Leaders

[Txurce]

I'm not proposing making them resource-poor, I'm just saying that being biased away from the resource-rich tundra zones fits with Ottomans, because their territory isn't exactly renowned for natural resources.

This makes sense, and I would extrapolate from it to only have historically northern civs have the possibility of a tundra start. Apply the same principle with regard to forests, jungles, and desert. As long as you're careful to remember that civs like India have a lot of varied territory, this is a relatively quick adjustment that goes a long way toward giving each civ a more distinct sense.

 

[Txurce]

A plains bias would make them resource-poor.

Tundra, snow and desert have about 1 resource per 10 tiles, while grassland and plains are about 1 per 40 tiles. It can vary from this and depends on features, but that's about the base values.

That's interesting. Do you mean SR's and not luxuries?

If so, since tundra and (Civ) snow only applies to Russia, China and the Mongols, then desert becomes the key need for most other civs. How about jungle?

Of course no one has ever said the game is unbalanced because of this bias. So maybe we could proceed to strengthen the RL geographical connections, and not worry about resources.

 

[Thalassicus]

Strategic and bonus resources definitely favor areas that are yield-poor. Luxuries also appear to do so (they include region fertility calculations in their placement) though I'm less familiar with that part of the code.

 

[Sneaks]

Tundra, snow and desert have about 1 resource per 10 tiles, while grassland and plains are about 1 per 40 tiles. It's a rough approximation of some complicated resource/start location placement code and depends on features, but that's about the base values.

Being resource-poor is not a bad thing though, since grassland and plans are yield-rich.

Our choices are (these are mutually exclusive categories): ocean, river, terrain, avoid terrain. Here are the current settings, I've highlighted some thoughts of stuff to add in bold:

• America -
• Arabia - desert
• Aztecs - jungle
• Babylon - desert
• China -
• Egypt - avoid forest, avoid jungle
• England - ocean
• France -
• Germany - avoid ocean?
• Greece - avoid hills? avoid desert?
• Incas - hills (I suspect)
• India - grassland
• Iroquois - forest
• Japan -
• Mongolia - plains
• Ottomans - avoid tundra
• Persia -
• Rome - hills?
• Russia - tundra
• Siam - avoid forest
• Songhai - avoid tundra
• Spain - not sure

Some of the suggestions are considerations based on the civilization's traits, which would help reduce frustrating games where the traits are nearly unusable:

• Germany's trait relies on having access to lots of barbarian camps, which is unlikely if starting on a peninsula.
• Greece's CC requires horses but they don't favor terrain where horses are frequent.
• Rome is an iron unit but without a rough terrain priority (where iron is frequent).

I would be against all of the possible additions, except giving Ottomans and maybe Babs Avoid Tundra. I think that Arabia is the only civ that should ever get the desert bias, as that is what synergizes with their UA. Otherwise deserts are mostly damning.

 

[Txurce]

Our choices are (these are mutually exclusive categories): ocean, river, terrain, avoid terrain. Here are the current settings, I've highlighted some thoughts of stuff to add in bold:

• America -
• Arabia - desert
• Aztecs - jungle
• Babylon - desert
• China -
• Egypt - avoid forest, avoid jungle
• England - ocean
• France -
• Germany - avoid ocean?
• Greece - avoid hills? avoid desert?
• Incas - hills (I suspect)
• India - grassland
• Iroquois - forest
• Japan -
• Mongolia - plains
• Ottomans - avoid tundra
• Persia -
• Rome - hills?
• Russia - tundra
• Siam - avoid forest
• Songhai - avoid tundra
• Spain - not sure

Some of the suggestions are considerations based on the civilization's traits, which would help reduce frustrating games where the traits are nearly unusable:

• Germany's trait relies on having access to lots of barbarian camps, which is unlikely if starting on a peninsula.
• Greece's CC requires horses but they don't favor terrain where horses are frequent.
• Rome is an iron unit but without a rough terrain priority (where iron is frequent).

I really like the idea of being distinct when there is no obvious downside. Testing stuff like this seems like the point of dev mods.

Greece is hilly, although that won't help you with horses. You could have it favor hills and plains to push the horse angle.

Rome was the city built on seven hills, so that tells you something about giving them an edge with iron!

Germany avoiding ocean is a clever idea to buff their SA.

Spain is mostly plains and some desert, which helps with the conquistador.

Japan could also favor ocean.

France could reasonably be grassland , which is otherwise missing.

Persia would have similarities to the Ottomans historically: hills, plains, desert.

 

[Thalassicus]

Regarding deserts and Arabia, deserts actually have a higher concentration of iron than other regions... about double. It helps a lot for early warfare and rivers turn desert into grassland yields.

Most common place for horses is grassland. When the game is deciding what strategic resource to place on a flat freshwater grassland tile, it almost always becomes a horse (this is why they tend to be frequent along rivers).

I could give Greece a pro-grassland bias (only can do one of the four bias/avoid categories).

 

[Ahriman]

Japan could also favor ocean.

