Lakes ridiculously overpowered in early game, plz nerf

[nj666]

Food yield from Lake should be decreased from 3 to 2.
In a recent game I started near other player and he had 8 tiles of Lake near capital. He got 6 population in capital while I only got 2 ( I get adequate tiles, but no lake), then it proceeded growing to 7, 8, 10, even before getting a worker. He just overran me with no effort and there is nothing, NOTHING I could do..
Wheat tile produces 2 food, and is relatively rare tile type ( 2, maybe 3 per city ). Lake produces 3 food and can occupy 8 or more tiles, all in close vicinity to city, leading to rapid growth, domination in early game, following by inertial snowballing that is hard to compete with. To make things even worse, player can pick pantheon and then he will get 8 or more tiles with 4 food for free.

Suggested fixes:
- reduce food yields from Lake to 2 (maybe allow work boats to increase it to 3)
- prevent settlers from spawning near lakes

Pantheon itself is not a problem because lakes are overpowered already, it just adds a bit more to it. With 2-food lakes it will work perfectly.

 

[Voker57]

Food yield from Lake should be decreased from 3 to 2

No, that'd make them worse than Plains+river.

In a recent game I started near other player and he had 8 tiles of Lake near capital.

Lucky start, but not a lake problem.

He just overran me with no effort and there is nothing, NOTHING I could do..

Not true.

o make things even worse, player can pick pantheon and then he will get 8 or more tiles with 4 food for free.

Pantheon is very powerful indeed. Maybe drop extra production? It's very situational though.

 

[nj666]

No, that'd make them worse than Plains+river.

yeah, so? at least it will not break balance

Lucky start, but not a lake problem.

lakes near capitals are really common, so it's like 50/50 chance of insta-win over another player who does not have lake. So, yes, lake problem. 3 food per tile is just too much for early game.

Pantheon is very powerful indeed.

no. Lakes are insane even before pantheon, they are the best tile type on early game, outperforming everything else by large degree.
If you are concerned about pantheon, create separate thread. This one is about lakes.

 

[Voker57]

lakes near capitals are really common, so it's like 50/50 chance of insta-win over another player who does not have lake. So, yes, lake problem. 3 food per tile is just too much for early game.

No, no, and no

Lakes are insane even before pantheon, they are the best tile type on early game, outperforming everything else by large degree.

Maybe they are "best" for starting up the city, but there are lots of luxuries and tile bonuses which are better than lakes in some way.

 

[nj666]

Maybe they are "best" for starting up the city, but there are lots of luxuries and tile bonuses which are better than lakes in some way.

Yeah, and if lake is near capital then it's best for starting empire.
Lots of free food -> rapid population boom -> gathering from many tiles -> lots of production, sometimes gold -> player gets ahead in everything quickly -> snowballing ( he can build more settlers, or more buildings, or more army, or wonder, than non-lake player, and by "more" I mean 2 or 3 times more ) -> EASY rush or easy advancement in everything and winning later

 

[Voker57]

3/tile is not lots, though.

 

[tu_79]

Lakes are powerful early on, but consider that you can't improve lakes. In comparison, grassland can be enhanced with several improvements, which get better and better as the game progress. So, lakes are good for launching your early game into conquest, but it's not better in the long run. Your cities probably won't be working any lake tile in the end.

 

[nj666]

3/tile is not lots, though.

in very early game it is, ffs

Lakes are powerful early on, but consider that you can't improve lakes.

yeah, they are like wheat which is already improved. 2 food initially + ability to improve would be more balanced

So, lakes are good for launching your early game into conquest, but it's not better in the long run.

not just conquest. you can also spam settlers, or quickly build all buildings and then rush wonders. Any of those will quickly get you far ahead of non-lake player.
After early population boom you can of course use other tiles, and you will be ahead in it.
That's the point.
Early lake = being far ahead in everything early game and then being more and more ahead due to snowballing. No other tile is that imbalanced.
I can only compare it to player on grassland vs player in tundra.

 

[randomnub]

I vote Sweden gets an unrealistic but balanced no-lake bias.

 

[ElliotS]

There are far more powerful starts than 'a bunch of lakes'.

I swear every time someone has an imbalanced start due to RNG (8 lakes is a LOT, 2-4 is average IF You get any.) they ask for the game to be balanced around it.

I'll take starting near a hill on marble for a sweet 4 production city over 3 lakes any day of the week. Add in some other nice tiles and you're better off than any amount of lakes.

