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

[Rekk]

Bronze Working should not be defined by Iron reveal, of all things

It's the tech before one starts to work the iron that is revealed. It's fine, thematically.

 

[rkkn]

Ie. This proposal, specifically, makes the game worse, so it should not pass.

I don't think that's a good way to go about things. Proposals should move the game towards better design, even if the intermediate state isn't as good and actually needs an additional proposal or two for the end result to be better.

If you want Mining to reveal a resource so badly then suggest a Bonus Resource for it to reveal
[...]
There was a proposal elsewhere in this congress where they wanted a new jungle production resource. a hardwood resource that is improved by lumber mills could do the job, and be tied to mining because the chop action unlocks there, and lumber mills are unlocked on bottom techs.

that's a pretty good idea

You may as well argue for Aluminum to reveal immediately for all the sense you're making.

this... is not even a remotely similar situation, however. Moving a resource around within the same era vs moving one ...5? eras earlier. Come on, man. Do better than that.

 

[pineappledan]

Then move it to Iron Working. If you're going to hang so much of your argument on civilopedia entries and words, then put it on the tech that literally has iron in the title.

Number of times "iron" is mentioned in the mining civilopedia entry: 1
Number of times "iron" is mentioned in the iron working civilopedia entry: 10

Oh well shoot. I guess since we are making balance changes based on pedia entries now, my argument is 10x better than yours.
You know that pedia entry you cite also lists coal right? "The earliest mined elements include copper, iron, diamonds, gold, silver, salt and coal." Do you want coal revealed immediately too?

this... is not even a remotely similar situation, however. Moving a resource around within the same era vs moving one ...5? eras earlier. Come on, man. Do better than that.

This is what we're reduced to. Arguments based on which pedia entries mention iron. That is the gossamer thin line of reasoning holding this proposal together. I don't have to do better; this proposal does.

 

[rkkn]

the pedia entry stuff is merely an afterthought. the important reasoning is all the stuff before that. don't strawman this

 

[Legen]

Because your rationale is just false. You're claiming that iron Needs to unlock with the mine improvement and that's as bizarre a statement as if you were making it about coal.

For Ancient Era resources, it needs. Which coal isn't one of, you're not going to base how you settle your core cities around coal availability. Settling decisions include which techs are more likely to reveal useful resources to the terrain around you, or which ones reveal key resources for your civ/build. If you're going to improve mines, you don't want to be stuck with featureless hills for almost three techs worth of science, you want at least one resource revealed before or alongside the mine unlock.

Have you ever tried to play with Earth Mother? Even if you have a mining-based luxury or a civ that has incentives for prioritizing monuments, the pantheon still tends to underperform because of the late Iron unlock. It is often mention as a weak pantheon, and the late Iron unlock is one of the reasons for it.

I make due with the archer or mounted units; I never feel the need for spears at the expense of unlocking improvements or wonders.

Do you play with civs that have incentives to go for the bottom techs of the tech tree? Militaristic civs in particular can't "make due" without spearman for long, and they have good reasons to aim for Statue of Zeus, Masonry and Iron Working. Double so if they have a Spearman UU or, like the Zulu, an UB unlock there. Spearman is also the fastest late Ancient military unlock you can get due to Bronze Working having only one tech requirement (Calendar and Military Strategy have two), making for a good option for quick military action. Authority barbarian hunting, for instance, goes handily with Bronze Working.

Non-militaristic civs may find Bronze Working underwhelming, but militaristic civs tend to give it high priority. Moving Iron earlier doesn't change that, they will still give it high priority.

If you want Mining to reveal a resource so badly then suggest a Bonus Resource for it to reveal, not to pull a tradeable SR away from the components that need it. You may as well argue for Aluminum to reveal immediately for all the sense you're making.

There was a proposal elsewhere in this congress where they wanted a new jungle production resource. a hardwood resource that is improved by lumber mills could do the job, and be tied to mining because the chop action unlocks there, and lumber mills are unlocked on bottom techs. Otherwise you could go for something like Obsidian as a bonus resource.

