(3-WD) Strengthen Bronze Working

[Legen]

Counterproposal to (3-13) Proposal: Ancient & Classical Bottom Tech Shakeup.

Spoiler Iron details :

Base yield: +1
Mine yields: +1
Forest is listed as a terrain it is found on.
Jungle is not listed as a terrain it is found on.

Spoiler Relevant info on chopping bonuses :

Chop unlock:
Forest : Mining tech
Jungle: Trapping tech

Base chopping time:
Forest: 6 turns
Jungle: 8 turns

Chopping bonuses from techs:
Bronze Working: +20
Iron Working: +20
Machinery (medieval era): reduce chopping time by 2 turns

Note: settling a city on top of a forest or jungle provides half of the usual production from chopping bonuses (i.e. 10 at Bronze Working, 20 at Iron Working) to that city.

Spoiler Barracks details :

Cost: 110
Base yield: 1
Maintenance: -1
Supply cap local: +1
+15 xp for all units
-1 unhappiness from / distress

Spoiler Catapult stats and abilities :

Cost: 100
Movement: 2
Ranged combat: 132
Combat: 7

Siege Engine I (+100% CS when attacking Cities)
Siege Inaccuracy (-33% CS vs land units)
Cover I (25% CS when defending against all ranged attacks)
No defensive terrain bonuses
Limited Visibility (-1 visibility range)
Moves at half-speed in enemy territory
May not melee attack

Proposal:

• Iron mine yields increased to +1, for a total of +1on the improved tile.
  • Iron reveal remains at Bronze Working.
• Bronze Working now grants 40 upon chopping a forest/jungle and reduces chopping time by 2 turns.
  • Iron Working and Machinery lose their respective chopping bonuses.
• Move Barracks back to Bronze Working and its base yield is increased from +1 to +2.
• Move the Catapult to Military Strategy (as compensation for the Barracks loss).

Rationale:
This is a set of ideas to strengthen Bronze Working, discussed before to be a weak technology. With the iron reveal voted to stay on Bronze Working, these are based on such placement.

The boost to iron (both base and improved with a mine) is an alternative way to address one of the points to the high science cost of revealing it, discussed during the "(2-04) Proposal: Iron is revealed earlier at Mining, instead of Bronze Working" proposal. Since you are paying nearly triple the science cost to reveal this resource in relation to every other Ancient Era resource, it makes sense for it to be particularly rewarding in comparison. Other Ancient Era resources provide between 2 to 4 total yields when improved (Fish: +2 +1; Sheep: +2); bringing iron to a total of 3 yields can make Iron reveal a more respectful economic aspect of Bronze Working, partially making up for the high science cost.

The core idea for the improved chopping bonuses on this tech is that it can act as a quick source of production on cities with a high demand for it: Capital rushing a wonder, Tradition's (miserable) secondary cities, Montezuma greeting you, etc. Since such bonuses tend to be an afterthought on the three listed techs right now (and more of a bloat in the tech tree), it makes sense to consolidate them in Bronze Working and turn it into a proper tactical consideration, including for those greedy on wonders. This also helps in those cases of iron being right under a forest, allowing you to improve it earlier and get a better production compensation for the delay.

The Barracks move to Bronze Working is based on this building being originally in this tech (from vanilla to BNW), and its relocation being an important reason for the tech's current weakness. Bronze Working in VP is otherwise very similar to its BNW iteration, also having Spearman, Statue of Zeus, iron reveal and a chopping effect. By moving the Barracks back to its original technology, we restore a considerable part of Bronze Working's usefulness. Notably, civilizations that currently skip this tech will have to give it proper consideration: horse-based martial civs no longer get Horseman and Barracks on the same tech, and peaceful civs no longer get the Barrack's supply, science and its distress reduction on the path to Masonry. With the buff to its base yields, this move also pushes Bronze Working as a good source of early science, helps compensating for the high science cost of the iron reveal and is less dependent on iron placement on the economic side.

The Catapult move to Military Strategy is a compensation for the loss of the Barracks, so that this tech isn't left too weak in turn. Masonry is currently a powerful tech in most builds by virtue of having two important buildings (Arena, Water Mill), the Catapult and a wonder (Terracotta Army), it can afford to cede one of its elements to another tech without losing its relevance. With this move, Military Strategy has two units that add major tactical considerations to the battlefield (Horseman and Catapult), retaining its overall theme and military usefulness. Arguably ending with more of both than it currently has.

Amendment:
Lowered bonus yields of iron (from a total of +2 improved to +1 improved)
Added an extra science on the Barracks (from the current +1 to +2).
Rationale adjusted accordingly.

 

[pineappledan]

You want to put On a naked, unimproved resource?That hasn’t been done before. Not a fan.

Not a fan of moving catapults so early they unlock at the same time as walls. Seems like the tempo is off there. Why would people invent siege engines before city defenses? Makes much more sense in its current position, where the walls tech is prerequisite. If you wanted to move the catapult, the other candidate would be mathematics, where it was in vanilla. And was in VP too for a long time. That’s where I wanted to move it to initially, but there was popular pressure to keep it closer to the bottom tech.

 

[Legen]

You want to put On a naked, unimproved resource?That hasn’t been done before. Not a fan.

Uranium has +1 unimproved. Not the best comparison, but it has been done before.

I don't mind tying all the science to the mine improvement instead if that's really a big deal.

Not a fan of moving catapults so early they unlock at the same time as walls. Seems like the tempo is off there. Why would people invent siege engines before city defenses?

On the contrary, it makes sense that they would invent some form of siege shortly after walls are invented, they didn't wait some millennia to figure out how to bring those down.

Also, Assyria's Siege Tower UU unlocks at Military Strategy, so the Catapult being there makes sense within the time development we already have set for the tech tree.

