(6-CP) Make War Elephant Only Gifted By City-States

[axatin]

Counterproposal to https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...itional-tiles-and-change-distribution.685879/

Proposal: Remove the War Elephant as a unit that can be normally trained and make it a unit that can only be gifted by city-states (like for example the Ballista).

Rationale: As mentioned in the OP, the fact that War Elephants require Ivory to be built makes Ivory unique compared to all other luxuries and creates problems regarding its distribution on the map and the AI valuation of the resource. However, it's an inconsistency to begin with that out of all units in the game we have that one unit that requires a luxury resource and not a strategic one in order to be constructed. The Ivory isn't consumed when the unit is built, making the requirement even more inconsistent compared to the regular resource requirements.

Instead of trying to change resource distributions to support that one marginal unit, it's easier and more consistent to just remove it altogether. It can be a unit that's given only by city-states, which is a solution that's also only used for some other units.


Database Changes

 

[Tekamthi]

I think we should have more of this style of unit: 1 per era would be nice. Could be limited though from status quo, that would be fair ie. 1 special unit per resource copy. Proposal is a move towards flat and boring gameplay in order to fix a non-problem; not a fan

 

[pineappledan]

80% of games I never even see a war elephant. Given that ivory can just not appear on a map, it's weird to have them on the tech tree.

I think we should have more of this style of unit: 1 per era would be nice. Could be limited though from status quo, that would be fair ie. 1 special unit per resource copy. Proposal is a move towards flat and boring gameplay in order to fix a non-problem; not a fan

You would need new art etc. for that, and you would probably have to replace Siam's UU with something. IMO it's not worth the effort needed to create an entire elephant unit line

 

[Tekamthi]

80% of games I never even see a war elephant. Given that ivory can just not appear on a map, it's weird to have them on the tech tree.

You would need new art etc. for that, and you would probably have to replace Siam's UU with something. IMO it's not worth the effort needed to create an entire elephant unit line

I meant finding a resource/unit pairing per era, not necessarily all of 'em elephants/ivory. For example those early zeppelin's VP used to have, irl relied on some kind of natural membrane (sheep guts or something?) for their construction -- there's not much room for the zep as full-fledged unit line, but some limited appearance tied to resources would fit well with what I look to civ for. I imagine we could find a few other historical examples like this.

I frequently prioritize ivory trades in early-game -- not always, but especially in 2-move-cost rough terrain they end up being the superior mounted unit. I do see them occasionally from AI, though I can't comment beyond this on how effective they are at valuing and acquiring ivory etc.

As far as CS gifts go, there's already a number of special units hidden away there, adding these to the roster does not improve that feature. I just don't understand what y'all are seeking to fix if, as you say, "80% of games I never even see a war elephant." What's going wrong in the other 20% of games that requires them to be restricted?

 

[rkkn]

80% of games I never even see a war elephant. Given that ivory can just not appear on a map, it's weird to have them on the tech tree.

with the other proposal, they'll appear a lot more, so that one also fixes this particular issue

but yeah it is weird as things stand

 

[dostillevi]

I don't think this qualifies as a counter-proposal. Both proposals could pass or fail independently as written.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think this qualifies as a counter-proposal. Both proposals could pass or fail independently as written.

I have to agree, there is no dependencies or conflicts with the original proposal, this one can stand on its own.

 

[Rekk]

I have to agree, there is no dependencies or conflicts with the original proposal, this one can stand on its own.

This counterproposal is specifically stating to remove War Elephants from general availability while the initial proposal wants to make it more generally available. How can it stand on its own?

 

[Stalker0]

This counterproposal is specifically stating to remove War Elephants from general availability while the initial proposal wants to make it more generally available. How can it stand on its own?

the original proposal has that as a desired rationale, but its not the proposal itself. the proposal only deals with the ivory resource availability.

If the audience wants to make ivory more available AND make war elephants CS gift only.....that's perfectly fine, there is no conflict here.

 

[adan_eslavo]

So if I understand correctly, War Elephant would be an another UU from CS, like Sipahi, right? And it would not require an Ivory to be owned by a city-state?
If so, then I'm ok with that. This Ivory mess is giving me a headache. If we do this, then I think the Ivory map placement can be done more easily. But when I read that debate, then ugh.. So many conterideas I don't know what to choose from.

