Feedback: Maps and Terrain

[KaneofEgypt]

Strangely, the game has started to pick random civs on scenarios that don't involve them. Le Loil, Montezuma, and other leaders somehow are generating in North Africa games but never appear. I know that I am playing as a civ that should be in the North Africa scenario because I play as Phoenicia.

 

[Xyth]

Strangely, the game has started to pick random civs on scenarios that don't involve them. Le Loil, Montezuma, and other leaders somehow are generating in North Africa games but never appear. I know that I am playing as a civ that should be in the North Africa scenario because I play as Phoenicia.

That can happen if you select a civilization that isn't available on the map but I just checked and Phoenicia is working as it should. Is this just happening on the North African map or others too?

 

[KaneofEgypt]

Just checked on the Mediterranean map and the Maya and Aztec civs were in the civ list, but never built any cities.

 

[Xyth]

Just checked on the Mediterranean map and the Maya and Aztec civs were in the civ list, but never built any cities.

What civ list are you referring to? This could theoretically happen if you're trying to play with more civs than there are starting locations on the map.

 

[KaneofEgypt]

Hmmmm... makes sense but I don't do custom games with a bunch of civs. In fact, if I do a custom game, I'm actually playing with less civs than the scenarios provide.

 

[Xyth]

Hmmmm... makes sense but I don't do custom games with a bunch of civs. In fact, if I do a custom game, I'm actually playing with less civs than the scenarios provide.

I still need to know where you are seeing them listed. In the scoreboard? Worldbuilder? Diplomacy advisor?

 

[KaneofEgypt]

Worldbuilder, in the dropdown menu. Sorry for not being clear.

 

[Xyth]

Deep Ocean

After a lot of experimenting and testing of this I'm concluding that it's not worth pursuing. It's just not achieving the desired effect and it's impossible to make it scale between mapsizes effectively. If you get the right combination of maptype, mapsize, and ratio of water to land it's great and makes for enjoyable games. But in the vast majority of cases it's a mess. It can't be made optional either.

Extended coastlines is working great however and can be easily customized by the player or switched off altogether.


Reefs

I'm going to be adding reefs in 0.9.5. They can appear in coast or ocean (at appropriate latitudes) and vary in size from single tiles to longer stretches. They're not really meant to be a major mechanic, just something little to liven up the naval game a bit. I don't think they should be impassable or hazardous, just slow to move through (3 movement cost perhaps) and a defense penalty. Maybe a new promotion or two to make navigating them easier.

I haven't thought about yield differences yet but I'd like to create a 'Marine Reserve' improvement (if I can find a suitable graphic) that could be built in the late game in similar fashion to the Forest Preserve.

Let me know if you have any additional/different ideas for how reefs could be used.


Wetlands

Since these were first discussed I've managed to change the way these are handled. They're now terrain features (like forests) rather than base terrain. They can appear on grasslands and tundra (fens) and occasionally elsewhere if there's enough fresh water. They generally appear alone or in small clumps though there may be one to two large swampy areas depending on land area.

Let me know what your thoughts are on yield/resources for this new implementation. Theoretically it should be possible to make workers able to drain wetlands but I haven't looked into this at all yet.

 

[Azoth]

Deep Ocean
After a lot of experimenting and testing of this I'm concluding that it's not worth pursuing. It's just not achieving the desired effect and it's impossible to make it scale between mapsizes effectively. If you get the right combination of maptype, mapsize, and ratio of water to land it's great and makes for enjoyable games. But in the vast majority of cases it's a mess. It can't be made optional either.

Extended coastlines is working great however and can be easily customized by the player or switched off altogether.

Extended coastlines should achieve the same goals as Deep Ocean with much less hassle, so I think this worked out for the best.
By the way, how did you manage to add a custom setting for extended coastlines? Did you have to hijack another map option?

Reefs
I'm going to be adding reefs in 0.9.5. They can appear in coast or ocean (at appropriate latitudes) and vary in size from single tiles to longer stretches. They're not really meant to be a major mechanic, just something little to liven up the naval game a bit. I don't think they should be impassable or hazardous, just slow to move through (3 movement cost perhaps) and a defense penalty. Maybe a new promotion or two to make navigating them easier.

Here's a tentative proposal.

Reefs
Movement Cost: 3
Defense Modifier: -25% defense

New Promotions:
Reinforced Hull I: +25% defense in Reefs, +1 cargo capacity, requires Combat I or Drill I
Reinforced Hull II: +25% attack into Reefs, double movement in Reefs, requires Reinforced Hull I

I haven't thought about yield differences yet but I'd like to create a 'Marine Reserve' improvement (if I can find a suitable graphic) that could be built in the late game in similar fashion to the Forest Preserve.

Let me know if you have any additional/different ideas for how reefs could be used.

I think either +1 food/+1 commerce or +1 hammer/+1 commerce would work well for Reefs. The first would bump Reef tiles to 2 base food so cities could work them profitably even before they built a Lighthouse. The second would give coastal cities a much needed source of production. I think I lean towards +1 food/+1 commerce, especially since Lighthouses arrive later in HR than in BtS; in the Classical Era, in fact. I suppose Reefs would have a small chance to spread to adjacent tiles, just like Forests and Jungles? That would make sense; Marine Reserves could increase that spread chance, just like Forest Preserves. In that case, it might be better to limit Reefs to Coast tiles. You wouldn't want Reefs to spread out all over the Ocean; and with extended coastlines, there will be plenty of coastal Reefs anyway. Pearls might make for an interesting Reef-only resource.

As for Marine Reserves: they could provide +1 health to a nearby cities, to complement +1 happiness from Forest Preserves. You might also add +2 commerce to Marine Reserves with the Environmentalism civic, and +1 specialist/Marine Reserve to the National Park. Here's another thought: several "wild animal" resources go obsolete in the Industrial Era but retain their original tile improvements. You could encourage players to replace Camps on Deer/Elephant/Fur with Forest Preserves, and Fishing Boats on Seal/Whale with Marine Reserves, by attaching bonus yields to those resources.

