(Balance) ideas: Please comment

[StevenV]

A few days ago I started a long post about my ideas, with pros&cons, detailed reasons, etc. However, I lost it so here is my shorter list. If needed I can try to write about the details again

Ironworks could grant a few (2-4) iron and maybe Factory also could grant 1. Why?

• I run into some map where iron was very-very rare and most of the major civs was unable to build ranged naval unit or siege unit starting from the industrial
• Coal and Aluminium has their own building that grant a few resource
• I am not afraid that it would cause balance issue, because if you already have 10-15 iron these additional few wouldn't be a big impact. However if you have 0, these few could be very-very useful.

In case the above is not welcomed, please consider to extend the time while Frigate is available.

• After industrial (without iron) you are in an unbalanced situation on the sea. While you can live without "iron based" siege units because you can use resource less ranged units instead. However, you cannot do the same with naval units. You can only build melee naval units....

Make the hydroplant/windmill user selectable like trainstation/seaport in case the terrain conditions are met. So be able to build windmill in a riverside city if that would be a better option.

• One tile river is the most know reason why should these building user selectable while well/watermill roughly provide the same amount of extra yield so they are more balanced.
• I would even consider to make hydroplant available for non-riverside cities if let say river can be found in 2 range

Nuclear weapons could degrade the great person progress like the sabotage.

• It is not a balance issue, I just find it weird that while 50-70% of your city pop is dead your great person progress is intact.

Thanks for any feedback.

 

[Moi Magnus]

I agree with most, except the last. You have lost half of your population, so you will alrralrhavr half less GPP per turn (lack of specialists), so double time for the next GP.

 

[JohannesWasHere]

I think a nuclear holocaust would actually encourage great people. Special times bring up special people.

 

[Han_YOLO]

I like the Ironworks idea. There are a lot of units that depend on iron in the mid to late game. Tradition civs can struggle to get it if they don't go Statecraft (and even if they do), so I think having one guaranteed source of 2-4 iron would be reasonable.

 

[pineappledan]

It really does suck getting locked out of siege weapons in Renaissance if you didn't start near iron. I think 2 free iron on Ironworks sounds like a great idea.

I've been of the opinion for a long time that the wind plant is just too good, but it comes so late that it doesn't matter. The I have no real opinion on this change except that if you settle a city on a 1-2 tile river then you aren't going to build either of these buildings. One of them is locked, and the other provides no incentive. It will never pay for itself in a million years.

 

[Gazebo]

I dig the ironworks idea. It works.

G

 

[civplayer33]

Let's keep it at 2 free iron, though, please.

If you are chronically worried about strategic resources, you can play with the Strategic Balance option; for those who don't use that option, having to go to war to secure important resources is part of the fun, however; let's not change that too much.

There are still many ways to compensate for missing SR: trade, CS alliance, conquest, Statecraft, better management of units and buildings (not building a Minefield in every coastal city for example).

Edit: I would also point out, that the argument "Coal and Alu have buildings providing them" fallacious. Coal and Aluminium (especially Coal) are important for infrastructure, while Iron is almost exclusively used for military units.

 

[Stalker0]

Let's keep it at 2 free iron, though, please.

If you are chronically worried about strategic resources, you can play with the Strategic Balance option; for those who don't use that option, having to go to war to secure important resources is part of the fun, however; let's not change that too much.

There are still many ways to compensate for missing SR: trade, CS alliance, conquest, Statecraft, better management of units and buildings (not building a Minefield in every coastal city for example).

Edit: I would also point out, that the argument "Coal and Alu have buildings providing them" fallacious. Coal and Aluminium (especially Coal) are important for infrastructure, while Iron is almost exclusively used for military units.

I also like 2 iron from the ironworks.

 

[tu_79]

I like the idea of some produced iron, but I wonder if just +2 iron on a national wonder is going to be noticeable. Not even map size dependent?

About Wind/Hydro plant, I assumed that getting one building or the other depending on the settling location, is a factor on deciding where to settle. Pineappledan might be right, though. Those come too later for it to matter. In addition, in my games, there are usually very few citizens working the land, so even if it buffs many tiles, only a few get worked. Wind plant at least gives +5 flat production.

I see both buildings very similar, and probably a bit luck dependent. I think they would be more interesting if Hydroplant gave a boost to production buildings, something like +5 production to Forge, Windmills and Factories, while Windplant gave a boost to grassland and plains as it is now. But if it gets changed, it would be just for flavour, since it hardly changes the outcome.

 

[civplayer33]

I like the idea of some produced iron, but I wonder if just +2 iron on a national wonder is going to be noticeable.

