GEM Stage 1: Terrain

[albie_123]

I disagree. The fact is, it may be in Rome's best interests to use that Iron for a seige weapon - there are other issues, but Mitsho pretty much summed it up perfectly in the post above.

 

[Ahriman]

I disagree. The fact is, it may be in Rome's best interests to use that Iron for a seige weapon - there are other issues, but Mitsho pretty much summed it up perfectly in the post above.

?
Siege weapons don't require iron in VEM, G&K or in GEM, right?

I think its worth considering 1 free resource for civs with ancient/classical era UUs.
The strategic considerations Mitsho is talking about are still there even if you have one copy, because a second copy is still very useful. Rome probably wants to have more than 1 legion. 1 legion alone isn't going to power a conquest strategy.

 

[albie_123]

Good point, I forgot about the removal of iron from Seige units - a very important move.

I just don't like giving Rome free iron for an entire game, just because it allows them to build a UU. We may as well just spawn a Legion once they become available.

Having to work for a unique isn't a bad thing. For example, many UA's (Attila's, Genghis's, Alexander's, etc.) are useless if you don't actively work with them.

 

[mitsho]

The strategic considerations Mitsho is talking about are still there even if you have one copy, because a second copy is still very useful. Rome probably wants to have more than 1 legion. 1 legion alone isn't going to power a conquest strategy.

Yes, but with one legion/horse archer/companion cavalry/mohawk/(what am I missing else?), with one legion you can still rush whatever you want quite succesfully, it takes the stress away from acquiring the ressource in the right time and bringing it up to usefulness. I can practically guarantee that one of my first targets, be it city state or civ will have that iron deposit that I'm looking for, as I will chose it that way. And 1 iron/horse will be enough in most circumstances to get there. For example, I will not go liberty-settler with 1 iron most probably, but fill up honor first and then go commerce or any happiness policy.

1 of the ressource may be not much, but it may be enough for the human player.

Again, I got no problem with giving the AI that bonus, but for me as a human player, it adds a challenge.

 

[Ahriman]

I just don't like giving Rome free iron for an entire game, just because it allows them to build a UU. We may as well just spawn a Legion once they become available.

I don't really understand that. We aren't giving them a legion, we're just giving them the capability to build one. Those aren't at all the same; hammers are precious in the early game.

If you don't like that, fine, but then reduce the randomness of the resource distribution.

I find it really, really not fun to play as Rome and find I have no chance of building legions, or of building more than one. Rome should have the option to pursue an iron working/conquest-oriented early game. The window in which the legion is useful is already pretty small.

And I already found that, for example, Japan became quite weak in VEM, because they could hardly ever field more than a handful of Samurai, and Samurai just weren't that good.

Having to work for a unique isn't a bad thing.

But it is a problem when there isn't a feasible option to work for them, eg because the only iron deposits nearby are in terrible places for cities or are controlled by foreign powers.

I'm not convinced that free resources are definitely the right way to go, but I think it is worth trying and not rejecting out of hand.

with one legion you can still rush whatever you want quite succesfully

I do not find that a single legion is enough to successfully rush enemies on high difficulty levels. Legions just aren't that much better than swords; this isn't Civ4.

Again, I got no problem with giving the AI that bonus,

The AI is the least of my concerns, because I don't care how much fun the AI is having. It's the human who can have a really not-fun time because they don't have an opportunity to field and utilize their iconic UU before it becomes effectively obsolete.

If I have to launch a war in order to get any iron, then by the time I'm ready for a second war it's too late to use the legion effectively.

 

[albie_123]

I agree that it's worth a test - I love being proven wrong. I remember when events were first tried, I was heartily against the heavy gold-focus and the lack of negatives, but, I've found since then that I love their current implementation.

I also think that Rome is a unique case, in that their UU with a strategic requirement comes early - for example, I don't think Russia needs free Horses for Cossacks, or Japan free Iron. The only other Civ I would consider giving resources to are the Huns, should Horse archers be given a horse requirement (as I believe they should).