Wetlands
Since these were first discussed I've managed to change the way these are handled. They're now terrain features (like forests) rather than base terrain. They can appear on grasslands and tundra (fens) and occasionally elsewhere if there's enough fresh water. They generally appear alone or in small clumps though there may be one to two large swampy areas depending on land area.

Let me know what your thoughts are on yield/resources for this new implementation. Theoretically it should be possible to make workers able to drain wetlands but I haven't looked into this at all yet.

Wetlands are now terrain features? That's great news.
It's hard to say what yields and resources would be appropriate until we've figured out whether they can be drained and what improvements we might make to Jungle tiles.
Have you come to any conclusions about Jungle?

 

[Xyth]

Extended coastlines should achieve the same goals as Deep Ocean with much less hassle, so I think this worked out for the best.

The only real difference is that the Caravel still can't go further than Galleys/Triremes until much later. I'm going to try improve that via techtree changes though.

By the way, how did you manage to add a custom setting for extended coastlines? Did you have to hijack another map option?

I'm adding new code to all of the mapscripts, I can add as many options as I like to these. I'm going to adjust the option for the player to choose how common reefs are too. For example:

Coastal Water Options

• 1 tile, with Reefs
• 1 tile, many Reefs
• 1-3 tiles, with Reefs
• 1-3 tiles, many Reefs​

Reefs
Movement Cost: 3
Defense Modifier: -25% defense

This is what I currently have them set to, seems to be working.

EDIT: I've just discovered I can make units take damage if they end their turn on a certain feature. Perhaps we can make reefs cause 10% damage in this way.

New Promotions:
Reinforced Hull I: +25% defense in Reefs, +1 cargo capacity, requires Combat I or Drill I
Reinforced Hull II: +25% attack into Reefs, double movement in Reefs, requires Reinforced Hull I

Hmm, these are interesting. I'd swap the movement and cargo bonuses though. I'd also prefer to make them require Flanking or Navigation. I can imagine these promotions as a useful way for cargo ships and privateers to escape warships, rather than yet another offensive promotion. (I really want to do some 'untangling' of promotions at some point).

To compensate the Great Lighthouse for its bonus being weakened I was thinking of making it give a free promotion to help with traversing reefs. The promotion might require a different name if this happens, or split into two different ones.

I think either +1 food/+1 commerce or +1 hammer/+1 commerce would work well for Reefs. The first would bump Reef tiles to 2 base food so cities could work them profitably even before they built a Lighthouse. The second would give coastal cities a much needed source of production. I think I lean towards +1 food/+1 commerce, especially since Lighthouses arrive later in HR than in BtS; in the Classical Era, in fact.

Given reefs often come in large clumps/lines I'd want to be cautious about improving their yield too much. A coastal city founded near a large reef would drastically outperform other coastal cities. I'd say either +1 food or +1 commerce, not both.

I suppose Reefs would have a small chance to spread to adjacent tiles, just like Forests and Jungles? That would make sense; Marine Reserves could increase that spread chance, just like Forest Preserves.

I wasn't intending to but that could work. I'd set it to have a much lower chance to spread than forests though.

In that case, it might be better to limit Reefs to Coast tiles. You wouldn't want Reefs to spread out all over the Ocean; and with extended coastlines, there will be plenty of coastal Reefs anyway.

They're a bit more random that that and can't be restricted to just one water type. They'll often start by the coast and then stretch out into ocean. Sometimes they go between islands too which makes for interesting navigation.

Pearls might make for an interesting Reef-only resource.

I agree but we've hit a technical 'soft cap' for resources now. While we can add more if we want it requires a lot more work to do so. I don't want to tackle that in 0.9.5 and it's probably best we don't add any more until we've got health and happiness under control.

As for Marine Reserves: they could provide +1 health to a nearby cities, to complement +1 happiness from Forest Preserves. You might also add +2 commerce to Marine Reserves with the Environmentalism civic, and +1 specialist/Marine Reserve to the National Park.

The +1 health is a lot trickier to implement than +1 happiness unfortunately as there's no standard option in for adding health in the improvement XML and the AI needs to understand it. I was definitely thinking of tying Marine Reserves to Environmentalism and the National Park. I'm also thinking of renaming the Forest Preserve to something like 'Nature Reserve' and extending it to Wetlands as well (but no spreading).

Here's another thought: several "wild animal" resources go obsolete in the Industrial Era but retain their original tile improvements. You could encourage players to replace Camps on Deer/Elephant/Fur with Forest Preserves, and Fishing Boats on Seal/Whale with Marine Reserves, by attaching bonus yields to those resources.

Hmm, that might work. I shall experiment.

Wetlands are now terrain features? That's great news.
It's hard to say what yields and resources would be appropriate until we've figured out whether they can be drained and what improvements we might make to Jungle tiles.

Actually it looks like it will be very easy to implement a 'Drain Wetlands' worker action. Hydraulics has become a late Medieval tech now so I think that would be the ideal tech to unlock it.

For resources I'm thinking Dye, Gas, Incense, Rubber, Spices. Maybe more. I'd really like to add Peat as a new strategic resource but probably not for 0.9.5.

Have you come to any conclusions about Jungle?

This is what I'm thinking:

Forest: +1 production, +0.25 health, no river commerce
Jungle: +1 commerce, -0.25 health, no river commerce

Lowering health from Forests should go a long way towards reducing health availability in the early eras. I'm not going to implement Jungle on Plains at this time as I want to explore the possibility of adding Savannah. Unless I come across a quick solution I probably won't do that until after 0.9.5.

