4UC > 2UC streamlining mod

[ma_kuh]

As we move forward with integrating 4UC into core VP, I'm interested in keeping some support for the 2UC experience. Because a vast majority of voters have agreed that 4UC is the path forward, my objective with supporting 2UC would be in minimizing the effort required to maintain a mod that pulls out two components from each civ. The goal is NOT to balance 2UC within itself, the goal is for 2UC to be easily playable as a simplified version of VP without all the "new stuff", and for future changes to be trivial to integrate with such removals.

For most civs, the choice of which components to keep is straight forward: we'll just keep the two that exist in version 4.9, and delete the two new ones. For a few, it's not so simple. For brevity I will not be copying the details of each component here, but you can find a report on the changes in this thread:

pineappledan 4UC report card thread

Hello, I thought I would post a separate thread where I quickly review 4UC's components by 3 criteria: Theme: Their historical importance, how important I feel portraying that thing is to the identity of the culture overall, etc. Mechanics: The gameplay feel of that component. How complex is...

forums.civfanatics.com

The big changes:

• Moved buildings:
  • Roman Colosseum (UB) replaced with the Villa (UI) (this was proposed, passed, but unimplemented in Congress 2)
  • Aztec Floating Gardens (UB) replaced with Telpochcalli (UB) OR Huey Teocalli (UNW) (Egyptian Nilometer reuses the mechanics of the Floating Gardens)
  • Greek Acropolis (UB) renamed to Gymnasion (slight yields tweaks)
• Moved wonders:
  • Parthenon renamed to Nalanda (Free Art changed to Free Writing, Nalanda wonder would no longer have a model) (Parthenon is a 4UC Greek UNW)
• Moved units:
  • Aztec Jaguar (UU) replaced with Otomi (UU) (same tech tree placement, slightly changed ability profile)
  • Aztec Jaguar (UU) re-added as a longswordsman
• Other:
  • Indonesia: Added Coast start bias
  • Ottomans: Removed Hills, added Coast start biases
  • Minor leader flavor adjustments

I'm setting aside things like the Roman Legion gaining an ability, because the unit as a component isn't changing between 2UC and 4UC. Again the goal isn't to keep the balance of 2UC in tact, it's to make it easy to strip out components 3 and 4 from the database when starting up a game.

From this list we see a few decisions that need to be made.

Spoiler Jaguars :

This is probably the most front-and-center issue facing a 4UC > 2UC mod, and will probably be the most controversial. 4UC takes the current Jaguar and reworks it into a new unit, the Otomi. If the stats and promos were all that was changing it would just be a simple matter, but the iconic Jaguar unit is then re-introduced later in the tech tree as the Aztec UU2 -- or maybe it's still the UU1? That's where we need some consensus.

​

My view is that the Jaguar is quintessentially Aztec, and should be the unit included in 2UC; the Otomi is a good pull for a warrior UU, but is further removed from the Aztec civilization and should be the secondary unit, not the primary.

This is a big change! The 2UC Aztec would play very differently without their warrior UU. Is this a deal breaker for you? Let me know!

Spoiler Floating Gardens :

This is the second biggest change in my mind. Floating Gardens are being moved between civs, and the replacement can either be a UB or UNW. It is my opinion that we should use the Telpochcalli UB as the new Aztec 2UC building. The Nilometer, as a purely 4UC building, will not be present in the 2UC mode. If you think the UNW is preferred, let me know!

Spoiler Roman Villa :

I added this as a formality but in my mind we already decided to replace the Roman Colosseum with the Villa, all that's left is the implementation. So the 2UC was already destined to be the Villa, this is just getting it over the line. If you disagree, let me know!

Spoiler Renamed components :

The Parthenon wonder renamed to Nalanda. Nalanda wonder wouldn't have a model, which means you can't see if someone is building it ahead of you. The Greek Acropolis renamed to the Gymnasion. I say let 2UC match 4UC on this one, and if you have a problem with these name changes take it up with a 4UC proposal.

​

These ones don't seem like a big deal to me, but the model removal for a shared wonder might be important to some players. In any other congress these would be simple suggestions, and if the Parthenon model issue is going to change the 4UC integration, I see no reason we need to care about 2UC being different in this case.