Here's my suggestion for a possible implementation:

Rome UA: +25% production for any building already present in the capital. 2 Free Iron beneath the first city settled.

This not only gives them the possibility to build Legions, but also gives the Capital a boost. I think it's quite fitting with the idea of Rome being a strong Capital.

 

[mitsho]

I do not find that a single legion is enough to successfully rush enemies on high difficulty levels. Legions just aren't that much better than swords; this isn't Civ4.

I'm talking of Emperor and my own experiences. Based on the fact that you know you have iron that you don't need to hook up, you can beeline iron working and build 1-3 archers and spears. I agree, it's extreme style of play, but that should get you that city state (with iron) quite easily, not? And probably be enough to pick off a second city of the AI, if not the capital of a peaceful civ, not?

The AI is the least of my concerns, because I don't care how much fun the AI is having. It's the human who can have a really not-fun time because they don't have an opportunity to field and utilize their iconic UU before it becomes effectively obsolete.

I guess, that's where we differ, I was thinking it was about guaranteeing a minimum power level for Rome. Because fun doesn't mean rolling over the enemies in my mind, and that is possible with the current ballistas and legions. at least to me, I had games where I just rolled over several AI's with those uniques, and it's not really challenging if you have the right set-up...

If I have to launch a war in order to get any iron, then by the time I'm ready for a second war it's too late to use the legion effectively.

You should already have the rest of you army by then, so you only need to build/buy those next legions. And the UU shouldn't be a free pass, imho...

So in the end, if the problem lies with Rome (and the huns), we can give them the bonus to try it out. I don't feel it's necessary as Rome polls high normally in the leader polls and even with the 50-150 distribution, there normally is iron around. And in the off case, there isn't, I personally don't think it's that bad. But since that is highly subjective, this discussion doesn't bring us much further. Maybe there really should be a poll about 50-150 vs. 100 % ?

 

[GenjiKhan]

+50% is beyond Overpowered . The current +25% is already very powerful . About the free Iron,if it's possible to make only AI receive that,I would agree with that .

 

[albie_123]

Woah, sorry, I meant +25 percent. My mistake.

I agree with Mitsho that the 50-150 issue is a divisive one, and one which I fall on the slightly-more-randomness camp. But, as I said before: I think a handful of Free Iron to Rome wouldn't be too bad.

 

[rhammer640]

I agree, I'd rather keep the 50-150% and give a few civs the free iron than go back to 100% distribution to be honest.

 

[sukritact]

Couldn't we just make UUs not require strategic resources and possibly buff the ones that don't require strategics (if the units they replace do) in compensation?

 

[mystikx21]

Couldn't we just make UUs not require strategic resources and possibly buff the ones that don't require strategics (if the units they replace do) in compensation?

The reason a few of the very early game horse units (chariot replacements) don't require horses is to get around this problem, but you or the AI likely won't be able to build that many of them. If you do this for later units then you have lots of balance issues (spamming Legions!), would have to change a lot of unique units stats or costs, and it also introduces upgrade issues for Iron or Horses dependent paths. That's not a big deal if you're talking a couple of War Chariots or Horse Archers, but it becomes one if you're talking 4-5 Legions. I think having a resource requirement is not something we want to get around by removing it entirely.

Thoughts on all this
1) VEM changes when you can see a resource to a point early enough to adapt your research path and production of armies around the possibility that you don't have access (yet). That means you might focus on ballistas first instead if Rome.

2) Therefore don't care if I get Iron as Rome. Some games I might get 4-5 Iron, or more, quickly because of the randomness and some games I might get one or none and have to fight for it. I'd still get ballistas and normal units to go get me MY iron if I want to. This is interesting and fun for me as a player versus knowing I will get 3-4 Legions. I vote the 50-150 setup is fine for this reason.

