FfH2 0.21 Balance Feedback

[onedreamer]

...and if you became a settler, you wouldn't have a religious promotion.

Oh please... 1 person settler ?

In any realistic scenario, a new city should adopt the religion of its founders.

If you like to believe it , go on. The concept of state religion is worthless then.

onedreamer, I think you are forgetting that units don't get religious promotions very often.

Bah, believe what you want. Problem is that I haven't seen any post on what would this feature add strategically to the game. IMO it only hurts it. And realistically speaking it's weak.

 

[Blakmane]

Bah, believe what you want. Problem is that I haven't seen any post on what would this feature add strategically to the game. IMO it only hurts it. And realistically speaking it's weak.

Resident troll alert

*I* think it'd be a good idea. Religious promos aren't that common, but it would add strategy in that you could slightly talor the spread of religions ESPECIALLY CotD which cannot otherwise be manually spread. It would also cut down on the priest micro, which is a good thing IMO. Extra Micro for civ IV = bad.

 

[Go Boks]

Bah, believe what you want. Problem is that I haven't seen any post on what would this feature add strategically to the game. IMO it only hurts it. And realistically speaking it's weak.

Calm down, dude. It would add something. It means I occassionally don't have to waste turns and hammers creating a missionary unit to convert a city to a religion it should already have.

...and no, not a one person settler. I assumed you were smart enough to figure it out, but I was wrong, so I apologize. You, your family and others that think like you and are leaving to found a new city would form the settler.

 

[eerr]

a gold mine should give -1 production instead of +1.
too busy mining gold to build stuff what little is built goes to mine the gold and you still get the hills bonus anyway.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

a gold mine should give -1 production instead of +1.
too busy mining gold to build stuff what little is built goes to mine the gold and you still get the hills bonus anyway.

It already gives one less production than a normal mine. I don't see any gameplay-based reason to make it even less.

 

[eerr]

It already gives one less production than a normal mine. I don't see any gameplay-based reason to make it even less.

gold gives +1 production with a mine (over normal hills)

 

[Blakmane]

gold gives +1 production with a mine (over normal hills)

Gold is already balanced fine. You forget that gold has industrial as well as commercial uses- even in the dark ages.

 

[Nero's fire]

mines normally give +2 production if there wasn't any gold. Anyways, I'm not sure what your argument is eerr? Definatly not a balance issue since its the same in vanilla (actually vanilla gold is better since it gives an extra happy with forge) so I have to guess you are trying to make an argument on realism.

The fact that hills give +1 production has been something in the civ system since the beginning and the same with mines. Now you've got me for how sending people into mines to dig around trains phalanxes but it does. No reason that just because it has gold in it there should be a significant decrease in the production.

Anyways, with that extra gold, those builders can start getting paid overtime.

 

[Ringtailed]

It would add something. It means I occassionally don't have to waste turns and hammers creating a missionary unit to convert a city to a religion it should already have.

To be honest with you, I see this as taking strategy away from the game rather than adding it. Wasting turns and hammers to create a missionary unit and spread a religion to a new city is a strategic decision: do I build a missionary and spread a religion to the city, or do I build something more useful and put the missionary off until later or hope the religion spreads on its own? I understand that having a settler with a religious promotion spread that religion to a new city might make sense realistically, but adding things based on realism alone is quite silly in a game where there's magic and dragons and demons running around

 

[Go Boks]

but adding things based on realism alone is quite silly in a game where there's magic and dragons and demons running around

That is an inane comment to make. Also, who said anything about realism?

You are missing the forest for the trees. The real strategic decision comes much earlier, when it is far, far more important. Do I spread my religion early in the hopes of having a slightly higher chance in the future of it spreading on its own, or do I build that Axeman that I desperately need to even stay in the game?

 

[vorshlumpf]

adding things based on realism alone is quite silly in a game where there's magic and dragons and demons running around

Not to gang up on you, Ringtailed, but this is one of my least favourite comments by people. My fantasy has to realistic (or, if you prefer, plausible) in order for me to get immersed in it.

- Niilo

 

[Blakmane]

Not to gang up on you, Ringtailed, but this is one of my least favourite comments by people. My fantasy has to realistic (or, if you prefer, plausible) in order for me to get immersed in it.

Actually I am ganging up... when I say I agree with this. Fantasy books are a lot more involving when they are 'plausible'. It's all about minimising the need for 'suspension of disbelief'.

 

[Great Oleander]

I'm not sure if it was mentioned somewhere else before but it doesn't seem like a real bug to me, so I post it here.
In my last game, playing as Hyborem in an alliance with Charadon, when the Armageddoncounter hit 80, some units turned to barbarian units (I knew that would happen), but all of the barabrian units where stuck in the topright corner and where unable to move because they where surrounded by me and Charadon (both with the barbarian trait).

