer and me beeing not all so much interested in competative play.)

Remember what the FFH2 design-guidelines are / what is the emphasis. (That naturally doesn't mean its the only factors or that a more balanced feature is automatically less fun.)

I know from some other threads that the two uf as are quite appart in how we value overall balance and what is acceptable for us in degree of unbalance to make things flashy and fun. (the Elves / FoL)




Still thanks alot for making this thread and diverting our discussion here instead of the changelog + trying to find a feasible approach to evaluate the whole thing. (not that i could really come up with a better + feasible idea. Since i don't really think my above suggestion is really feasible.)
The chances are better here that it will lead to a more useful discussion or anything useful for that matter. And thanks for the rather peaceful and objective tone in comparison to what is encountered usually (which was due to my own actions / tone as well so thats not ment as an accusation purely and not to say i have no blame to take.).





To give me the possibility to try a game in your 'contest' the first place do you (or does anyone for that matter) have modified files for allowing workers to cove instead of workboats? (i don't mod anything which goes beyond the most basic notepad / XML modifications. And i don't have the new Excel allowing for 256 columns so i can even just modify XMLs of FFH2 but not beyond via notepad.)
If thats not possible / doable in time for 0.34 the point is moot anyways. (for me that is. Since i am currently losing the argument with the change allready scheduled )

Since comparing 0.31 or 0.32 (which i nearly solely played with marnoks explorable lairs modmod) to 0.33 seems rather moot for many reasons.

 

[TheGreatSteve]

I can't comment on the old worker-coves, didn't really play Lanun before the change. But I think current coves are to powerful by themselves. The Lanun civ as a whole may actually warrant improvement with the upcoming change, but coves were too powerful.

As it is, player-Lanun=Tech leader. Which is nice, but it's way to easy to get and they don't have any later unique strategies and units that really build on it. Anyone can tech, or buy mercs/rush production, the Lanun are just really good at it, which I find kind of dull. I'm hoping that reducing their absurd early commerce lets them give the civ more personality and power later in the game.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Blackmantle said:

My experience is mainly with the worker-Lanun from playing quite some games (of highly intensive micromanagement and tests from early-midgame to somewhat around Turn 500. And yes, it was tendious + extremely heavy in planning before coving.
With 10-20 cities being all connected to the ocean as well as sorounded by large lakes of freshwater and quite some ports in the end of the game. Not much land left and also not needed. Lanun Navy is neat. And the overlords kick butt out there on the Sea. ).
The work-boat lanun is a simple-maths affair (i couldn't possibly reach on a global scale what i had been able to reach with cove-terraforming lanun. In all stages expept perhapse some minor! spots in early game around turn 50-80. But those don't stretch for more than 10-20 Turns, the difference in yields is minimal during that time and turn sour all to fast in comparison because of roughly turn 30-50 and roughly turn 80 to games end.).

I don't really see anything concrete here to talk about. How exactly do the yields turn sour? 'Because of turn 30-50'? What happens at these points that you are trying to say is bad?

But what you depict as disadvantages are actually mostly advantages.

Mainly workers building with food actually makes Workers (from early-midgame until conquest / slavery or some other way to rush / utilize food as production) a faster build than boats for some time (in the old best city-setup which is different from what is now) despite their way higher cost (also note that workers can be captured from other civs while workboats cannot. And quite improtantly for early coves beeing able to be pre-built and pre-used for other things as seen fit. As soon as you get fishing you can build your first cove. I belive even earlier / that you didn't need to work them actively. But that might have been a bug and wasn't all that viable really because workers could do other valuable things.).

Let there be no miscommunication here, I played Lanun and thought they were great even before .33, and was very skeptical about the change from workers to workboats. So let's not try and argue that either one of us has more experience with them, since that's rather subjective. I addressed the 'being able to build a first cove' right when you get fishing in my first comment post, by noting that the coves at that point didn't give you any bonuses until their first bump, 5 turns later... by which point you may easily have gotten a work boat.

Also, I think that you are waving aside paying with food too easily. Even if you take 4 turns to build a worker, it is still 4 less turns of growth you aren't getting. Consider further these equations:

Food + Production = 75 (Paying for a worker with excess food, and hammers)
Production = 30 (Paying for a workboat with just hammers)

In order for the worker to be built at the same speed as the boat, you'd need to spend 45 food. That's about 2 population points. (More with granaries/smokehouses).

