(3-VT) Ancient & Classical Bottom Tech Shakeup

[pineappledan]

Iron deposits have always been a matter of luck whether they are at Bronze or Iron. Iron deposits are relatively common tiles, but if there aren't any within a reasonable distance from your start then it doesn't much matter when it was revealed.

That strategy has always been high risk. Moving Iron back to Iron Working makes it even riskier, maybe risky enough it's not worth trying to rush unless you have a lot of expansion space around you and are reasonably confident that you have enough blank space that iron must be somewhere in it.

Offsetting that risk by increasing the strength of the sword though? That doesn't address the issue. If things go your way and you have easily available iron, you would have even stronger swords as compensation for something that never happened. And if things don't go your way and there is no iron then you can't build those even stronger swords, so it doesn't matter.

You left it out because there's no change, but I think it's not insignificant that Tundra forest is 0.166 (from the initial forest spawn), then 0.125 (for the non-hills that weren't already checked, and get converted up to forests (which is itself a double-helping of assistance for naked tundra)), for an average resource frequency somewhere between the two. Just to give people some context for these numbers.

I suspect that is because Deer and Stone are the only tundra resources, while plains/grassland also have the 3 farm and 3 pasture resources.

 

[pineappledan]

For instance, on the hardwood, I pointed out what implications I foresee, of which I don't see it as neither good or bad. At most, I think you're overselling its impact. And I like the change on Colossus. And then, if point 2 were removed, the earlier forge would be an interesting addition to Bronze Working, which was argued last month to be a weak and unattractive tech. You get iron reveal alongside a building that takes advantage of that iron, which should be enough to compensate for the science cost of going all the way to Bronze Working for its reveal.

You were the one that cited the awkwardness of having a 2nd line ancient resource reveal. This proposal was a counterproposal to you wanting to move iron all the way to Mining. If having a 2nd-tier resource isn't acceptable -- as you alleged, and as came within a nose of passing last congress -- then the only acceptable direction to move iron is later.

If both Forge and Iron reveal were on the same tech there would be two different sources of on a single ancient tech. That would accelerate the entire ancient era and is at least as disruptive to the rest of the tree as moving iron back.

The forge is a more stable, dependable bonus for an ancient tech to unlock than a resource reveal. The bottom 4 techs on the ancient tree only unlock a total of 2 buildings right now, and 1 of them is blocked by freshwater, which has other ramifications for civs that want to concentrate on that section of the tree, because there is precious little to build right now. Of those 2 buildings, Well isn't reliably built in enough cities to be used for a pantheon, and Barracks is one half of the only pantheon that has 2 different building bonuses, and shares its pantheon with walls. So there are 4 techs with 2 buildings and 0.5 of a pantheon on the bottom 2/5 of the tree. Perhaps this is why we're so laser-focused on getting to Iron Working in this conversation? The rest of the bottom techs offer so little of value that the only thing to focus on is the next tech.

Yes, moving Iron will making rushing to Iron Working riskier, because you can't see the iron on the map until you are about to use it. It has always been a risky strategy, so continue to roll that dice if you want to, or focus on more ancient era techs and infrastructure and delay your military push if you think the risk is too great. That is entirely your call as the player. In exchange for that risk to 1 super-aggro strategy, the bottom ancient will be more reliable, give more of an economic base with both resources and infrastructure. These are things the bottom ancient is acutely lacking.

 

[DeAnno]

What if we split the difference and majorly reformatted how Swords worked? Assyrian Iron Chariots from 4UC can be built and used without enough iron but are a lot weaker, could we do something like that? It would let you build swords for a rush quickly and then power them up when the iron is actually connected.

My only concern would be if the AI can handle it well.

 

[rusbeh]

Iron deposits have always been a matter of luck whether they are at Bronze or Iron. Iron deposits are relatively common tiles, but if there aren't any within a reasonable distance from your start then it doesn't much matter when it was revealed.

That strategy has always been high risk. Moving Iron back to Iron Working makes it even riskier, maybe risky enough it's not worth trying to rush unless you have a lot of expansion space around you and are reasonably confident that you have enough blank space that iron must be somewhere in it.