 

[Azoth]

Speaking of terrain and terrain features, I have some suggestions for Deserts and Flood Plains. As it stands, Deserts produce no food, hammers, or commerce. However, they have no other drawbacks, making them ideal locations for cities: founding on any other tile wastes its terrain yield. By contrast, Flood Plains are terrible locations for cities: they revert to Desert when settled and therefore lose their +1 food bonus. Here is what I propose instead:

Desert
2 movement cost
-25% defense modifier

Flood Plains
+3 food, -0.50 health, +1 river commerce
1 movement cost
are not destroyed when settled

This way, Deserts are truly inhospitable for both explorers and settlers. At the same time, Flood Plains make for very desirable city locations, but they are especially vulnerable to attack, since they retain the -25% defense modifier from Desert. They also have a slightly higher health penalty, at -0.50 instead of -0.40. This further opens the door for Desert-specific promotions, namely:

Nomad I: +25% defense in Deserts, available to Recon/Mounted/Gunpowder units
Nomad II: +25% attack into Deserts, double movement in Desert, requires Nomad I

These promotions could add lots of flavour to various Mediterranean/West Asian unique units. They would also balance out the other terrain promotions. Melee units could be Woodmen, Archery units could be Guerrillas, Mounted units would be Nomads, while Recon and Gunpowder units could be all three.



And now for some comments:

EDIT: I've just discovered I can make units take damage if they end their turn on a certain feature. Perhaps we can make reefs cause 10% damage in this way.

I'm not sure that's a good idea. It would make it very difficult to navigate a reef chain. Ships might get stuck in an impossible situation while exploring, since without Medic I promotions, they would never be able to overcome the 10% damage rate. I don't know what effect it would have on zero strength Work Boats, either. Plus, I doubt the AI, especially the barbarian AI, will handle it well. So I would stick to -25% defense and 3 movement cost.

Hmm, these are interesting. I'd swap the movement and cargo bonuses though. I'd also prefer to make them require Flanking or Navigation. I can imagine these promotions as a useful way for cargo ships and privateers to escape warships, rather than yet another offensive promotion. (I really want to do some 'untangling' of promotions at some point).

Yeah, the promotions could use some work. (For one thing, I can see the cargo bonus as a stand alone promotion.) Anyway, I think the reef promotions should be available early because cargo ships and privateers rarely, if ever, exceed 10XP. So it makes sense to keep Drill I and swap Combat I for Flanking I; but Navigation I already requires Flanking I, and that would push Reinforced Hull I too far back. Speaking of which, have you given any thought to rearranging the XP thresholds for promotions? A standardized 2/5/10/15/20/30/40/etc. would be preferable to the rather haphazard 2/5/10/17/26/37/50/etc. that we have now. Can you even code such a change?

To compensate the Great Lighthouse for its bonus being weakened I was thinking of making it give a free promotion to help with traversing reefs. The promotion might require a different name if this happens, or split into two different ones.

Alternatively, you could give the Great Lighthouse a flat +2XP to Naval units. Players can then select the promotion best suited to their situation.

Given reefs often come in large clumps/lines I'd want to be cautious about improving their yield too much. A coastal city founded near a large reef would drastically outperform other coastal cities. I'd say either +1 food or +1 commerce, not both. [...] The +1 health is a lot trickier to implement than +1 happiness unfortunately as there's no standard option in for adding health in the improvement XML and the AI needs to understand it. I was definitely thinking of tying Marine Reserves to Environmentalism and the National Park. I'm also thinking of renaming the Forest Preserve to something like 'Nature Reserve' and extending it to Wetlands as well (but no spreading).

Good point. In that case, I would stick with +1 commerce. A city with few +1 food Reef tiles, plus a seafood resource or two, would be terribly strong - particularly if the map generates a lot of reefs next to a player's start location, as it sometimes does with forests. And, on second thought, the one big difference between Nature Reserves and Marine Reserves is that the former would be built with Workers, which don't have much to do in the Industrial Era anyway, while the latter would require Work Boats, to the tune of 30 hammers per improvement. Marine Reserves might only be worthwhile with increased terrain yields. How about:

Reefs
3 movement cost
-25% defense modifier
+1 base commerce
+1 food, +1 hammer with Marine Reserve
+2 commerce with Marine Reserve and Environmentalism
+1 specialist with Marine Reserve and National Park

This is what I'm thinking:

Forest: +1 production, +0.25 health, no river commerce
Jungle: +1 commerce, -0.25 health, no river commerce

Lowering health from Forests should go a long way towards reducing health availability in the early eras.

In that case, I would suggest:

Wetlands
-1 food, +0.50 health, no river commerce
3 movement cost, no defense bonus or penalty
can build Fort, Nature Reserve
cannot build cities
can be Drained with Hydraulics

That way, Wetlands would be useful in the early game for their health bonus, though they would be much less common than Forests. Unlike Forests, their tile yields would remain low, so they would be drained in the mid game as cities grew larger. If any Wetlands survived to the end game, they could be preserved for a decent +1 happy, +0.50 health bonus. Note that, as with Oases, cities would not be built directly on Wetlands; they would have to be drained first.

I'm not going to implement Jungle on Plains at this time as I want to explore the possibility of adding Savannah. Unless I come across a quick solution I probably won't do that until after 0.9.5.

While new terrain types and graphics allow for greater diversity and more accurate resource placement, too many new terrain yields are difficult to balance. So if you introduce Savannah, I would keep the same terrain yields as Jungle. In fact, you could customize the names of all the terrain features, if you wish:

Grassland + Forest = Rainforest
Plains + Forest = Forest
Tundra + Forest = Taiga
Grassland + Jungle = Jungle
Plains + Jungle = Savannah
Grassland + Wetlands = Wetlands
Tundra + Wetlands = Fen

You could even split Wetlands further:
Grassland + Wetlands = Marsh
Plains + Wetlands = Swamp

Maybe that's too much?