Do not ignore these just because paying with food 'can' be a bonus. You are still paying that food cost one way or another.

You clearly seem to underestimate how easy it was (as worker-cove Lanun) to get to the point were you could build a worker in 1-3 turns. I mean it! Firsthand experience.

See above. And once again note that if we simply argue that our firsthand experiences are somehow more valid than someone elses, we won't get very far. If you built a worker in 3 turns, you still paid 75, and lose 3 turns of growth.

Happycap and Healthcap are hard limits (which were very easy to reach as Lanun with the old coves and freshwater yields + early-cove output) so utilizing food as production is soo good that conquest and slavery (which are also not very late civics especially for a civ with a heavy focus on economy.) have been very viable for them. (unlike now and unlike quite some other civs).
In a way that xp-giving civics are for Sidar and aristocracy + agriculture + farm-economy are for quite some financial civs.

That is a fairly valid point, though healthcap only is a limit because it prevents you from producing enough food to grow, meaning if you are at it, you aren't getting any food bonus to production. You may notice that both the saves I have are posted with Guardian of Nature. And that I leave all forests in my empire up. This is of course to extend the happiness cap of my empire to as high as possible, as early as possible. Besides, while you may still not feel the 'pain' of no growth, you are still wasting that food on something that could have been, say, a settler.

Also note that for Lanun lakes with coves were rather 5/1/5 squares (base 2, Lanun 1, port 1, Lighthouse 1) quite fast thanks to lighthouses (and the first cove or 2 comes earlier since you can't pre-build or pre-capture a workboat.) which are an early build for lanun (at least for the old lanun.).

Why can't you prebuild a workboat? Or are we still talking about the first city? (Which couldn't possibly have a lighthouse). You can pre build, and even pre place coves with workboats (Which move, by the way, faster than workers until you get good road coverage). The only valid point I see here, is that workers can create more inland lakes than work boats (Even sometimes where they didn't exist before). Though, you didn't explicitly state that.

You might be right that in some rare instances a city might be able to run more ports or at least with much less investment (which whould hard-force you to settle there which i belive should be clearly weaker than free-choice settling and still having all! the benefits of costal cities + lots of water).

It isn't particularly rare to be honest. Any peninsula at least 2 land tiles wide gives you this great opportunity. I guess this isn't really a big issue though, since maps can change so very much. I don't really see what you are trying to say about 'forcing' you to settle there, either. Why are you hard forced to settle there? I mean, if it's a peninsula, it's a great spot for the Lanun anyway.

But on Empire scale you could overall run 3-4 Ports per city (yes i mean every single city in your whole empire. Yes this takes very very long to get realized and is extremely intensive in micromanagement and planning, hence me saying i can see quite some sensible reasons for a change both from AI-perspective as from player-perspective) instead of a bit less than 2 on average (unless you strongly let your settling been dictated by outline of terrain which is a disadvantage in and of itself unlike an actual advantage of terrain before). Roughly a bit less than double the ammount of ports per city overall possible in max + all the terraformed lakes which are produced after razing ports.
(which all offer an additional food makeing those tiles 4/0/2 tiles (with lighthouses) modified by trait even without a cove (so 4/0/3 with Hannah). All in all yielding an additional food per tile at least.) + offer all! the additional advantages of costal cities (like Harbors + Lighthouses).

You seriously think it's worth it to build the cove, and then pillage it, to expand lakes? That isn't just 'a little slower'. That would set you back a ridiculous amount! I'm now wondering if that 500 turn game wasn't on standard speed afterall ;P.

Then add that you can't conveniently pick on a single tile-yield but have to substract the measly yield of non-lake water-tiles on a whole-city tile-yield as well. Especially those not adjacent to Land which can easily make the additional commerce-yield of one full port moot (for example in case of Hannah and 3 Ocean-Tiles Which means 6 commerce! and 3 Food lost in comparison to worker-coves. Or in a more average case of 2 ocean-squares still 4 commerce and 2 Food. Which is roughly the difference between an old port and a new one.).

