[Vote] (2-05) Reveal Iron Earlier At Mining Instead Of Bronze Working

[CppMaster]

This proposal is asking to please consider the plight of the few civilizations whose UUs rely on Iron.

Yeah, that's rationale for the proposal, but regardless, my point still stands.

 

[Legen]

This proposal is asking to please consider the plight of the few civilizations whose UUs rely on Iron.

This isn't about civs that have Iron-based UUs. It is for any build that benefits from Iron reveal. Those include:

• Pantheons that enhance either mines or resources in general (rather than a specific improvement): Earth Mother, Spirit of the Desert, God of the Stars and Sky, "Rhiannon, the Sovereign".
• Civs that interact with strategic resources directly (Ethiopia, Russia) or indirectly (e.g. Statecraft civs, who can more easily obtain a strategic monopoly with Foreign Service).
• Militaristic civs in general, who have incentives for pursuing the bottom part of the tree.
• Tradition civs, who tend to lack science for Bronze Working and can't rely on simply settling more cities in case no Iron is revealed where they settled.

Moving Iron reveal to Mining addresses a lot of the issues that these builds have due to Iron being the only Ancient Era resource revealed at a second column tech tree.

 

[Rekk]

If this doesn't pass and anyone wants Iron on Mining the sql code is pretty straight forward:

    UPDATE Resources
    SET TechReveal = 'TECH_MINING'
    WHERE Type = 'RESOURCE_IRON';

    UPDATE Resources
    SET TechCityTrade = 'TECH_MINING'
    WHERE Type = 'RESOURCE_IRON';

It occurs to me that checking "Strategic Balance" will also give access to easily settled iron.

 

[Rekk]

This isn't about civs that have Iron-based UUs. It is for any build that benefits from Iron reveal. Those include:

• Pantheons that enhance either mines or resources in general (rather than a specific improvement): Earth Mother, Spirit of the Desert, God of the Stars and Sky, "Rhiannon, the Sovereign".
• Civs that interact with strategic resources directly (Ethiopia, Russia) or indirectly (e.g. Statecraft civs, who can more easily obtain a strategic monopoly with Foreign Service).
• Militaristic civs in general, who have incentives for pursuing the bottom part of the tree.
• Tradition civs, who tend to lack science for Bronze Working and can't rely on simply settling more cities in case no Iron is revealed where they settled.

Moving Iron reveal to Mining addresses a lot of the issues that these builds have due to Iron being the only Ancient Era resource revealed at a second column tech tree.

None of these are "issues" that need to be solved.

Abilities that benefit from resources in general don't need iron in particular.

And none of it matters at all if there isn't iron nearby.

 

[pineappledan]

If we decide to move Iron reveal to Classical Era, then expect a lot of requests for "doesn't require Iron" to a lot of UUs for balance sake, as being unable to effectively secure Iron when settling adds a considerable amount of RNG that is out of the control of their civs.

There are 3 sword UUs.
One of them already has no iron requirement.
One of them is on a civ which I routinely ignore their UU for. It has strong promotions that carry forward, but otherwise isn’t much stronger than a base swordsman, so it doesn’t feel pressure to sword rush.
The last is Rome, a dedicated sword rusher that needs iron. Their UU is one of the strongest in the game, and can stand toe to toe with medieval melee units. Their kit has come under scrutiny recently, and they are going to get a powerful ability that will secure safe iron if their force-annex ability is approved and implemented.

I said "by itself". The earlier forge doesn't actually need to be tied to iron being moved to Iron Working, it can exist separately to that.

That’s the core of my criticism of your proposal. Nothing is ever “by itself”. The techs and game progression is in relation to all the other techs, etc. your proposal opens a hole in the game progression, pillages a tech with no compensation, and ignores basic due diligence to make sure that techs are actually worth researching, and not just stepping stones to other techs.

I disagree with moving iron earlier, but I strongly disagree with leaving Bronze Working a hollow shell.

 

[Legen]

Is there any reason in particular why the game needs to change to benefit these playstyles instead of the player adapting to the game?

These aren't "issues" that need to be solved.