 

[dostillevi]

I'm also exhausted. But I have to ask, if we take War Elephants away from Ivory, does Ivory need a boost? This feels so hypothetical because we hardly see Ivory at all right now.

 

[Tekamthi]

Does anyone know off the top which former-UU's are currently CS-gift-only units? I may propose a counter (or stand-alone) in the other direction, liberating some of these CS-only units via resource tie-in, we'll see. I rather enjoy the elephant/ivory combo

 

[azum4roll]

If War Elephant is moved to CS, there's no reason that Ivory should be distributed like Marble. So these proposals kind of conflict.

Does anyone know off the top which former-UU's are currently CS-gift-only units? I may propose a counter (or stand-alone) in the other direction, liberating some of these CS-only units via resource tie-in, we'll see. I rather enjoy the elephant/ivory combo

Battering Ram
Norwegian Ski Infantry
Pracinha
Longbowman
Companion Cavalry
Sipahi
Hakkapeliitta
Ballista
Turtle Ship
Dromon
Great Galleass

 

[Anarcomu]

Longbowman, Ballista, Turtle ship and Great galleass are actually used in 3/4UC, so I'd recommend avoiding using them, unless @pineappledan don't mind changing them to something else in their mod.

 

[adan_eslavo]

Longbowman, Ballista, Turtle ship and Great galleass are actually used in 3/4UC, so I'd recommend avoiding using them, unless @pineappledan don't mind changing them to something else in their mod.

Don't forget about Sipahi. 4UC cuts them in half. So 5 is taken and 5 stays.

 

[adan_eslavo]

If War Elephant is moved to CS, there's no reason that Ivory should be distributed like Marble. So these proposals kind of conflict.


Battering Ram
Norwegian Ski Infantry
Pracinha
Longbowman
Companion Cavalry
Sipahi
Hakkapeliitta
Ballista
Turtle Ship
Dromon
Great Galleass

Dromon? When I checked that few weeks ago Dromon was not on that list. Was it changed recently?

 

[Tekamthi]

Longbowman, Ballista, Turtle ship and Great galleass are actually used in 3/4UC, so I'd recommend avoiding using them, unless @pineappledan don't mind changing them to something else in their mod.

nah PD et al's 3/4 mod is VP canon as far as I'm concerned, won't propose we disturb it.

The obvious unused units for some kind of resource tie-in, if there were an appetite for such, strike me as battering ram, ballista, ski infantry, zeppelin... isn't there a model/art of the CSS virginia from one of the civil war scenarios? there are some historical concepts that could be explored, like the us civil war's "cotton-clads". The dromon would be a natural pairing with a naphtha resource, if we had such in-game... etc.

Anyway this idea's a ways off from being fully-baked, probably something I'll only get to next round. Maybe better suited as modmod. OP proposal here will serve as somewhat of a bellweather on the direction community wants to take in the meantime; if this passes then I'll probably shelve this thought

 

[Anarcomu]

if this passes then I'll probably shelve this thought

Well, idk I can see myself wanting to get rid of that unit for now, until you could come with something well fleshed out and fun. If this proposal passes, you should make a poll to know if people are still interested in it.

 

[Tekamthi]

Well, idk I can see myself wanting to get rid of that unit for now, until you could come with something well fleshed out and fun. If this proposal passes, you should make a poll to know if people are still interested in it.

what mechanism would improve this elephant/ivory combo in a way that mitigates the OP proposal concerns here? Say we're stuck with the elephant/ivory thing but can modify how it works, ideas?

For example, ivory might instead enable construction of a building (a "khedda"?) that then provides x amount of strategic elephant resource, required for the elephant units -- If there's anything AI is equal/better at human with, its building all the buildings, plus we'd move the whole resource-based unit dynamic into the strategic resource system the AI understands. Some fine details would have to be worked out for something like this, but it strikes me as achievable anyway.

If we can come up with something that works and is well-liked by community for keeping elephant/ivory, this might serve as model for other unit adjustments later.

 

[APLion]

You should probably change title from "3-36a" to "6-36a"