Only if you are talking about maximum size cities! You spend most, if not all the game, working up to that. And as you get larger, your victory condition should start being more important than just a slightly greater tile yield. The earlier you can get on that path, the earlier you can actually win.

Is it easier to utilize the new coves (not in terms of power / net yields but by sheer time)? Clearly yes (you needed really lots of workers with the old coves. But with one built a turn or 2 (in bigger improved cities 3-4 in nonimproved) quite fast that is not taking a long time. Also note that non-costal cities can't build workboats. While inland-cities can. Further enhancing the number of workers which can be build in a comparable time.).

It seems like the big difference is that you seem to ignore the time element. Your are spending more total production and food on building your little empire than I am by a *large* way, because you seem to think it is acceptable for your dividends to come due further down the line.

Is it stronger overall? Very very rarely it might in case of some few cities. On Empire Scale? Clearly no.
On experience with the old lanun. Their economy easily trumphed most other civs. That it was possible with the new coves still (as per 0.33.) is nice (i whould have liked to see further improvements like the new wonder without making the new coves weaker. But many other players seem to disagree for various reasons. Sadly.).
But that doesn't mean its better than with the old coves (+ the old coves also added quite a hefty tactical value which is completely gone.) now with the new values that doesn't seem all so much true anymore. (In fact i can't really see a huge incentive anymore to go much costal (costal cities still seem somewhat viable unlike for other civs. But not exeptional anymore) now with those new values. Especially with Hannah.)

Production is taken care of by Slavery or Undercouncil Slave-Rushing.
And no, i never had serious production-problems as Lanun. The stop on groth might seem an issue (and is the one point im willing to concede is a clear disadvantage) and is quite micro-intensive. But for me it worked out very well.
I never had serious problems with getting either my units or my buildings build from early midgame on.

It is not an 'issue' on whether you can build, it really is simply how much you have compared to everyone else. If I have 3 pirate ports, that's 6 production from those, 3 more than old pirate ports (6 more if those ports were built on plains). 6 Production, as any Chirp player knows, is a lot in the early game, and multiplies nicely with the obligatory God King civic.

Also since getting acess to coast without beeing tied to geography made it easier to settle in production-heavy terrain. No need to convert 3-4 hills each city because you need some strips of land to prevent your lakes from turning ocean anyways (more than 7 tiles for a body of water turn it to an ocean i belive).
My output of buildings and units was on-par with a normal empire from early-midgame on. Exept perhaps for production heavy civs like dwarves or runes-orcs.
Add Guild of the nine into the mix (which i never used intensively since i never really needed it but other players used quite intensively with the lanun) and you get quite some very viable sources of units and buildings even without all so much hammers.

Guild of the Nine is awesome with the Lanun. Use them not to replace production per se, but to keep the fight going fast, and because your champion units are expensive and horsehockey ;P. Also, you say you aren't tied to geography, which is a bit of a lie. You still need water sources, one way or another. A single tile of lake could, over a really long time, turn into a big one (Though how would you pillage it without getting OO?)

Flat Tile-Yields alone work not so well because you have to take into account all the other sea-tiles which offer less yield than land-tiles (thats the real payoff for the new coves). And Lanun cities do grow quite fast with old ports as they should do with new ones as in 0.33. still.


And yes im all fine with strong civs across! the board. And cities beeing self-sustained early (which was not really hard before).
Im also completely! fine with the economy of the elves and FoL + guardian (for example 5% growth rate whould have really been enough of a nerf. 3 i think is another instance of balance-nerfing gone over the top. Even though im fine with a reduction from 10% which did sound a bit hefty.).

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Growth rate changes, buh? We talking about the military unit production penalty of Guardian of Nature?

That may be the point were we have to agree to disagree on (and likely have quite different tastes regarding the importance of a game having a really good balance.) since i doubt we whould be able to convince each other here. And i find both opinions / tastes rather valid. If different.
Balance in my opinion is grossly overvalued by many players / testers here. Especially with the AI not fully done. To much balance can indeed impede on fun for quite a number of players. Including me.

It seems like you've gone completely off on a tangent now. What does this have to do with anything? I could talk about this, but I'd rather not.

If the new wonder on the other hand whouldn't be a wonder but a regular building (able to be built in each city) instead i might change my mind about that change. (or if something additional like that is added for lanun exclusively. a half hammer for such an additional building whould sound ok as well.)