It's the tech before one starts to work the iron that is revealed. It's fine, thematically.

Then move it to Iron Working. If you're going to hang so much of your argument on civilopedia entries and words, then put it on the tech that literally has iron in the title.

Number of times "iron" is mentioned in the mining civilopedia entry: 1
Number of times "iron" is mentioned in the iron working civilopedia entry: 10

Oh well shoot. I guess since we are making balance changes based on pedia entries now, my argument is 10x better than yours.
You know that pedia entry you cite also lists coal right? "The earliest mined elements include copper, iron, diamonds, gold, silver, salt and coal." Do you want coal revealed immediately too?

We're talking about Ancient Era resources, which are the ones involved in settling decisions. Any mention of resources from later eras is a strawman argument, nobody decides where to settle their core cities based on coal or aluminum.

Moving iron reveal to Iron Working is even worse. You're playing with a civ or build that needs Iron to shine, and you're suggesting to make their settling process worse by delaying it even further than it already is.

The civilopedia mention is about the earliest entry, not the most frequent entry. It doesn't matter that Iron Working mentions it 10x more, it matters that Mining mentions it and comes earlier. Bronze Working's civilopedia entry is simply about it giving no reasoning why it would enable Iron reveal. Is it hard to understand that ancient people could already identify mineral deposits, iron included, and experiment with those long before they could turn it into proper weapons?

 

[pineappledan]

We're talking about Ancient Era resources, which are the ones involved in settling decisions

Unless we aren't. You take iron out of the equation by moving it later.

You're playing with a civ or build that needs Iron to shine, and you're suggesting to make their settling process worse by delaying it even further than it already is.

Then keep it at Bronze Working. Moving it back to Iron Working produces less of an issue for fewer civs than what you're trying to do.

Any mention of resources from later eras is a strawman argument

The civilopedia mention is about the earliest entry, not the most frequent entry. It doesn't matter that Iron Working mentions it 10x more, it matters that Mining mentions it and comes earlier.

My strawman vs your shifting of the goalposts.

I prefer "reductio ad absurdum". If you're prepared to move a resource 1 tech using specious arguments, why not 8 techs?

 

[Rekk]

The civilopedia mention is about the earliest entry, not the most frequent entry. It doesn't matter that Iron Working mentions it 10x more, it matters that Mining mentions it and comes earlier.

It doesn't matter at all.

 

[Legen]

Unless we aren't. You take iron out of the equation by moving it later.

Then keep it at Bronze Working. Moving it back to Iron Working produces less of an issue for fewer civs than what you're trying to do.

No, because both Bronze and Iron Working have their own issues with Iron reveal. Any civ with incentives to focus on the bottom part of the tree have an artificial issue thrown to them compared to civs that want to focus the top part of the tech tree. So far, the arguments against the proposal is essentially that civs and builds should have it worse than the latter because you don't like Bronze Working when playing the latter and want more reasons to pick Bronze Working, regardless of the issues it causes for the former.

My strawman vs his shifting of the goalposts.

I prefer "reductio ad absurdum"

The argument has two parts, that there's justification for an earlier iron reveal, and that Bronze Working doesn't give reasons for having it. One part doesn't invalidate the other.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think that's a good way to go about things. Proposals should move the game towards better design, even if the intermediate state isn't as good and actually needs an additional proposal or two for the end result to be better.

I think there is a place for that thinking, especially when something is a lot more "experimental".

However, in this case, we have been here before. Moving iron is not a new concept, in fact we have done it several times in the mod's history. And the result came back that bronze working without iron reveal was too weak. So here we are again.

Instead of pushing through a proposal that we know has issues, we should debate and craft a better proposal that solves both problems. We are given lots of time in the proposal phases to debate and craft, and there is no urgency that this problem is so bad we just have to fix it right this second, we could always fix it next month. I'm not fully opposed to having iron earlier, I can see some benefits, and if someone had a version of this where bronze working still looked competitive, I would consider it. But I see no reason to vote for something I know will have issues due to past experience.