Why?
That has no synergy with their UA, UB or UU, and while yes historically they're coastal/on an island, they were never a naval power until the late 19th century.

I'm also finding coastal starts to be weak again, particularly due to the fact that the fish resource is only 3f2g without lighthouse and that coast is only 2f2g even with lighthouse, and given how important fresh water is for all the early-midgame tech boosts.
They just can't compete with a river start.
I think I'd put +1 gold back on coasts, and make the lighthouse back to +1 food.

Rome was the city built on seven hills

Of course, those hills aren't actually very "hilly" at all. The Rome tile would correctly be a flat, riverside grassland. But a hill preference might be ok for encouraging iron.

 

[Txurce]

Why?
That has no synergy with their UA, UB or UU, and while yes historically they're coastal/on an island, they were never a naval power until the late 19th century.

Of course, those hills aren't actually very "hilly" at all. The Rome tile would correctly be a flat, riverside grassland. But a hill preference might be ok for encouraging iron.

Why? Because we are speaking to some degree of historically accurate geography, as long as it doesn't work against the civs' traits... no other geographical start is particularly synergistic... and an ocean start doesn't hinder their SA, UB or UU in the least.

"Rome" is essentially "Italy," which is distinctly hilly.

 

[Ahriman]

no other geographical start is particularly synergistic

Arabia near desert/oil.
England near coast, for naval support.
Russia near tundra/plains regions with lots of resources.
Inca near hills.
Iroquois near forest.
India near grassland (high food income).

Synergistic starts are the norm.

 

[Txurce]

Arabia near desert/oil.
England near coast, for naval support.
Russia near tundra/plains regions with lots of resources.
Inca near hills.
Iroquois near forest.
India near grassland (high food income).

Synergistic starts are the norm.

No other start for Japan, my persistent friend, the civ you chose to focus on.

 

[Sneaks]

I agree with Ahriman here. I am pretty against adding any start biases that are not explicitly needed.

 

[Thalassicus]

Though to be fair, the Arabia and Russia starts are mostly flavor. From my experience playing those civs, doubling resources isn't terribly useful if starting in a location that already has quadruple resources, just end up with a lot of excess. They'd ironically be more powerful traits if starting somewhere with scarce resources. I suspect they chose those two start bias's due to historical geography.

 

[black213]

A question: Arabia used to have +2 :civ5gold: per route in your mod, but it disappeared in some version. Explain?

 

[Thalassicus]

I replaced it with increased Bazaar yield (35%, up from 25%). Better bazaars are less ICS-friendly than fixed gold per city.

That reminds me, I intended to investigate ways to change the Arabian trait to a percentage increase in total empire-wide trade route income... will put it on my todo list. It'll help highly-populated empires more.

 

[aatami]

In my opinion, the Babylonian trait is a bit too much nerfed now.
BTW, when will you get the other DLC civs in? Or are they balanced enough already?

 

[Thalassicus]

It's a little difficult to balance them because I don't have the DLC, so I'm unsure just what changes would be necessary. I did buff terrace farms a bit. If you have any ideas for improving some weaknesses of the two (I've heard Conquistadors and Slingers are underpowered?) I'm open to suggestions.

 

[Txurce]

It's a little difficult to balance them because I don't have the DLC, so I'm unsure just what changes would be necessary. I did buff terrace farms a bit. If you have any ideas for improving some weaknesses of the two (I've heard Conquistadors and Slingers are rather underpowered) I'm open to suggestions.

Slingers are possibly more fragile than archers, but have a roll-of-the-dice retreat option when attacked. I have had games when three in a row go down with room to retreat. Giving them the sort of retreat function that the old Zulu UU had... or the ability to move after firing... would probably be enough to make them a clear notch above an archer. Let's also keep in mind that the balance isn't just with regard to archers, but with regard to the Inca UB and SA. The UB is situational enough to be so-so. The SA is pretty great, especially if you build cities on hills.

If I recall, conquistadors have a city bonus akin to Mandelaku Cavalry, and can settle cities. Why buff that?

 

[Sneaks]

Spain should just be left as is. Its a gimmick Civ that some people love, and others hate, usually based on the fact that its strengths are entirely based on map type and luck.

Incas are good where they are with the Terrace buff. Adding anything more would overpower them.

 

[Txurce]

Spain should just be left as is. Its a gimmick Civ that some people love, and others hate, usually based on the fact that its strengths are entirely based on map type and luck.

Incas are good where they are with the Terrace buff. Adding anything more would overpower them.

I forgot about the Terrace buff. Given that, I agree. I started to call Spain a wacky civ in my post - kinda like you saying"gimmick" - and then dropped it. But yes - Spain is what it is to the point where it would be a shame to rationalize it.

 

[Ahriman]

I think Spain is significantly weakened by the increase to unit purchase costs and building purchase costs in the early game.

I think Spain is horrible balancewise, and I think Conquistadors are probably the worst UU in the game. Tercios would be significantly improved if pikes could upgrade to them (which would make a lot of logical sense too).