I was sure that Xyth had already created a Feedback: Improvements thread. I guess I was wrong.
I thought about posting my ideas in the Feedback: Maps and Terrain thread but I thought that would confuse the issue.
My proposals deal specifically with the improvement system in History Rewritten. So here we are.
This the post that prompted me to start this thread:
I thought about posting my ideas in the Feedback: Maps and Terrain thread but I thought that would confuse the issue.
My proposals deal specifically with the improvement system in History Rewritten. So here we are.
This the post that prompted me to start this thread:
Spoiler :
I've played my first game of 1.17 to 500AD. It's going well.
However, I have identified several (of what I perceive to be) balance issues with the early game:
- Between Monarchy (+50%
in capital) and Agrarianism (+1
for Farms, Pastures, Plantations, and Wineries) civics, production is very easy to come by. This leads to a number of problems, including:
- Settlers are relatively cheap compared to BtS. Thus, all players expand very rapidly. It's not unusual for an empire to have ten cities by 1 AD.
- Ancient Era units are relatively cheap compared to BtS. Thus, all players can defend themselves fairly easily. Early offensive warfare is comparatively difficult.
- Also, barbarians are rather tame compared to BtS. This is because the AI (and therefore the barbarians) do not start with Archery and take some time to reach Bronze Working. By the time the barbarians can spawn Axemen, the wilderness is mostly gone.
- As a consequence, commerce appears to be scarcer in the early game. I say "appears" because HR offers more commerce in absolute terms, between Cemeteries
gold: from priests and settled Great Prophets), Kilns, Monarchy (+50%
in capital) and Redistribution (+1
for Mines and Camps) civics. Unfortunately, players are compelled to overexpand: Settlers are cheap, war is expensive, and they need to secure their share of the land.
- In the end, many cities are stuck building Wealth. This is not because buildings are poorly designed; they provide a better return in the long run. However, many players find that they need gold right away to avoid insolvency caused by overexpansion - and Wealth is their only option.
- Separately, many buildings are now tied to resources. This can be severely imbalancing. In my current game, I have access to Peat, Horses, and Elephants; so all my cities enjoy +30%
from Kilns and Stables, unlike my rivals. By contrast, I have no precious metals or stones, so Markets are worthless.
- Furthermore, my cities enjoy an overabundance of health and happiness from buildings and resources. I always have more than I need.
- Finally, the landscape around my cities is fairly uninteresting. All the resources are connected; every flatland tile has a Farm; every feature tile has a Camp; hills are bare, awaiting Windmills, since +1
from Mines is counterproductive; and my workers are slowly converting everything to Cottages. It's as predictable as an algorithm.
These issues may seem intractable.
But after thinking them through, I think I've hit upon a simple and elegant solution.
It only requires a revision of the improvement system and a slight tweaking of Agrarianism civic.
Best of all, it should be fairly straightforward to code.
Meet me in the Feedback: Improvements thread for more details.