GEM: Leaders

[Drakir89]

I wasn't saying Chinampa was bad, I said it was situational for a warmonger. It makes perfect sence for a Civ that plans his tall cities around rivers & lakes. But Should Aztec really be that Civ?
On Ghandi, that's one of the reasons I wanted the UA to go rather than the UB/UU, It's not as Tall as we intended India to be?

It's been on my mind lately that these civs have mechanics that favour different playstyles from what many associate with them. Since I generally try to optimise whatever tools I'm given I enjoy taking a conflicting package and work out the best way to use every piece.

I think it's a good thing for the various abilities of a civ to go in different directions, as long as all are useful in the civs optimal strategy.

That said, if Monty is supposed to be wide he needs to change, and if Gandhi is designed to be tall he needs to be designed to be tall.

 

[Thalassicus]

I designed Monty as the most flexible leader. He can go tall, wide, warlike, peaceful, culture, food, etc. He's the leader we cannot categorize.

 

[Naeven]

I think it's a good thing for the various abilities of a civ to go in different directions, as long as all are useful in the civs optimal strategy.

That said, if Monty is supposed to be wide he needs to change, and if Gandhi is designed to be tall he needs to be designed to be tall.

It's also a matter of the AI tho, Monty as a coalition leader is told to conquer other civs. This defines in my mind what they suppose to be as much as my association with Monty. Telling the AI to do one thing, and then give them tools for another seems weird. Does the Monty AI even understand that river/lakes are more prio for him? But then again, my real suggestion was not removing chinampa rather than making it less situational without the river lake requirement. It's also like the UB-NW argument, UB should be able to be built anywhere to remind us why the civ is unique.

 

[mitsho]

I always understood Monty as a tall conqueror. Make your capital tall, but raise and puppet and keep low all other civs. This seems historical for the Aztecs, no? After all, their conquered people rose up when the Spanish showed up... The beauty is that with the Aztecs, you can go conquest and then get sidetracked for a culture victory (if you do it right).
Is the Chinampa really constrained to lakes? Yes, it should be rivers as well.


With Gandhi it's the same. There's technically nothing wrong with him going wide. After All, India spans the whole subcontintent and is a huge nation. So it'd feel weird to let India have few high populated cities in civilization. As he is right now, I feel that with happiness and security constraints, it's often difficult to expand too wide with Gandhi (it's been a time since I've played him), but if you pull it off, you've basically won, no? Population results in every other yield in the end, not?

That is one side. The other is the AI. Are these AI's programmed to act like they think we should? Maybe we should look more at leader personalities.

 

[Ahriman]

CKN should be reverted to crossbow strength; the double-shot promotion was already nerfed with a strength penalty.

15 ranged attack on a war chariot seems a bit much.

I find that Monty nearly always does badly in the hands of the AI, because he only seems to build one city in the early game, and then spam warriors, and I think he overloads what his economy can afford with too much military maintenance. Perhaps the Jaguar warrior should drop to 1 maintenance?

 

[Naeven]

I always understood Monty as a tall conqueror. Make your capital tall, but raise and puppet and keep low all other civs.The beauty is that with the Aztecs, you can go conquest and then get sidetracked for a culture victory (if you do it right).

Then I suggest we make Monty river start (or lake if that's possible?) so we can atleast guarantee the capitol will get a chinampa. I also agree that the culture/killing theme is the beauty of the Aztec.

Another thought, what about giving Aztec & Polynesia some free iron just like the iron UU leaders. This would make them able to keep and uppgrade a few more UUs.

 

[mystikx21]

Another thought, what about giving Aztec & Polynesia some free iron just like the iron UU leaders. This would make them able to keep and uppgrade a few more UUs.

This is an idea. I'm guessing it could apply to the Huns and Egypt as well with horses (although the need to upgrade is less from chariot to horseman than from warrior to swords).

I'm also checking to see which promos stick. Most UU promos should.

 

[Naeven]

EDIT, NVM. Found it.

 

[mitsho]

If we are giving these leaders free iron ressources, who only indirectly profit from them, we can give them to every leader in the end, no?

My guess is that it just depicts the victory conditions these civs aim for, culture and science respectively. That's why some AI seem dead set on going for one type of victory sometimes (and in basic vanilla ignored buying out all the other city states even if they could).

 

[Ahriman]

If we are giving these leaders free iron ressources, who only indirectly profit from them, we can give them to every leader in the end, no?

