1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

An in-depth proposition on how to fix Protective: (Please read and comment!)

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Legal_My_Deagle, Oct 10, 2007.

  1. Legal_My_Deagle

    Legal_My_Deagle Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2002
    Messages:
    215
    Not only to fix Protective, but my solution kills three birds with two stones, as the saying goes...:crazyeye:

    Part 1) Fix Castles!

    Protective gets cheap Castles, as we all should know...however at present, that is basically a worthless bonus. If they were made to be a worthwhile or even good building, that would indirectly make the Protective trait more useful, would it not? Not that many people actually make use of Castles at present, and for good reason. Any building that is only in production for a short period of the game SHOULD be a very useful building indeed to justify building it.

    To make this easier to talk about, I will copy down exactly what Castle's abilities are at present in the 3.13 Civilopedia.

    Castle (Requires Engineering)
    Cost: 100 :hammers:
    +1 :culture:
    +25% :espionage:
    +1 Trade Routes
    50% Defense (Except vs Gunpowder-based units)
    -25% damage to defenses from bombardment (Except vs Gunpowder-based units)
    Double Production Speed for Protective Leaders
    Requires Walls
    Double Production Speed with Stone
    Obsoletes with Economics (Except Defensive Bonus)

    They come in the game too late, obsolete quickly, and don't provide enough benifit for this time frame to normally justify building one. Castles were very important and strategically powerful for their time, and so should be reflected so in the game.

    So what I ask all of you: How can we make Castles better, while still balanced? It is my belief they need to be rebalanced all together.

    Here are some of my suggestions, and if commenting on my suggestions, please note whether you think they are particularly helpful AND why or why not. A simple "I dont like that idea" is ambiguous and unhelpful as a comment.

    1A) Allow them to be built a little earlier. The timing at which they come in to the game feels somewhat off. Not only would this make them more useful in practice, but it is strange that the same technology that unlocks them (Engineering) also unlocks the same siege unit that historically contributed to obsoleting Castles (Trebuchets) Similarly, in game, Castles do not become available until they are already on their way to becoming obsolete. As for what specific technology they should become available with: just throwing a couple possibilities out there, I would suggest either Construction or Machinery.

    2A) Have them obsolete later in the technology tree. One of the reasons that Economics is too early other than simply it's placement on the technology tree is that it also unlocks Free Market. For many players, this is too important of a technology to postpone getting for long, if they do not beeline it all together. Thus, not only is this technology too early in the tree to be obsoleting Castle, but it is also most likely one of the first technologies a player will research upon reaching that point in the tree. Thus, again, as for a couple possibilities I am just throwing up in the air to start discussion for new technologies to obsolete Castle, I would suggest Steel or maybe Rifling.

    3A) Increase the bonuses offered by Castle. This one is the most difficult to offer good suggestions for, but I will try to suggest some ideas that would not only make the Castle in-game more useful, but also make sense historically. Thus, here are some suggestions listed here for easier viewing: (again, if you reply, please say if you particularly like or dislike any specific suggestions)

    a) Increase the Culture generated by Castle. As an important symbol of the Medieval Period, I think it would be justified to have the Culture generated by Castle increased to reflect this. And perhaps, after the Castle is "obsolete", it could lose it's usual bonuses however gain a slight increase in Cultural generation? This would reflect the massive "cultural" value and drawing power that the remaining castles of the world still have today.

    b) Offer a synergy with Hereditary Rule. In the Civilopedia's words, "Castles served as administrative and judicial centers and as a seat of a lord's power." Thus, I think it would make sense to have castles offer some kind of citizen-management type of power, possibly in combination with Hereditary Rule. This could include such bonuses as a discount in city or civic maintenence (for that specific city), less war weariness, etc.

    EDITED IN:
    c) Offer a synergy with Serfdom. (credit for the idea to DrewBledsoe) This would both improve Castle's usefulness, but also make Serfdom more competitive with Slavery.