 

[Xyth]

Speaking of terrain and terrain features, I have some suggestions for Deserts and Flood Plains. As it stands, Deserts produce no food, hammers, or commerce. However, they have no other drawbacks, making them ideal locations for cities: founding on any other tile wastes its terrain yield. By contrast, Flood Plains are terrible locations for cities: they revert to Desert when settled and therefore lose their +1 food bonus. Here is what I propose instead:

Desert
2 movement cost
-25% defense modifier

Flood Plains
+3 food, -0.50 health, +1 river commerce
1 movement cost
are not destroyed when settled

This way, Deserts are truly inhospitable for both explorers and settlers. At the same time, Flood Plains make for very desirable city locations, but they are especially vulnerable to attack, since they retain the -25% defense modifier from Desert. They also have a slightly higher health penalty, at -0.50 instead of -0.40. This further opens the door for Desert-specific promotions, namely:

Hmm this is tricky. A terrain defense penalty on a city is pretty punitive, especially if the promotion to overcome it isn't available to defending units. I don't think it makes any historical sense for desert cities to be more easily conquered, indeed I'd imagine that invading armies unused to desert conditions would actually have quite a disadvantage. Also, an extra food on a city tile is very strong, it's the basis of the Expansive trait in fact. While I agree with the reason for the change I think this would ultimately cause more problems than it would solve.

Nomad I: +25% defense in Deserts, available to Recon/Mounted/Gunpowder units
Nomad II: +25% attack into Deserts, double movement in Desert, requires Nomad I

These promotions could add lots of flavour to various Mediterranean/West Asian unique units. They would also balance out the other terrain promotions. Melee units could be Woodmen, Archery units could be Guerrillas, Mounted units would be Nomads, while Recon and Gunpowder units could be all three.

It would be good to add some desert promotions though.

Yeah, the promotions could use some work. (For one thing, I can see the cargo bonus as a stand alone promotion.) Anyway, I think the reef promotions should be available early because cargo ships and privateers rarely, if ever, exceed 10XP. So it makes sense to keep Drill I and swap Combat I for Flanking I; but Navigation I already requires Flanking I, and that would push Reinforced Hull I too far back.

Drill I or Flanking I as prerequisite works, or no prerequisite at all depending on how we might change these promotions.

Speaking of which, have you given any thought to rearranging the XP thresholds for promotions? A standardized 2/5/10/15/20/30/40/etc. would be preferable to the rather haphazard 2/5/10/17/26/37/50/etc. that we have now. Can you even code such a change?

I forgot about that. The standard algorithm is iLevel * iLevel + 1 and can easily be changed. Is it worth breaking a smooth progression for 'tidy' numbers though? I'm unsure on this, I can see benefits of both.

Alternatively, you could give the Great Lighthouse a flat +2XP to Naval units. Players can then select the promotion best suited to their situation.

This would make it too strong on Archipelagos again, which is what we're trying to avoid.

Reefs
3 movement cost
-25% defense modifier
+1 base commerce
+1 food, +1 hammer with Marine Reserve
+2 commerce with Marine Reserve and Environmentalism
+1 specialist with Marine Reserve and National Park

That's pretty much what I had in mind except without the +1 hammer. I just don't think production from reefs makes any sense. +1 food should be enough. Note that the +1 food would be from any Marine Reserve, not just ones built on Reefs. Not a problem if we only allow them on Reefs though, which I think we should. It does rule out using them on Seals and Whales like we were discussing at some point.

Wetlands
-1 food, +0.50 health, no river commerce
3 movement cost, no defense bonus or penalty
can build Fort, Nature Reserve
cannot build cities
can be Drained with Hydraulics

That way, Wetlands would be useful in the early game for their health bonus, though they would be much less common than Forests. Unlike Forests, their tile yields would remain low, so they would be drained in the mid game as cities grew larger. If any Wetlands survived to the end game, they could be preserved for a decent +1 happy, +0.50 health bonus. Note that, as with Oases, cities would not be built directly on Wetlands; they would have to be drained first.

Something to consider is that Wetlands are much more likely to appear by rivers/lakes than elsewhere. This makes me hesitant to give them a health bonus as freshwater cities already have enough advantages here. Not to mention we're trying to make health scarcer in general. How does this look:

Wetlands
-1 food, +1 river commerce
3 move cost, no defense bonus/penalty
Cannot build cities here
Improvements take 50% longer to build
Can be Drained (requires Hydraulics)
Possible Resources: Dye, Incense, Spices, Tobacco, Rubber, Gas, Oil

Wetlands away from rivers will get drained but it's worth keeping some riverside ones around for the commerce bonus and all the other benefits that come from Nature Reserves/Environmentalism/National Park.

While new terrain types and graphics allow for greater diversity and more accurate resource placement, too many new terrain yields are difficult to balance. So if you introduce Savannah, I would keep the same terrain yields as Jungle.

Yep, I was thinking this would effectively be a graphical and name change only. I'm only considering it because someone made some Savannah graphics.

In fact, you could customize the names of all the terrain features, if you wish:

Actually we can't change the name of a terrain feature without making an entirely new feature type and every mapscript updated to support it. It's not worth it unless we have new graphics to use and/or an important role in mind.

 

[Azoth]

Hmm this is tricky. A terrain defense penalty on a city is pretty punitive, especially if the promotion to overcome it isn't available to defending units. I don't think it makes any historical sense for desert cities to be more easily conquered, indeed I'd imagine that invading armies unused to desert conditions would actually have quite a disadvantage. Also, an extra food on a city tile is very strong, it's the basis of the Expansive trait in fact. While I agree with the reason for the change I think this would ultimately cause more problems than it would solve.

It seems to me that I haven't presented my case very well. But I'm not one to give up.
Consider the following example:

Spoiler :

That screenshot is from a very old game of vanilla Civilization IV. The Arab player is trying to decide where to found his next city; his Settler is in green. (The Russian AI with its orange Settler is also confused.) Let's ignore the Pigs resource for the moment and focus on the floodplains river valley to the southwest of the settlers. The floodplains tile with the blue circle seems like the obvious place to settle. It is surrounded by fertile land and sits along a river that empties into the ocean, much like Alexandria in Egypt. However, by founding on that tile, the Arab player loses the +1 food bonus from the Flood Plains and decreases the amount of food available to the city. That's why the smart play is to settle on the Stone resource in the middle of the desert. Leaving aside the Pigs, that move adds 5 food to the city: +2 food from settling on the Desert tile, which doesn't give any food otherwise; and +3 food from the Flood Plains, which remains unsettled and can be further improved with a Farm or Cottage.