Offsetting that risk by increasing the strength of the sword though? That doesn't address the issue. If things go your way and you have easily available iron, you would have even stronger swords as compensation for something that never happened. And if things don't go your way and there is no iron then you can't build those even stronger swords, so it doesn't matter.

The move of Iron reveal does make a big difference. Currently there is no risk to go iron working because you know if you have iron. It's okay for me if there's a risk factor but the risk is just not worth it with this proposal.

If you boost the swords the risk might be worth taking so it does address the issue. I think you're also underselling the impact of delayed swordsmen. The balance of swords is great now so why change it without compensation. I would reduce the swordsman hammer cost slightly to compensate for the delayed swords.

 

[CppMaster]

That strategy has always been high risk. Moving Iron back to Iron Working makes it even riskier, maybe risky enough it's not worth trying to rush unless you have a lot of expansion space around you and are reasonably confident that you have enough blank space that iron must be somewhere in it.

Shouldn't strategic balance be set on default? Currently it isn't, but it would solve this issue.

 

[Stalker0]

Currently there is no risk to go iron working because you know if you have iron. It's okay for me if there's a risk factor but the risk is just not worth it with this proposal.

This. Yes maybe I go to bronze working wanting to sword rush, I see there is no iron, and I have to rethink. It sucks, but we move on. At least I get spears to start some work if that's what I want to do.

Having to commit all the way to iron working and then not have an iron is just brutal.

I would like this proposal a lot more if it just left iron alone and made the other building moves. Then if you go bronze working and don't find iron, well you get the forge, so that's nice. And if you get both great, still takes effort to get everything online. Your sword rush timing is mostly the same, iron working now has the collosus to spice it up (which btw, is how it is in vanilla if anyone cares). I think that's a neat idea, but the iron move sours it.

 

[gwennog]

What if we split the difference and majorly reformatted how Swords worked? Assyrian Iron Chariots from 4UC can be built and used without enough iron but are a lot weaker, could we do something like that? It would let you build swords for a rush quickly and then power them up when the iron is actually connected.

My only concern would be if the AI can handle it well.

It would be very easy if you add a less powerful ironless swordman unit (a bronze age swordsman).

 

[pineappledan]

I would like this proposal a lot more if it just left iron alone and made the other building moves. Then if you go bronze working and don't find iron, well you get the forge, so that's nice. And if you get both great, still takes effort to get everything online. Your sword rush timing is mostly the same, iron working now has the collosus to spice it up (which btw, is how it is in vanilla if anyone cares). I think that's a neat idea, but the iron move sours it.

If both Forge and Iron reveal were on the same tech there would be two different sources of on a single ancient tech. That would accelerate the entire ancient era and is at least as disruptive to the rest of the tree as moving iron back

Maybe this is not a serious concern, but I do not intend to add yields and create a glut in ancient.

If you boost the swords the risk might be worth taking so it does address the issue. I think you're also underselling the impact of delayed swordsmen. The balance of swords is great now so why change it without compensation. I would reduce the swordsman hammer cost slightly to compensate for the delayed swords.

Stronger swords doesn’t address your risk issue. It just makes stronger swords. And when swords do eventually get fielded by someone they are even harder to deal with.

 

[Legen]

You were the one that cited the awkwardness of having a 2nd line ancient resource reveal. This proposal was a counterproposal to you wanting to move iron all the way to Mining. If having a 2nd-tier resource isn't acceptable -- as you alleged, and as came within a nose of passing last congress -- then the only acceptable direction to move iron is later.

I cited the 2nd column being awkward for making the reveal almost three times more expensive than a reveal should be at the early stage of the game. Your argument is that "oh, being nearly triple the science cost is a problem? Let's further triple the cost" (168 -> 472 ). Basically, you're further compounding the problem, as if to make people not want iron by making it impractical to aim for.

Also, how is the bottom path supposed to be improved if you're making a vital resource for it even harder to obtain? Having iron secured early makes both Iron Working and planning towards Steel more desirable, since what they provide becomes more reliable. Making iron harder to secure means Iron Working becomes a gamble, and planning for Steel is less desirable.

