I'm afraid change for the sake of change applies to a lot of proposals.I’m sorry if this is rude to say, but this entire Goddess of Protection deal seems like change for the sake of change. There’s nothing wrong with the pantheon in it’s current form that warrants this sort of overhaul.
At 3 , the barracks would be entirely carrying the pantheon, and the yields on kills wouldn't even be a factor.Second game with the proposed God of War. Japan, a civ that adds 1 to Barracks (and Walls), it is the civ most affected by this proposal. Founded on turn 102, with Stonehenge, Statue of Zeus (free Barracks + 1 from the wonder itself). Opened Tradition (3 early from Sovereignty) due to a flood plains start. Barbarians didn't roam my lands, I instead went to clear three barb camps that were requested by two CS quests.
Overall a slow start compared to what this civ usually gets with the current Goddess of Protection + Tradition. I usually get a pantheon between turns 85-95 in these conditions. Compared to it, founding on turn 102 makes it similar to how I tend to perform when playing with civs that have no faith bonuses, like Babylon and Carthage. And curiously, AI Austria managed to found on turn 101 with Goddess of the Home. All of this suggest that the proposed God of War could be amended to provide 31 to Barracks and be on par with existing pantheons, faith-wise.
The 1 on Barracks has been underwhelming, even for Tradition's secondary cities. I was expecting it to help them to get infrastructure almost as if I were playing Progress, but the city tends to have already expanded to enough production tiles by the time the barracks is ready.
Despite Japan adding a 1 to the barracks, I'm one policy behind all other AIs, though not for long. There's a big opportunity cost in prioritizing Barracks over the monument and shrine; Japan is usually able to cover it, but a generic civ will likely struggle. I intent to try with a generic civ next to confirm it.
As much as feasible. With Assyria, not only I chased them into their camps, I even went to an early war against Poland to kill units and conquer two cities. With Japan, there was no war, but I actively chased barbarians and even sent my units to remote places just to kill the last barbarian camp that was left around.At 3 , the barracks would be entirely carrying the pantheon, and the yields on kills wouldn't even be a factor.
How much stuff are you managing to kill in these test runs? Are you doing the things you ought to be doing like hunting barbs and killing CS units?
Mainly Aztecs and/or raging barbarians, I think. So often a post appeared of someone enjoying raging barbarians with Aztecs and God of War. This pantheon is well tailored for this civ.We could increase the yields to 125% or even 175%, but the original, with no building bonus was 225%, and I can't imagine how anyone managed to found with this pantheon if we can't put half of it on a building.
A civ being particularly synergistic with a pantheon isn't new: Russia with God of Expanse, Aztecs with God of War, Babylon with Goddess of Wisdom, Carthage with God of Commerce, Inca with Goddess of Nature, Polynesia with God of the Sea, Egypt with Goddess of Beauty, etc.Edit: also another good reason to move 1 of the 2 buildings off GoProtection. It maps way too cleanly onto Japan's UA right now. Basically removes any decision making from that civ for pantheon choice because there is 1 pantheon which is already just 2.5x power on your UA. It even gives the same yields.
A building bonus is never unique or unusual. If anything, Having 2 of them on 1 pantheon makes GoProt the most *Usual*, ordinary pantheon. Defending the most samey, boring bonus in the game as actually the thing that makes GoProt unique cuts no ice with me.Which, for the record, is not inherently a problem. Something being unique or unusual does not mean it's something that needs to be fixed.
No, not really. 21 on Barracks and the Palace with the healing bonus is pretty good on it's own. If you're also building lots of Walls then sure, it's better, but it's not like it's bad if you're not.If you went GoProtection you are building walls in all cities. That remains true Before and after the change. If you weren’t going to build walls you wouldn’t have picked the pantheon that relies on them for almost half its yields.
I'm not defending the two boosts as something unique, I'm saying it's not inherently a problem. There's a difference.A building bonus isn’t a unique or unusual. Having 2 of them on 1 pantheon makes GoProt the most *Usual*, bog-standard pantheon. Defending the most samey, boring bonus in the game as actually the thing that makes GoProt unique cuts no ice with me.
I'll put it this way then. Having 2 building bonuses on a single pantheon is aggressively mediocre design.And Protection is the most *Usual*, bog-standard pantheon because of this? One of the problems you list in the proposal is that it's "the only pantheon that has 2 regular building bonuses." That's what I was addressing with that aside. Now it's bog-standard? Make up your mind.
Getting the heal on kills onto it is new code, and I'm not sure I'm cool with how that pushes GoWar into so much overlap with the Dominance Authority policy.Faith from Kills (150% of unit CS), and Melee units heal for 10 points after killing a military unit.
+2+2 from Barracks
A civ being particularly synergistic with a pantheon isn't new: Russia with God of Expanse, Aztecs with God of War, Babylon with Goddess of Wisdom, Carthage with God of Commerce, Inca with Goddess of Nature, Polynesia with God of the Sea, Egypt with Goddess of Beauty, etc.
I sympathize with this point of view, but I don't know if it makes good design sense.On a side note, I don't like the amendment to Protection's healing being toned down, since that's the iconic part of the pantheon. I prefer this pantheon to be powerful and unique at expense of speed, over fast but weaker and generic.
I tested coding it before suggesting it, and managed to implement it with sql/xml only. It can be implemented with the existing code.Getting the heal on kills onto it is new code, and I'm not sure I'm cool with how that pushes GoWar into so much overlap with the Dominance Authority policy.
Other heal abilities work outside friendly territory, Goddess of Protection's heal doesn't. It is not going to push your offense towards enemy lands outside placing citadels. It is powerful when defending, but is limited when on the offense. Especially against distant civs.That +10HP in certain situations is just extraordinary in a way that other pantheons aren't. The only ability in the game that is more than +5 heal by itself is the Khan. A +5HP heal is still definitely impactful.
Fair point. But note that pantheons that are hard to found, but powerful, can be an attractive choice for civs with good faith output or related effects, such as Ethiopia and India. A civ doesn't need to be synergistic with Protection to perform well with it, merely being a solid religious civ works as well.Now, putting that 10HP in competition with the viability of the pantheon to found is tough, because some civs have synergies with this pantheon and no doubt would like to found with it while also playing to their strengths. But if you are the civ with the unique wall, and it was determined that your pantheon would be hard to found with because what makes it special comes at the cost of its faith generation, that sounds much better on paper than it does in an actual game. Some other civ like the Iroquois gets to have a pantheon boost their UB without it being a special, non-founding pantheon, and when they found and you don't, they can spread to you and supplant your pantheon.
Likely good enough.How about 175% on kills and +2 on barracks? That would also unstack the kills% from Aztecs