Those mechanics make very little logical sense. So I suggest a -25% defense penalty for Desert cities to offset the +2 food bonus from founding on Desert. It's not nearly as punitive as it appears. A -25% defense penalty can be easily overcome by cultural and fortification bonuses, not to mention buildings. Desert cities will not be easy to conquer, as such; they will simply be harder to supply and therefore slightly more vulnerable than cities founded in more hospitable terrain. Similarly, adding +1 food to Flood Plains cities does not amount to a bonus. It simply matches the food yield of a city that "preserved" its Flood Plains because it was founded on an adjacent tile.

I think both changes are worth a second look.

I forgot about that. The standard algorithm is iLevel * iLevel + 1 and can easily be changed. Is it worth breaking a smooth progression for 'tidy' numbers though? I'm unsure on this, I can see benefits of both.

Ah, so that's the algorithm for XP thresholds.
I'm tempted to change it to iLevel * 5, which achieves both a smooth progression and tidy numbers.
The Barracks can be bumped back to +4XP, as it was in vanilla Civilization IV. It would leave units just one battle away from their first promotion.
A Barracks, together with either a Stables, a settled Great General, Warrior Code, or Theocracy, would grant units their first promotion right away.
A Barracks, together with any three of the above, would grant units their first two promotions.
Beyond that, I would give Scouts the Woodsman I and Guerrilla I promotions for free, just like Explorers. Scouts will never see promotions otherwise, and they could use the boost.

This would make it too strong on Archipelagos again, which is what we're trying to avoid.

But surely a free promotion such as Reinforced Hull I is much stronger than +2XP? With a free promotion, Naval units only need 2XP for their second promotion, 5XP for their third promotion, and so forth. By contrast, with 2XP to start, all further promotions are delayed: it's 5XP for the second promotion and 10XP for the third promotion. In other words, if you worry about the power of the Great Lighthouse on Archipelago maps, you should probably avoid free promotions and extra XP for Naval units altogether. Maybe +1 trade route in all cities would be best? It avoids the issue of Archipelago maps entirely, and makes a certain amount of sense. In the Classical Era, many inland cities exported their goods to the nearest harbour, and then over the sea. Heck, most global trade today is conducted by container ships that carry goods across oceans to other continents. Of course, the conservation option is +1 trade route in coastal cities, +1 trade route in the Great Lighthouse city.

That's pretty much what I had in mind except without the +1 hammer. I just don't think production from reefs makes any sense. +1 food should be enough. Note that the +1 food would be from any Marine Reserve, not just ones built on Reefs. Not a problem if we only allow them on Reefs though, which I think we should.

I agree that we should only allow Marine Reserves on Reefs. +1 food on all Coast tiles would be quite problematic.
Still, I would prefer something a little more than +1 food for Marine Reserves. Camps give +1 food as early as 4000BC.
How about +1 food and +1 commerce instead?

It does rule out using them on Seals and Whales like we were discussing at some point.

Are you sure about that?
Camps can only be build on Forests and Jungles, except in the case of Deer, Elephant, and Fur resources, in which case they can be build anywhere.
In the same way, Marine Reserves could be restricted to Reef tiles except in the case of Seal and Whale.

Something to consider is that Wetlands are much more likely to appear by rivers/lakes than elsewhere. This makes me hesitant to give them a health bonus as freshwater cities already have enough advantages here. Not to mention we're trying to make health scarcer in general. How does this look:

Wetlands
-1 food, +1 river commerce
3 move cost, no defense bonus/penalty
Cannot build cities here
Improvements take 50% longer to build
Can be Drained (requires Hydraulics)
Possible Resources: Dye, Incense, Spices, Tobacco, Rubber, Gas, Oil

Wetlands away from rivers will get drained but it's worth keeping some riverside ones around for the commerce bonus and all the other benefits that come from Nature Reserves/Environmentalism/National Park.

Hmm. I'm not so sure about that. As it happens, every base terrain type provides +1 commerce on rivers, except Ice. So Grassland and Tundra tiles with the Wetlands feature will provide +1 river commerce even if the Wetlands are drained. If Wetlands offer no health bonus, I suspect they will all be drained and replaced with more productive improvements, such as Farms and Cottages. As it stands, players keep Forests around long enough to benefit from Forest Preserves, Environmentalism, and the National Park precisely because Forests provide a passive +1 hammer and +0.50 health, with a further +1 food from Camps or +1 hammer from Lumbermills. Jungles, by contrast, are almost always cleared well before the Industrial Era. Bottom line: If you scrap the Wetlands health bonus, they will probably be seen as a "nuisance" feature to be drained as soon as possible. So long as they are relatively rare, that might be all for the best; but, in that case, a small health bonus wouldn't hurt, either.

Yep, I was thinking this would effectively be a graphical and name change only. I'm only considering it because someone made some Savannah graphics. [...] Actually we can't change the name of a terrain feature without making an entirely new feature type and every mapscript updated to support it. It's not worth it unless we have new graphics to use and/or an important role in mind.

Gotcha.

 

[Xyth]

Those mechanics make very little logical sense.

Oh I don't disagree that the mechanics aren't as logical as they could be. What I'm saying is that I think your proposed solution has some inherent problems and we end up trading one issue for others.

Similarly, adding +1 food to Flood Plains cities does not amount to a bonus. It simply matches the food yield of a city that "preserved" its Flood Plains because it was founded on an adjacent tile.

The crucial difference is that it's 3 food on the city tile itself. If you start the game on a flood plain then your capital will grow faster than at other locations. If you're also Expansive then that makes a whopping 4 food on the city tile. In theory this is meant to be balanced out by the surrounding terrain having minimal yield (i.e. lots of desert) but that is often not the case.

Also, the 'free' +2 food for founding on a desert tile is at least partially balanced by missing out on the fresh water health bonus - which matters when there are flood plains nearby, especially if we up their unhealthiness to 0.5.

