(3-VT) Ancient & Classical Bottom Tech Shakeup

[ma_kuh]

To be clear, I think that sword rushes should definitely exist in the game. If moving iron makes the strategy unplayable, or too disadvantaged, that would be a problem for me. But what I'm talking about is that sword rush in any one game in particular should not be a given. When you dedicate to the bottom lane, and you reveal convenient iron, and you have a neighbor you want to snipe, then I think it's appropriate for a sword rush to be on the table. If you don't find iron, but you wanted to snipe someone, then I think the correct response is something like trying to transition into siege engines for a later push, or aim for a longsword timing instead.

 

[ma_kuh]

A secondary qualm I have with the whole swordsman rush is that the AI doesn't really pull them off, so they're pretty player-sided. It's eliminating someone from the entire game, it should be an appropriatly difficult task. If the tables were turned you wouldn't want swordsman rushes to be popular.

 

[amateurgamer88]

To be clear, I think that sword rushes should definitely exist in the game. If moving iron makes the strategy unplayable, or too disadvantaged, that would be a problem for me. But what I'm talking about is that sword rush in any one game in particular should not be a given. When you dedicate to the bottom lane, and you reveal convenient iron, and you have a neighbor you want to snipe, then I think it's appropriate for a sword rush to be on the table. If you don't find iron, but you wanted to snipe someone, then I think the correct response is something like trying to transition into siege engines for a later push, or aim for a longsword timing instead.

This is basically what some people are arguing for. If Iron is pushed to Ironworking, you can't pivot so easily. You have invested many turns to get five techs only to find you don't have any Iron. Given how Authority relies on snowballing, that in itself can be result in a game you aren't coming back from.

With Iron currently at Bronzeworking, a player only needs 2 techs to assess if Sword rush is viable. If not, they can still transition to Siege Engines or Longswords instead. If they are willing to risk it, there's still no guarantee that they'll succeed as they still need three more techs before they even unlock Swordsman.

I don't think people are saying that Sword rush should be viable all the time. Keeping Iron on Bronzeworking isn't a guarantee Sword rushes will happen. The players just want to have the ability to assess and have a chance to pivot if necessary.

 

[Siddorm]

My experience from my games is that iron is very useful and relatively scarce. So I am thinking that moving the iron reveal later to iron working could result in players having fewer options for city placement.
For example, a player could have committed to playing tall by choosing Tradition and have settled three cities before they reveal iron and see that they have no (or an insufficient amount of) iron within easy reach. They would then have limited options for acquiring sufficient iron not just for swordsmen but for cannons, cruisers, mine fields etc.
More generally, in my view, the first three columns of the tech tree are currently well balanced.

 

[azum4roll]

I think we should separate this proposal into several options/counterproposals:

1. Hardwood resource
2a. Forge/Colossus move + God(dess) of Fire
2b. Forge/Colossus move + God(dess) of Fire + Iron move

No option for just moving Iron since Bronze Working would be useless.

 

[pineappledan]

The point of the other changes to the bottom tree was to make it so that if you struck out on iron you don’t have to restart, because the bottom techs are well-rounded enough that they provide a well-supported start. Even if you get to iron and can’t build swords, at least you can get a pretty decent wonder.

If you ignored your entire start by rushing iron when you had a camp resource and struck out, well, that wasn’t a very smart play anyways.

What I am not hearing from the sword rushers is a reason why their 1 preferred build order/progression should take priority over having better-designed and flexible techs. We can have support for their sword rush (albeit not as well) without the bottom tree being so brittle and unable to support anything else.

This is a deep PROBLEM with congress, as far as I’m concerned. No one is willing to give up even one iota of power; all we are ever allowed to propose is buffs. Even here I propose 3 different buffs to support the bottom techs in order to compensate for moving a resource reveal 1 tech, and then a counter proposal emerges with all of the buffs without the 1 nerf.

We’re headed for infinite power creep here.

 

[gwennog]

This is a deep PROBLEM with congress, as far as I’m concerned. No one is willing to give up even one iota of power; all we are ever allowed to propose is buffs. More more more. Even here I propose 3 different buffs to support the bottom techs in order to compensate for moving a resource reveal 1 tech, and then a counter proposal emerges with all of the buffs without the 1 nerf.

Even if I agree with your proposal, I find that you are going a little strong against the congress, we cannot say that your proposals are not heard, soon we will have a Pinappledan-style VP given the number that have passed ( and I'm not complaining, I voted yes for almost all of them).

 

[pineappledan]

I guess I can expect to see a proposal to move horse reveal to agriculture, since that allows people to react and plan for their chariot rush. Anything less would be unfun and risky.

 

[Legen]

The point of the other changes to the bottom tree was to make it so that if you struck out on iron you don’t have to restart, because the bottom techs are well-rounded enough that they provide a well-supported start. Even if you get to iron and can’t build swords, at least you can get a pretty decent wonder.

If you ignored your entire start by rushing iron when you had a camp resource and struck out, well, that wasn’t a very smart play anyways.

What I am not hearing from the sword rushers is a reason why their 1 preferred build order/progression should take priority over having better-designed and flexible techs. We can have support for their sword rush (albeit not as well) without the bottom tree being so brittle and unable to support anything else.

I'm reiterating again, not everyone that aims for iron reveal is a swordsman rusher. And they also get screwed by iron reveal being moved later. Defensive builds, Steel builds, builds that lean towards military but have to balance their needs for top line techs, or Tall builds that want iron and can't afford to expand recklessly in hopes to secure invisible resources. Iron reveal at Iron Working messes with all of them, reducing flexibility more than your other measures combined increase.

 

[Stalker0]

This is a deep PROBLEM with congress, as far as I’m concerned. No one is willing to give up even one iota of power; all we are ever allowed to propose is buffs. Even here I propose 3 different buffs to support the bottom techs in order to compensate for moving a resource reveal 1 tech, and then a counter proposal emerges with all of the buffs without the 1 nerf.

We’re headed for infinite power creep here.

The man proposing a brand new bonus resource and has several proposals recently passed adding new buildings with more bonuses is now chastising others for power creep. That gave me a chuckle.

 

[cidk2000]

his is a deep PROBLEM with congress, as far as I’m concerned. No one is willing to give up even one iota of power; all we are ever allowed to propose is buffs. More more more. Even here I propose 3 different buffs to support the bottom techs in order to compensate for moving a resource reveal 1 tech, and then a counter proposal emerges with all of the buffs without the 1 nerf.

I dont agree with this congress lark either but to get what i want in the mod because im not a programmer im a sys admin / repair engineer i have to rely on others. I have to agree or disagree with you unfortunalty no offence to you @pineappledan i only agree with you about 25% of the time perhaps i play differently but in contrast i agree with 90% of @Stalker0 proposes because i feel it is sound. Personal Opinion that is all, theres time frustratingly ive commented on making the game harder and sometimes it does feel like a elites love-in for diety but i try to change it for myself, Yes im ignored frequently as im one voice with no programming knowledge but if can make small differences like this im good.

 

[pineappledan]

The man proposing a brand new bonus resource and has several proposals recently passed adding new buildings with more bonuses is now chastising others for power creep. That gave me a chuckle.

Insinuating that more content = more yields. Incredibly disingenuous. The new buildings I proposed split existing ones and offer the same bonuses for more cost, or are linked to beliefs and are already mutually exclusive. Adding new beliefs is not power creep.

More bonus resource types does not necessarily mean more resource frequency, as already discussed. If you cared enough to actually look at the proposal rather than just take pot-shots at it you would see I'm already proposing that flat jungle resource frequency be Lowered by this proposal, Even With the inclusion of a new resource. The small increase in frequency in the other tile types is compensatory for the yields on hardwood being greatly delayed relative to camp and plantation resources.

 

[stormfallen]

Maybe give the Heroic Epic one or two free iron? Not enough to rush with, but if you get unlucky with map resources then you can still build an elite unit or two to supplement your spearman core.

 

[Recursive]

Moderator Action: Knock off the personal attacks. If you feel that yield inflation is a problem, you can discuss this at ratification time or with proposals/discussion threads without the need for ad hominem.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[rusbeh]

The point of the other changes to the bottom tree was to make it so that if you struck out on iron you don’t have to restart, because the bottom techs are well-rounded enough that they provide a well-supported start. Even if you get to iron and can’t build swords, at least you can get a pretty decent wonder.

If you ignored your entire start by rushing iron when you had a camp resource and struck out, well, that wasn’t a very smart play anyways.

What I am not hearing from the sword rushers is a reason why their 1 preferred build order/progression should take priority over having better-designed and flexible techs. We can have support for their sword rush (albeit not as well) without the bottom tree being so brittle and unable to support anything else.

This is a deep PROBLEM with congress, as far as I’m concerned. No one is willing to give up even one iota of power; all we are ever allowed to propose is buffs. Even here I propose 3 different buffs to support the bottom techs in order to compensate for moving a resource reveal 1 tech, and then a counter proposal emerges with all of the buffs without the 1 nerf.

We’re headed for infinite power creep here.

So with this proposal there's two nerfs to early swords. One, you dont know if you even have iron and thats a huge one. Two, swords come online later which is a big deal if you need swords asap. You even admitted you dont like to go swords rush but why take it away from others who find it a good strategy. I dont go early swords a lot either but I like to have it remain a viable strategy in case I do go for it. Not like its an OP strat you dont have to nerf it.

Also I dont get why you're saying buffing swords if this proposal passes doesn't address the issue. Of course it does. It would help early swords.

 

[GeneralAmadeus]

I guess I can expect to see a proposal to move horse reveal to agriculture, since that allows people to react and plan for their chariot rush. Anything less would be unfun and risky.

I will get right on it once I get oil and coal moved to earlier techs. I am having a bit of trouble thematically justifying moving coal to acoustics.

 

[Little Billy]

I dont understand how moving iron solves the problems listed in the original post.

• Mining is the only early ancient tech that doesn't reveal a resource
  • Early resource reveals are an easy way to get some more yields on the map, that help get your economy up.
  • Mining has some good stuff, but building early mines on hills still requires a worker, and so it's much slower than the quick boost that other techs provide

You're adding a new resource to solve this one. Fine, but iron doesn't have to move to do that. I suppose it could be seen as having two resource reveals too close together?

​

• Iron is the only resource revealed in late ancient
  • This is awkward for a placement perspective, because 2nd tier ancient is roughly 2x the cost of 1st tier, meaning that the bottom tech tree's resource reveal is slow and heavily delayed
  • This has impact on the viability of the mining pantheon (Earth Mother), because its full compliment of boosts is slow to get going

See above. Also, if you take earth mother, chances are you have a mining lux and any iron reveals you get are gravy. Iron is not the main source of your faith or culture from the pantheon.

• Early ancient military rushing is difficult and has too many economic drawbacks
  • The Spearman doesn't carry bronze working enough to make bottom tech military rushing feel dangerous. You have to go all the way to iron for swords for a real combat edge
  • This classical rush is costly, because there is no infrastructure on Bronze, and the only source of science to speed this path along is on improved iron, which is randomly placed, and unreliable

So, we solve this by doing something that makes sword rushing even less reliable and more dangerous?

• Iron, a Strategic Resource, is being relied on too heavily for economic progression
  • Because it is a strategic resource, Iron is distributed randomly on the map, unlike bonus resources which are planted purposefully near players' start locations to boost their economies.
  • Reliance on Iron as a tile resource makes the bottom tree very random as a result
  • Iron unlocking earlier than anything that uses it means that it is used as a trade commodity with no in-game purpose other than trade for the ultra-early game. Strategic resources shouldn't be divorced from their components like this.

Maybe a valid point, but to solve the trade issue, it would be much simpler imo to accept the counterproposal that would make AIs not buy iron when they can't use it.
Also, do people really rely on iron as a tile resource? You get 3-4 deposits on an average start, not exactly a huge advantage

The other reason given was that it makes more sense for iron to be on a tech with its name on it, which is a thematic change only

 

[Recursive]

@pineappledan The changes to the Forge conflicts with queued proposal 2-08a: (2-08) Reduce Mine Yields Proposals

You'll need to remove that from the proposal or withdraw it.

 

[pineappledan]

This proposal does not propose to change anything about the forge except its tech unlock. I see no conflict.

 

[Recursive]

This proposal does not propose to change anything about the forge except its tech unlock. I see no conflict.

The change to Earth Mother also counts.