Encampment districts should give a better offensive bonus even without buildings

[Bliss]

Right now, every district have a distinct adjacency bonus so that its mere existence is justified even if you can't produce its buldings right away. However, Encampments are different, they give you +1GG point and the ability to defend itself after the city have walls, it also makes that tile unpassable.
The great people point is obviously welcomed, but the defense bonus is just so non-synergic that it makes this district underpowered. Civilizations building encampments plan on going offensive, this district however only improves your offense after you have buildings in it, and that takes precious investment.
Other districts don't work that way. They provide synergic bonuses right away.
My suggestion would be to make encampments produce a random unit every x number of turns (pretty much like military CS worked back in civ 5), so that you don't feel like the district will only be useful to your strategy after you have buildings in it.

 

[Ciarson]

a building going to the offensive? like advancing toward the enemy?

if by "offensive" you mean increase the "defensive strength" of a city.

some of the things that could be put in the game without adding much could be:

- counting the encampment as a unit when assessing the flanking and support bonus.
- making the encampment count twice for the city defense strength (def str) increase. (unpillaged district give +3 def str, unpillage encampment could give + 6 def str.)

on the tings that would changes things:

- divide unit in three group; Irregular (armed civilian), Regular (trained soldier) and Elite (extensively trained soldier).

nb regular got attack bonus against irregular, elite got attack bonus against regular, irregular got attack bonus against elite. (irregular have unorthodox tactic, like guerrilla warfare, that could be useful against the rigid tactic of the elite while regular have the middle ground.)

- make regular unit only build-able in encampment (unit could still be bought in any city but built only in cities that have an encampment.)
- make elite unit buildable in cities that have an encampment and the corresponding building (swordman may require the barrack, but tank may require armory and factory) but cannot be even bought in cities that dont have the requirement.

 

[Bliss]

a building going to the offensive? like advancing toward the enemy?

if by "offensive" you mean increase the "defensive strength" of a city.

some of the things that could be put in the game without adding much could be:

- counting the encampment as a unit when assessing the flanking and support bonus.
- making the encampment count twice for the city defense strength (def str) increase. (unpillaged district give +3 def str, unpillage encampment could give + 6 def str.)

on the tings that would changes things:

- divide unit in three group; Irregular (armed civilian), Regular (trained soldier) and Elite (extensively trained soldier).

nb regular got attack bonus against irregular, elite got attack bonus against regular, irregular got attack bonus against elite. (irregular have unorthodox tactic, like guerrilla warfare, that could be useful against the rigid tactic of the elite while regular have the middle ground.)

- make regular unit only build-able in encampment (unit could still be bought in any city but built only in cities that have an encampment.)
- make elite unit buildable in cities that have an encampment and the corresponding building (swordman may require the barrack, but tank may require armory and factory) but cannot be even bought in cities that dont have the requirement.

By offensive I meant warmongering. City strength is the opposite of what I think encampments should benefit.

I like your suggestion, however it seems to detour from the Civ Concept a bit too much. It gives a whole new level of depth to warring.

 

[Jarms48]

I’d like to see encampments provide +1 xp every turn a unit is stationed in it. That would indirectly give it an offensive boost.

 

[The googles do nothing]

I often build a single encampment for GG and production bonus both of which I would views offensive. The defense is nice but even the AI seems smart enough to avoid putting itself in a double field of fire. The experience bonus could be increase as it doesn't seem to have much effects. I haven't done any real analysis on that just a general feeling.

 

[Galvatron]

I think maybe just making them cheaper to build would be good.

 

[Giblet the Shadow Demon]

Right now, every district have a distinct adjacency bonus so that its mere existence is justified even if you can't produce its buldings right away. However, Encampments are different, they give you +1GG point and the ability to defend itself after the city have walls, it also makes that tile unpassable.
The great people point is obviously welcomed, but the defense bonus is just so non-synergic that it makes this district underpowered. Civilizations building encampments plan on going offensive, this district however only improves your offense after you have buildings in it, and that takes precious investment.
Other districts don't work that way. They provide synergic bonuses right away.
My suggestion would be to make encampments produce a random unit every x number of turns (pretty much like military CS worked back in civ 5), so that you don't feel like the district will only be useful to your strategy after you have buildings in it.

Some brainstorm ideas that came to my mind as I was reading this thread (initial encampment bonuses/synergies):

• Units produced at an encampment start with an initial amount of xp. Not too much, or that defeats the purpose of leveling up units!
• Small production bonuses for units by having an encampment adjacent to strategic resources (e.g. niter would give X production bonus to musketmen and bombards)
  
• Units start with a certain promotion in encampments after reaching certain military technologies or building a specific wonder?

 

[Scrum Lord]

What if each encampment added a "war games" city project that when completed would add an XP boost to any player-owned military land unit on the encampment's tile? Maybe the boost could apply to adjacent units too.

Edit: it might be better to apply the bonus or a fraction of it each turn. That way, a unit must remain on the tile throughout the project in order to receive the full bonus.

 

[Bliss]

What if each encampment added a "war games" city project that when completed would add an XP boost to any player-owned military land unit on the encampment's tile? Maybe the boost could apply to adjacent units too.

Edit: it might be better to apply the bonus or a fraction of it each turn. That way, a unit must remain on the tile throughout the project in order to receive the full bonus.

TBH, this could even be merged with the GG generation.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

He means that an encampment should be able to perform ranged attack by default even with parent city doesn't have a wall yet.
I agree with him too.

 

[Timberdoodle]

Thanks for the post, I enjoyed the read!

Right now, every district have a distinct adjacency bonus so that its mere existence is justified even if you can't produce its buildings right away.