    4A) Increase the amount of :hammers: Castle costs. Wait - what? Yes, you heard me right, but I have not gone insane, I am well aware that this would be "nerfing" Castles. However consider this: I did not say we should only "buff" Castles, I said we should rebalance them. This means that all of these suggestions should be taken all at once, which in turn means that if we really are going to make Castle significantly more useful, then it should cost significantly more :hammers: to build. We want Castles to be useful, not overpowered. Obviously, if none of the other changes are ever implemented, then I would not be saying we should increase the cost of Castles as they are in the game right now (3.13).


    With some ideas on how to improve Castles out there, I will move on to the next part of my overall suggestion.

    Part 2) Forts.

    Most people agree that Forts, as they are in the game right now, are largely unhelpful. Here is their stats, according to the 3.13 Civilopedia, right now.

    Fort, Tile Improvement.
    +25% Tile Defense
    Acts as a city for combat purposes.

    How should we make it better? WELL, first of all, I think Firaxis needs to improve the Civilopedia entry for this thing. Aside from what I listed, there is nothing in it's entry. And with all of the reports of "strange" uses for Forts that I have heard, I am pretty sure I am not the only one who is not entirely sure what all Forts can be used for. Some uses I have heard of but not tested myself yet: Sea-bordering forts are navigatable for ships, forts can be used to base aircraft, and forts can be built on top of resources while still harvesting that resource. If any of these are NOT actually in the game then I would suggest they be added, just to help out Forts. But as I list my suggestions, I will assume these are in fact already in the game. However, I will do my best to make some suggestions despite the lack of reliable tested reported uses of Forts.

    1B) Provide a synergy with the Protective trait. Yes, this is my weakest suggestion. The civilopedia lists Forts as acting as a city for combat purposes, but I have never heard if people could use the promotion "City Garrison" while defending on a Fort. If this bonus does NOT extend, then it should. That, or a flat bonus should be afforded to Protective civs, maybe another 25% for a Protective leader defending a Fort.

    2B) Provide a healing bonus to units inside a Fort. I hate to list another suggestion that may already apply to the game, however again, if you can not already use Forts in this way then you should be able to.

    3B) Give units in forts the ability to take "pot shots" at enemy units passing by. Pretty sure I remember this from Civ3, and I see no reason why this should not still be in the game, though perhaps I am unaware of some cheese or exploit this caused. So I supposed I will tenatively add this to the list. ;)

    Now, on to what I hope are some different ideas for Forts.

    4B) Provide defense versus aerial or naval bombardment, and the collateral damage of siege units. Pretty self explanitory.

    5B) Allow Forts to be built on Neutral areas of the map. This could obviously significantly improve the strategic usefulness of Forts, though hopefully not make them overpowered. If you actually got to build one outside the borders of a civilization you were at war with, it would serve as a forward-base of operations and a place for your injured troops to regenerate at.

    Part 3) "Cheap" Bunkers and Bomb Shelters. Increase these buildings normal :hammers: cost.

    I won't make a list here, as I do not need a list to make it easier to read, since the suggestion is pretty straight forward. Increasing the normal :hammers: cost of Bunkers and Bomb Shelters, while making them cheap buildings for a Protective civilization will effectively increase this trait's usefulness and make it a more desirable trait to possess overall.

    Ok, here comes the time for me to thank you if you have actually taken the time to read all of this, and for me to ask for your (constructive!) comments whether you agree with me or not. Remember: we most likely have the same common goal of making Protective a better trait!
     
  2. Kevin J

    Kevin J Hewer of Wood

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Why not allow castles at construction, double the cost to 200 hammers, and have engineering allow +100% production to castles?
     
