That means Iran's button was changed?
Current (SVN) development discussion thread
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
That means Iran's button was changed?
Tigranes
Armenian
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,410
Leoreth ... I know you don't like unorthodox ideas but will you please at least comment on allowing cities on resources to get their full bonus (as if improved).
I mean, I don't know why people are so against that idea, which seems so natural to me, both from the point of realism and gameplay.
Look, 1 tile represents a very big chunk of land. If you settle on Sheep as Carthage -- it does not mean that those sheep will be walking around your streets (though they did). It means that nearby there is a big pasture with Sheep and people are getting the full benefit of it. Realistic, right? But what do we have now? You settle on Sheep and there is no benefit for people. Those Sheep just lost their usefulness on the tile with urban life
So getting full benefit while settling on the resource is MORE realistic than unrealistic silly default BTS behavior... Is this the first time when BTS does not make much sense?
From the gameplay perspective the only real con argument is that it looks ugly. Eww, look at those Sheep who walk between the legs of giant Archer. Archer who is even taller than Granary. I mean come on guys, if you swallow that -- stop with that aesthetic snobbism.
Pros are much more convincing. First no more bashing poor AI which likes to settle on resources. Second, map will obtain the second birth -- most hardcore players know every single spot to settle, but with this simple rule so many new possibilities, the urge to replay old forgotten civs, use the original settle tile for a Cottage or Workshop, improving overall amount of yields one can get from our limited tiles. Plus this idea was already tested and implemented in SoI.
So why not to give this idea a second look? Positive things clearly overweight all the negative objections people usually coming up with.
I mean, I don't know why people are so against that idea, which seems so natural to me, both from the point of realism and gameplay.
Look, 1 tile represents a very big chunk of land. If you settle on Sheep as Carthage -- it does not mean that those sheep will be walking around your streets (though they did). It means that nearby there is a big pasture with Sheep and people are getting the full benefit of it. Realistic, right? But what do we have now? You settle on Sheep and there is no benefit for people. Those Sheep just lost their usefulness on the tile with urban life
So getting full benefit while settling on the resource is MORE realistic than unrealistic silly default BTS behavior... Is this the first time when BTS does not make much sense? From the gameplay perspective the only real con argument is that it looks ugly. Eww, look at those Sheep who walk between the legs of giant Archer. Archer who is even taller than Granary. I mean come on guys, if you swallow that -- stop with that aesthetic snobbism.
Pros are much more convincing. First no more bashing poor AI which likes to settle on resources. Second, map will obtain the second birth -- most hardcore players know every single spot to settle, but with this simple rule so many new possibilities, the urge to replay old forgotten civs, use the original settle tile for a Cottage or Workshop, improving overall amount of yields one can get from our limited tiles. Plus this idea was already tested and implemented in SoI.
So why not to give this idea a second look? Positive things clearly overweight all the negative objections people usually coming up with.
Attachments
Oregon Lee
Royal Tenenbaum
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2012
- Messages
- 2,748
The reason he hasn't is rather simple. The map isn't designed to take that into account yet. There would be too many possible supercities.
Oregon Lee
Royal Tenenbaum
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2012
- Messages
- 2,748
Look at Seoul in Korea. Now imagine if it was one tile up AND got the benefit from the food. It would probably be size 35 with several luxuries and an iron.
There are more drastic examples in Europe where things are more crowded.
Tigranes
Armenian
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,410
Why don't we look together?
What do players love? Players love choices. Now imagine you play Korea and start with Settlers. How many possible good city placements you get with current unrealistic vanila do-not-settle on resource system? One. The one you see here. Now imagine how many different good games can you have if each of those could be a valid spot for a city? More than one. You can settle on the Rice and on the Pig and there would be a room for 1 tile west of that mountain for 1 more city. Rice is not irrigated for poor Koreans but with my idea you will solve that problem also.
But wait, you can also go for "super" city, like you said and settle on Deer. You get +3 food and a lot of other resources and loose Forest. Good for you. But there is a price to pay. Now you have only 1 super city to represent the entire Korea, North and South, no room for 2. Whoever controls that city can beat Denver and Chicago. Big deal? Well, South Korea alone has number 12 GDP in the World. More than entire Canada or entire Australia.
Our map is small. South Korea is represented by 5 land tiles. On the Huge World map entire Korean civilization has to be represented by 13 land tiles. There is not even room for 3 kingdoms. Now someone controls 1 "super" city in Korea. That city suppose to be more useful than Canada or Australia. If it does so -- good. We are getting there
Even right now someone can raze those 2 cities and found a "normal" city on Deer. How it will be different from your feared "super" city? By 3 extra base food?
Attachments
blizzrd
Micromanager
I'm absolutely in Tigranes' corner on this one. I would love to have the maximum flexibility to choose where to put cities, rather than the current situation of having to essentially rule out certain tiles because the loss of the food resource is too great compared to the benefit(s) of settling the particular tile.