I'm very much against it being more than 2, because then, as I pointed out before, it would really start devaluing other means of getting Iron (diplomacy, trade, conquest etc). Plus you don't even need Iron for any important buildings (Mine Field is not important at all...I almost always skip it).

2 Iron, even if you don't get any Iron from anywhere else means you can now siege a city where you couldn't before (2 siege units may not be enough for the really tough cities, but most will be fine as long as you use melee and skirmishers etc as well); so giving 2 Iron would do what it should: allow you to expand aggressively (to get more Iron ) if you had really bad luck with your starting position and there is very little Iron on the map near you. If the issue is that the map barely has any Iron globally then it's a map script issue, which shouldn't be "fixed" by changing stuff in VP.

I mean honestly I'm pretty much against it even giving 2 Iron...you find out where the Iron is really early on; if you don't have any near you and you play without Strategic Balance, then you know what to do ( ... ... ), early siege units don't require Iron. But I can live with a compromise, so 2 Iron is fine.

 

[tu_79]

I'm very much against it being more than 2, because then, as I pointed out before, it would really start devaluing other means of getting Iron (diplomacy, trade, conquest etc). Plus you don't even need Iron for any important buildings (Mine Field is not important at all...I almost always skip it).

2 Iron, even if you don't get any Iron from anywhere else means you can now siege a city where you couldn't before (2 siege units may not be enough for the really tough cities, but most will be fine as long as you use melee and skirmishers etc as well); so giving 2 Iron would do what it should: allow you to expand aggressively (to get more Iron ) if you had really bad luck with your starting position and there is very little Iron on the map near you. If the issue is that the map barely has any Iron globally then it's a map script issue, which shouldn't be "fixed" by changing stuff in VP.

I mean honestly I'm pretty much against it even giving 2 Iron...you find out where the Iron is really early on; if you don't have any near you and you play without Strategic Balance, then you know what to do ( ... ... ), early siege units don't require Iron. But I can live with a compromise, so 2 Iron is fine.

Ok, fine, but think about this. What does +2 iron mean for a tiny map? What does it mean for a large map?

 

[civplayer33]

Ok, fine, but think about this. What does +2 iron mean for a tiny map? What does it mean for a large map?

It means you can get two siege units and start getting more Iron

I usually play on large and in about half my wars I only siege one city at a time. On a tiny map this would likely be true more often, but it wouldn't be a huge difference. Now, if Iron were required for important buildings this would be different as it would scale much more with number of cities, but that's not the case; siege units don't scale much with map size IMO and ranged navy isn't something you absolutely need lest the game break.

 

[pineappledan]

It means not getting stuck with a frigate you can’t heal after the treasure fleet WC is passed. It means having an avenue to funnel highly promoted siege/naval ranged units through if you got a bad map roll.

 

[tu_79]

It means you can get two siege units and start getting more Iron

I usually play on large and in about half my wars I only siege one city at a time. On a tiny map this would likely be true more often, but it wouldn't be a huge difference. Now, if Iron were required for important buildings this would be different as it would scale much more with number of cities, but that's not the case; siege units don't scale much with map size IMO and ranged navy isn't something you absolutely need lest the game break.

I see. You are right.

 

[civplayer33]

It means not getting stuck with a frigate you can’t heal after the treasure fleet WC is passed. It means having an avenue to funnel highly promoted siege/naval ranged units through if you got a bad map roll.

Well like I said, if you had a bad map roll, then either global Iron is really low, which means the map script is bad in which case you should change it or you didn't play with Strategic Balance and were unlucky, in which case you need to use the various mechanisms available to get yourself the Iron that is sitting somewhere else. Sitting on your "highly promoted" units and complaining about not being able to upgrade them instead of just using them to get more Iron (and this is something you need to anticipate, of course; don't start thinking about where to get Iron for upgrading your Frigates when you just got the Cruiser tech, but several Eras earlier) is a weird way to play the game. And Frigates don't require Iron anymore...for many many months now.

 

[Rekk]

It means not getting stuck with a frigate you can’t heal after the treasure fleet WC is passed.

PSA: Frigates haven't required iron for a while. It was news to me too!

 

[StevenV]

Thanks for tha comments.

I dig the ironworks idea. It works.

G

Sorry I am not native English. Does it mean that you will think about the idea or you will literally dig it somewhere deep?

I see both buildings very similar, and probably a bit luck dependent. I think they would be more interesting if Hydroplant gave a boost to production buildings, something like +5 production to Forge, Windmills and Factories, while Windplant gave a boost to grassland and plains as it is now. But if it gets changed, it would be just for flavour, since it hardly changes the outcome.

That is my problem also. It is luck dependent. However, I dont know why. I mean it is true for all building that you can choose whether you build it or not. But, for "selectable" buildings like well/watermill or trainstation/seaport it doesn't matter which one you choose, you will roughly get the same amount of yield. The windplant/hydroplant is very different from this point of view you can get very different yields.

I also agree that it is a very late building, sometimes there is now time to build it. So it is not a big "issue" maybe just annoying when your city is next to a 1 tile river but you have 10-15 tile suitable for windplant...

Well like I said, if you had a bad map roll, then either global Iron is really low, which means the map script is bad in which case you should change it or you didn't play with Strategic Balance and were unlucky, in which case you need to use the various mechanisms available to get yourself the Iron that is sitting somewhere else. Sitting on your "highly promoted" units and complaining about not being able to upgrade them instead of just using them to get more Iron (and this is something you need to anticipate, of course; don't start thinking about where to get Iron for upgrading your Frigates when you just got the Cruiser tech, but several Eras earlier) is a weird way to play the game. And Frigates don't require Iron anymore...for many many months now.

You summarized my experience quite well. It was probably a bad map script, which doesn't have an option for strategic balance. However, I think giving some "support" with a few extra iron wouldn't change the outcome on the more balanced map script.

Regarding trade, CS, warfare option to get iron:

There was 3 continent on this game. One has 3 iron with 2 major civ; other has 12 iron, 6 for a civ and 6 for a CS. The 3rd continents has also 12 iron for 4 civ.
I was on the 1st continent and until I discovered the others they had no left iron for trade. So eventually I spent many-many turns to get allied with the CS who has iron. It was taken 100-150 turns.

 

[pineappledan]

Sorry I am not native English. Does it mean that you will think about the idea or you will literally dig it somewhere deep?

To dig something is generally to 'get' it. To understand and appreciate it. The term comes from 30's African American lingo. While not necessarily considered 'jive talk', "digging it" is linked to the early jazz scene.

Other later examples, or modifications of "dig it":
"Can you dig it?" - 1970s slang for "do you get me?", or "Do you understand/appreciate what I am saying?"
"Make a dig at [person]" - a light, often joking verbal insult directed at [person]. Can also refer to a quick physical or emotional jab, meant to cause no lasting harm.

Your suggestion for the 2 iron on ironworks was appreciated. Gazebo 'dug it' so hard that the 2 iron is already on the latest version of VP.

 

[civplayer33]

Sorry I am not native English. Does it mean that you will think about the idea or you will literally dig it somewhere deep?

It means he likes it (that meaning of the word emerged around 1939, apparently); it's already included in the latest Hotfix version.

You summarized my experience quite well. It was probably a bad map script, which doesn't have an option for strategic balance. However, I think giving some "support" with a few extra iron wouldn't change the outcome on the more balanced map script.

Regarding trade, CS, warfare option to get iron:

There was 3 continent on this game. One has 3 iron with 2 major civ; other has 12 iron, 6 for a civ and 6 for a CS. The 3rd continents has also 12 iron for 4 civ.
I was on the 1st continent and until I discovered the others they had no left iron for trade. So eventually I spent many-many turns to get allied with the CS who has iron. It was taken 100-150 turns.

I smell a logical fallacy
Of course giving free Iron away would change the outcome of a map script that can be played with Strategic Balance turned off; if you can't get enough free Iron from buildings you'll have to get it somewhere else.
A more balanced map script (yes, the situation you describe definitely means a bad map script with ridiculously low global Iron) would mean that you don't have to wait so long for Iron since you could much more easily trade it or acquire it by other means. So the proper solution is to have a working map script, not fixing map script bugs by mellowing out VP.

Anyway, like I said, the newest version has the 2 free Iron now.

 

[StevenV]

To dig something is generally to 'get' it. To understand and appreciate it. The term comes from 30's African American lingo. While not necessarily considered 'jive talk', "digging it" is linked to the early jazz scene.

Other later examples, or modifications of "dig it":
"Can you dig it?" - 1970s slang for "do you get me?", or "Do you understand/appreciate what I am saying?"
"Make a dig at [person]" - a light, often joking verbal insult directed at [person]. Can also refer to a physical or emotional jab, meant to cause no lasting harm.

Your suggestion for the 2 iron on ironworks was appreciated. Gazebo 'dug it' so hard that the 2 iron is already on the latest version of VP.

Thanks, I dig it now.
In the meantime I found that this was already added to the latest hotfix.