Another factor is that I cannot code flood plains that do not get removed, instead I have to replace them after the city is founded. The AI won't understand this, but I don't know if the AI calculates the loss of the flood plains in the first place. Does the AI seem to understand that it is currently better to found a city in a desert rather than on a flood plain? Ultimately we're going to have to go with whatever the AI comprehends best.

If we really wanted, we could make it that cities can only be founded in deserts if they have a fresh water source or are on the coast. There are switches for this.

So I suggest a -25% defense penalty for Desert cities to offset the +2 food bonus from founding on Desert. It's not nearly as punitive as it appears. A -25% defense penalty can be easily overcome by cultural and fortification bonuses, not to mention buildings. Desert cities will not be easy to conquer, as such; they will simply be harder to supply and therefore slightly more vulnerable than cities founded in more hospitable terrain.

Hmm, makes more sense when described like that.

Ah, so that's the algorithm for XP thresholds.
I'm tempted to change it to iLevel * 5, which achieves both a smooth progression and tidy numbers.
The Barracks can be bumped back to +4XP, as it was in vanilla Civilization IV. It would leave units just one battle away from their first promotion.
A Barracks, together with either a Stables, a settled Great General, Warrior Code, or Theocracy, would grant units their first promotion right away.
A Barracks, together with any three of the above, would grant units their first two promotions.

Yeah that's pretty much what I was thinking too. I'll put it in 0.9.5 and we can see how it goes.

But surely a free promotion such as Reinforced Hull I is much stronger than +2XP? With a free promotion, Naval units only need 2XP for their second promotion, 5XP for their third promotion, and so forth. By contrast, with 2XP to start, all further promotions are delayed: it's 5XP for the second promotion and 10XP for the third promotion. In other words, if you worry about the power of the Great Lighthouse on Archipelago maps, you should probably avoid free promotions and extra XP for Naval units altogether.

I'd only give a free promotion if said promotion was less powerful than the suggested Reinforced Hull I and didn't give access to anything too powerful. I haven't had a chance yet to think further about these promotions.

Maybe +1 trade route in all cities would be best? It avoids the issue of Archipelago maps entirely, and makes a certain amount of sense. In the Classical Era, many inland cities exported their goods to the nearest harbour, and then over the sea. Heck, most global trade today is conducted by container ships that carry goods across oceans to other continents. Of course, the conservation option is +1 trade route in coastal cities, +1 trade route in the Great Lighthouse city.

I'll go with a trade route option if nothing else works out.

I agree that we should only allow Marine Reserves on Reefs. +1 food on all Coast tiles would be quite problematic.
Still, I would prefer something a little more than +1 food for Marine Reserves. Camps give +1 food as early as 4000BC.
How about +1 food and +1 commerce instead?

That works, though it does mean you'd get +3 commerce under Environmentalism.

Are you sure about that?
Camps can only be build on Forests and Jungles, except in the case of Deer, Elephant, and Fur resources, in which case they can be build anywhere.
In the same way, Marine Reserves could be restricted to Reef tiles except in the case of Seal and Whale.

I can make them buildable on the resources as well as Reefs. What I'm saying though is that the +1 food and +1 commerce would then be added to the Seal and Whale tiles. Those bonuses are part of the Marine Reserve, not part of the Reef. And it seems a bit off to be 'protecting' such sea mammals yet getting more food from them...

Hmm. I'm not so sure about that. As it happens, every base terrain type provides +1 commerce on rivers, except Ice. So Grassland and Tundra tiles with the Wetlands feature will provide +1 river commerce even if the Wetlands are drained. If Wetlands offer no health bonus, I suspect they will all be drained and replaced with more productive improvements, such as Farms and Cottages. As it stands, players keep Forests around long enough to benefit from Forest Preserves, Environmentalism, and the National Park precisely because Forests provide a passive +1 hammer and +0.50 health, with a further +1 food from Camps or +1 hammer from Lumbermills. Jungles, by contrast, are almost always cleared well before the Industrial Era. Bottom line: If you scrap the Wetlands health bonus, they will probably be seen as a "nuisance" feature to be drained as soon as possible. So long as they are relatively rare, that might be all for the best; but, in that case, a small health bonus wouldn't hurt, either.

Alright, I'll give them 0.25 health, like the Forest has in 0.9.5. I could also give them +1 commerce, to supplement or replace the +1 river commerce. What do you think?

 

[KaneofEgypt]

Beyond that, I would give Scouts the Woodsman I and Guerrilla I promotions for free, just like Explorers. Scouts will never see promotions otherwise, and they could use the boost.

Actually, the scouts that I have when I play sometimes are my most powerful units in the early game. Since so many animals roam the early world my scouts can sometimes get up to the third strength promotion.
And as for thinking that the food bonus is strange for creatures that you are keeping safe, Xyth, I agree.

 

[Azoth]

The crucial difference is that it's 3 food on the city tile itself. If you start the game on a flood plain then your capital will grow faster than at other locations. If you're also Expansive then that makes a whopping 4 food on the city tile. In theory this is meant to be balanced out by the surrounding terrain having minimal yield (i.e. lots of desert) but that is often not the case.

I don't think three food city tiles are a problem as such. Expansive leaders get them for free but any player can create one by settling on a minor food resource, such as Sugar. (Settling on Sugar is a good idea in general. +1 food/+1 commerce from a Plantation pales in comparison to other improvements on resourceless tiles.) That said, four food city tiles would be a problem. Can you cap the food output of city tiles, such that Expansive leaders only get +1 food on the city tile if the city does not already have bonus food from Flood Plains or a resource? Since Expansive is still the strongest of the leader traits, that would improve game balance as well as fix the Flood Plains-Desert discrepancy.

Also, the 'free' +2 food for founding on a desert tile is at least partially balanced by missing out on the fresh water health bonus - which matters when there are flood plains nearby, especially if we up their unhealthiness to 0.5.

If Wells or Aqueducts restore the fresh water health bonus, it might not matter so much.