I believe that there are two other considerations at play: (i) historicity of locations and (ii) circumventing the building of improvements by settling on resources.
Historicity has been "forced" on us as players to an extent in many ways: scripted spawns of cities/units and of course entire civilizations, stability maps and penalties for unhistorical tiles, and the placement of resources. As the usual BTS practice of denying most of the benefit from cities founded on resources has been in place, the distribution of resources therefore also encourages/dictates where cities will be founded. The major historical locations of key cities (Rome, London, Athens, etc, etc.) are all resource free for exactly this reason.
In the example of Greece, the change to allow access to production/commerce resources when founding cities allows for the founding of your capital on the Marble (Corinth) instead of the Athens tile. Personally, I favour this flexibility. Strongly.
The issue of circumventing the building of improvements (using workers) by settling on resources is a bit more thorny however.
In the case of Greece, founding Corinth instead of Athens provides no immediate benefit because use of the Marble requires access to Masonry before the bonus is applied to the tile yield. The net effect is that not much short-term advantage is available.
But in the case of Maya, founding your capital on the Silver instead of the spawn tile 1N of the silver has quite a big difference in terms of short-term advantage, because Maya starts with the necessary techs to access the Silver resource (Mining). The immediate benefit is +5 commerce and +2 hammers (I think that's the correct totals) from their second turn, instead of having to use a bunch of worker turns building the Mine and connecting it to the trade network via a road. So all up, the player effectively gains worker action turns (by circumventing the need to build an improvement and a road) and gets a bit more commerce earlier than it otherwise would have. Not a massive advantage perhaps, but when the UHV includes tight deadlines for researching various techs and building the corresponding wonders, it is actually quite an important consideration.
The Greek and Mayan cases are in consideration of production/commerce resources however. But food resources have other knock on effects, because increase population increases all sorts of yields for a city. Does getting access to the food resources quicker but circumventing the building of resources provide an unfair advantage, compared to the present mechanics?
I believe that there are two other considerations at play: (i) historicity of locations and (ii) circumventing the building of improvements by settling on resources.
Historicity has been "forced" on us as players to an extent in many ways: scripted spawns of cities/units and of course entire civilizations, stability maps and penalties for unhistorical tiles, and the placement of resources. As the usual BTS practice of denying most of the benefit from cities founded on resources has been in place, the distribution of resources therefore also encourages/dictates where cities will be founded. The major historical locations of key cities (Rome, London, Athens, etc, etc.) are all resource free for exactly this reason.
In the example of Greece, the change to allow access to production/commerce resources when founding cities allows for the founding of your capital on the Marble (Corinth) instead of the Athens tile. Personally, I favour this flexibility. Strongly.
The issue of circumventing the building of improvements (using workers) by settling on resources is a bit more thorny however.
In the case of Greece, founding Corinth instead of Athens provides no immediate benefit because use of the Marble requires access to Masonry before the bonus is applied to the tile yield. The net effect is that not much short-term advantage is available.
But in the case of Maya, founding your capital on the Silver instead of the spawn tile 1N of the silver has quite a big difference in terms of short-term advantage, because Maya starts with the necessary techs to access the Silver resource (Mining). The immediate benefit is +5 commerce and +2 hammers (I think that's the correct totals) from their second turn, instead of having to use a bunch of worker turns building the Mine and connecting it to the trade network via a road. So all up, the player effectively gains worker action turns (by circumventing the need to build an improvement and a road) and gets a bit more commerce earlier than it otherwise would have. Not a massive advantage perhaps, but when the UHV includes tight deadlines for researching various techs and building the corresponding wonders, it is actually quite an important consideration.
The Greek and Mayan cases are in consideration of production/commerce resources however. But food resources have other knock on effects, because increase population increases all sorts of yields for a city. Does getting access to the food resources quicker but circumventing the building of resources provide an unfair advantage, compared to the present mechanics?
Visard
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2009
- Messages
- 214
I think it is good that food resource placement tries to eliminate some good but non-historical cities. But I still sometimes settle on top of cows, sugar, non-irrigated rice or bananas, when the extra area is more valuable than the extra food.
The current system favors settling on production/commerce resources, instead of empty tile which was the original idea of resource placement. Now the case is that, if you want players to settle more historical cities, the production resources should be moved to those tiles.
I would personally like that when you settle on tile with no resources, you would get either bonus yields of town or cottage (which would grow eventually to town). That would put empty tiles on par with resource/commerce tiles and would discourage even more settling on food resources.
The current system favors settling on production/commerce resources, instead of empty tile which was the original idea of resource placement. Now the case is that, if you want players to settle more historical cities, the production resources should be moved to those tiles.
I would personally like that when you settle on tile with no resources, you would get either bonus yields of town or cottage (which would grow eventually to town). That would put empty tiles on par with resource/commerce tiles and would discourage even more settling on food resources.