Depending on where that wonder lies on the tech tree, it might be grossly powerful. Sailing? Optics? Good freaking game.

Otherwise i will play the Lanun as just a regular (financial) civ with some possibilities to settle on coast. And be a bit sad about them rather losing their strong flavor. FFH2 will remain playable for sure. But for me the game will overall be less fun. If not on a huge scale. And in my opinion without any! dire need.

Would you play the Chirp and not build Golems?

PS: Also note that the Turn numbers are not only dependent on initial commoerce but also on spot you settle (Plains-hill and the likes) and difficulty.
In Emperor and above the time to reach fishing could be a bit longer even with good initial commerce and cities usually have been size 5 or 6 (or even right at the cap) before a second worker was churned out (because unlike work-boats additional workers right away werent all so hot for about another 15-30 Turns depending on lay of the land. Hence the advantage of the new coves in about turns 50-80. But those are not all so huge as you seem to belive.).

At 9 commerce a turn it takes 34 turns to research fishing on a standard size map on Deity. That assumes no growth (For instance, if you are building a worker). It is not at all unlikely that you start off producing 10 commerce, and later move up to 11 or 12 to finish the research 7 or 8 turns earlier.

So you seem to impose the new circumstances on the old strategy for Lanun.
But circumstances have been radically different enough to allow for a different style to build, settle and grow back then. You can't really compare the situation of the old Lanun to that of the new ones. You have to play them utterly different. (Up to the point were by luck the old lanun could cut off bridges radically reducing barb-incursions and thus the need to defend.)

Sure, but you said this was all a Math issue in your first post right, so that's where we are focusing. As well as whether or not the Lanun, as a whole, got stronger, or stayed the same, in .33.

A small example of this beeing that those old lanun could still build a workboat for hooking up a seafood resource while at the same time running a cove. With the new ones you have to decide for the first work-boat (which builds the first cove a bit later as well) if you want a cove or the seafood-resource (or you have to pass on the seafood if the lay of the land demands to build a cove on top of it.) which likely usually means the first cove wins (perhaps even the second one) resulting in the seafood-resource/s (quite often 2 for erebus mapscript) beeing used quite some time later usually. And its far from the only situation were the basics are radically different.

You are 100% wrong here. First of all, if you have one city, it can only build one thing at a time. This hasn't changed at all. You aren't forced to choose whether to make a cove or a fishing boat any more than you were forced to choose building a worker over a fishing boat before. Secondly, you can't build a cove on a bonus resource (Have you played the lanun in .33?) a cove is about worth two fishing resources. 4 food, 2 production and 9 trade is better than 4 food 3 trade, 2 food 7 trade, or whatever else you have as an option. And so what if you don't get the clams until 4 turns later? What difference does it make? You were popping out powerful doom improvements instead!

Now what i could see some sense in (if the early advantage is really beeing seen as 'oh so hefty') is reducing the first one or 2 Levels of coves beeing reduced in yields a bit (at worst!).
But i definately think that reducing the yield of the final stage (ports) is a rather major mistake. The cap is also quite important for overall strength of a civ.

It takes only 15 turns to go from new cove to pirate port. Weakening those first 14 turns isn't exactly a huge change. 14 GNP?


Overall, you came out saying you wanted to talk about the math of the situation, but aren't really doing much other than saying that it's different, and that the old system let you waste a lot of time trying to do silly things with land.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Alright, I'll bite, if we don't use score, and we don't use ending turn, how exactly do we objectively determine one compared to the other?

 

[Monkeyfinger]

The biggest selling point of the new pirate ports was the special-resource level food and hammer yields, which gave every coastal city the equivalent of one or two grassland cows, basically.

-2 commerce is a pretty minor nerf for those improvements, all things considered.

 

[Blackmantle]

@ Zechnophobe: From what i have read on your last replies i don't think we are having much things to disagree about in the first place besides the base premise that im utterly fine with powerful civs (you might call them unbalanced if they are that powerful) and i neither found the old nor the new Lanun any! problem for balance (that is my take on when a civ starts to break the game) even remotely.
They were top-tier (i doubt that after the next change but we will see). Sure. And they were fun just that way. If other civs are weaker, beef them up.