Another factor is that I cannot code flood plains that do not get removed, instead I have to replace them after the city is founded. The AI won't understand this, but I don't know if the AI calculates the loss of the flood plains in the first place. Does the AI seem to understand that it is currently better to found a city in a desert rather than on a flood plain? Ultimately we're going to have to go with whatever the AI comprehends best.

I do believe the AI assumes that it is better to found on Flood Plains than in Desert. The AI founds far too many cities along Flood Plains for it to be otherwise.

If we really wanted, we could make it that cities can only be founded in deserts if they have a fresh water source or are on the coast. There are switches for this.

Now there's a thought. It's even more punitive than a -25% defense penalty! I feel it would be most appropriate for Ice tiles. A handful of civilizations made their home in Desert and Tundra; but inland Ice shelfs were always inhospitable.

Hmm, makes more sense when described like that.

I'm glad to see I'm making some progress!
But we can't be sure what works and what doesn't until we give it a try. I say we go for it:

Desert
2 movement cost
-25% defense modifier

Flood Plains
+3 food, -0.50 health, +1 river commerce
1 movement cost
are not destroyed when settled

Ice
1 movement cost
only freshwater and coastal tiles can be settled

Yeah that's pretty much what I was thinking too. I'll put it in 0.9.5 and we can see how it goes.

I think a few more changes might be necessary.

1. Unit XP is capped at 50. This corresponds to 10 promotions or 101XP under the current system. Since the later promotions are now easier to obtain, an XP cap is necessary to prevent units from becoming too strong, especially by stacking the 20XP bonus from Warlords. It also adds another layer of strategy to promotion selection: since units can never earn more than 10 promotions, a Shock promotion now might come at the cost of a Pinch or March promotion later.
2. Units restart at 0XP when upgraded. They retain all promotions so they only earn new promotions once they hit the appropriate unit level. (Under the current system, upgraded units are reduced to 10XP.) This change brings better balance to the upgrade mechanic: City Raider III Heavy Footmen-turned-Riflemen are extremely difficult to defeat, especially if they continue to earn promotions at a breakneck pace. The change also makes a great deal of sense: archers newly outfitted with muskets must naturally restart their training from scratch.

Actually, the scouts that I have when I play sometimes are my most powerful units in the early game. Since so many animals roam the early world my scouts can sometimes get up to the third strength promotion.

Really? Most of my Scouts are eaten by Strength 3 Tigers and Bears. Maybe I'm just unlucky.
In any case, since Scouts can't attack, and it will now take them five battles to get their first promotion, I think free Guerrilla I and Woodman I promotions would not be too strong.

That works, though it does mean you'd get +3 commerce under Environmentalism.

That's fine. Riverside Forest Preserves also produce +3 commerce under Environmentalism.

I can make them buildable on the resources as well as Reefs. What I'm saying though is that the +1 food and +1 commerce would then be added to the Seal and Whale tiles. Those bonuses are part of the Marine Reserve, not part of the Reef. And it seems a bit off to be 'protecting' such sea mammals yet getting more food from them...

I agree that a food bonus for protected Seals and Whales would be strange. Marine Reserves must provide a different bonus when paired with these resources, just as Deer Camps produce extra food and Elephant Camps produce no food at all. How about +3 commerce? This is competitive with +1 food/+1 hammer/+1 commerce for Seal Fishing Boats and +1 hammer/+2 commerce for Whaling Boats. I'd also suggest +3 commerce for Nature Reserves with Fur, Deer, and Elephant, to compensate for the loss of Camps.

Alright, I'll give them 0.25 health, like the Forest has in 0.9.5. I could also give them +1 commerce, to supplement or replace the +1 river commerce. What do you think?

That sounds about right. You could also allow certain improvements, such as Plantations and Workshops, to be build directly on Wetlands. That would extend the usefulness of Wetlands until the arrival of Nature Reserves in the Industrial Era and make the +50% build time penalty more meaningful. Jungle tiles might also be paired with other improvements, since the decision to chop is no longer automatic. How about this?

Forest
can build Camps, Lumbermills, Nature Reserves, and Forts directly
cannot build Farms, Mines, Plantations, Cottages, Workshops, Windmills, or Watermills unless chopped

Jungle
can build Camps, Watermills, Nature Reserves, and Forts directly
cannot build Farms, Mines, Plantations, Cottages, Workshops, or Windmills unless chopped

Wetlands
can build Plantations, Workshops, Nature Reserves, and Forts directly
cannot build Farms, Cottages, or Watermills unless drained

 

[KaneofEgypt]

Really? Most of my Scouts are eaten by Strength 3 Tigers and Bears. Maybe I'm just unlucky.
In any case, since Scouts can't attack, and it will now take them five battles to get their first promotion, I think free Guerrilla I and Woodman I promotions would not be too strong.

Aye, but no one ever set it that they couldn't defend. If they got strong enough, they could beat some barbarian warriors...
But wait? It will take FIVE battles to get a promotion? Never mind then...

 

[Xyth]

I don't think three food city tiles are a problem as such. Expansive leaders get them for free but any player can create one by settling on a minor food resource, such as Sugar. (Settling on Sugar is a good idea in general. +1 food/+1 commerce from a Plantation pales in comparison to other improvements on resourceless tiles.) That said, four food city tiles would be a problem. Can you cap the food output of city tiles, such that Expansive leaders only get +1 food on the city tile if the city does not already have bonus food from Flood Plains or a resource? Since Expansive is still the strongest of the leader traits, that would improve game balance as well as fix the Flood Plains-Desert discrepancy.

Given this proposal is beginning to require a fair bit of custom code (and thus considerable testing time) I prefer to leave it out for now. 0.9.5 as already been delayed much more than I'd like. We can re-examine the idea in 0.9.6 perhaps.

Unit XP is capped at 50. This corresponds to 10 promotions or 101XP under the current system. Since the later promotions are now easier to obtain, an XP cap is necessary to prevent units from becoming too strong, especially by stacking the 20XP bonus from Warlords. It also adds another layer of strategy to promotion selection: since units can never earn more than 10 promotions, a Shock promotion now might come at the cost of a Pinch or March promotion later.