 

[pineappledan]

Your mentioning of the Earth Mother pantheon is completely irrelevant; we can change earth mother however we see fit if people feel it is lacking. If you were actually concerned about earth mother you would have incorporated a change to it — or even a single mention of it — in your OP.

Do you play with civs that have incentives to go for the bottom techs of the tech tree? Militaristic civs in particular can't "make due" without spearman for long, and they have good reasons to aim for Statue of Zeus, Masonry and Iron Working. Double so if they have a Spearman UU or, like the Zulu, an UB unlock there. Spearman is also the fastest late Ancient military unlock you can get due to Bronze Working having only one tech requirement (Calendar and Military Strategy have two), making for a good option for quick military action. Authority barbarian hunting, for instance, goes handily with Bronze Working.

Non-militaristic civs may find Bronze Working underwhelming, but militaristic civs tend to give it high priority. Moving Iron earlier doesn't change that, they will still give it high priority.

If your concern is lack of economic base then revealing a bonus resource at mining addresses this. Without the downsides.

A spear rush is more or less unaffected by this proposed change, otherwise.

If your issue is that sword rushes are hampered by pushing iron later, because civs don’t have time to find, settle and improve iron before their swordsmen are unlocked, that is a fair criticism and I agree. This is the same reason why the only chariot UU doesn’t require horses.

Classical era civs are comparatively more able to respond to iron reveal than ancient era are to the horse reveal, but it’s tight. When playing Rome I often prep a settler just as iron is being revealed, because I fully expect to have to settle a new city for iron, for example. This is easily done at Iron Working, you can have iron connected with a few turns if you are willing to settle on the iron. Civs don’t have the economic base or flexibility to react that fast to horses’ reveal. Regardless, This doesn’t address the issue that some starts simply have no iron within a safe settle distance. Your proposal doesn’t offer anything on that front, and has too many downsides in comparison to just leaving the iron reveal where it is, or even moving it back.

If you had instead proposed iron be made more common, with no 6 quantity deposits and more 2 quantity deposits then you would have my support.

One part doesn't invalidate the other

One part was never valid to begin with.

 

[Legen]

if someone had a version of this where bronze working still looked competitive, I would consider it

We can discuss some ideas for it now, since the fear of those voting nay is that Bronze Working will be weak. Some that I have for next congress are:

• Moving Water Mill from Masonry to Bronze Working.
  • Water Mill was originally an Ancient Era building unlocked at The Wheel. It would make a logical path that Mining unlocks Well and Bronze Working unlocks Water Mill, given that they are similar and mutually excluding. The Water Mill would need some yield and cost tweaks to fit back to Ancient Era, but at least it wouldn't require new code or assets.
  • Masonry is already a strong tech, with the Arena, Terracotta Army and Catapult unlock (plus faster movement on roads). It can afford to lose the Water Mill and still be a well sought tech.
• Move the Scout upgrade to Bronze Working and add a "bonus CS vs barbarians" promotion to the Spearman.
  • Consolidates Bronze Working as an anti-barbarian tech for those finding themselves under more pressure than they had foreseen, or if they are wary of their Authority neighbor getting too many yields from hunting barbarians around your civ. Even those focusing the top part of the tech tree can use it as a fallback tech.
• Bronze Working's +20 chopping bonus increased to +40 and reduces chopping turns by 2, remove Iron Working's +20 and Machinery's -2 chopping turns.
  • Opens the possibility of Bronze Working as a way to rush production towards World Wonders. Even if you are focusing the top part of the tech tree and focusing on wonders, Bronze Working becomes a consideration for your goals.
  • Iron Working and Machinery don't depend on the lost effects for their relevance, those effects tend to be afterthoughts when researching them.

If your concern is lack of economic base then revealing a bonus resource at mining addresses this. Without the downsides.

Unfortunately, it doesn't. Some civs want Iron specifically and need to know where it is to decide where to settle. Militaristic civs are the most obvious, but they also include Ethiopia and Russia, who interact with strategic resources, not with bonus resources.