Balance and design regarding RNG. Many Ancient Era resources that were previously on the second column were moved over time to the first column because there was a common recurring complaint about them: that you had to commit a lot of science to see if there was a given resource around, and it would often turn out to have been a waste. Implied to it was that RNG played a big role in how much you benefitted from science in Ancient Era, rather than actual decision making.

Examples of such moves include Banana being moved from Calendar to Agriculture, Stone moved from Construction to Wheel, Fish moved from Fishing to Pottery.

People generally were annoyed that science was often a dice game in Ancient Era, and wanted their reasoning on which tech to pick to involve more informed decisions than hoping it reveals something. Iron is the only resource not yet given the same treatment and is prone to the same issue: research it and find out it was a waste of a lot of science, or that you settled sub optimally. Yet, Iron tends to have a bigger impact than most other resources, so you want to have extra control over how much RNG is involved in it, and in the science you pay for its reveal.

That’s the core of my criticism of your proposal.

Nothing is “by itself”. The techs and game progression is in relation to all the other techs, etc. your proposal opens a hole in the game progression, pillages a tech with no compensation, and basically ignores to do basic due diligence to make sure that techs are actually worth researching, and not just stepping stones to other techs.

I'm not against Bronze Working getting compensations and other design improvements. And it isn't in conflict with Iron being revealed at Mining, where it makes the most sense for Ancient Era's balance and design.

That this proposal focus specifically on the issues caused by Iron reveal on a second column tech doesn't imply that I'm against giving something to Bronze Working. It just means that I think Iron reveal at Bronze Working isn't the right way to make it a good tech. If it were, you wouldn't be complaining about Bronze Working already being bad for your builds. Something else is needed and it makes sense to see what people have to say about before proposing something for it separately.

The only reason why I haven't in this congress was because the little discussion that there was revolved around barbarians, in a patch that made a huge change on them and, therefore, increases the usefulness of Spearman and its tech unlock, Bronze Working. My initial experience with this patch has been that the Spearman is more valuable to handle these changes to barbarians; on my end, Bronze working wasn't looking to be in poor shape so far, quite the contrary.

 

[Legen]

And none of it matters at all if there isn't iron nearby.

The possibility of having little to no iron nearby is exactly why Iron reveal has to be on Mining, instead of Bronze Working.

In order to see if you can commit to a given build that uses or benefits from Iron, you need to reveal Iron first. Otherwise, you are taking a gamble with your science output and early turns. At Mining, you can make an informed decision from your surrounding; at Bronze Working, you have to spend a lot of turns uncertain of whether there's enough Iron and where it is, and sometimes commit or avoid a build before you have the information you need. It places a lot of risk and leaves a bad taste whenever the reveal shows your early decision to commit or avoid a build didn't match the map's RNG. This is something that people experience with other second column techs in the past, when those also had a resource reveal. Moving the reveal to a first tech column addressed it cleanly for them.

Bronze Working is currently the only tech to give such a bad taste this way, and is an important part of why some people don't like its current state. It is a bad design to have a resource unlock there: it creates problems in the game progression, it makes RNG a bigger issue on your starts than it has to be, and the times in which the Iron reveal shows little to no iron near you makes you really displeased with the cost spent to get this tech. And if you are going to commit to a build that depends on Iron, you pick Bronze Working in a position of uncertainty and with few to no other resource reveals, rather than in a position of parity with other tech paths. Moving Iron reveal to Mining fixes this problem and opens more space for better additions to Bronze Working.

 

[pineappledan]

The possibility of having little to no iron nearby is exactly why Iron reveal has to be on Mining, instead of Bronze Working.

So it's important that we not fix the problem of iron distribution being spotty. Players need to See that we didn't fix the problem.

If you are committed to bottom tech aggression, it's likely you chose that path turn 1, when you picked your civ, not at mining. If Iron is revealed when it is useful, like most SRs, then it likely kicks off a land grab in early classical, just after the first expansion phase. The dedicated bottom tech players will reveal it well-ahead of the top-tree civs, and be able to kick off their expansions/invasions with more asymmetric knowledge. This makes for more flexible gameplay. However, it doesn't matter if iron is revealed at turn 7 or turn 70, if there is no iron.

