[Vote] (7-28) God of the Sea: Remove +2 Food from Coast

Include in VP?


  • Total voters
    82
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
10,964
Current: God of the Sea +2 food +1 faith to coastal cities. +1 faith and +1 prod from atolls and fishing boats.

Proposal: Remove +2 food

Rationale: Though we nerfed this pantheon recently, I still consider it a crazy strong pantheon with a coastal lux start. The speed and production power it grants is second to none.

I am ultimately calling for the softest nerf, as coastal city focused on fishing never really worry about food, but another nerf I feel is still needed.
 
I think the issue is sea luxuries themselves rather than the pantheon,
but I don't know what a good nerf would be, so I'd support this
 
I disagree that the pantheon is too strong.

Sure, it's very good if you go straight for Fishing Boats, but at the same time you're not going for any war tech OR wonder tech OR other improvement tech. It encourages a very risky play and should be rewarded.
 
Fishing is also a very strong expansion and exploration tech. I frequently research fishing early even with no sea resources, just because the map layout means my best settle spots can be accessed dramatically faster by embarking (or occasionally can only be accessed by embarking). Or sometimes it affords me more opportunity to farm barbarians. and/or collect ruins
 
I disagree that the pantheon is too strong.

Sure, it's very good if you go straight for Fishing Boats, but at the same time you're not going for any war tech OR wonder tech OR other improvement tech. It encourages a very risky play and should be rewarded.
There’s nothing risky about sea. It gives you a blistering fast start with start food and prod, I often don’t even need shrines in most cities to found so I can build other things earlier.

Yes it does mean you give up certain early wonders automatically, but the rewards you gain are more than worth it
 
It's not exactly a counter proposal, but I feel like just pulling sea luxuries out of the Regional list (leaving them to only show up in Random placements across the map or as City-state exclusives) solves the problem with GotSea looking too strong in some spawns. It also helps drive engagement with neighbors on the map, which is a net gain to me as well.
 
You mean sea luxuries are never the monopoly?
Yeah I guess it's close enough that you would want to vote on both together.
 
Yes, that would be the proposal.

But I'd want to do some leg work on the actual spawn rate before writing it up because I think you'd want sea luxuries to show up a little more often in the Random list to accommodate the removal from the Regional list, just so they give more life to the coast.

Anyway, that's getting a little off topic for this proposal, so I'll leave it at that.
 
It's not exactly a counter proposal, but I feel like just pulling sea luxuries out of the Regional list (leaving them to only show up in Random placements across the map or as City-state exclusives) solves the problem with GotSea looking too strong in some spawns. It also helps drive engagement with neighbors on the map, which is a net gain to me as well.
I feel like this is a hammer vs scalpel argument.

I am proposing one change to one pantheon. You are proposing we completely change the resource distribution and monopoly availability for sea resources. That seems like a major overreaction to one pantheon.


Now if people think sea resources are too good without god of the sea, than ok that's fair....but I am not hearing that. This is a pantheon problem to me, not a resource one.
 
Now if people think sea resources are too good without god of the sea, than ok that's fair....but I am not hearing that.
well, it's my take, at least
like if I'm trying to test the efficacy of a strat/build, and spawn in with 2 coral, I'll just hit restart, cuz it's OP. with or without the pantheon
 
The way I see it, there are a lot of small design issues with having sea luxuries as regional monopolies:
  1. There is only one pantheon that super-charges them. So if two players get sea luxuries, one of them will get this pantheon and the other won't. It's a reward for rushing religion perhaps, but you don't get to know that it's a good idea until it's too late. There's not really play around it, and it's such a game changer, as your proposal is attempting to address as well.
  2. Having a sea monopoly means you'll settle coasts in an effort to secure them. Some civilizations really want this, others really don't. So it's very swingy how valuable that can be. On top of that, if you have a sea monopoly you'll stay away from your neighbors to a disproportionate degree, which disincentivizes interactions with the rest of the diplomatic and strategic game.
  3. Two sea luxury regions spawning adjacent to each other can result in a very un-luxurious inner land region, which leaves this barren kind of useless land. Probably the smallest issue of the list, but still something that happens.
  4. Sea monopolies setup pretty fast and have some fairly strong monopoly bonuses, especially early in the game. I think this contributes a lot to the pantheon feeling very strong as well.
So taken all together, I think the better design is to not have sea monopolies. You're right that it's a hammer, but I think it fixes several other things as well. It does mean the sea pantheon would also need further changes, which firmly puts it into counter-proposal territory.