 

[pineappledan]

We can discuss some ideas for it now, since the fear of those voting nay is that Bronze Working will be weak. Some that I have for next congress are:

These should be included in your initial proposal. This is an inadequate and damaging proposal without some sort of compensatory addition to BW.

At minimum, this proposal should be suspended and re-submitted next congress with 1 of these inclusions.

Unfortunately, it doesn't.

What do you mean "it doesn't"? Your criticism of mining was that it is the only 1st tier tech that doesn't reveal a Bonus Resource. Why, then, should it be given a Strategic Resource?

The yields from a revealed bonus resource at mining, whether or not you can improve it, will shore up some of the economy for a civ that rushes the bottom of the tree. You are abandoning your own premise by saying this doesn't matter and won't help.

Some civs want Iron specifically and need to know where it is to decide where to settle.

all civs need to know where strategic resources are whenever they are revealed and whatever their focus is. This is a neutral statement and doesn't imply that iron should be brought earlier, unless you are prepared to argue that ALL Strategic resources should be revealed in Ancient.

If Iron is revealed at Mining, Bronze, or Iron Working, a civ is capable of settling newly-revealed resources. In fact, all civs' ability to react to new resources goes up as the relative cost and speed that they can deploy settlers increases. Once again, you are claiming that timing is everything, but it's not. If I am blocked from settling iron resources, it is because I have none nearby, and your proposal does nothing to fix that. It invents a false solution to a false problem instead.

Militaristic civs are the most obvious, but they also include Ethiopia and Russia, who interact with strategic resources, not with bonus resources.

Okay, I'll bite.

Russia gains +100% resource quantity in its UA. You want to move iron earlier, so Russia is going to get double quantity on a resource it can only trade to other civs who also can't use it even sooner. How is this making Russia a better-designed civ, rather than making it more awkward? What Russia mainly does is magnify the issue you are creating with a trade-only ancient SR.
Ethiopia gains +1 to Strategic Resources. Do you actually think that Ethiopia needs a buff? Do you think that Ethiopia isn't founding early enough right now, and that it needs both Horses and Iron for its UA?
You mentioned these two, so let me ask you: Do you think your proposal makes these civs better or more balanced? I don't.

 

[Stalker0]

Bronze Working's +20 chopping bonus increased to +40 and reduces chopping turns by 2, remove Iron Working's +20 and Machinery's -2 chopping turns.

This one is interesting. I have mentioned that part of the problem with going BW is it limits what WW you normally have access to. However, with a massive chop power you MIGHT be able to snag a wonder through raw production power, its an interesting idea.

 

[Legen]

Your mentioning of the Earth Mother pantheon is completely irrelevant; we can change earth mother however we see fit if people feel it is lacking. If you were actually concerned about earth mother you would have incorporated a change to it — or even a single mention of it — in your OP.

I did:

Anyone playing with a civilization or pantheon that needs to prioritize Iron (e.g. Rome, Earth Mother)

This is an inadequate and damaging proposal without some sort of compensatory addition to BW.

It is not damaging, and it has its merits on Iron reveal should not be on a second column tech. It is not Iron reveal's fault that you don't like Bronze Working at the moment, or that it doesn't fit your build.

What do you mean it doesn't? Your criticism of mining was that it is the only 1st tier tech that doesn't reveal a Bonus Resource. Why, then, should it be given a Strategic Resource?

My criticisms are both that Mining ins that it doesn't reveal Ancient Era resources and that Iron is the only Ancient Era resource that is on a second column tech. The Mining part compounds the issue with Iron because you then have a dead tech in terms of resource reveal when going for Iron reveal, it isn't the whole issue.

I opened my rationale with "Iron is currently the only Ancient Era resource that is revealed at the second tech column of this era" for a reason. Adding bonus resources to Mining doesn't change that Iron would still be the only second column tech resource reveal of Ancient Era.