 

[pineappledan]

Also, Assyria's Siege Tower UU unlocks at Military Strategy, so the Catapult being there makes sense within the time development we already have set for the tech tree.

Actually I think that undermines your point.

The Assyrians were the first culture to really employ siege tactics in a deliberate way; their siege towers represent the OG city-killing weaponry. having them come earlier than other civs' siege units is like half the point.

The earliest possible written source for catapults is the 7th century BC, well-within what would be called "classical antiquity". The catapults that the game uses as a basis look like onagers, single-arm torsion engines employed by the Romans in the 4th century AD, late antiquity.

 

[azum4roll]

I'll say it again: iron placement is random. You're going to make the early game a lottery by putting so many yields on it.

 

[Legen]

Actually I think that undermines your point.

The Assyrians were the first culture to really employ siege tactics in a deliberate way; their siege towers represent the OG city-killing weaponry. having them come earlier than other civs' siege units is like half the point.

The earliest possible written source for catapults is the 7th century BC, well-within what would be called "classical antiquity". The catapults that the game uses as a basis look like onagers, single-arm torsion engines employed by the Romans in the 4th century AD, late antiquity.

By that line of thought, the Siege Tower could be placed on Masonry as well based on the date. Some of the Ancient Era wonders are about as old or more recent than the earliest records of the catapult, it makes sense to place this unit on the same tech column as them.

The catapult is a compensation for the Barracks's move, not a point that I can't change. I originally considered moving the archer to Military Strategy instead, but considered it to affect Calendar harsher than it would affect Masonry. Any opinion on moving the Archer instead?

I'll say it again: iron placement is random. You're going to make the early game a lottery by putting so many yields on it.

Fair point. My point was to ensure Bronze Working would be a good source of science on its own merits, but I could move that science to the Barracks instead.

 

[Legen]

Proposal amended. Change to iron extra yields and added an extra point of science to the barracks.

I may change the catapult later, but I want more opinions on the matter.

 

[pineappledan]

All your proposals and amendments add total science, rather than moving the We have around a bit. Is the intention also to make ancient faster?

At 2, barracks matches the base yields on the library, the penultimate science building which unlocks later. With that change I think bottom techs just becomes thepath for everyone, even the “top tech” civs, because you get barracks and backfill ancient faster than if you just went too tree. Between on iron, 2 on barracks, and another 1 on iron working 1 tech later, I don’t know how this doesn’t create a conga line of science that everyone goes down first, and then picks up everything else they want later.

Mining/bronze/iron each only have 1 prereq tech in a line. Your solution to this tech path being “a little inefficient” seems to be to make it the MOST efficient, best tech path for everyone.

 

[pineappledan]

The catapult is a compensation for the Barracks's move, not a point that I can't change. I originally considered moving the archer to Military Strategy instead, but considered it to affect Calendar harsher than it would affect Masonry. Any opinion on moving the Archer instead?

It seems my main point was ignored in favor of history. I’m primarily concerned about game impact. The history must be in service to the gameplay.

If you make the anti-city unit unlock at the Same time as city defenses, there is no part of the early game where the military meta ever swings in favor of defense. Therefore it can never swing BACK to favour offense, because initiative has been with them for 2 eras before medieval unlocks defense and new units together. Siege units currently upgrade every 2 techs while city defenses upgrade every 3 techs. This move would put siege and city defense in lockstep until renaissance cannons.

It also undermines spears. In late ancient, drill line spears are the only tool you have against walls. Moving catapult takes a niche away from the melee line.

 

[Legen]

All your proposals and amendments add total science, rather than moving the We have around a bit. Is the intention also to make ancient faster?

At 2, barracks matches the base yields on the library, the penultimate science building which unlocks later. With that change I think bottom techs just becomes thepath for everyone, even the “top tech” civs, because you get barracks and backfill ancient faster than if you just went too tree. Between on iron, 2 on barracks, and another 1 on iron working 1 tech later, I don’t know how this doesn’t create a conga line of science that everyone goes down first, and then picks up everything else they want later.

Mining/bronze/iron each only have 1 prereq tech in a line. Your solution to this tech path being “a little inefficient” seems to be to make it the MOST efficient, best tech path for everyone.

Iron mines have 1 base science by default, the amendment isn't adding science to it. It is only adding 1 gold. The total +1 refers to how the improved iron mine will be, compared to the current +1 .

Barracks had 2 science in older patches and people still ignored the bottom techs. Also, Barracks cost almost twice a Council and has a maintenance cost, it isn't a cost efficient building for those aiming for economy or wonders only. It is only effective if you are also aiming for military presence, or when you have a more consolidated economy in mid Classical era..

Iron Working has two prerequisites, Bronze Working and Military Strategy. You can't conga line.

 

[Legen]

It seems my main point was ignored in favor of history. I’m primarily concerned about game impact. The history must be in service to the gameplay.

If you make the anti-city unit unlock at the Same time as city defenses, there is no part of the early game where the military meta ever swings in favor of defense. Therefore it can never swing BACK to favour offense, because initiative has been with them for 2 eras before medieval unlocks defense and new units together. Siege units currently upgrade every 2 techs while city defenses upgrade every 3 techs. This move would put siege and city defense in lockstep until renaissance cannons.

It also undermines spears. In late ancient, drill line spears are the only tool you have against walls. Moving catapult takes a niche away from the melee line.

That's why I asked about archers, I'm ok with your point. The catapult move was something I suggested in the other proposal (but on Bronze Working) and one player considered it a good change.

 

[Legen]

@Recursive Excuse me, I'd like to withdrawal this counterproposal. I intent to decouple its parts and that would leave the remaining counterproposal as too radically changed from its original concept.

 

[Recursive]

Proposal withdrawn by request.