You can't pre-build a work-boat (your first that is) for the simple fact that a work boat requires fishing to be researched before! you can start! building it.
So the minimum time to build a work-boat is the turn you research fishing + time to build a work boat. Or have i got anything wrong here? (overflow is a slight possibility here, but not very likely to a large degree during that stage of the game i think.)

A worker can be produced from Turn 1 on and is finished in roughly about 20 Turns (and an additional one can be captured about Turn 20 if you have fun + luck grabbing a worker or 2 from someone else in the game. The war that is created by it should be winable at that point in the game.).
Unless i err and Workboats can be built without fishing which might be but then i whould have to disremember. Edit: Just checked. Workboats definately need fishing to be built. So no such boat can be started before ~ turn 30.


Thats what i meant with you can't pre-build or capture a workboat (pre researching fishing) but you can do that with a worker.


The Turns i depicted are roughly founded in the following:

In the corridor of roughly Turn 30-50 the old method wins (if you accumulate the yields unil the respecitve turn) for the simple fact that the old coves are build about 5-10 Turns earlier and it takes longer until bonus food is reached.
In Turn 50-80 or 50-100 (depending on circumstances and lay of the land) the new method offers more yields (accumulated but not all so much as you make them out to be. Also you can even settle at a much different spot than with workboat-coves so finding a good spot while still getting coves is rather easy.)
afterwards the worker-production and terraforming offers so many advantages in additional yields (across your empire and the capacity to churn out workers / settlers and the likes is enhancing quite explosively around turn 100 usually) and tactical advantage (which you have factor in as well since it might very well make it completely unnessesary to build any defensive units for quite some time for some cities at least which means a rather hefty economic benefit overall) that it wins again (for me and my playstyle + goals that is.)

Drowns / the first ships or other things to start large-scale terraforming with start to appear around turn 100 (plus or minus about 25 turns. Depending on circumstances.)



Short time later slaves and conquest come around to help production and your science skyrokets (no different from the new method without the changes in 0.34. The largest difference is the huge ammount in exess food you have due to much more freshwater-lakes instead of sea-tiles. That works very neatly with slavery and conquest.)



If you have seafood nearby (you rightly assumed thats about the first city) the number of turns to work cove / coves + all your seafood is pushed back further by the production-time for each additional needed work-boat. In the old case you could plant a cove (freshwater usually that is) + build a workboat and build both a cove the turn you research fishing and hook up the sea-food after you finished your first workboat. In the newer case you whould have to chose between either building a cove or hooking up the seafood with your first workboat after researching fishing.

Example until first cove is build + all seafood is hooked up old / new:

no seafood: old 0 workboats , 1 worker / new 1 Workboat.
1 seafood: old 1 workboat (which you built after fishing is researched) + 1 worker (which you build before fishing is researched) / new 2 Workboats (both of which you have to build after fishing and unless you have 2 cities around turn 30-50 you have to wait for the second one before you have finished building the first. And you whould likely build a second cove anyways since it usually is better than a tile of hooked-up seafood.)


Is now clear what im trying to depict? (anything else could only be proven by saves anyways since i can't do much theory on how even 80-100 turns whould play out in any given game.) So until someone provides modified files for coves (so workers can place them again and workboats can't + they turn land to water again.) i can't prove or even sensibly depict anything regarding that point anyways.


About Lanuns strength under the new conditions: On the mapscript i usually play (erebus that is) the new changes boil down to that the Lanun have no big incentive to stick solely to coast and much water anymore.
Not artificially avoid it naturally (especially at the start for about the first 100-150 turns were there is an edge to put one or 2 cities near water. But thats no problem with Erebus mapscript since you start next to it anyways.).


But agriculture + aristocracy + sanitation (and lots of farms) now seems like a better strategy (for the way i play the game) for Hanna (for large parts of a big lanun empire on erebus mapscript) unlike conquest-civic which it has been before the change (for me at least). Slavery should still be rather viable.
Because Flatland grass yields 4/0/3 with that + any specials like riverside.
(+1 commerce each tile riverside. On Erebus Mapscript you usually have quite some tiles riverside for most cities you found. At least Inland.)
or resources.
Cities put inland under those conditions are at least as good as those with 8 or so measly sea-tiles (+ possible resources) with 1 or 2 of those beeing "special-uber-improved" tiles and a bit of land.
Heck even without sanitation (and that just requires calendar + code of laws required) its 3/0/3. Thats as good as a costal tile +! lighthouse for Hannah. And better than an ocean-tile by 2 commerce (+ prodution heavy tiles inland can be utilized just as well as with any other civ). And im not much forced to take care were to settle in comparison to any other civ.
That for me doesn't feel like the Lanun anymore (which did like lots of water near until now.).