But I also see your point, that my list might not be bad enough that it needs fixing. Sea monopolies makes for very unique games, which isn't to be ignored. It's not "balanced" but it is "special". And maybe that's more important.
 
Last edited:
The way I see it, there are a lot of small design issues with having sea luxuries as regional monopolies:
  1. There is only one pantheon that super-charges them. So if two players get sea luxuries, one of them will get this pantheon and the other won't. It's a reward for rushing religion perhaps, but you don't get to know that it's a good idea until it's too late. There's not really play around it, and it's such a game changer, as your proposal is attempting to address as well.
  2. Having a sea monopoly means you'll settle coasts in an effort to secure them. Some civilizations really want this, others really don't. So it's very swingy how valuable that can be. On top of that, if you have a sea monopoly you'll stay away from your neighbors to a disproportionate degree, which disincentivizes interactions with the rest of the diplomatic and strategic game.
  3. Two sea luxury regions spawning adjacent to each other can result in a very un-luxurious inner land region, which leaves this barren kind of useless land. Probably the smallest issue of the list, but still something that happens.
  4. Sea monopolies setup pretty fast and have some fairly strong monopoly bonuses, especially early in the game. I think this contributes a lot to the pantheon feeling very strong as well.
So taken all together, I think the better design is to not have sea monopolies. You're right that it's a hammer, but I think it fixes several other things as well. It does mean the sea pantheon would also need further changes, which firmly puts it into counter-proposal territory.

But I also see your point, that my list might not be bad enough that it needs fixing. Sea monopolies makes for very unique games, which isn't to be ignored. It's not "balanced" but it is "special". And maybe that's more important.
I will only really disagree with number 2, with a note on number 4.

For number 2, we could say that about a lot of starts. If there are great resources, near the mountains, graet for inca. If the resources are farther away, its weaker. Iroquois sure would love if their resources are near the woods, etc etc. Starts are swinging, that's a simple fact of the game.

For number 4, the solution to that is a reevaluation of the monopoly bonuses for the sea resources. If we think they are too good that's fair, but we don't need to completely change how sea resources spawn, we just need to...you know.... balance them :)
 
The way I see it, there are a lot of small design issues with having sea luxuries as regional monopolies:
  1. There is only one pantheon that super-charges them. So if two players get sea luxuries, one of them will get this pantheon and the other won't. It's a reward for rushing religion perhaps, but you don't get to know that it's a good idea until it's too late. There's not really play around it, and it's such a game changer, as your proposal is attempting to address as well.
  2. Having a sea monopoly means you'll settle coasts in an effort to secure them. Some civilizations really want this, others really don't. So it's very swingy how valuable that can be. On top of that, if you have a sea monopoly you'll stay away from your neighbors to a disproportionate degree, which disincentivizes interactions with the rest of the diplomatic and strategic game.
  3. Two sea luxury regions spawning adjacent to each other can result in a very un-luxurious inner land region, which leaves this barren kind of useless land. Probably the smallest issue of the list, but still something that happens.
  4. Sea monopolies setup pretty fast and have some fairly strong monopoly bonuses, especially early in the game. I think this contributes a lot to the pantheon feeling very strong as well.
So taken all together, I think the better design is to not have sea monopolies. You're right that it's a hammer, but I think it fixes several other things as well. It does mean the sea pantheon would also need further changes, which firmly puts it into counter-proposal territory.
If you make the counter proposal I would vote for it.
Someone still has free lighthouses at the end of this. I see the argument that it makes 2) very swingy/save scummy
 
I really dislike removing sea resources as monopoly resources. The variation enriches the game greatly, I am sure a lot of us players value variation more than perfect balance. I agree with stalker that they are strong though, so I guess a nerf could be warranted.
 
I agree with stalker that they are strong though, so I guess a nerf could be warranted.
Are sea monopolies or the pantheon strong? If it's the former, nerf those resources.
 
So taken all together, I think the better design is to not have sea monopolies. You're right that it's a hammer, but I think it fixes several other things as well. It does mean the sea pantheon would also need further changes, which firmly puts it into counter-proposal territory
Fun > balance. Every time.
 
I took Craftsman in my current game (+1 prod/faith on quarry, +2 sci/faith on palace, +2 faith/+1culture on stoneworks) and it seems in comparison Sea is really not that strong, no?
Perhaps it's just because I have a few Stone as well as 2 Quarry luxes but I can't really see how Sea is really any more powerful than this.
I went to the AI tests to see how they measured up but apparently the AI never picks God of the Sea so 🤷‍♂️
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom