Balancing issues

[Serbitas]

First things first: this is an awesome mod and i really love to play it.

I have played it dozens of times (multi and single player, always in immtral/deity mode), and here are some things i noticed which could use some balacing.

1. 1 Trade routes make coastal cities way too powerfull. Since trade routes are always 30-60% of your total commerce, haveing 8 possible extra trade routes in coastal cities (in comparisson to inland cities) just makes them inbalanced (+2 from lighthouse, +1 from Foreign Trade, +2 Greater Lighthouse and +50% from harbour). I think the harbour effect is allready strong enough since it allready increases your effective trade route income by 50%.
   So the suggestion for this would be to take away at least the 2 trade routes you get from the lighthouse, and maybe change the greater lighhouse to +1 trade route in costal cities, or maye +3 trade routes for the city its build in.
   Another idea would be to give the lighthouse/Greater lighthouse some trade route bonuses with later techs (optics or even astronomy)
   
2. 2 Ring of fire/Crown of Brilliance/Crush need some serious rebalance. They need max number of targets becouse 2 units with those abilites can destroy any stack, no matter the size.
   I suggest to have Ring of Fire max target = 3, crown of billiance and crush mabye 5.
   Another idea would be to have the units with those abilites function like siege weapons. They can weaken an enemy stack but can die in the process (then mabye the max targets should be 5 and 10). Makeing the units go into "siege mode" could also mabye help the ai to use them.

I downloaded the svn and i am makeing myself familiar with the project atm, so if you dont mind i can try to make the changes myself.

Otherwise the mod is really good balanced, keep on the great work!

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

these suggestions definitely sound reasonable and well thought.

 

[TowerWizard]

I agree that coastal cities get too many trade routes. Suggestion: Make Lighthouse and GL only give one trade route each. This is enough. The main problem is not that coastal cities are too good, but that inland cities are so bad. The coastal cities have many buildings that only they can build, but there is no special buildings only available to inland cities. Such buildings could include Farmer's Market 100 tools, available at Festivals (+1 Trade route, +2 commerce) and City Garden 120 tools, available at Medicine (+2 Food, +1 Health).

 

[Sephi]

1. agreed, toned down trade routes in coastal cities (lighthouse only +1, great lighthouse is national wonder and doesn't give trade routes in all coastal cities anymore)

2. If Ring of Flames only targets Y units, you could still build a huge amount of AV priests. OTOH dwarven druids could become pointless when you face huge armies. I think the biggger problem with spells is that Ring of Flames hurts a Phalanx much more than a Warrior. (16->9.6 compared to 4->2.4). Fireball is much better balanced imho as it can kill a warrior but barely hurts a Phalanx. Maybe Ring of Flames limit should be set to 2 below max strength. For a bronze Axeman that means 5 -> 3, while a Mithril Champion endures much better 10 -> 8. Late Game Promotions like Channeling3 could decrease the limit.

have fun taking a look at the SVN. The game is highly moddable

 

[Sephi]

I agree that coastal cities get too many trade routes. Suggestion: Make Lighthouse and GL only give one trade route each. This is enough. The main problem is not that coastal cities are too good, but that inland cities are so bad. The coastal cities have many buildings that only they can build, but there is no special buildings only available to inland cities. Such buildings could include Farmer's Market 100 tools, available at Festivals (+1 Trade route, +2 commerce) and City Garden 120 tools, available at Medicine (+2 Food, +1 Health).

Keep in mind Inland Cities have much better tile yields. Practically any improvement beats an ocean tile

 

[Serbitas]

1. agreed, toned down trade routes in coastal cities (lighthouse only +1, great lighthouse is national wonder and doesn't give trade routes in all coastal cities anymore)

2. If Ring of Flames only targets Y units, you could still build a huge amount of AV priests. OTOH dwarven druids could become pointless when you face huge armies. I think the biggger problem with spells is that Ring of Flames hurts a Phalanx much more than a Warrior. (16->9.6 compared to 4->2.4). Fireball is much better balanced imho as it can kill a warrior but barely hurts a Phalanx. Maybe Ring of Flames limit should be set to 2 below max strength. For a bronze Axeman that means 5 -> 3, while a Mithril Champion endures much better 10 -> 8. Late Game Promotions like Channeling3 could decrease the limit.

have fun taking a look at the SVN. The game is highly moddable

2 sounds like a good idea. But i still think the units should take some risk for beeing able to decimate whole stacks.

Maybe changing the spell this way would work out:
Make Ring of Flames, Crush etc a self buff which gives 50% retreat chance and a (berserker like) ability to cause coleteral damage up to a certain level. So the unit will have to attack and risk death to weaken the enemy stack.

 

[Valkrionn]

Sephi, I like your idea for spell strength there.

 

[Breez]

Keep in mind Inland Cities have much better tile yields. Practically any improvement beats an ocean tile

This is the biggest issue with coastal cities to me. They have so bad of tiles that the trade routes have a hard time overcoming the lack of improvements.

However I concede a city on a inlet with only 2 or 3 coastal tiles can add all the trade routes while minimizing the disadvantages.

 

[Medicine_Man_55]

However I concede a city on a inlet with only 2 or 3 coastal tiles can add all the trade routes while minimizing the disadvantages.

I like to think of those cities as ports with natural (sheltered) harbors. They tend to be significant naval bases due to the production in the city and the well defended coast.

 

[Breez]

true and not all that common

 

[Fafnir13]

Direct damage spells could all use a unit cap. Yes, you can still get around the problem with more priests, but that's fine. You can do the same thing with more catapults.
I disagree that you should have to risk the unit. Having them on the front lines is risky enough with all the nasty things that can happen to them. Enemy spells, assassins, et cetera.
Side note: Pire Zombie explosion REALLY need a unit cap implemented. Maybe even a damage cap. Those guys are insane.

I have no problem with coastal cities being a boon to trade. Coastal cities have always been hubs of commerce in the real world and a boon to whomever controls them. Don't forget that, in addition to losing out on some workable tiles, they are also more vulnerable to conquest. Ships can bombarb defenses with impunity from any land units and armies can be dropped off without having to navigate through enemy territory. The current AI doesn't really do naval invasions, so that balancing factor doesn't have much opportunity to come into play. Just give it time.

 

[Serbitas]

Direct damage spells could all use a unit cap. Yes, you can still get around the problem with more priests, but that's fine. You can do the same thing with more catapults.
I disagree that you should have to risk the unit. Having them on the front lines is risky enough with all the nasty things that can happen to them. Enemy spells, assassins, et cetera.
Side note: Pire Zombie explosion REALLY need a unit cap implemented. Maybe even a damage cap. Those guys are insane.

I have no problem with coastal cities being a boon to trade. Coastal cities have always been hubs of commerce in the real world and a boon to whomever controls them. Don't forget that, in addition to losing out on some workable tiles, they are also more vulnerable to conquest. Ships can bombarb defenses with impunity from any land units and armies can be dropped off without having to navigate through enemy territory. The current AI doesn't really do naval invasions, so that balancing factor doesn't have much opportunity to come into play. Just give it time.

The loss on tiles is pretty minimal. Especialy if you have 1 or 2 food ressources in water, and considering kelp and fishing villages. The problem is that trade routes are a huge factor when it comes to commerce. Coastal cities have allready 50% higher income from them (with harbour), giving them too many trade routes in addition to that is the main problem.

This is all very easy to spot if you play some games. Play 150 turns and try building only coastal cities in comparisson with building only inland cities. You will see that its always the coastal cities that win in commerce (you have at least the double commerce).

 

[Medicine_Man_55]

I don't think coastal city commerce is a problem so much as coastal city commerce *with* the Great Lighthouse. +2 trade routes per coastal city is a crazy good bonus.

Think about it: what do you have to build in a coastal city for it to start pulling in good profit (assuming you don't have the GLH)? A lighthouse and a harbor at the minimum. You may also need anywhere from 1-4 work boats to get nets and fishing villages set up. Most (but not all) coastal cities end up a bit hammer poor, so they take some time to produce these things (unless rushed or built elsewhere). In other words, coastal cities pay off in the long run but they take investment and protection to get set up, more so than other new cities.

With the GLH, the moment a settler digs a firepit on the coastline and calls it his hovel traders show up wanting the charcoal. I'm being colourful but I think this wonder is probably a bit too good.

Some suggestions for the GLH:
* The Great Lighthouse provides +3 trade routes for the city it is constructed
* Water tiles worked by the city with the Great Lighthouse provide +1 food
* Remove the +2 trade routes per coastal city

If this was done the GLH would still be a strong wonder because it could be built early on and would provide a strong source of commerce for a growing empire. In the long run, the civ that builds the GLH is almost guaranteed to have one of the mightiest commercial cities in Erebus. It would not however guarantee commercial dominance to the civ building it.

 

[readercolin]

Do you guys actually realize how trade routes work? A coastal city can get a maximum of 6 more trade routes, and 50% more trade than a non-coastal city. Sounds like alot? Not enough to make up for all those poor ocean squares IMO. To indicate where commerce from trade comes from, I'll point out all the sources.

Non-City Building Sources of Trade Routes:
All cities get 1 trade route, if they are connected to another city
+1 from trade
+1 from currency
+1 from undercouncil/overcouncil resolution
+1 from free trade
+1 if coastal from free trade
+2 from great lighthouse
+1 from Celestial Compass
This means that just by existing and being part of the trade network, all cities can have 6 trade routes, 9 if coastal. Now for buildings.
+2 from lighthouse
+2 from tavern
+1 from inn
+1 from Obsidian Gates
+1 from smugglers port
Add these buildings (i'm ignoring civ specific ones and the ones from house ghalledia), and all cities can get +4 more trade routes, with another +3 for coastal (smugglers port may require following the undercouncil however, I'm not positive here). So now we have 10 trade routes if on land, 16 if coastal - a difference of 6 trade routes.

Now, on to bonuses (note, base trade increases by size of city, and I believe that it increases base yield by +5-10% starting at size 15)
+25% if connected to capital
+5% per population over 10 (so at size 11, a 5% bonus, size 12, a 10% etc.)
+50% from Tavern
+50% from harbor
+25% from inn
+150% from Foreign Trade
+100% from overseas trade
This means that, not counting population, a city can get +100% from buildings/connection to capital, and +150% if coastal - a difference of a mere 50% (and note, this is all additive, so if you had foreign overseas trade, an inland city would get 250% boost, and a coastal a 300% boost).

So then the question is - is 6 trade routes and a 50% boost too much for a coastal city to have over a non-coastal city? And is it really that bad that you get so much of your commerce from trade routes? For myself, I don't find a problem with this, though I do wonder what exactly you are doing that you get as much as 30% of your commerce from trade - generally, I get maybe 10%, counting gold/science that I get from specialists. Also note, the majority of this trade doesn't appear until midgame - some of it not even until the lategame. On top of all of this, should not a trade based economy be a viable option?

Just my 2

-Colin

 

[seizer]

Assuming mid-to-late game, you can pretty safely assume the average base yield of a trade route to be 1.5. So, using your numbers, a inland city will get 10*1.5*2 = 30 commerce from trade routes, whereas a coastal city will get 16*1.5*2.5 = 60 commerce. Quite a substantial increase, and a substantial amount of .

 

[Valkrionn]

It's also late game, and (IMO) doesn't make up for the sub-par yields that have to be dealt with the entire game.

 

[Breez]

Yes +30 trade at the cost of maybe 30+? hammers by time you add in all the things they could have built had those ocean squares been a mix of plains, forest, and hills.

Then you could always put the city on Commerce or Research and turn those extra hammers into the exact thing you are getting from the commerce but be much more flexible and a faster developed city.

 

[seizer]

Keep in mind this is wildmana, so there's also kelp and fishing villages. As a matter of fact, if I have access to water with kelp in the early game I will beeline fishing instead of education for the early commerce, sometimes ignoring education for a long time. Kelp could probably stand to lose the extra commerce, or even be changed to a -1 commerce penalty. Kelp with fishing village and a lighthouse is 3 5 1 , which is very decent, only problem is the pirates it attracts.

 

[readercolin]

Kelp and fishing villages did change things some - however, IMO, it only changed it enough to go snatch that 1 city spot, not to switch from a land based economy to a sea based one. Basically, what I'm saying is that even though you can get quite a bit out of trade, you can't get enough to justify the loss in hammers etc. from an interior city, nor enough to make up for the lateness of the trade economy in general.

Looking at it from a timeline point of view:
Teir 1 (everything up to bronze working)
inland cities get 1 trade route, with no bonuses - 1.25 commerce (internal, no overseas), 2.25 (internal overseas), 2.75 (foreign), 3.75 (foreign overseas)
ocean cities get 3-5 trade routes, with a 50% bonus - 5.25-8.75 commerce (internal trade only, no overseas), 8.25-13.75 (internal overseas), 9.75-16.25 (foreign trade), 12.75-21.25(overseas foreign)
Now, if you can get 5 foreign overseas trade routes in all your cities, more power to you. For the most part though, you will only be able to get internal trade, or same continent foreign trade (and even then, you won't be able to have all your trade routes foreign). So you might be able to get 5-8 commerce free in your cities. While this is nice, this is also about the same as getting incense in your borders, without the hammer cost of a lighthouse, a harbor, and the great lighthouse. As for commerce from the sea, considering that you can get only a few hammers from sea squares (whaling boats and fishing villages only), you're left in a situation where you trade the food and hammers of inland with the commerce of the sea - not a bad deal depending upon what you are trying to do IMO.

Now for midgame:
For trade routes, you now have foreign trade, trade, currency, great lighthouse, lighthouse, and inn, for a total of 5 interior and 8-10 exterior, and for bonuses you have the inn and the harbor.
Interior city: 7.5 commerce (internal), 12.5 (internal overseas), 15 (foreign), and 20 (foreign overseas)
Coastal: 16-20 (internal), 24-30 (internal overseas), 28-34 (foreign), and 36-42 (foreign overseas).
Now, if you could somehow manage to get 10 foreign overseas trade routes, you might have an argument here. However, in every game I have ever played, my cities will end up with mostly internal, an occasional foreign (then only in my biggest cities), and rarely an overseas trade route (as to get the AI to actually challenge me, we need to be mostly on one continent). Now, a free 9 commerce above and beyond what I would be getting with just the construction of an inn isn't too bad, but once again, not anything worth nerfing trade for. After taxation, that isn't even 2 whole towns. Here though, we might be able to get some increases from population modifiers, but again, its going to prove the difference of 1-2 commerce at most (unless you're playing the calibam, at this time, most cities are less than size 15).

Lategame we could compare. On the other hand, if you haven't won the game by then, you screwed up somewhere earlier.

Now, am I saying that trade is perfectly balanced? No. What I am saying though is that all things being equal, it seems to me to be perfectly balanced that coastal cities produce more in the way of commerce than inland cities. In FFH, this isn't really the case, as a single aristofarm can surpass any non-resource coastal tile (and an aristo-farmed civ will generally grow larger, faster, and get more commerce from trade because of size than a coastal one would because of number of trade routes). Wildmana, between adding to the trade routes, and adding kelp/fishing villages, has actually made coastal cities less "worthless" and more "it has its uses". As for your example of ignoring education - is that really a bad thing that some games you can afford to do that? Is it not nice that you actually HAVE a second option for commerce, instead of being forced to beeline education so that you can build cottages and have an economy?

Now if you insist that the great lighthouse makes coastal cities too OP in general, here are a few ideas that will still keep it worthwhile without nerfing it into oblivion. First, you could have it instead give a free lighthouse in all coastal cities (very useful). Second, you could change it to +1 trade route in all coastal cities, and +2-3 in that city. Third, you could use it to make you're city a center of trade, but have no benefit on other cites - +3-5 trade routes in this city, +100% trade route yields, or maybe a 25% commerce bonus.

On the other hand, if you find that its just coastal cities in general that get too much trade, you could make a few changes here. One, you could remove 1 trade route from lighthouses. Two, you could change free trade from +1 trade route, +1 coastal trade route, to +2 trade routes, or +1 and +50-100% trade route income (+1 and no one would EVER use it again).

I'm sure that there can be more things that you could do, but I just can't think of them right now. But I really don't think that coastal cities having better trade/commerce is really a bad thing.

-Colin

 

[scutarii]

But I really don't think that coastal cities having better trade/commerce is really a bad thing.

totally agreed. You need production too.and desperately. inland cities are for production. IMO there is no need for trade route nerfing, too much work for small change.

If somebody complains that perfectly positioned coastal cities are OP, then choose noncoastal maps.

but I fully support nerfing crush from dwarven druids and chalid's spells. also earthquaque should do little damage for units sitting in the city why, does not even need an explanation, IMO.