Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Sounds fantastic!
It's important to look at it in context of disadvantages and feedback,
Then you're not really playing to win.but I wouldn't capture a CS even if you boost the bonus to +10 or whatever.
Then you're not really playing to win.
Its fine to play in a roleplay manner, but I don't think we should design a balance mod around that.
[On CS conquest bonuses]
The problem is, on most map types, there aren't really any disadvantages of conquering a nearby CS, because you can still use your gold to ally with another CS further away.
Then you're not really playing to win.
Its fine to play in a roleplay manner, but I don't think we should design a balance mod around that.
How is it speculation that CSs are fungible to some extent?1. This is just speculation. If your scenario proves to be the case in a significant percentage of games, and that in turn leads to unbalanced games, then I'm sure it will be reported in these threads.
I don't think thats the case. The poster effectively stated that they would not conquer a CS no matter how much of a benefit they gave, because they preferred a more roleplay type of game where they were a protector.2. This is presumptive with regard to both the purpose of the mods and how Kirschi plays.
How is it speculation that CSs are fungible to some extent?
I don't care that much about whether my ally is near or far, and it is seldom the case that there is only one CS that I encounter.
So as long as there is another CS you could spend your gold on (of the same type), there is no particular downside for conquering one.
I don't think thats the case. The poster effectively stated that they would not conquer a CS no matter how much of a benefit they gave, because they preferred a more roleplay type of game where they were a protector.
There's nothing wrong with playing that way, but I don't think we should design balance around assuming that people won't take a big advantage if its available to them...
If there is a single "most effective strategy" then the game is not very interesting, because it does not have meaningful decisions.
The way I'm redesigning maritime city-states should help. They're going to give food split among the 5 largest cities, and when captured split population the same way. Since I also gave citystates starting defensive units now to make rushing more difficult, this should achieve my goals while mitigating potential exploits.
The way I'm redesigning maritime city-states should help. They're going to give food split among the 5 largest cities, and when captured split population the same way. Since I also gave citystates starting defensive units now to make rushing more difficult, this should achieve my goals while mitigating potential exploits.
@Txurce
It loops through the player's cities starting from the one with highest population. So if you have 5, 4, and 2 pop cities with 10 from maritime citystates, the cities receive:
5 : 4
4 : 3
2 : 3
-------10
The current numbers are 2friend / 5ally (will adjust based on feedback), the example is with two allies. The food is split among the top 5 cities with priority to larger ones.
Some more examples if a player has 3 allies:
9 pop : 4
9 pop : 4
4 pop : 4
4 pop : 3
---__--15
9 pop : 3
9 pop : 3
4 pop : 3
4 pop : 3
4 pop : 3
4 pop : 0
4 pop : 0
---__--15
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 3
5 pop : 0
5 pop : 0
---__--15
So basically... food for the first five cities is about the same as vanilla (though no special capital bonus), with no food to cities after that.
Right.