(31b) Counterproposal: 2.7 Change to Granary/Herbalist/Lodge

[Stalker0]

Counterproposal to https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...lancing-mongolia-and-buffing-pastures.679493/

The 2.7 versions of this buildings have some issues with them:

Herbalist: Is now an expensive building that doesn't generate a lot of bang for its buck.
Granary: Losing the instant food removes most of the reason to build the granary early. This also throws off a lot of settler timings in the early game. It also slows down science due to less pop in the capital.

The Proposal (changes in Bold)

Lodge:
65
1
2 Border Growth Bonus
+1 camp
+1 bison/deer
5 on border expand/era scaling

Herbalist:
65
1
+1 plantations and Marshes
+1 for 2 forest/jungle
No Maintenance

Granary:
65
1 maintenance
1
15% food kept
+1 wheat/rice/maize/banana
25 on construction
ITR unlock

UPDATE: The 5 food/per border expand bonus was added back to the lodge.

The idea is that we give the lodge some border growth power but remove its food, as we are giving the instant food back to the granary. The herbalist is giving a slight buff to the marsh (which is more of a ribbon but marshes could use some love), no Maintenace, and MOST important.... we are cutting the cost in half. So now the herbalist is a weaker niche building, but with a cheap cost that makes it easy to build when needed. this also means that the hammer demand in ancient doesn't increase too much when building all 3 buildings.

 

[pineappledan]

I am against removing the on border expend. This was not what you proposed before, it was not discussed, and I would have come out against it if you had.

The Herbalist has the 1 per 2 forest jungle and we agreed to add marshes to it as well. Plantations are also far more common than camp resources. If you take the food on border expand from the Lodge it has nothing except its comparatively less frequent tile bonuses.

I also don't agree with removing the maintenance on Herbalist. Lodge currently has no maintenance and that was an oversight/miscommunication. It was never intended that it not have any base yield or maintenance

EDIT: proposal has been modified.

 

[pineappledan]

The 25 on construction would be better on the Lodge, not the Granary.

 

[balparmak]

I don't see any real problems with the updated proposal (granary with 25 food on construction, lodge with both BGP and food on expansion), and all three feel just fine

 

[CrazyG]

I think the lodge is a well designed building and I'm a fan of the food on border expansions. I don't think it needs to increase border growth, this affects the balance of other things and its a strong building without it.

The 25 food should be on the granary, partially because it unlocks the same tech as settlers, also because almost all cities will eventually build it and it unlocks aqueducts and grocers. It's the most generalist building and without the 25 food this building sucks.

Herbalist certainly stinks in the current version so it needs something. I think moving it to an earlier tech column and cutting the price in half is a good move, my understanding is that these must go together for consistency reasons (all regular buildings in the same column always have the same cost). That +1 hammer to plantations is a big deal balance-wise for plantations vs mines/quarries so making it cheaper will make low production plantation starts feel less bad than they currently do. Adding the hammer to marshes is mostly irrelevant but fine.

They should either all three have maintenance or none of them do.

TLR: I think herbalist should have 1 maintenance and lodge should lose the 2 border growth, but otherwise completely support this proposal.

 

[Rekk]

all regular buildings in the same column always have the same cost

There is precedent for tiers breaking these rules. eg. Industrial 1.

 

[DeAnno]

It's not like Calendar is a bad tech now, with Archer unlock and plantations. We could plausibly move the Herbalist to Trapping (even adding in the Lodge I find Trapping way more lame without old Archers.)

 

[ma_kuh]

What if Granary and Lodge both granted Food on completion based on their scaling benefit:
Lodge: 4 per tile in the city
Granary: 8 per citizen in the city

I don't remember citizen costs off the top of my head for 1/2/3 population, but I'd set Granary to a little under the (average * 15%) and see how it felt.

 

[Stalker0]

It's not like Calendar is a bad tech now, with Archer unlock and plantations. We could plausibly move the Herbalist to Trapping (even adding in the Lodge I find Trapping way more lame without old Archers.)

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter if people want to move the building. At that point you are far more hammer scarce than you are in science, I can basically tech to whatever I need to at that point in the game long before I am ready to build the building.

The only exception would be putting it on mining or sailing, as those tend to be more "committed" tech paths that you don't always go early based on your strategy. Putting it there would be a sacrifice, but whether it's on calender, construction, husbandry, pottery, trapping, or wheel....its basically all the same, at least on standard. I'll let epic/marathon players pipe in on how big a deal it would be to them.

 

[ma_kuh]

I like the symmetry of moving herbalist earlier because it starts to reinforce that starting food needs and resources dictate your opening food structure. If you have Agriculture resources, you can go Pottery and start Granaries, otherwise you go Trapping and either Lodges (if there's game) or Herbalists (if there's trees, especially jungle).

I find on epic that I'm usually trying to build a monument and shrine before moving on to a food structure, but it's not uncommon to hit enough gold and production ruins to have downtime while rushing Calendar.

 

[cidk2000]

I agree with Stalker0 on most of the proposal, Border growth points shouldnt be added in at an early stage though, Im thinking the Ancient era is too OP with those buildings would it make a difference if we put one later say classical? would I be draging out ancient too much ?

 

[pineappledan]

Should Lodge/Herbalist be locked to Camps/Plantations like how Stables are locked to pastures?

Both of them currently only do 1 other thing besides boosting camps and their related resources.

If you wanted to emphasize some sort of symmetry with stables, they could give some % towards a unit type. Like Lodge could give +15% towards Archer units and Herbalist could give +15% towards Recon units.

 

[azum4roll]

Should Lodge/Herbalist be locked to Camps/Plantations like how Stables are locked to pastures?

Both of them currently only do 1 other thing besides boosting camps and their related resources.

If you wanted to emphasize some sort of symmetry with stables, they could give some % towards a unit type. Like Lodge could give +15% towards Archer units and Herbalist could give +15% towards Recon units.

At this point we may as well move Temple of Artemis to Trapping and have it only give +food and a free Lodge.

 

[rkkn]

all regular buildings in the same column always have the same cost

I think this is overly limiting and that the game would be much better off without this restriction. I think it would be nice for general variety/depth of strategy for some buildings to be cheaper (and some more expensive, but that's kinda covered by wonders already)

I am also strongly in favor of adding border growth points (as a general early yield, even if it's not on the lodge specifically). This yield is almost nonexistent, so if you want big border growth your only option is to focus on culture, but that is a heavily restricted yield as it's so powerful. So you essentially don't have any choice in the matter. "Build monument first" is pretty much the full extent of what you can do with your construction and tech choices.

 

[pineappledan]

Sponsored.

 

[Recursive]

Proposal Sponsors: pineappledan.

(Sponsors have indicated that they are able and willing to perform the code changes required for this proposal if the community votes Aye on it. Other coders are free to sponsor this as well. A proposal without a sponsor will not advance to the Voting Phase.)