Spoiler Starting biases and leader flavors :

I don't really care about these ones. In some cases the starting bias is being done for a 4UC reason, but I personally don't think we need to split hairs for 2UC compatibility. There will be some unnecessary biases, and it will impact placements and overall balance a little bit, but I'll say it again the goal isn't to balance 2UC, the goal is for 4UC > 2UC to be a simple removal of a bunch of UUs and UBs (and UTIs and UNWs...), and basically nothing more. So leader flavors and starting biases I say leave them alone.

So that's what I have. I think with a little bit of discussion and forward thinking we can come to a consensus on which 4UC components are "core" for 2UC in these ambiguous situations, and we'll have an easy road ahead for a 2UC version of VP, with minimal development time needed for future changes.

Did I miss anything you think will be an issue? Do you think we should handle some of the above issues differently? Let's talk about it, I think it's likely we can come to a consensus in this thread, and take the findings into the respective official congress proposals as needed.

Spoiler TL;DR :

I think we should treat Aztec 2UCs as the new Jaguar (the longswordsman version) and the Telpochcalli (UB).

We already voted on the Colosseum => Villa, so accepting the Villa in 2UC feels automatic to me.

I think the cosmetic and flavor changes like renames or starting bias have no bearing on 4UC > 2UC, and we can accept the 4UC names and values in 2UC with no changes.

 

[Recursive]

The community hasn't yet decided which version of the components to integrate, and there's nearly a month of counterproposal time to go. Feels like putting the cart before the horse here.

 

[ma_kuh]

I'm just trying to get ahead of some of the discussions and worries I've seen around the forum. It is a little early though, that's fair.

New proposal season is just so invigorating, you know?

 

[N.Core]

Just so you know as more changes would come to 4UC in the future, this would mean constant updating to 2UC revert mod.
Also, those changes would not consider supporting for 2UC revert so it would be no small effort to maintain that.

 

[ma_kuh]

If you don't have access to the building, does it matter if it has entries in the tables? I think if you simply detach the components from the civs that carry them, you shouldn't need to update anything at all as changes are made to 4UC. Unless you're wholly updating the component itself (trading Tarkhans for Battering Rams or something), you shouldn't need any upkeep.

 

[N.Core]

If you don't have access to the building, does it matter if it has entries in the tables? I think if you simply detach the components from the civs that carry them, you shouldn't need to update anything at all as changes are made to 4UC. Unless you're wholly updating the component itself (trading Tarkhans for Battering Rams or something), you shouldn't need any upkeep.

Gameplay-wise, no. But that component will still appear on Civilopedia.

 

[rkkn]

The Parthenon wonder renamed to the Nalanda. The Greek Acropolis renamed to the Gymnasion. I say let 2UC match 4UC on this one, and if you have a problem with these name changes take it up with a 4UC proposal.

The bigger change here is that Parthenon building model goes with the name. Anyone who has revealed the city can see when Parthenon is being built, as with many of the world wonders. Nalanda has no model. So that is what would change.

 

[ma_kuh]

Thanks, I've updated the OP with that detail. I don't think it changes what a streamlining mod has to worry about -- if the Parthenon model change is going to sink that part of the integration, then it'll apply to both 4UC and 2UC. But it's good to note it as well.

 

[Lumpyacidfish]

I do not like the Parthenon removal
if you are going to remove the roman coliseum as a special building because there was only 1 making the Parthenon a special building does not make sense because there is only one Parthenon

 

[Rekk]

I do not like the Parthenon removal
if you are going to remove the roman coliseum as a special building because there was only 1 making the Parthenon a special building does not make sense because there is only one Parthenon

There will still only be one Parthenon.

 

[pineappledan]

Re: Egypt, the whole kit is going to be reworked, and it will not function if you don’t make the new Obelisk UI Egypt’s 2UC component.

 

[azum4roll]

Reverting those changes is an option too.

 

[pineappledan]

Reverting those changes is an option too.

The goal is NOT to balance 2UC within itself, the goal is for 2UC to be easily playable as a simplified version of VP without all the "new stuff", and for future changes to be trivial to integrate with such removals.

 

[ma_kuh]

As the dust settles for this session I'll try and find some time to rewrite the OP so it's clearer what is changing and how that impacts a potential 2UC version/mod. It's clear there's definitely more to think about that just the 4UC versions as originally presented.