 

[DarkZero]

I dont disagree on nj66 on this, these 8 lake starts is the entire reason I stoped playinfg on communitas map scrip, where this amounts of lakes happens once every 3 games to someone, this is more of a map script balance issue tham a tile yield balance issue.

 

[nj666]

I swear every time someone has an imbalanced start due to RNG (8 lakes is a LOT, 2-4 is average IF You get any.)

in this particular game he ( L29Ah, a naturally lucky person ) got 8 lakes AND 5 horses which gave him production. So he got his first horseman 2 turns after I made first archer..

for a sweet 4 production city over 3 lakes

3 lake city will get this 4 production and exceed it as it grows. Though 6-8 lakes are not rare, seem to happen in one of 4-5 games to some player ( typically L29Ah ). and then he wins easily

this is more of a map script balance issue tham a tile yield balance issue.

maybe, but yields are easier to fix, no?

 

[DarkZero]

in this particular game he ( L29Ah, a naturally lucky person ) got 8 lakes AND 5 horses which gave him production. So he got his first horseman 2 turns after I made first archer..


3 lake city will get this 4 production and exceed it as it grows. Though 6-8 lakes are not rare, seem to happen in one of 4-5 games to some player ( typically L29Ah ). and then he wins easily


maybe, but yields are easier to fix, no?

No they are not, because on any other map script where you get 1,2 or 3 lakes on average suddenly staring near lakes is a death sentence

 

[nj666]

No they are not, because on any other map script where you get 1,2 or 3 lakes on average suddenly staring near lakes is a death sentence

how about starting near coast, then?
And you can move settler away from lakes if needed.
Now if other player has lakes and you don't - there is nothing you can do, game is decided on turn 1.

 

[Owlbebach]

Lakes are good, bot not overpowered, but pantheon actually is OP

 

[ElliotS]

a naturally lucky person

In my experience 95/100 times someone calls another person in a video game lucky they're actually just worse than them.

So he got his first horseman 2 turns after I made first archer..

Ah yes. That lake science is really too strong. We should nerf lakes to give 0 science.

3 lake city will get this 4 production and exceed it as it grows.

Not when you take into account that the extra production is from turn 1 and you get to work extra tiles instead of the lakes. A size 3 city working 3 lakes: 11 food and 5 production. A size 3 marble hill city working 3 forests (some of the lowest yield tiles you'll work early.): 8 food 7 production. That means if you have deer, luxuries, etc. that gives your tiles more than 3 yields you're doing much better. Especially because it can be improved over time.

Though 6-8 lakes are not rare, seem to happen in one of 4-5 games to some player ( typically L29Ah ). and then he wins easily


maybe, but yields are easier to fix, no?

No. Changing yields for everyone because your map script is busted is not going to fly.

 

[nj666]

Lakes are good, bot not overpowered, but pantheon actually is OP

as I said, lake player can get population 6 in capital while non-lake player still has 2. Basically that means he is 3x ahead in everything from the start.
And that happens without pantheon (which just adds 1 food to tile so not really overpowered by itself).

 

[nj666]

In my experience 95/100 times someone calls another person in a video game lucky they're actually just worse than them.

I understand it but in our games L29Ah gets superior starting conditions in most games, while I get inferior conditions such as starting in tundra much often than average. It's an objective fact.

Ah yes. That lake science is really too strong. We should nerf lakes to give 0 science.

in the end lakes contribute to everything. more people = more production = more buildings and cities = more science

A size 3 city working 3 lakes: 11 food and 5 production. A size 3 marble hill city working 3 forests (some of the lowest yield tiles you'll work early.): 8 food 7 production.

yes but then lake city will grow and things will get ugly fast (a matter of some 10-15 turns).
also when marble city reaches size 3, lake city will already be at 5 or 6

 

[DarkZero]

I understand it but in our games L29Ah gets superior starting conditions in most games, while I get inferior conditions such as starting in tundra much often than average. It's an objective fact.


in the end lakes contribute to everything. more people = more production = more buildings and cities = more science


yes but then lake city will grow and things will get ugly fast (a matter of some 10-15 turns).
also when marble city reaches size 3, lake city will already be at 5 or 6

Time to use the gold old fractal/continents/pangea map script and never have this problem again....

 

[tu_79]

You make too much of a science advantage. If you are not leading, because you didn't start in front of a lake, just play defensively for a while, until you can recover. Recover you might.