3) The problem is the AI not getting Iron and then being too weak. If the AI can get this bonus but not the player, I would be fine with that.

4) If that's too complicated to work out as a code change to make it ai specific, then no more than access to 1 strategic resource as required by the civ uniques. One Legion for "free" in that sense is probably okay.

 

[albie_123]

@Sukitract

That seems to me you're actually making Civilizations less unique. Some Civs SHOULD be forced to go for resources if you want their UU.

Again, working for your uniques is not a bad thing.

The only real problem here is how early the Legion is, making it difficult to work for in time. This is why the War Chariot doesn't require Horses, despite, y'know, having horses in the icon and the model.

 

[mystikx21]

@Sukitract

That seems to me you're actually making Civilizations less unique. Some Civs SHOULD be forced to go for resources if you want their UU.

Again, working for your uniques is not a bad thing.

The only real problem here is how early the Legion is, making it difficult to work for in time. This is why the War Chariot doesn't require Horses, despite, y'know, having horses in the icon and the model.

The difference here is that the Legion is a classical era versus ancient era. You should have enough time to build up for classical era.

If there's a huge problem with Legions and iron, then I'm not sure why there couldn't also be a problem with the horseman UUs (Cataphracts, Companion Cav). Because Legions are buffed as it is, a resource requirement still makes sense where it's removed for Mohawks for example.

I might agree that it could be reasonable for some UUs not to require a resource that do, either for historical or balance purposes, but then they should not be much stronger or offer many unique advantages. Which defeats the purpose of having a UU in the first place. I'd rather have a stronger legion and only have one of them than a weaker one but could build several more of them.

 

[albie_123]

I agree entirely, and in my opinion a UU shouldn't always be a given, but obviously there are other players who feel differently. I'm just trying to consider a 'middle-ground' for testing purposes, and if it's not popular, we'll go back to normal again.

 

[Stalker0]

I agree entirely, and in my opinion a UU shouldn't always be a given, but obviously there are other players who feel differently. I'm just trying to consider a 'middle-ground' for testing purposes, and if it's not popular, we'll go back to normal again.

And with this its still not truly a given. I mean 1 copy of your UU is not going to fundamentally change the gameplay.

 

[mystikx21]

And with this its still not truly a given. I mean 1 copy of your UU is not going to fundamentally change the gameplay.

No, but it could be a difference for getting more than one UU and not. I think it's a worthwhile idea for that basis, mostly because it should help the AI somewhat.

 

[Thalassicus]

Rome UA: +25% production for buildings already present in the capital, and the capital starts with 1 iron.

I like the idea of connecting it to the trait. I try to avoid "hacky" things like placing resources without an in-world reason for them to exist, and linking to the trait would explain it. I'd also move the iron from elsewhere in the player's territory, instead of adding it to the territory, so their total remains the same.

 

[albie_123]

That sounds perfect - it ensures Rome CAN build the Legion, but it means overall by the mid-game where land has been claimed, they are at no advantage, Iron-wise.

Would you consider doing the same to Huns (Horses instead of Iron), and giving Horse Archers a Horse requirement?

This does a few things:

- Huns getting Animal Husbandry means something, should they be far enough away from their horses that by the time they get there, they could've researched it anyway.
- The ultra-expansive militaristic flavour of the Huns, which right now is purely limited to their UU's (I find their UA very lacklustre) is continued through until the mid-game, where they would be ensured some cavalry, some of which - thanks to the early Animal Husbandry, Horses, and therefore by extension, Horse Archers - are promoted.

 

[Calavente]

I like the idea of connecting it to the trait. I try to avoid "hacky" things like placing resources without an in-world reason for them to exist, and linking to the trait would explain it. I'd also move the iron from elsewhere in the player's territory, instead of adding it to the territory, so their total remains the same.

that's great. I wouldn't have expected it to be possible.
and personaly, I think the certainty of "1 accessible iron" wouldn't ever be game breaking.