Inca

[Llednar Twem]

Also, let's do a similar treatment to the terrace farm. Brainstorm in the inca thread

For anyone not following the Netherlands thread, it's now possible for an improvement to give yields to specific other improvements that are adjacent. As such, I'm renewing my suggestion for terrace farms to buff adjacent normal farms. I was initially just thinking of continuing the terraced food buff down to the lowland farms, but I could see production working fine too as the bonus farm yield.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Could Gazebo borrow the code from villages that detects Trade Routes and city connections and have Terraces give bonus production for those conditions?

 

[Llednar Twem]

I mean...probably, but why? Terrace Farms seem like an odd choice to apply that mechanic to. The Shoshone encampment or something would probably be a better fit.

 

[Gazebo]

Ilteroi is working on some fun stuff, and I have to share:

Turns out, recent changes to the pathfinder and AI allow for cities to be founded on mountains for the Inca. Bug, or feature? You decide!

In any case, this will most likely be 'a thing' for the Inca next version. Light UA tweak.

G

 

[Funak]

Ilteroi is working on some fun stuff, and I have to share:

Turns out, recent changes to the pathfinder and AI allow for cities to be founded on mountains for the Inca. Bug, or feature? You decide!

In any case, this will most likely be 'a thing' for the Inca next version. Light UA tweak.

G

Ehm, ok. So the Incan cities can't be conquered by anyone? Seems kinda unfair.

 

[Gazebo]

Ehm, ok. So the Incan cities can't be conquered by anyone? Seems kinda unfair.

Ilteroi's working on it, may or may not pan out, but if they can't be treated like normal cities we won't do it. WIP with a fun-looking picture.

G

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It would be cool if it can be done fairly.

 

[Gazebo]

It would be cool if it can be done fairly.

Yep. A civ that can thrive in the 'negative space' of the map (i.e. mountains) is a fun concept.


G

 

[Funak]

Anyways, while we are here I would like to deliver my suggestion for the Incan UI.

Terrace farm
Requires Masonry
May only be constructed on hills
+2 food +1 culture
+1 food +1 production +1 culture if adjacent to a mountain.
+1 food from Civil service
+1 culture from Architecture
+1 food from Fertilizer
+1 Culture from Flight


The yields look pretty high, but as mentioned before UIs need to compete both with adjacency bonuses as well as the industrial era policies buffing improvements.

 

[Llednar Twem]

Wait, is mountain settling something they can do in the current release, or was it caused by some of the changes you're working on? If it's possible now I'm tempted to go try just for novelty's sake, even if it means the cities can never be taken and thus are completely overpowered.

 

[Tubbilicious]

Ilteroi is working on some fun stuff, and I have to share:

Turns out, recent changes to the pathfinder and AI allow for cities to be founded on mountains for the Inca. Bug, or feature? You decide!

In any case, this will most likely be 'a thing' for the Inca next version. Light UA tweak.

G

Look at those bastard sheet ruining what would be a mighty fine terrace farm.

 

[Funak]

Anyways, while we are here I would like to deliver my suggestion for the Incan UI.

Terrace farm
Requires Masonry
May only be constructed on hills
+2 Food +1 Culture
+1 Food +1 Production +1 Culture if adjacent to a mountain.
+1 Food from Civil service
+1 Culture from Architecture
+1 Food from Fertilizer
+1 Culture from Flight


The yields look pretty high, but as mentioned before UIs need to compete both with adjacency bonuses as well as the industrial era policies buffing improvements.

Any opinions on this?

 

[Gazebo]

Any opinions on this?

We're going to go with an adjacency bonus model first, but if that doesn't work out we'll come back to something similar to this.

G

 

[Funak]

We're going to go with an adjacency bonus model first, but if that doesn't work out we'll come back to something similar to this.

I think I've already pointed out what the problem with that model is, but whatever, you do what you want

 

[Funak]

Incan cities settled on mountains counts as flat-lands for the sake of yields, feels kinda weird (should probably count as hills?)

EDIT: Also for the sake of city-defense, which makes even less sense actually

 

[Llednar Twem]

Just finished a game as the Inca, so here's some feedback on the terrace farm:

1. Removing the self-adjacency from the terrace farm encourages very odd designs. Rather than continuous terraces you want individual hills surrounded by mountains or flat land to get the full +6f. Clusters of hills actually become pretty awful as a result. Giving them the same self-adjacency as farms (+1f for every two) would fix this. I don't think this would be overpowered because of...

2: SHEEP! Or really any resource that's not wheat, but sheep were the most noticeable. Sure, a perfect setup will get you tremendous yields, but realistically that's never going to happen. Having to design around existing resources and terrain was always going to be an inherent weakness of such an adjacency-based effect. It's not a bad thing in itself, but does need to be balanced around.

 

[Funak]

Just finished a game as the Inca, so here's some feedback on the terrace farm:

1. Removing the self-adjacency from the terrace farm encourages very odd designs. Rather than continuous terraces you want individual hills surrounded by mountains or flat land to get the full +6f. Clusters of hills actually become pretty awful as a result. Giving them the same self-adjacency as farms (+1f for every two) would fix this. I don't think this would be overpowered because of...

2: SHEEP! Or really any resource that's not wheat, but sheep were the most noticeable. Sure, a perfect setup will get you tremendous yields, but realistically that's never going to happen. Having to design around existing resources and terrain was always going to be an inherent weakness of such an adjacency-based effect. It's not a bad thing in itself, but does need to be balanced around.

Just going to point out that my solution handles both of those issues

 

[Gazebo]

Just finished a game as the Inca, so here's some feedback on the terrace farm:

1. Removing the self-adjacency from the terrace farm encourages very odd designs. Rather than continuous terraces you want individual hills surrounded by mountains or flat land to get the full +6f. Clusters of hills actually become pretty awful as a result. Giving them the same self-adjacency as farms (+1f for every two) would fix this. I don't think this would be overpowered because of...

2: SHEEP! Or really any resource that's not wheat, but sheep were the most noticeable. Sure, a perfect setup will get you tremendous yields, but realistically that's never going to happen. Having to design around existing resources and terrain was always going to be an inherent weakness of such an adjacency-based effect. It's not a bad thing in itself, but does need to be balanced around.

Adjacency bonus is a good idea. Also, I could make the terrace farm build-able on resources.

G

 

[Llednar Twem]

We should probably try out just adding the self-adjacency first. Being blocked by resources is an effective limiter on their power level pre-built into the game. Might as well take advantage of it if possible.

 

[Funak]

Also, I could make the terrace farm build-able on resources.

Not a fan of this at all actually, I'm not even a fan of Kasbah and Moai being buildable on resources, but those two kinda needs it, the terrace farm does, it's just an annoyance.