Inca

[Funak]

A higher base yield would probably suffice. It is a rarer UI and I kinda prefer it they way.

Sure, but those superhot TF locations will become even better, which limits what can be done for those that are just semihot or lukewarm.

I just don't think catering to these once in a blue moon situations is a good idea, as it leads to big swings in game-quality, which is usually what people complain about.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

Sure, but those superhot TF locations will become even better, which limits what can be done for those that are just semihot or lukewarm.

I just don't think catering to these once in a blue moon situations is a good idea, as it leads to big swings in game-quality, which is usually what people complain about.

It's a shame culling resources isn't a thing in Civ V. It looks to be a fun mechanic in VI.

 

[Strigvir]

It's a shame culling resources isn't a thing in Civ V. It looks to be a fun mechanic in VI.

Yeah it will totally be "fun" to watch Artificial Idiot burning down its tiles, leaving cities to capture, as AI will have a ton of freebies to counteract the losses, unlike player.

 

[tu_79]

A higher base yield would probably suffice. It is a rarer UI and I kinda prefer it they way.

G

Problem here is that outside Communitas map, it's not so rare.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

Yeah it will totally be "fun" to watch Artificial Idiot burning down its tiles, leaving cities to capture, as AI will have a ton of freebies to counteract the losses, unlike player.

I'm guessing you aren't going to enjoy Civ VI.

 

[Funak]

Problem here is that outside Communitas map, it's not so rare.

I think he actually means decent locations (not just hills with no adjacent mountains). Considering mountains are more common and better strategically places on communitas you're probably seeing just as many if not more decent TFs on communitas.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

What if Terrace farms can also be built on flatlands next to mountains, and when done that way, shunt food over to adjacent hills?

 

[Funak]

What if Terrace farms can also be built on flatlands next to mountains, and when done that way, shunt food over to adjacent hills?

I was thinking about this as well, but wouldn't it looks really silly? Having all mountains surrounded on all sides by the same unique improvement?

 

[Gazebo]

If it isn't that rare outside of communitas...perhaps we just remove sexysheep?

G

 

[Funak]

If it isn't that rare outside of communitas...perhaps we just remove sexysheep?

Sexysheep is there for a reason however, those river-less hill-locations would probably be completely uninhabitable without it. Assuming you're speaking about sexysheep in general and not just sexysheep in communitas, because I couldn't care less about what happens with the communitas map, to be honest.


And aside from sheep-blocking, I do still feel like the Terrace-farm just isn't pulling its weight. Done a few inca-games(or at least starts for inca-games) and the tile just doesn't feel very impressive. This is true even in the early-game which is probably a really bad sign considering most UIs(and improvements in general) scale rather well as the games goes on while the terrace-farm gets an extra point of food at fertilizer(or civil service)

 

[Gazebo]

Sexysheep is there for a reason however, those river-less hill-locations would probably be completely uninhabitable without it. Assuming you're speaking about sexysheep in general and not just sexysheep in communitas, because I couldn't care less about what happens with the communitas map, to be honest.


And aside from sheep-blocking, I do still feel like the Terrace-farm just isn't pulling its weight. Done a few inca-games(or at least starts for inca-games) and the tile just doesn't feel very impressive. This is true even in the early-game which is probably a really bad sign considering most UIs(and improvements in general) scale rather well as the games goes on while the terrace-farm gets an extra point of food at fertilizer(or civil service)

That's why I suggested a bump to mountain UA values and a starting bump for the TF (prolly add another culture or another food to it).

G

 

[Gothic_Empire]

Are sexysheep sheep next to mountains, or are we talking about the kind of sheep that seduce scottsmen? =|

 

[Funak]

That's why I suggested a bump to mountain UA values and a starting bump for the TF (prolly add another culture or another food to it).

I'm going to repeat myself again, not because I think I'm the one deciding, but because I think the matter is important enough.

I think the main failings of the current Inca design is the heavy reliance on mountain-chains. Grouped up mountains buff each other giving you great yields, grouped up mountains tend to create huge terrace-farms, supporting huge population-growth. Big mountain-chains gives you a lot of room to maneuver and flank your enemies, and makes your ability to build roads and cities on top of mountains really powerful.
If you end up spawning near a great mountain-chain then the Inca works perfectly well as they are currently designed, a few well-placed sheep are going to make people angry, but in general they are going to reap powerful advantages and have a good game.
These situations are absolutely not in the need of a buff, they are doing great. These are also the situations that would benefit the most from your suggested changes, sadly enough.

As it is however, you definitely don't always spawn near a big mountain-chain. You usually spawn near one or a few mountains at the very least, but solitary mountain-tiles are close to worthless with the current design, they add an extra point of food to nearby terrace-farms (usually one or two viable hills near each mountain) at the cost of a lost workable tile (1g 1f is definitely not worth working). Two tile mountains are better, two food and two gold tiles are useful until you can farm your grasslands or build a lighthouse in a coastal city, you can also usually fit a terrace-farm adjacent to both of them. In the end however in both these situations your UA and UI are clearly under-performing.
These are the situations that desperately needs help because these are the situations most AI are going to find themselves in, as they don't have access to the restart-button that players have. Yes I understand that the Inca are supposed designed around mountains-chains and hills, but this is just too much focus on a terrain-type that is way too uncommon.