I'm torn. I agree with your sentiment in general (ie: give them to lots of people removes the whole point of limited strategic resources), but I do wonder if UU warriors are special case, because they have such a brief window of value, and upgrade *only* to a strategic resource UU. Very often in the classical era and even medieval era the Aztec AI still has a bunch of jaguar warriors around - militarily useless, never going to upgrade, just soaking up maintenance costs.

Again, if there was some way of allowing civ-4 style multiple upgrades (so the UU warrior could upgrade to either swords or spears) then we wouldn't have this problem.

*edit*
Another thing: if it were just free resources for a civ that would be one thing, but I think someone mentioned that it actually added the resource to the tile your first city is founded on (or to your starting tile)?
This would add two problems:
a) If I capture your capital, I get the extra resource stream
b) It might increase the production of the city tile.

 

[Naeven]

If we are giving these leaders free iron ressources, who only indirectly profit from them, we can give them to every leader in the end, no?

I agree here, but it's not as important for later UUs since it's more likely you have gatherd more resources by that time. And hit-and-run archers are still good for a fair amount of time after their prime.

Again, if there was some way of allowing civ-4 style multiple upgrades (so the UU warrior could upgrade to either swords or spears) then we wouldn't have this problem.

If codeable, this. Simply make them uppgrade to spears instead is also a solution.

Actually, since we are making spears more of a all-around unit rather than defence/anti-horse we could change all warriors uppgrade into spears.
Maybe this would make us build both types more?

Another thing: if it were just free resources for a civ that would be one thing, but I think someone mentioned that it actually added the resource to the tile your first city is founded on (or to your starting tile)?

Just tested this with Rome and settled on a normal hill. BAM 7 from turn 1.

 

[Tomice]

I absolutely agree we should give it a thought, Naeven. I do feel like I have to rush Archery since I'll probably never have use for more than 3 warriors/swords due to the iron restriction. And it would be historically justifiable, too. Spears were very common among the most primitive soldiers, while swords were a much later development. And actually swordmen should be considered the "niche" unit, not spears. The most commonly used weapon in all pre-gunpowder armies was the medium-lenght (8 feet or so) spear. Only the romans and medieval knights were a clear exception to this rule, and while they're prominent examples due to their elite nature, other troops were more numerous from a global viewpoint.

Not to forget we'd have all ressourceless standard units in one upgrade line!

About 7 from iron hills: That's probably a bug. I've done some research on city tile yields recently, here's the thread: Click

 

[bagas12]

Why we dont just make pionners, simple?

Make them cheap and ignore terrain cost.

This way, US can expand fast and steady and its unique, no civ have some sort of diferent setler.

-----
About India, elephants should stay and i want to ask a question, why sanitation system is a UB? In my humble knowlege, Indias sanitation system today, are pretty sh#t actually.
I vote for change the sanitation system UB for another maybe a shire that gives plus pressure and faith .


Ps. One thing that bugs me, its about Greece, its really a small thing, but Alexander never used hoplites, he actually used Macedonian phalanx and the companion cavalary.
But dont get me wrong, hoplites should still have the bonus we have today, but change the discription of why this bonus, its not because Alexander but because the hoplites dominated centurys of warfare.
The hoplites formation fall from use in history actually because Alexander and his Phalanx, who among other things got a bigger spear, the sarissa.

 

[mystikx21]

Why we dont just make pionners, simple?

Make them cheap and ignore terrain cost.

This way, US can expand fast and steady and its unique, no civ have some sort of diferent setler.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12123890&postcount=342

That's why.
I reiterate that I think that's a bad idea, and will probably take a relatively weaker civ and make it weaker still.

Actually, since we are making spears more of a all-around unit rather than defence/anti-horse we could change all warriors uppgrade into spears.

I could see a case for upgrading to spears/pikes out of the early warrior UUs. Spears however will still have an anti-horse role, just no extra defence ability now.

It has an ahistorical element for the Aztecs at least, but that's not their fault there weren't horses on the Western Hemisphere. Probably better to do this than give two more civs iron for free.

 

[bagas12]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12123890&postcount=342

That's why.
I reiterate that I think that's a bad idea, and will probably take a relatively weaker civ and make it weaker still.

I see your point.