If Iron is revealed at Mining, Bronze, or Iron Working, a civ is capable of settling newly-revealed resources. In fact, all civs' ability to react to new resources goes up as the relative cost and speed that they can deploy settlers increases. Once again, you are claiming that timing is everything, but it's not. If I am blocked from settling iron resources, it is because I have none nearby, and your proposal does nothing to fix that. It invents a false solution to a false problem instead.

It isn't just about being blocked, it is also about how you conciliate your civ's/build's need for Iron with the technologies needed to reveal all other resources. If you your civ is based on Horses (e.g. The Mongols), you can quickly obtain Animal Husbandry for 65 base science and proceed to pick the rest of the first column techs for all the other resource reveals, quickly enjoying the extra yields they provide. If your civ needs Iron instead (e.g. Rome), you have to spend 165 base science instead, which is almost the cost of three first column techs, reveal only one resource in the process and enjoy less extra yields.

Russia gains +100% resource quantity in its UA. You want to move iron earlier, so Russia is going to get double quantity on a resource it can only trade to other civs who also can't use it even sooner. How is this making Russia a better-designed civ, rather than making it more awkward? What Russia mainly does is magnify the issue you are creating with a trade-only ancient SR.
Ethiopia gains +1 to Strategic Resources. Do you actually think that Ethiopia needs a buff? Do you think that Ethiopia isn't founding early enough right now, and that it needs both Horses and Iron for its UA?
You mentioned these two, so let me ask you: Do you think your proposal makes these civs better or more balanced? I don't.

It makes their settling process smoother and the civ overall more enjoyable to play.

We can argue about Ethiopia's balance, but the arguments about them being OP tend to revolve around the Stele, not the UA's faith part. And on Russia, it means you can pursue what your UA is about more deliberately, lowering the overall impact of RNG in your settling process. The trade part you're arguing about already happens with the Iron reveal on Bronze Working, having it on Mining doesn't really change it.

 

[Stalker0]

We can argue about Ethiopia's balance, but the arguments about them being OP tend to revolve around the Stele, not the UA's faith part.

While true, you can't argue that a buff isn't a buff. If you consider a civ "top tier", any buff should at least have a bit of concern.

 

[Legen]

This one is interesting. I have mentioned that part of the problem with going BW is it limits what WW you normally have access to. However, with a massive chop power you MIGHT be able to snag a wonder through raw production power, its an interesting idea.

This also opens some options for Tradition, whose secondary cities struggle with production. Tradition already tends to neglect the bottom part of the tech tree more than Progress and Authority, so the incentive for them could push Bronze Working as an attractive tech for them.

 

[pineappledan]

We can argue about Ethiopia's balance, but the arguments about them being OP tend to revolve around the Stele, not the UA's faith part.

Well maybe we will start talking about the UA's faith part. You openly admit that you might be creating a problem.

The trade part you're arguing about already happens with the Iron reveal on Bronze Working, having it on Mining doesn't really change it.

So your argument is that this is already janky, and you're merely making it worse.

 

[Legen]

While true, you can't argue that a buff isn't a buff. If you consider a civ "top tier", any buff should at least have a bit of concern.

I think there are civs in better shape than Ethiopia, honestly. And the effect on them is more limited than on other civs that depend on Iron, given that their UA includes free techs. If an Ethiopia player wants to maximize faith through strategic resources, they already can due to how their UA works. Most iron-reliant civs can't do anything similar; they actually get to benefit more from an earlier Iron reveal than Ethiopia, equalizing the playing field.

Also worth remembering that, in the AI tests before, the militaristic civs tended to be at the bottom of the rankings, and they are the ones that are most likely to focus on the lower part of the tech tree. So, this proposal should improve the game's balance.

 

[CppMaster]

Don't worry about 2 civs out of nearly 50. When general stuff is well balanced, then particular OP civs can be tweaked.

 

[pineappledan]

Don't worry about 2 civs out of nearly 50. When general stuff is well balanced, then particular OP civs can be tweaked.

This is already a bad idea, and what I'm demonstrating is that it spins out into a kaleidoscope of other, smaller, bad ideas.

"Don't worry about it", what kind of defense is that?