There's no easy method to cap experience. And to be honest, if a cap is necessary then perhaps we shouldn't change the values in the first place.

Units restart at 0XP when upgraded. They retain all promotions so they only earn new promotions once they hit the appropriate unit level. (Under the current system, upgraded units are reduced to 10XP.) This change brings better balance to the upgrade mechanic: City Raider III Heavy Footmen-turned-Riflemen are extremely difficult to defeat, especially if they continue to earn promotions at a breakneck pace. The change also makes a great deal of sense: archers newly outfitted with muskets must naturally restart their training from scratch.

This is very easy to implement. It's not very fun though. Overall I'm beginning to think changing the experience algorithm isn't worth it.

I agree that a food bonus for protected Seals and Whales would be strange. Marine Reserves must provide a different bonus when paired with these resources, just as Deer Camps produce extra food and Elephant Camps produce no food at all. How about +3 commerce? This is competitive with +1 food/+1 hammer/+1 commerce for Seal Fishing Boats and +1 hammer/+2 commerce for Whaling Boats. I'd also suggest +3 commerce for Nature Reserves with Fur, Deer, and Elephant, to compensate for the loss of Camps.

That works. I'll add it to Seals, Whales, Fur and Elephants. I won't make changes to Deer though as, unlike the others, they don't go obsolete.

That sounds about right. You could also allow certain improvements, such as Plantations and Workshops, to be build directly on Wetlands. That would extend the usefulness of Wetlands until the arrival of Nature Reserves in the Industrial Era and make the +50% build time penalty more meaningful.

Actually it turns out I can't give Wetlands a build time penalty after all.

Jungle
can build Camps, Watermills, Nature Reserves, and Forts directly
cannot build Farms, Mines, Plantations, Cottages, Workshops, or Windmills unless chopped

I don't think this really makes sense. If anything, we could just allow Lumbermills in Jungles.

Wetlands
can build Plantations, Workshops, Nature Reserves, and Forts directly
cannot build Farms, Cottages, or Watermills unless drained

Now that Jungle has become much more useful I don't think it's a problem to have Wetlands be less useful until after Hydraulics (which btw, is moving to the Renaissance). They very rarely form clumps of 3 tiles or more. I'll allow Camps to access Peat (and give benefit under Redistribution) but all the other resources/improvements will requiring draining. I think this makes historical and practical sense. I am tempted to add 1 production to them though:

Wetlands
-1 food, +1 production, +1 commerce, +0.25 health, no river commerce
3 move cost, no defense bonus/penalty
Cannot build cities here
Can be Drained (requires Hydraulics)
Possible Resources: Dye, Incense, Spices, Tobacco, Rubber, Gas, Oil
Possible Improvements: Camp, all others require draining

On Grasslands this would be 1/1/1, Plains 0/2/1, and Tundra 0/1/1. Valuable terrain that you can't improve or access many of its resources until the later game. I think this is an interesting niche.


EDIT: Actually, I'm tempted to make Peat obtainable via the Quarry rather than Camps.

 

[civ_king]

Peat is basically quarried

 

[Azoth]

Given this proposal is beginning to require a fair bit of custom code (and thus considerable testing time) I prefer to leave it out for now. 0.9.5 as already been delayed much more than I'd like. We can re-examine the idea in 0.9.6 perhaps.

Fair enough. We can revisit the question in 0.9.6.

There's no easy method to cap experience. And to be honest, if a cap is necessary then perhaps we shouldn't change the values in the first place.

I don't think an experience cap is necessary. It might be useful; but if it's difficult to code I wouldn't bother.
Frankly, my units rarely hit 30XP even when I am gunning for Domination Victory and have fought half a dozen wars.
So I would still support changing the XP thresholds to iLevel * 5.

This is very easy to implement. It's not very fun though. Overall I'm beginning to think changing the experience algorithm isn't worth it.

Well, we already have a 10XP cap for upgraded units. That's good enough for me.
I certainly wouldn't want to reject a new XP threshold system based on hypothetical balance concerns.
Full speed ahead with the algorithm changes, I say!

That works. I'll add it to Seals, Whales, Fur and Elephants. I won't make changes to Deer though as, unlike the others, they don't go obsolete.

Sounds good.

I don't think this really makes sense. If anything, we could just allow Lumbermills in Jungles.

Lumbermills in Jungles are great idea. Let's do that instead.

Now that Jungle has become much more useful I don't think it's a problem to have Wetlands be less useful until after Hydraulics (which btw, is moving to the Renaissance). They very rarely form clumps of 3 tiles or more. I'll allow Camps to access Peat (and give benefit under Redistribution) but all the other resources/improvements will requiring draining. I think this makes historical and practical sense. I am tempted to add 1 production to them though:

Wetlands
-1 food, +1 production, +1 commerce, +0.25 health, no river commerce
3 move cost, no defense bonus/penalty
Cannot build cities here
Can be Drained (requires Hydraulics)
Possible Resources: Dye, Incense, Spices, Tobacco, Rubber, Gas, Oil
Possible Improvements: Camp, all others require draining

On Grasslands this would be 1/1/1, Plains 0/2/1, and Tundra 0/1/1. Valuable terrain that you can't improve or access many of its resources until the later game. I think this is an interesting niche.

I agree completely! That extra hammer makes for a very interesting niche terrain feature. Count me in.

EDIT: Actually, I'm tempted to make Peat obtainable via the Quarry rather than Camps.

I think a compromise solution works best:

• Peat adds 1 hammer to the tile yield.
• In the Ancient, Classical, and Medieval Eras, Peat can be obtained via Camps. Camps do not increase the tile yield further; they simply enable the resource.
• In the Renaissance, Wetlands can be drained and Peat can be obtained via Quarries. Quarries add 2 hammers/1 commerce to the tile yield, a bonus comparable to that of Stone and Marble.