  3. Legal_My_Deagle

    Legal_My_Deagle Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2002
    Messages:
    215
    That is certainly an idea to consider as well. :)
     
  4. Dagta

    Dagta Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    97
    Castles should be earlier, in my opinion. Does it seem odd to anyone else that it's possible to build the Pyramids before being able to build castles? I understand that the Pyramids did come before castles but it seems any civilization capable of building Pyramids could build a castle.
     
  5. PericlesOfAthen

    PericlesOfAthen Consul

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    87
    Location:
    suburbs of Chicago, IL
    I agree 100% that castles or even walls for that matter should be a more important factor in the game. Both because it would be more historically accurate but also would lead to more interesting combat. Definitely you should be able to build both sooner in the tech tree. I like your suggestion about forts too. It would make it easier to set up lines of defense and make strategic attacks to lessor defended cities more worthwhile and interesting. My suggestion would be to reduce the defense bonuses from culture. In my mind it makes little sense that culture should play a large role in the defense of a city. Maybe in the industrial and modern ages when you have rebels and guerrillas but in ancient times it makes littles sense to me how having built Notre Dame is going to help you fend off attacks.
     
  6. DrewBledsoe

    DrewBledsoe Veteran QB

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,634
    Location:
    Cheering For Mr Sanchez
    To me, Castles at Feudalism would make more sense historically ( I have visited castles in many countries, studied them and found them incredibly interesting for a long time now....probably the romantic in me ;))

    Anyways without going into huge swathes of historic rhetoric, feudalism (In Europe especially) did introduce a landowning class of nobles who were often the ones responsible for castle (or fortified dwelling) building ......(and yes thats a very basic way of putting the feudal sytem in one sentence, but a huge arguement isnt the point here)....

    Castles could then give extra xp (lets say +2 xp) to all troops built in a castle city WITH serfdom (I thought quite a nice idea, since serfdom is almost universally ignored in favor of slavery at that time).

    This of course would give all civs a part buff, but especially the protective ones (making the castle a middle age 2/3 barracks but built almost instantly).

    The obsolsecense of the castle at economics is actually too late to my way of thinking, but the problem lies the other way around, in that economics comes far to early in the game. Steel would be a good option, but steel comes far too late ;) Maybe Military Science (but then thats an option tech route).Oh well hard to win there......

    Just an idea on the castle side of things.
     
  7. Seras

    Seras BuildingMonger

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    228
    castles at feudalism sound great till you realize that it means you'll be trying to take out castled longbows with swordsmen.:sad:
     
  8. Legal_My_Deagle

    Legal_My_Deagle Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2002
    Messages:
    215
    I really like the idea of Castles having some kind of synergy with Serfdom, as well. It would be a good way to make people, you know, actually USE Serfdom as you pointed out. ;)

    In fact I think I will add it to my list, and credit your name on it. :)
     
  9. Blaarg

    Blaarg Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    519
    Castles should be pushed back to corperation. If you have castles in most of your cities then you can safely ignore corperation for a bit. Seeing as how the +1 trade routes from castles mimic the best part of the corperation tech.

    If you are going to move them up, you'd need to do so marginally as castles could be too powerful early on. Remember, a city with a castle is basically invulnerable to anyone who doesn't have catapults yet. Perhaps make Construction and Fuedalism needed to make castles.
     
  10. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,316
    For Castle I'd say
    Obsolete with Corporation (counters the Trade route and is later)

    I'd also beef up Walls slightly by giving them a +10-25% Spy defense
    And make the Great Wall require a Wall in the city it is in (like GLib or GLight)

    For Forts... you Really do need to be able to use thier full functionality in Neutral Territory
     
  11. Monkeyfinger

    Monkeyfinger Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    2,002
    You know, I swear to god this was a planned change in the original BtS release. What happened?
     
  12. DrewBledsoe

    DrewBledsoe Veteran QB

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,634
    Location:
    Cheering For Mr Sanchez
    My original idea (Ill find the post dated probably nearly 2 years ago), was that the GW should need x amount of cities and y amount of walls (map size dependant), before it could be constructed.