In order to see if you can commit to a given build that uses or benefits from Iron, you need to reveal Iron first. Otherwise, you are taking a gamble with your science output and early turns.

Unless you put 2 buildings that yield on the lower tree (barracks, Forge), or better yet, put one directly on Bronze Working.

 

[BornDownUnder]

I find the premise of wanting to remove rng and therefore remove tactics/strategy adaptation from a game, should be for a modmod not integration.

In saying that I never re-roll starts, as I enjoy the rng component as it makes two games never the same. I also always choose a random leader unless I am specifically testing a playstyle due to VP patch changes.

For Ancient Era unlocking Mining with no resource reveal attached, why not add a new resource?
Something like Ochre or Flint. You could provide +2, +1.

For Bronze Working being lacking, I think Pdan's wonder movement proposal might actually be a great idea, the idea of moving the catapult is also a great idea, imo.

Currently in all of my games even as Authority, Bronze Working is an unfortunate yet necessary science and time sink on the tech path to swords. The upgrade of spearman from warrior is a next to meaningless gold sink unless horse units are coming in force or city defenses are proving to be withstanding, which by that time in most games swordsmen are close to being online.

The only real benefit of Bronze Working in the current patch iteration is the discovery of Iron as I can potentially get it online with tile improvement prior to researching Iron Working, which in turn offers the boost of production output. The science bonus is negligible at that point in time as focus is on upgrading warriors to spearmen to swordsmen.

If moving Iron back a teir to be more cohesive with the units requiring it, it does delay those units coming online which in turn delays Authority civs potentially gaining a foothold in maintaining pressure early on before defenses really come online.

For example in Marathon speed gameplay (Which I mostly play at) one can have Iron online a few turns prior to unlocking sword units, moving Iron back a teir will delay that by ~20+ turns for a civ that has invested into Progress for Liberty (25% reduction turn cost for tile improvement) social policy, being 2 policy choices which Authority civs cannot accomodate viably if they have strong civ neighbours.

 

[Legen]

So it's important that we not fix the problem of iron distribution being spotty. Players need to See that we didn't fix the problem.

If you are committed to bottom tech aggression, it's likely you chose that path turn 1, when you picked your civ, not at mining. If Iron is revealed when it is useful, like most SRs, then it likely kicks off a land grab in early classical, just after the first expansion phase. The dedicated bottom tech players will reveal it well-ahead of the top-tree civs, and be able to kick off their expansions/invasions with more asymmetric knowledge. This makes for more flexible gameplay. However, it doesn't matter if iron is revealed at turn 7 or turn 70, if there is no iron.

I find the premise of wanting to remove rng and therefore remove tactics/strategy adaptation from a game, should be for a modmod not integration.

In saying that I never re-roll starts, as I enjoy the rng component as it makes two games never the same. I also always choose a random leader unless I am specifically testing a playstyle due to VP patch changes.

It's not about removing RNG, it is about second tech columns requiring far too much science to allow players to adapt their plans to it. Iron reveal on Bronze Working is terrible for the flow of Ancient Era progression, that's why it has to be moved to Mining.

And no, some civs are either generalists, opportunistic, or have more than one possible build, like the Celts. You can opt to change your plans to your environment with such civs, as long as you have the information of what's around you. And you don't want to depend on second column techs in order to do that.

For Ancient Era unlocking Mining with no resource reveal attached, why not add a new resource?
Something like Ochre or Flint. You could provide +2, +1.

No matter if you add one or a hundred bonus resources to Mining, it doesn't change that Bronze working is a bad place to put a resource reveal.

 

[azum4roll]

Balance and design regarding RNG. Many Ancient Era resources that were previously on the second column were moved over time to the first column because there was a common recurring complaint about them: that you had to commit a lot of science to see if there was a given resource around, and it would often turn out to have been a waste. Implied to it was that RNG played a big role in how much you benefitted from science in Ancient Era, rather than actual decision making.

Examples of such moves include Banana being moved from Calendar to Agriculture, Stone moved from Construction to Wheel, Fish moved from Fishing to Pottery.

