(6-NS) War Elephants Use New "Elephant" Strategic Resource

[Anarcomu]

you still can have unlimited units

Nope. You must get a building which require local ivory luxury and provide 1 strategic. Then you need those strategic for elephant. You can built no more than 1 per Khedda (unless you are russian => doubled).

 

[Anarcomu]

I personally think it'd be good to move some yields from tech/base/building to the Khedda, give one yield to the building itself, and make it so it does not obsolete. Looks more elegant to me.

 

[Tekamthi]

so what is the change?

the proposed limit of 1 strat per khedda aside, proposal intentionally does not seek to change much -- the hope here is to move the elephant/ivory combo from a lux-only basis to lux & strategic hybrid, maintaining existing functionality as closely as possible. The biggest change, albeit more an under-the-hood thing, is the AI will now have the ability to assess value of the lux component and strategic components separately

move some yields from tech/base/building to the Khedda

there may be more balance tweaks necessary, maybe should be 2 strat per khedda, or khedda w/ yields etc. If I see a lot of agreement on this I will adjust proposal; for now I think it best if we move towards strategic system in simplest way possible, find a good baseline, and adjust any moving parts further individually, in future congress. That said if we moved a component of the ivory plot yield to be a khedda buff yield, no increase or decrease overall, that would be pretty balance-neutral; will consider this further, pls make a specific suggestion of what this should be

 

[Recursive]

monopoly bonus: ? (help me fill this in w/ replies, does it need one since it obsoletes and is not on map?)

Needs elaboration or will be vetoed.

 

[Tekamthi]

Needs elaboration or will be vetoed.

ty, updated OP as follows:

monopoly bonus: none

 

[Stalker0]

MAGI: Updated the title for better clarity. @Tekamthi

 

[Tekamthi]

sry i'm a marketer by training, not a technical writer. Thanks!

 

[azum4roll]

MAGI: Updated the title for better clarity. @Tekamthi

"Make Paper Maker Make Paper"

 

[Tekamthi]

For potential sponsor: i can mock this up as a modmod, complete with new art, before the end of the voting round -- this will effectively be a database implementation. I am not familiar enough with the project structure on git to implement this myself.

However if votes are clearly not in favor in the early days of voting, I may not prepare the modmod (right now) as this would be moot for congress anyway

 

[azum4roll]

losing access to ivory does not affect already-built units

Your proposal doesn't solve this.

 

[Tekamthi]

Your proposal doesn't solve this.

true however i'd characterize this as a general issue with how the resource/building pairing works... also this is a bit of an afaik statement, I can't recall exactly what happens if a city with stoneworks loses its stone, etc. That mechansim probably best-addressed via its own proposal imo

 

[azum4roll]

I can't recall exactly what happens if a city with stoneworks loses its stone, etc.

Nothing.

 

[Tekamthi]

well say player has elephant unit, it then loses the entire city with the khedda in it -- this is gonna be far more common than the odd time a citadel or USA buys up its ivory plot -- resource will then be lost & the elephant unit will be limited, no heal etc. So it partially addresses the loss of the resource, and I'd argue in the most common cases of resource loss it will. But you're right, for the plot itself it would not be affected, as proposed.

 

[azum4roll]

The most common resource loss is actually from pillage and ending a deal.

Btw, are captive elephants tradeable?

 

[Tekamthi]

The most common resource loss is actually from pillage and ending a deal.

aye, well pillage would not affect it then, but the deal start/end would

too late now to change the parameters of this round's proposal (or is it?), but here's an alternative implementation that *may* address these concerns. Khedda consumes 1 ivory, provides 1 ivory & 1 strat elephant. I have never tested this and am unsure if the khedda would just provide itself the ivory once its built? intention would be for it to consume only the on-map ivory, and thus provide it back along with the strat resource. Think this would work as intended?

We could also get into using pillaging of the improvement to also destroy the building, but this strikes me as a little complex (ie beyond database) for something that's not really all that broken.

 

[azum4roll]

But losing the Ivory will never affect the building once it's built, regardless of what resources the building requires.

 

[Tekamthi]

yeah i think i know what you mean, the strat resource would always be available once the building's been built...

well again I think its best to address the overall mechanism of resource/building pairings that shows up for stoneworks and stables etc. as well, rather than trying to bandaid around it for this one instance. Perhaps loss of resource that a building requires should always destroy the building? would that have negative implications to how any of the others work?

 

[Rekk]

yeah i think i know what you mean, the strat resource would always be available once the building's been built...

well again I think its best to address the overall mechanism of resource/building pairings that shows up for stoneworks and stables etc. as well, rather than trying to bandaid around it for this one instance. Perhaps loss of resource that a building requires should always destroy the building? would that have negative implications to how any of the others work?

Huge implications on the destruction of Factories and Train Stations/ Sea Ports.

 

[Tekamthi]

Huge implications on the destruction of Factories and Train Stations/ Sea Ports.

i think these would be a different case -- those buildings actually consume a resource, and do not require a local instance of one. They operate via different table in database: Building_ResourceQuantityRequirements

Here I'm suggesting just the buildings with entries in Building_LocalResourceOrs (alternatively Building_LocalResourceAnds would work too since it's only 1 entry) maybe should not exist if the local plot that enabled them in first place flips to other civ.

 

[Rekk]

Ah. Right.