 

[scarts]

As the dust settles for this session I'll try and find some time to rewrite the OP so it's clearer what is changing and how that impacts a potential 2UC version/mod. It's clear there's definitely more to think about that just the 4UC versions as originally presented.

I don't agree with that and I think many other wouldn't either. People clamoring on about 2UC Vox Populi have the essentially completed version in 4.15.2. I don't understand the sentiment of evolving to 4UC, but still keeping 2UC.

Its like going from 100% to 125%, but people are unhappy with going 125%, so you have to drop back down to 100% to balance it all? Seems very counter intuitive to be honest.

Anyways thanks for all you do.

 

[ma_kuh]

The persona I have in mind for a streamlined VP is a person new to VP, coming in fresh from maybe vanilla or some quality of life mods. The extent of changes in VP alone is pretty daunting, so this person would be interested in just the core mechanics like spies, tech tree, policy tree changes, but don't want to double the number of unique civ components they have to worry about/learn --yet. So they check the mod in the list that pulls out half of the civ uniques, just to trim it down for a play through or two while they acclimate to VP.

That's the vision for what a 2UC is trying to accomplish. The fact that the 2 components don't match the current VP (4.15) components isn't really material in my mind. It's not about reverting the 4UC integration, it's about not overloading players while they onboard to VP. As further balance changes are generated via congress, players who prefer the 2UC experience will still get those, without being stuck on VP 4.15 forever.

But maybe I'm off-base about what a new-to-VP player is looking for. All I can go on is my personal recalled experience as a once-new-to-VP player.

 

[pineappledan]

FWIW I think that the civ select screen having 5 icons on it for each civ instead of 3 is the kind of wow factor that would get newcomers excited about digging into VP, and have the opposite effect. In comparison to systems overhauls which are farm more subtle, increasing the number of components each civ has is more content but not really any more complexity.

In fact I wonder if it actually helps sell the mod more, because the visual impact of it, and the promise of more components per civ, offering more depth to each playstyle, is immediate from the game menu. Compared to that, the current first-time gut punch is the scouts moving differently, the warriors not being able to pick up ruins, and the tech tree looking like a 5-car pileup.

 

[scarts]

FWIW I think that the civ select screen having 5 icons on it for each civ instead of 3 is the kind of wow factor that would get newcomers excited about digging into VP, and have the opposite effect. In comparison to systems overhauls which are farm more subtle, increasing the number of components each civ has is more content but not really any more complexity.

In fact I wonder if it actually helps sell the mod more, because the visual impact of it, and the promise of more components per civ, offering more depth to each playstyle, is immediate from the game menu. Compared to that, the current first-time gut punch is the scouts moving differently, the warriors not being able to pick up ruins, and the tech tree looking like a 5-car pileup.

I couldn't agree more because you are right the WOW factor seeing so much unique stuff for each civ gives an Impression of tons of options for any playstyle. Less is not always more and in this situation with the quality of the content 4UC is simply more without any downside at all IMO.

 

[ma_kuh]

There's definitely a downside to having too many different unique units on the map (especially when pikemen and longswords come out ), in terms of mental load you're asking of a new player. But it is minor, compared the depth of gameplay being offered.

I'm also realizing, the tech tree is probably the worse offender in terms of opening up the game and just being bombarded with complexity. If my memory serves, my first thought was seeing all the tiny boosts to literally all the improvements and I thought "um... yeah I'll learn this... later." I still couldn't tell you off-hand what resources most buildings boost, they're a combination of generally-unituitive and not-to-visible for my simple mind to remember them most of the time.

 

[Urzamax]

There's definitely a downside to having too many different unique units on the map (especially when pikemen and longswords come out ), in terms of mental load you're asking of a new player. But it is minor, compared the depth of gameplay being offered.

I'm also realizing, the tech tree is probably the worse offender in terms of opening up the game and just being bombarded with complexity. If my memory serves, my first thought was seeing all the tiny boosts to literally all the improvements and I thought "um... yeah I'll learn this... later." I still couldn't tell you off-hand what resources most buildings boost, they're a combination of generally-unituitive and not-to-visible for my simple mind to remember them most of the time.

Ah yeah, I'm in the same place with all the little improvement boosts. Thankfully EUI's great for that since the hover-over function lets you see all the tech/building/etc boosts for a given improvement or resource, so by and large it's not something you need to commit to memory.