Compared to for example river-based or forest/jungle-based civs, actual mountain-chains are just not common enough. And even for the Iroquois which can be considered the closest to the Inca in terms of design (forest/jungle instead of mountains of course) people are complaining about the design and about the inherent weakness of too narrow focus.

Other terrain-dependent civs usually have things that work independently from their terrain-dependence:
Netherland without rivers have their UA
Maya without forests/jungle still have their UA
Brazil without jungle still have their UA

Askia might have a problem without rivers, but his UB isn't that horrible, rivers are pretty common and he is excellent at conquering cities located near rivers.

Are sexysheep sheep next to mountains, or are we talking about the kind of sheep that seduce scottsmen? =|

It's a script in the map-generator that adds sheep when there isn't enough food in an area (and mountains/hills are known for not having very much food)

 

[tu_79]

I have to agree with Funak. Even if the sentiment is against the sheep. (poor animal)

One thing that I read about Inca is that everyone worked at farms, even specialists, only child and ill people were spared. Adding the extra food the UI gives, that made me thought that Inca could have a bonus to their specialists (be it happiness, food, whatever). That kind of bonus would allow Inca to do something else out of mountainous regions.

 

[Gazebo]

I'm going to repeat myself again, not because I think I'm the one deciding, but because I think the matter is important enough.

...

These are the situations that desperately needs help because these are the situations most AI are going to find themselves in, as they don't have access to the restart-button that players have. Yes I understand that the Inca are supposed designed around mountains-chains and hills, but this is just too much focus on a terrain-type that is way too uncommon.


Compared to for example river-based or forest/jungle-based civs, actual mountain-chains are just not common enough. And even for the Iroquois which can be considered the closest to the Inca in terms of design (forest/jungle instead of mountains of course) people are complaining about the design and about the inherent weakness of too narrow focus.

Other terrain-dependent civs usually have things that work independently from their terrain-dependence:
Netherland without rivers have their UA
Maya without forests/jungle still have their UA
Brazil without jungle still have their UA

Askia might have a problem without rivers, but his UB isn't that horrible, rivers are pretty common and he is excellent at conquering cities located near rivers.



It's a script in the map-generator that adds sheep when there isn't enough food in an area (and mountains/hills are known for not having very much food)

You are making an argument against me without actually knowing what I'm planning – that seems...a little premature? My plan is to raise the base minimum of yields on mountains for the inca, and then reduce the 'clustering' bonus so that it only affects mountains with 3+ neighbors. So that you get good mountains, but then if you DO find a clustered mountain you get some really, really good mountains.

G

 

[Greggy08]

I have to agree with Funak. Even if the sentiment is against the sheep. (poor animal)

One thing that I read about Inca is that everyone worked at farms, even specialists, only child and ill people were spared. Adding the extra food the UI gives, that made me thought that Inca could have a bonus to their specialists (be it happiness, food, whatever). That kind of bonus would allow Inca to do something else out of mountainous regions.

Good point here, considering that they already have food bonus, I think reduced or removed unhappiness would be the best.

 

[Funak]

You are making an argument against me without actually knowing what I'm planning – that seems...a little premature? My plan is to raise the base minimum of yields on mountains for the inca, and then reduce the 'clustering' bonus so that it only affects mountains with 3+ neighbors. So that you get good mountains, but then if you DO find a clustered mountain you get some really, really good mountains.

No I didn't actually make an argument against you, I made an argument against the current system.

But besides that you did already say what you were planning to do (or suggested in this case).

That's why I suggested a bump to mountain UA values and a starting bump for the TF (prolly add another culture or another food to it).

Your plan would just like I mention still add more RNG into it, the bad starts would get better sure, but the good starts would benefit just as much if not more.

 

[tompliss]

My plan is to raise the base minimum of yields on mountains for the inca, and then reduce the 'clustering' bonus so that it only affects mountains with 3+ neighbors. So that you get good mountains, but then if you DO find a clustered mountain you get some really, really good mountains.

Wasn't there a version where mountains were 3f 3g tiles for incas, regardless of the neighbours ?
If not, I think it could be a good idea to try it. Because as it is currently, it's really a either all or nothing.

And on the same idea, perhaps having an adjacent mountain could give +2 food to Terrace Farms, but ignoring extra mountains ?

 

[Funak]

And on the same idea, perhaps having an adjacent mountain could give +2 food to Terrace Farms, but ignoring extra mountains ?

This is pretty much what I've been trying to sell for the last 6 months. Although not with those exact numbers.

 

[thecraftybee]

It was suggested here or in the other thread about a pick'n'mix mod called Herdsman. I've just tried it out and it relieves the problem with sheep in unfortunate locations.

It basically works as follows.

Build a Herdsman, available at Animal Husbandry at approx the same price as a worker.
Once you have it, you can build pastures and camps with him, like an ordinary worker.
But when you are on a pasture tile in your borders, you have the option to rustle the sheep/horses/cows which removes them from that tile. When you move to suitable location for that resource, you can plop it down there and the proceed to build your pasture.

Also, I'm not sure if I have a dodgy install or a mod conflict (I had to remove Mister Miyagi's Improved Viewer, but I am unable to send or receive caravans from my Incan cities that I've founded on a mountain. Is that normal?