And small archipelagos are a rarity on Erebus mapscipt (well they don't exist) just as well as 'natural' freshwater-lakes (rather nonexist as well.).
So the economy might still be a tad better (while their military on land is downright worse.) than that of your average civ (because they can utilize seafood to their advantage early). But the payoff for going out of my way and settling most of my cities near lots of water (or changing the terrain to fit those conditions as it has been ) whould be to high a price for me to pay. So they become a run-of-the mill civ.



And yes getting all your cities (10+ that is) beeing surounded by freshwater tiles takes quite some part of the game (about 2/3 / 300 Turns of churning out workers + building coves, razing them, rinse, repeat until the layout is perfect for maximum output and 3-4 coves for each city that is.).

At normal speed not quick. And yes pillaging coves for tactical terraforming + economical reasons is very viable if you want to build a huge empire with a brimming economy and all huge cities + have the whole tech-tree researched and win at your leisure while squashing AI with high-level units.
If you have different goals (like winning quickly and efficiently that is) thats fine for you. But it doesn't work so well for my fun with the game.

And yes that does delay victory. What is the problem in that? (for me that is)


Well i don't play for victory as fast and scoreful as possible (leisurely ignoring most large-scale conflict exept the odd early rush against one civ at least until Tier 3, mostly tier 4).
Because a long drawn-out builder game is more fun to me than a victory achived fastly and efficiently.

Are you seriously saying that playing to win as fast and scoreful as possible is the only viable way to play a game? And the only way the game should be designed for?

I adamantly belive that Vanilla bts does a better job at providing a streamlined and balanced gameplay as fair as possible for everyone (which is especially improtant in multiplayer.) than FFH2.

I like FFH2 way! more still (just played bts once fully and a few times started + some official mods and thats a long-long time ago). Just because it caters to what i like about games.
The points which i like about FFH2 more are to many to write down here in any reasonable time but some you might get without me even mentioning.



Oh and i do never ever play quick outside of any kind of contest. Don't even try to talk me into that. For me quick gamespeed is no fun at all (i whould rather play marathon than quick even though i dislike that as well.). Most of my games are either long-drawn normal-speed (around 400 -500 Turns each) or average (compared to normal) epic ones. Anything else is some kind of strange contests (like survival or the likes) which i might find funny for a change but thats seldom.


And yes i have the time and like playing games so long + i like micromanagement. And i hope that the team does also mind players like me.


If i whould like an as fast, secure and scoreful win as possible i whould set up a game on a tiny or duel map with me and grigori as only conditions and let religious victory checked. Now that shows unbalanced mere desciples are. Under those conditions that is.

Or i whould just fire up a game of CIV4:Col and play for winning fast and efficient there. No fun as well and just as secure and easy (on highest difficulty that is).
But it can be fun if you like the economic part (like i do) and don't care all to much about the sucky/broken War of Idependence or REF (like i don't either).



Regarding your last point / post: Well we don't at all. Besides with our own performance.
Because we play differently and draw fun from different things. That was basically what my last post was about.
Because its mainly a single-player game that comparison doesn't matter much (it doesn't matter much how i play to you and vice versa. Until we compete. Which i have no interest in doing.).
And it doesn't prove anything because one of us may very well be the way better player (In question you are better. point settled. Don't care much for that title.) which whould distort the result further.


Your comment on my playstyle depicting it as "doing silly things with land" (why should i care what you think is silly in my gameplay?) does illustrate your whole stance on the matter somewhat though, in that you discredit how other people play their single-player game and what they like about it (and you seem to value an early and efficient conquest victory or domination victory higher or at least the same as a late ToM or Altar-Victory while having a decent research and many very powerful and highly-promoted units going around and kicking butt. Thats fine for you.).
I won't do so for you since i think its pointless because in a sense we are both right (for our games) so there is no much point arguing.