If both Forge and Iron reveal were on the same tech there would be two different sources of on a single ancient tech. That would accelerate the entire ancient era and is at least as disruptive to the rest of the tree as moving iron back.

You kept arguing that Bronze Working was a weak tech back then, even with iron reveal. It isn't a secret that this tech lags behind economically compared to many other T2 Ancient techs; even with as it is with iron reveal, you're going to develop your empire slower than someone aiming for the top line techs. Chances are that you're getting more science from revealing food resources by researching the T1 techs and focusing on the top techs instead, gaining science from the palace's population scaler at a much lower production cost. Moreover, top line techs lead to Writing, which is bound to eclipse the science of iron + forge with ease, especially on good food starts.

 

[cidk2000]

if stratiegic balance isnt on, and ive got to wait an extra tier tech for iron im not fighting im defending using spears theres no choice here a lot of abandoned games if im going authority and i dont get swordsman i cant rush anyone nor can i properly wage war sure ive got horses/ skimisher units all great unit killers via flanks but wheres the tanks... oh ive got to wait 50 turns or so for iron **** that. if this proposal passes peaceful defending now

 

[pineappledan]

I think you're also underselling the impact of delayed swordsmen.

Also, how is the bottom path supposed to be improved if you're making a vital resource for it even harder to obtain?

oh ive got to wait 50 turns or so for iron **** that. if this proposal passes peaceful defending now

If I am underselling this change to swords then the lot of you are way, way overstating your case for why sword rushing is a paramount strategy. You act as if the entire south side of the tech tree exists solely to enable sword rushing and has no value outside it, and should continue not to.

Here's a wild idea: What if the ancient techs were their own thing? What if Sword rushing -- an incredibly brittle and aggro strategy -- wasn't something we bend ourselves into pretzels to enable?

This to me suggests you don't do a lot of sword rushing

No, you're right. I don't. I find it boring, and it doesn't suit my preferred style of play to tilt into full invasions before I have my economy set up. I'm not sympathetic to this view that it's the only style of play we should work this hard to justify or support.

Sword rushing will still be possible with this change. It could be slower; it will definitely be riskier. I see no problem with that.

 

[cidk2000]

@pineappledan - your focusing on sword rushing only and cherry picking what i just said if swordsman comes later all ive got its those B****y Spears (in a cockney accent) tanking is much later

 

[Stalker0]

Sword rushing will still be possible with this change. It could be slower; it will definitely be riskier. I see no problem with that.

So you admit you don't do sword rushing, so of course you don't see a problem with nerfing it

The issue I'm having is you make this seem like a binary choice, the ONLY way to fix the south side of the tree is to move iron back, and anyone who disagrees is just mad their special little strategy is nerfed.

But its not, no one is putting a gun to the head and making us push back iron. Just....leave it alone, its literally that simple. And if your saying that south side will get more science sooner now....well, the goal of this IS to boost south side right, so I would rather do that and see if its too much than implement something I know is going to be a nerf to certain strategies on the "hope" it all balances out.

So guess its time to put the money where the mouth is, I will make a counterproposal with a simplier version of this idea.

 

[DeAnno]

It seems kind of ridiculous to me that it's being suggested Iron being moved back a tier isn't a straight nerf to Swords. Things being early makes them good. Things being late makes them bad. If you moved the Swords themselves back to Metal Casting, they'd be a lot worse. This is a lesser version of that, with the delayed Iron city and Iron hookup costing the Swords maybe ~10 turns before they hit the field on average. In that time walls will go up, Archer rushes will come, Skirmishers will come out, etc.

If you want to preserve some boom for the Swords while doing this the obvious thing is to lower their hammer cost. That won't affect their grinding potential as the game goes on much, but it will let them come out faster to compensate for the delayed start on them. It's also appropriate because Iron is a more prestiguous resource and a more significant part of a cost being moved back a column.

 

[filipop]

Yeah I don't understand why moving iron so late is *the* essential aspect of this grand proposal. Drop it and there's nice stuff here.