Sometimes verbose arguments just have the effect that I won't bother reacting to them at all. This is one of those times. Just two things:
Korea is an excellent example. I don't want to encourage supercities like those on the pig even further. If +3 base food is not a big deal, then why complain about this rule in the first place?
Secondly, the AI doesn't found cities on food resources, ever.
Korea is an excellent example. I don't want to encourage supercities like those on the pig even further. If +3 base food is not a big deal, then why complain about this rule in the first place?
Secondly, the AI doesn't found cities on food resources, ever.
Yes.
Tigranes
Armenian
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,410
Well, I have seen it and have seen players complaining about it. RFC has settler maps, but in regular game AI does settle on resources and people complain about bad AI city placement. Gordion starts on Wheat, but of course barbarian AI did not settle it, you did.
Why complain? Things need to make sense. This is more important than extra 3 food. Tanks crossing ocean on their own do not make sense. Not getting a full benefit of a resource when you settle on it does not make sense.
Korea's example was refuted, if you bothered to read that. Supercity on the map of this size is accurate representation of a phenomena that small country like Korea can surpass in GDP entire Canada or Australia. BTS already cannot represent a simple reality like that, land is the king not German Efficiency or Korean Ingenuity. On the other side you can now place less resources, our map already has higher than vanila ratio of resourced tiles vs regular ones.
If 4 short paragraphs advocating, in a no-nonsense way, such a revolutionary change is verbose -- I don't know what is not
? People spend more words discussing city placement in North America.Maybe you should play the mod before asking for random features.
None of the things you said here are true. This isn't base RFC anymore.
This is a curious argument for someone who scolded people for being unable to think abstractly when it comes to game design decisions.
No, it wasn't. Maybe you think it was, but it wasn't.
Oh, so I need to make further adjustments just to restore balance to something that wasn't broken in the first place, only to satisfy your arbitrary conception of what does and doesn't "make sense"?
And you didn't see me participating in those discussions either.If 4 short paragraphs advocating, in a no-nonsense way, such a revolutionary change is verbose -- I don't know what is not
But maybe verbose wasn't the right word. The problem was more the ratio of arguments that actually apply to overall text. I don't think I need to spend time to point out why any comparison with SoI and its map does not apply, for instance.
^ Only production and commerce resources count in this manner, food resources do not, the reasoning for such a decision being an attempt to lessen the severity of a-historical 'Super Cities' which would otherwise be settled in the interests of maximising efficiency, output etc, etc.
I think Tigranes point (in relation to the refuted/unrefuted status of the Korean example) is that a 35 pop Uber-city founded on the pigs actually better represents a tiny (13 tiles in game) nation who's GDP exceeds much larger nations (Canada, Australia) who by consequence of the greater landmass would be far better to settle than any two Korean cities. On top of that it's simply a matter of greater freedom to choose i.e you could still settle two or possibly even 3 cities if you so wished, a choice made more attractive by the ability to settle on food.
I'm not sure it's a great idea, however, to some extent the aint-broke-don't-fix-it attitude applies, and if further resource balancing would be necessary to prevent abuse/problems then it really is asking to much of an already fantastic mod creator
Not to mention the further advantages it would provide the player with over AI unwilling to settle on food resources.
EDIT: Hmm, ninja'd (wanted to say that since I joined these forums lol)
I think Tigranes point (in relation to the refuted/unrefuted status of the Korean example) is that a 35 pop Uber-city founded on the pigs actually better represents a tiny (13 tiles in game) nation who's GDP exceeds much larger nations (Canada, Australia) who by consequence of the greater landmass would be far better to settle than any two Korean cities. On top of that it's simply a matter of greater freedom to choose i.e you could still settle two or possibly even 3 cities if you so wished, a choice made more attractive by the ability to settle on food.
I'm not sure it's a great idea, however, to some extent the aint-broke-don't-fix-it attitude applies, and if further resource balancing would be necessary to prevent abuse/problems then it really is asking to much of an already fantastic mod creator
Not to mention the further advantages it would provide the player with over AI unwilling to settle on food resources.EDIT: Hmm, ninja'd (wanted to say that since I joined these forums lol)
Oregon Lee
Royal Tenenbaum
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2012
- Messages
- 2,748
I think this argument was conjured up to justify the particular case of the Korean peninsula. It really has nothing to do with settling on food resources in general.
Pavel Chichikov
King
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 674
Tbh, making this just a Korean UP would be a lot more useful than the current "drill for boats" one, if Leoreth insists on removing this feature.
Or possibly making "cities using resource tiles" a bonus restricted sole-ly to the 'city-states' civic, which would make it a decent option for the late-game, no?
Or possibly making "cities using resource tiles" a bonus restricted sole-ly to the 'city-states' civic, which would make it a decent option for the late-game, no?