    I thought that had been adopted too, until they released BTS.I think it went the same route as trade bouys....
     
  13. So-So Scientest

    So-So Scientest Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    6
    I think that forts should have zones of control. This encourages them to be attacked rather than passed by. I would also like to see them be able to obtain a resource in neutral territory, similar to the colony option in CivIII. Early in the game, when the number of cities is limited, having this option to grab a key resource without tanking your economy could be huge.
    They should also get the square they are on to automatically have 1 square of your culture/border when in neutral territory, since forts are essentially mini-cities.
     
  14. Blaarg

    Blaarg Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    519
    I completely agree with you about the 1 square of culture when in neutral territory and the ability to connect resources in neutral territory.

    However, Zone of Control should be created by the units you station there. If your units are attacking the enemy stack and retreating to the fort, then that gives the enemy a reason to attack said fort. In essence you're giving the fort a zone of control.
     
  15. 50_dollar_bag

    50_dollar_bag Imitation Louis Vuitton

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    977
    Location:
    36 52 S 174 45 E
    Usefulness of forts from my point of view:
    Basing of aircraft. If I have idle workers at some stage I'll have them building forts on desert tiles or tiles outside of my cities BFC starting with shared borders. I pretty much always reach the modern age so they become useful for aircraft now that there's a maximum limit for aircraft in cities.

    Canals. You can't cut a huge canal through a landmass using forts but you can have two forts on a 2 tile isthmus and use that as a canal.

    As far as stationing troops in forts I've only done that to protect my fighters or bombers, maybe I'm not being creative enough.

    So as such forts are rather useless for me for most of the game. I agree with a buff.

    As far as castles go, I'm not so sure about making them available earlier considering the AIs proclivity for building castles.
    Making them obsolete with corporation gets a :thumbsup: from me.
     
  16. kniteowl

    kniteowl Pirate Captain :P

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,269
    Location:
    NZ
    The Trade Routes and Espionage Bonus don't scream out "PLEASE BUILD ME" the bonuses seem neglectable.

    I'd would personally remove the trade routes bonus and give it a +2XP to Siege unit bonus, they be like a mini Citadel (which is a Spainish UB that replaces castles) and hopefully this will influence players to more likely build castles, especially protective leaders who get them cheaper.

    I agree Castles should obsolete later in the game Corporations is a good choice.

    What about a Tourism bonus. This is just an example but something like all cities that have castles that are 1000 years old get a Trade route bonus of 100% to represent Tourism, the Tourism bonus is only available with the Flight Tech. (This is similar to any culture producing builds that are 1000 years old get their cultured doubled.)

    Any player who is trade route economy focused would morel likely build Castles earlier, to reap the benefits later in the game.
     
  17. Bleahdom

    Bleahdom Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21
    Castle (Requires Construction)
    Cost: 200 :hammers:
    +3 :culture:
    +2 :espionage:
    +1 Trade Routes
    25% Defense (Except vs Gunpowder-based units)
    -25% damage to defenses from bombardment (Except vs Gunpowder-based units)
    Double Production Speed for Protective Leaders
    Requires Walls
    Double Production Speed with Stone
    Obsoletes with Gunpowder

    Anything else (apart a better suggestion that is) and it's useless. The idea of free market making it overpowered isn't really an issue anymore, mainly because the AI almost always switches to mercantilism, even those that are supposed to prefer free market.
     
  18. Blaarg

    Blaarg Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    519
    Construction is way too early. If you're the first to get construction, your castle cities will be nearly invulnerable, there should never be a tech that can do that.
     
  19. Infantry#14

    Infantry#14 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,580
    gunpowder is way too early even earlier then economics. Should be obsolete with steel with the invention of cannons.
     
  20. kniteowl

    kniteowl Pirate Captain :P

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,269
    Location:
    NZ
    Poor Spainish, nerfing an already underpowered UB...
     

Share This Page