Small production bonuses for units by having an encampment adjacent to strategic resources

I like this idea. Finding good district adjacency is something I really enjoy in Civ VI, so it's a shame that isn't a factor in placing an Encampment. Even just +1 or +2 production for being adjacency to horses could be interesting.

Civilizations building encampments plan on going offensive, this district however only improves your offense after you have buildings in it, and that takes precious investment.

I like a lot about encampments, but I do feel they could be tweaked a little. It's tricky though as being a warmonger is the quickest way to get ahead in the game. Over the last few years warring has gradually become harder and defending easier, especially with the changes to battering rams / siege towers last year (Which I think is a good move on Firaxis part).

I feel this general design direction is reflected in the way encampments are designed. They often bolster your defence, more than they give you an offencive boost (excluding the Great General points). It seems like Firaxis have also steered away from giving production bonuses directly to military unit construction on encampment buildings in favour of the improved XP gain.

That said, when I start a domination game, I'll often build an encampment or two early on just for the Great General points, I feel that alone is worth it. However, I rarely build more after that point (Although I'll still acquire more via taking other cities.)

I’d like to see encampments provide +1 xp every turn a unit is stationed in it. That would indirectly give it an offensive boost.

I think this would be an interesting perk. If you made it only apply to units in the encampment and to units without their 2nd promotion, I don't think it would be overpowered. It would synergies well with Victor's free promo to new units, as well as the XP boost from the encampment buildings. It would also give peaceful players a way to level up their units past level 1 without going to war.

Then (as mentioned in the early posts) the Encampment District project, Encampment Training, could also increase the XP gain of units fortified within an encampment. I find it a little odd that it currently generates gold, simlar to the Commerical Hub project. I think having it boost troops XP would help it to find it's own niche. It would help offensive plays, but also give peaceful nations the option to develop a small, but well promoted force to keep military maintenance costs down.

 

[Bliss]

I forgot to mention how I think that Vanilla Civ did it right with encampments allowing you to build special units with only 1 source of strategic resource. Unfortunately, the GS changed that. Maybe the could bring that concept back: Units could cost only half of the amount of resources.

 

[The googles do nothing]

Allow Encampments to hard build Anti-Cav Corp and Army units right away.

 

[Galvatron]

I Think Ciarson's idea might be a good solution. I'm not sure what extent he meant it to be, but if you could only build skirmishers and spearmen for example, maybe archers, the nonprofessional soldiery that would mean if you want the juicy premo units you need an encampment, and if you want lots of them you need lots of encampments.

Service guarantees citizenship.

 

[Scrum Lord]

I like this idea. Finding good district adjacency is something I really enjoy in Civ VI, so it's a shame that isn't a factor in placing an Encampment. Even just +1 or +2 production for being adjacency to horses could be interesting.

I also like the idea of adjacency, but I think prod bonuses are too much like industrial zone, just as gold is too much like commercial hub.

If the training project granted an XP bonus to the unit (if any) currently in the encampent, then you could have district adjacencies like this:

• adjacent harbor extends XP bonus to all adjacent ships (having encampent on a peninsula might be good for navies)
• adjacent aerodome extends XP bonus to all adjacent aircraft
• adjacent gov plaza allows spy stationed at encampent to operate as if the spy had the surveillance promotion
• adjacent holy site allows apostles trained at the holy site to always have medic as a possible promotion
• adjacent theater square allows rock bands trained at the theater square to always have Indie as a possible promotion
• adjacent entertainment district reduces war weariness by 1% (having lots of these could mitigate war weariness)

I think this would be an interesting perk. If you made it only apply to units in the encampment and to units without their 2nd promotion

Good idea! (Edit: in particular the part about the 2nd-promotion cap)

 

[Galvatron]

I'm not sure about adjacency bonuses to the encampment, that would disincentivise placing it in a location where it can be used to defend against attacks... Also I know they removed the culture yields, but I think that that was a logical yield to represent it enforcing borders etc..

 

[Scrum Lord]

I'm not sure about adjacency bonuses to the encampment, that would disincentivise placing it in a location where it can be used to defend against attacks...

I see that as a feature, not a bug. Perhaps one could strike a balance and pick a decent tactical position while allowing room for expansion that allows adjacency bonuses later in the game. That balance could lean more towards tactical defense for fringe cities or more towards district synergy for "the heartland". This rewards you for thinking ahead as you build your empire (but watch out for other civs trying to forward-settle you).

 

[Timberdoodle]

Thanks for the replies.

Yeah, I could take or leave encampments giving production from adjacency. All the districts have very clear and district bonuses from one another, and the encampment does have it own unique set of considerations with it's defensive bonuses, which I like. So maybe the production bonuses from adjacent strategic resources is best left to Industrial zones.

I forgot to mention how I think that Vanilla Civ did it right with encampments allowing you to build special units with only 1 source of strategic resource. Unfortunately, the GS changed that. Maybe the could bring that concept back: Units could cost only half of the amount of resources.

I think you could definitely do something with encampments and resource management. If you can upgrade units for 50% of the cost at mercenaries, I don't why you shouldn't be able to get similar resource savings when producing units, even if that was tied to buildings. (It would have to not stack with Magnus's Black Marketeer, but that's okay).

On a side note, I don't think it's a bad thing that it takes a while to get an attack force in place, that you have to commit to it and plan ahead. Especially for MP I think it's a good thing. The big problem is that with the changes to rams / towers warring in the medieval era is brutal once the defender has Xbows and walls and there should be more ways to overcome that. It would be great if encampments could in someway help with that, and reducing the resource cost of building units from scratch would certainly help.