Bonus resources are placed near starts in a way that balance the starting position of each civ. They need to be revealed to provide their base yields.
Strategic resources, on the other hand, are completely randomly placed on the map, and don't need the treatment.

 

[rusbeh]

We really dont need new resources to fix an old one

 

[Stalker0]

Everything that uses Iron is Classical or later.

If you move iron back to Iron Working, it is no longer an ancient era resource.

Mines are ancient. People are talking about eh strategic value of the resource but frankly the yields are just if not more important at that stage in the game.

Horses are great because they give great yields, iron mines give great production. So reveals have utility beyond the use of the strategic resource

 

[pineappledan]

If the yields from the resource are so necessary then a bonus resource should suffice. Those will even spawn where you need them, rather than randomly.

The argument for moving iron forward completely ignores that other SRs require mines or quarries and unlock even later insists that they are fixing something by pulling iron onto the same tech as mines. The only SR that has its own improvement is oil.

Horses unlocking on the same tech as other pasture resources and the improvement itself is the exception, not the rule. Crowbarring iron into a t1 spot with mines is not resolving some discrepancy; there is no discrepancy in an SR unlocking separate from its improvement. Every time I bring up coal they denounce me as strawmanning. It's not strawmanning, it's the logical result of their fallacious arguments. Iron doesn't need to be brought earlier because it's not a bonus resource. It's a strategic resource and should unlock when it is needed: in classical, on the tech bearing its name.

 

[Stalker0]

Horses unlocking on the same tech as other pasture resources and the improvement itself is the exception, not the rule.

For more than half the game there are only 2 strategic resources, and the others appear at a time when needs and values are completely different than the early game. So saying half of those resources acts as “the exception” is not a good argument for either side of the debate.

 

[Legen]

Every time I bring up coal they denounce me as strawmanning.

It is strawmanning because the core argument of the proposal's rationale is about the science and opportunity cost of revealing Iron in comparison to revealing any other resource in the Ancient Era. Not about where every strategic resource is placed in relation to their improvement.

If a strategic resource and its improvement happen to match on the same tech, nice; that improvement has something to improve if your luxuries aren't based on it. Is it the whole point of the proposal? No. It is just one of its many ramifications.

 

[pineappledan]

that improvement has something to improve if your luxuries aren't based on it.

Or just any hill. Or are we forgetting that mines don’t require a resource just for argument’s sake?

It is strawmanning because the core argument of the proposal's rationale is about the science and opportunity cost of revealing Iron in comparison to revealing any other resource in the Ancient Era. Not about where every strategic resource is placed in relation to their improvement

Cool, so just ignore, minimize and downplay all the facts that run counter to your narrative. That’s why I keep being told not to worry about it.

“It’s not about iron being a strategic resource that I am comparing to bonus resources. Don’t worry about that.”
“It’s not about Bronze Working being made worthless. Don’t worry about that.”
“Different civs’ early games will be impacted by this. But even though I specifically cited that as a reason For the change, don’t use it as a reason Against the change. Don’t worry about those.”

 

[Legen]

Or just any hill. Or are we forgetting that mines don’t require a resource just for argument’s sake?

That's nitpicking. We're talking about resources. And again, it's a minor point in the discussion.

Cool, so just ignore, minimize and downplay all the facts that run counter to your narrative. That’s why I keep being told not to worry about it.

I've addressed your points on why I don't think they don't, that's called counterargument. If every counterargument to you is "minimize and downplay", we can't debate.

People don't have to think or feel the same way you do, they can have their own perspectives. Notably:

“It’s not about Bronze Working being made worthless. Don’t worry about that.”

Bronze Working is a military tech, not everyone is going to prioritize it. Builds that focus the top line techs will naturally neglect it, Iron reveal or not. And players that rarely or never play builds that focus the bottom line techs will naturally develop a much worse opinion on techs like Bronze and Iron Working than those that do focus them. I play with bottom line builds frequently, and Bronze Working tends to perform well for me; naturally, my opinion on it is going to be better than the opinion of someone that doesn't use similar builds.