Maybe we could make pionners scouts that can build city? And america start with one.
So the american player can choose if he want a second city right away, but fall behind exploration or explore some land them pop the 2 city.
Just a idea

 

[mystikx21]

India's sanitation system is for innovations historically in sanitation, and not to represent the present quality of civil engineering in the country.

Of the two, I'd rather we scrap their UA. That UB plays much better for tall (it can keep a +1 pop), while the current UA is really flexible to wide or tall and I think the intent is a high population tall-defensive civ. Some kind of religious tall bonus would be more interesting if we can make it work for pressure and high faith growth or absorbing other faiths, something (faith for cities next to river tiles like Celts get on forests is another option).

I still think a major limitation for the US (as it is/was for Rome) is happiness more so than anything else. Better settlers aren't really any better than pioneer forts for growing, but growing isn't the problem and expanding faster isn't the problem for them. It's the game's limitations on happiness that prevents growing faster, not settler speed or cost. If we want the US to expand faster and sooner, a national happiness benefit or even a local happiness benefit would be much more useful. My preference is for other more interesting economic benefits as there are other civs with happiness providing UBs out there and economic power is more a defining characteristic for the US than rapid expansion. Even that rapid westward expansion, or the boom of immigration alongside and especially after, was fueled in large part by economic power, development, and mass production (much as trade had made Victorian England powerful before).

 

[mitsho]

though you must agree that a cheaper settler in production and gold rushing costs has something. It's a minor bonus and one the AI will not get much out of it. And if you combine it with a happiness boost, it could get too strong in snowballing. But I do feel that we need the opinions of the wider group of users than our little circle of friend here to see how popular (not strong/weak) such a bonus would be. But your set-up for America above does seem reasonable. Though the "cheaper to buy settlers" would have synergy with a bonus, not?

A free second settler might be too strong, marginal effects and all. Defensive values on civilian units need to be tested though. Making the pioneer a scout UU may be an idea, but I don't think it's very exciting, unless it's a overpowered promotion that stays on upgrade with vanguards. But that wouldn't be the right boost for America in my mind.

Wasn't the reasoning at the original introduction of the sanitation system as a UB for India twofold: two give the newly introduced Aequeduct a UB for one civ and to make India's UA working better. To introduce a bonus in the form of the UB that helps them utilize their happiness UA more. This reason seems to have been dropped when we introduced the UA of free Population.

I'd say we can remodel the whole civ in that case since we don't need two bonuses. Put that one on the UA for example and reintroduce the Moghul Fort as a castle UB that helps with (someone come to my rescue with a historical explanation why this is realistic) so that it goes for tall defense (UA and UU as a slow chariot archer that keeps an upgrade?) and then has a midgame booster on a defensive building? The original reasoning for the removal of a castle UB (That they are only useful in a few places) is gone as well with the no upkeep and or on them).

 

[Naeven]

I agree with Mitsho on India. No need for 2 food uniques. I could also see the Mughal fort returning as a faith per pop castle.

But I do prefer the food on river effect over the free pop UA. We could simply make food on river the UA instead.

I still think the problem with Religious India is with the religions itself. Resulting in a probable nerf of India. Tall cities should be hard to convert and they should apply huge religious pressure for starters.

I'd like to see some bonus on India for having multiple religions, but I have no clue how to model that ingame.

 

[sukritact]

Put that one on the UA for example and reintroduce the Moghul Fort as a castle UB that helps with (someone come to my rescue with a historical explanation why this is realistic)

Well, I''m pretty sure the major forts have a mosque inside them, so there's that...

Doing that also has the side-effect of reintroducing something from the Mughal Empire, so that's good...

It is possible to make a bonus that increases the range of religious pressure (a flat bonus or one based on population?). Playing as a Tall Civ, the problem usually is that the cities are too far apart and are too few to make much of a difference.

 

[mystikx21]

I didn't think the US would combine happiness and cheaper settlers in a snowball. I would pick one or the other, and ideally neither. Growth is fine (different from expansion per se). Economics are fine. Science is fine (late). Cheaper settlers is okay, but it runs into the limits of happiness a lot faster than it helps I think.

As far as India, I would rather keep the UB in part for the rivers aspect, if that's the UA it's good I suppose. Mughal connecting is ideal too, but a castle? Castle with extra faith may as well be a mandir though. If we could do it, 2x religious pressure in cities over 10 pop, (+3x over 20?) and extra faith on pop or rivers or both sounds appealing to throw out.