 

[pineappledan]

The impetus of this proposal was that someone made an argument against the existence of any resources in the 2nd tier of ancient, because they would interfere with pantheon progression.

This proposal is a counterproposal to a failed proposal from last congress, which proposed to move iron earlier, to mining, with no other compensation to bronze working.

If people like the reshuffling I did to justify and rebalance iron being moved back more than they like iron actually moving back then great. Make a proposal for that. The iron moving back is the core of this proposal however; everything else in this proposal is there to support and compensate the bottom of the tree for iron moving back.

Swords are fine. There is only 1 late-classical unit, CBows, and Swords stack up decently against them. Everything else in the era is beaten handily by swords. All this emphasis on rushing them ignores that swords have the entire classical era to show their worth, and classical era is the longest era in the entire game, and they can even pull their weight a bit into medieval, since they are only -1 from pikes.

@pineappledan - your focusing on sword rushing only and cherry picking what i just said if swordsman comes later all ive got its those B****y Spears (in a cockney accent) tanking is much later

the ranged units in the game have had a few rounds of buffs since 2.6, between the Archer line being pushed back and the skrimisher rework. It might be time to look at how Spears and Horsemen are fitting into this new paradigm.

 

[KlHannibal2]

What I see critical here is the later iron reveal. Yeah, I get forges earlier. But as a militaristic civ, I would much prefer seeing iron earlier. The randomness of having or not having it in range is very un-fun. If you have no iron in range, you lose A LOT of time settling another city before even being able to build swords. Your game gets bad not because of your bad decision, but because of mere luck.

And the swords rush was already weakend by moving catapults away from iron working.

 

[DeAnno]

And the swords rush was already weakend by moving catapults away from iron working.

Also by the recent nerf to Swords when they went from 17/Cover to 16/Professionalism. It's really barely hanging on as it is.

 

[ma_kuh]

Maybe I'm the only one thinking this, but I very much don't like this idea that rushing swords should be a play you are entitled to make no matter what.

I'm sympathetic to going all-in on swords, only to find out iron is neither near your current expansions, nor is it within a settle-able location. If AI were better at selling strategic resources themselves, it would probably not be such a big deal: yes your rush costs you more gold than you wanted, but at least some peaceful AI surrounded by allies would be willing to part with all that iron they aren't even using...

But the entire essence of the game is to see what exists in the world around you, and to warp your game plan around that. You shouldn't be guaranteed iron, the same way you shouldn't be guaranteed horses. Yes, it shuts off play angles when you are denied these resources, but that means you have to play around this inconvenience. If you'd rather fold your playthrough under the assumption it's a game you never would have won anyway, then that's fine. That happens all the time in games. But you aren't entitled to a perfect playthrough.

I know it's probably not what people want to hear, but if you really must rush swords there is even the option to play a no-iron power spike in the same time frame, like Iroquois or Denmark. And as mentioned, you can enforce strategic balance as well if that's the complaint here. The options exist.

If certain civs literally cannot function without particular strategics, then maybe giving them a free spawn near the capital as a balancing mechanism is the better way to go, of course on a civ-by-civ basis. I won't derail this thread more with ideas on how to propose that, but I think that would be a much healthier solution to guaranteeing the ability to manifest swords for e.g. Rome, rather than the argument that you research three techs before deciding to restart the game due to spawn issues, and somehow putting iron two techs later makes the process worse --- it's already terrible if your approach is to just abandon the game. Better to have a mechanism that makes you not have to abandon the game at all.

 

[amateurgamer88]

What I see here is difference in playstyles. What's great about Vox Populi is that the mod supports different playstyles by giving players options. I don't think we should ever take away option because that makes the game too samey.

I personally dislike the idea of, using this thread as an example, sword rush doesn't suit my taste/style so I don't care and want to nerf or eliminate it altogether. I think that's why we have the Congress. We want to give people who play differently a voice. I do hope that different voices/playstyles are heard so that we can have a mod that is fun for everyone.

I also think this is the issue with larger proposals. The more moving parts that are in it, the harder it is to see the full extent of its impact. This is probably a different discussion about if proposals should be limited to a certain size.