I made my point in that the recent changes to barbarians make Bronze Working more attractive; Spearman are effective against them due to the 50% higher base CS; you stack some percentage modifiers (including defensive ones, like terrain and their Formation I) and you clean barbarians much faster, for lower total gold maintenance than with warriors. I've experimented a lot with this tech throughout this patch and found it to be better than you claim. Is my experience with Bronze Working "minimize and downplay", or is it my own perspective on the facts?

“Different civs’ early games will be impacted by this. But even though I specifically cited that as a reason For the change, don’t use it as a reason Against the change. Don’t worry about those.”

I've said that Ethiopia's argument for them being OP is based on the Stele being overtuned, not the UA. And that's if we accept the claim that they are top tier, which I don't think they are. The AI tests ran by L. Vern (here, here and here) had Ethiopia with a winrate of either 0.14 (twice) and 0.19, close to the expected 0.125 winrate of a median civ and all below the ~0.3 or above winrate of the top civs. They're a bit above the median, but not near being a top civ. Compare to Maya, who is also an early founder with good early science, their winrate was 0.19, 0.20 and 0.25; they're closer to being a top tier civ than Ethiopia.

And if you check Russia then, they're among the weaker civs, with the winrate being 0.00, 0.05 and 0.06. They make a case of needing a buff, and the early Iron reveal can be of use to them; their ability to double strategic resources owned mean they have an easier time securing its strategic monopoly (+10% CS when defending), which is what every Russia player will be aiming for already in Ancient Era. They won't wait for Iron Working to seek Iron, they want to secure it as soon as possible.

 

[BornDownUnder]

While I have no real qualms with Iron being discovered alongside researching Mining, there are several other aforementioned factors that I do have an issue with and is why I voted nay for the proposal.

First and foremost the game aims to be relatively historically accurate in defining the timeline with research times.

If you are wanting relevance to a historical timeline and given the fact the fact that Authority driven gameplay generally dictates that Mining is the first tech to research, Copper should be the resource to be discovered along with mining. Flint would be the best candidate as it predates copper for weaponry and tool usage, unfortunately it is not present in the game.

Clay, Coal and Heamatite was also mined extensively prior to the mining of Iron.

Copper was the first metal to be used on an industrial scale, then the discovery of Tin, which quickly led to Bronze Working. After Bronze Working, Iron became and still is one of the predominant resources to mined, as it is a component of steel metallurgy. Iron would likely have been used as arrow and spearheads initially, until smelting techniques evolved to knives, axes and swords. The use of Iron in history by majority opinion in archeology, originated from harvesting Meteorite debris and most likely seen as incredibily rare and valuable as a commodity, not for weaponry yet for ritual, cermonial and cultural significance.

The earliest artifacts of Iron in origin were beads in an Egyptian tomb (~3200 BCE) and a knife in Anatolia, modern day Turkey (Ruled by the Hittites at the time, ~2500 BCE)
It has been generally accepted that Iron was not widely adopted by civiilzations until around 12-1300 BCE, for industrial scale usage. Though the Hittites are thought to have used it for weaponry prior to majority adoption of other civilizations.

The proposal if passed without amendment would allow for a strategic resource of significant value from the following tech era to be traded prior to anything that requires it. The proposal was also without remedy to the removal of Iron from Bronze Working, which will in turn make Bronze Working even less valuable as a tech to research than it already is. PineappleDan suggested replacements which I think would actually suit Bronze Working far better than their current iteration, given historical accuracy. I also quite like the idea of Catapults for Bronze Working, I think it would fit very well thematically.

Predominately, your proposal is to move the strategic resource Iron to unlock with Mining upon the premise to remove the science gate and therefore the rng component which would subsequoently lessen the requirement for adaptation upon discovery of less than ideal resource potential in a given area to settle. You stated this initially and in subseqouent posts. This would be bad for gameplay variability and therefore replayability, in my opinion.

Fun fact (Or not so fun) we are running out of Iron quickly.

 

[DukeBrani]

Fun fact (Or not so fun) we are running out of Iron quickly.

Plenty of Iron in asteroids

16 Psyche - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org