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/94207/Barbarian_traffic_jam.JPG

I'm not sure if it would be better if the Barbarians would have open borders with the bar-trait civs so they can move through their land and cause some havoc
Maybe there is another game-mechanic, that I'm not aware of, that keeps the barbarians from moving through their lands?

 

[Ringtailed]

That is an inane comment to make. Also, who said anything about realism?

You are missing the forest for the trees. The real strategic decision comes much earlier, when it is far, far more important. Do I spread my religion early in the hopes of having a slightly higher chance in the future of it spreading on its own, or do I build that Axeman that I desperately need to even stay in the game?

You addressed realism on page 12 =\

The point I was making with the "don't add things based on realism alone" comment is that this is a game. Therefore, because it is a game, the implications on gameplay must be considered before how realistic something is. That goes doubly so for FFH, because it is a fantasy based game, not a historical simulator. I agree that fiction has to be realistic to an extent to be believable, but FFH already doesn't mirror reality based on the fact that there are demons and dragons etc here while there aren't any in real life. So, in conclusion, we should not alter gameplay simply to be more realistic.

As far as the "real" strategic decision: spreading your religion early already increases the chance it will spread on its own, to an extent. If city A, which does not have a particular religion, has a trade route with city B that does, there's an increased chance that the religion will spread to city A.

One of the problems I see with giving a new city a religion for free is that it's a too-easy source of culture. In FFH, there aren't many ways for a city to generate free culture. An obelisk is one, a religion is another. As it stands, both of these have a cost: the obelisk costs hammers to build and a gold each turn. The religion costs a disciple (or, again, you can wait and hope it spreads automatically). If we're going to start giving religions to new cities for free, this dynamic is upset. Potentially, it may also serve to weaken the Creative trait.

So, in conclusion, I still feel giving a religion to a new city for free based on the religious affiliation of the settler is a bad idea.

 

[Go Boks]

Again, you are still forgetting that units only get religious promotions about a quarter of the time (AFAIK).

Also, you are confusing "realistic" with "plausible," hence my comment "who said anything about realism."

 

[Arwon]

Now that attack and defence values are separated, I suggest making the Mutation spell affect each value separately. If this is already how it works, ignore me.

Also, dunno if I've posted this, but Stygian Guards can't use Bronze/Iron/Mithril weapons.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Currently, no disciples can.

 

[onedreamer]

Calm down, dude. It would add something. It means I occassionally don't have to waste turns and hammers creating a missionary unit to convert a city to a religion it should already have.

NOT taking strategic decisions is NOT adding to strategy, but taking away from it. Building units is no micromanagement. Micromanagement is stuff like moving a worker every turn to gain a point of commerce here, or production there, etc. Religion management is definitely not a micro...

...and no, not a one person settler. I assumed you were smart enough to figure it out, but I was wrong, so I apologize. You, your family and others that think like you and are leaving to found a new city would form the settler.

It's hard to find someone who thinks like me about religions, even in my family. In fact, I'm against organized religions. I think that the question on settlers and religions is pretty simple:
- if there is freedom of religion in the civ, then there shouldn't be a single religion identifying a widespread group of people like a "settler" unit.
- if there is a state religion, there still shouldn't be a single religion identifying that group, but if there MUST be one, then it should be the state reglion.
- The religion promotion -at least as I see it- is only a mechanism to feed Basium and Hyborem. After all, this is a game, and especially in this mod realism is quite lacking. I don't think it's fair to transport this feature to reality and try to apply it to the "faith" of units.

 

[onedreamer]

On the Altar of the Luonnotar Victory.

In the mechanics it reminds me of Space Race Victory, the difference is that this is really a race because starting from a certain moment in the game civs will engage in a competition to complete the Spaceship first.
In the Altar victory the race component is missing because you start building the Altar from early on, and then it's a slow and boring path down to the last level, depending on research and GPP generation. If the Altar would be modified so that you can only start to build it at a high level tech, with maybe less levels and different boni, it would probably become a more interesting competition and consequently victory condition.

 

[Go Boks]

NOT taking strategic decisions is NOT adding to strategy, but taking away from it. Building units is no micromanagement. Micromanagement is stuff like moving a worker every turn to gain a point of commerce here, or production there, etc. Religion management is definitely not a micro...

You are missing the forest for the trees. The real strategic decision comes much earlier, when it is far, far more important. Do I spread my religion early in the hopes of having a slightly higher chance in the future of it spreading on its own, or do I build that Axeman that I desperately need to even stay in the game?

You enjoy selective quoting, don't you?

As for the rest of your post... Their are plenty of atheists/agnostics/non-fans of organized religion around the world. I don't buy your "it is hard to find such people" comment, as most people I know are like that. Furthermore, this argument supports my point that settlers should spread religion...

Second of all, please provide me with just one example of settlers coming from a religious society and founding a non-religious city. Just one.

Third, as I said earlier, you are still confusing realism with plausibility.