@ TheGreatSteve: They have deficits in other areas (most importantly land-forces and good heroes. Their Champions are rather sucky for example. And their production isn't all that hot with the new coves.). And i can easily put up an economy better than any other civs with sidar (the way i play them / my game at least).
They work fine up to deity + no building-requirements for me. (no reloads exept to continue a session. For most other civs i only play emperor or immortal and at least reaload from time to time if something goes sour.)
I won't even try that with the lanun. Tendious at best for me (likely not possible for me in any consistent manner. And there are many other interesting civs to play.). No fun in that.

So i do contest that they are the be-all end all of all economies. (starting with that they don't have much special on about half of the mapscripts. If you don't have much water or aren't near much the advantage is moot anyways. For sidar to have a comparable situation i whould have to play forced peace with barbs and lairs disabled. That seems more uncommon in my games.)

So please don't generalize with prazes like Lanun have a better economy than any other civ.

Also as read above better than anyone else economically = fine with me (thats far from the only thing that matters in FFH 2). I for my game can't see how they broke anything. In fact i know some civs which can quite compete. Yes i could get along with them just fine. Doesn't mean that for me they have been the easiest. And if the price for balancing them more is that they lose their flavor i do find that it detracts hugely from the fun with playing them.


Also if you whould want other things about lanun improved, rather improve first then nerf.
The other route leads to crappy gameplay at least for some time and some players.
FFH2 is still in very-late-beta. There is really nothing wrong with things beeing broken for some time. But things beeing crappy / unfun some time detracts from testing (see doviello and elhoim + grigori which were overnerfed for some time during development and did hugely suffer in popularity because of it until they received a strengthening. Or never had much in case of the doviello.)
The Balseraphs went just that route and no-one got seriously hurt because of it. Did anyone?

 

[sumit1207]

Lanun is much stronger in .34 with the Heron Throne wonder (+1 production to every water tile).

 

[Zechnophobe]

Lanun is much stronger in .34 with the Heron Throne wonder (+1 production to every water tile).

Possibly so, but if that wonder comes off of like Fanaticism (Hey, maybe Heron is the name of some god? I'm loreless) then it wouldn't be as impressive.

 

[EmptyWolf]

Lanun is much stronger in .34 with the Heron Throne wonder (+1 production to every water tile).

+1 on every water tile in one city I think (it's possible I'm just remembering it wrong.) Edit: Nevermind, I checked the changelog and it says every city although that's a bit powerful for something as early as fishing. Edit 2: It is only one city.

Possibly so, but if that wonder comes off of like Fanaticism (Hey, maybe Heron is the name of some god? I'm loreless) then it wouldn't be as impressive.

Fishing is all that is required and it costs a mere 250 to build (125 with marble) meaning the Lanun should be able to grab it easy.

I'm in interested in knowing how the Lanun-regulars are finding the new Lanun now that .34 is actually out?

 

[Zechnophobe]

Stronger. Significantly.

Two main factors, which I didn't comment on before because the patch wasn't out yet .

1) The Heron throne. Holy cow, it comes off fishing, which means pretty much no AI will even consider building it. It makes the 'first city on a peninsula' idea that much more potent, because not only can you get a good number of coves, but you can have a good balance of production as well. A Pirate Port gives 3 production with the throne.

2) Guild of the Nine actually got stronger. I am really surprised how this turned out. Since you no longer need to spread the guild in order to hire mercenaries, you now have a larger army (No mercs sacked to spread) and a faster army (In all cases, the mercs are hired where the enemy attacks).


Regarding Heron Throne being only in one city: That's absolutely fine. Early on in the game, while you are building your empire, you really only need one strong production city, compared to the need to make each city commercially viable. God King also makes each water square give +1.5 hammers, as it were. A new city costs production to make and money to upkeep. So your capital turns Hammers into settler packs (two warriors, a settler, and a work boat or two) while your other cities focus on just growing and spreading culture.

What I'm trying to say, is that you can expand very quickly (Warrior-Warrior-Settler) until you've just about filled up your entire area, and then maintain your economy by setting up coves, and perhaps the occasional cottage (Though I have found that education isn't often needed).

Note that you will decrease the sci slider for a while, but while doing so still end up producing more and more science.