Leaders

[SSgtDuke]

I agree that it's more interesting to see America (and a few others) with some special stuff in the later game. Somewhat on a tangent, I think even if units like the B-52, Zero, Ship of the Line, etc, are "removed" from the mod that the unit should be left in, to keep things looking interesting, but simply balance the stats down to the common comparable units.

 

[SlightlyMad]

The problem is that by that late in the game, a clear winner is usually decided. If you're not lined up to win by then, even a large amount of gold won't make much difference. If you're already well on your way to a win, it doesn't matter anyways. An economic boost is also about the least useful late-game effect (although this may change after the next patch), since most players have more gold than they know what to do with anyways at that point.

 

[Sneaks]

The problem is that by that late in the game, a clear winner is usually decided. If you're not lined up to win by then, even a large amount of gold won't make much difference. If you're already well on your way to a win, it doesn't matter anyways. An economic boost is also about the least useful late-game effect (although this may change after the next patch), since most players have more gold than they know what to do with anyways at that point.

This is a big point for me. 19 games out of 20, by the time I hit Modern, the game is decided. At most, I ever play about 50 turns after hitting the era before game over. This fact is very unlikely to change unless the mod decides to change Science and Diplomacy victories

 

[Ahriman]

The problem is that by that late in the game, a clear winner is usually decided.

The Stock Exchange building is in the early industrial era. I disagree that the winner is usually decided by then, particularly if you beeline the tech.

If you're not lined up to win by then, even a large amount of gold won't make much difference.

I think a large amount of gold can have a major effect on who can win; it can buy you a diplomatic victory directly (or frustrate an opponent's attempt to get one) it can pay for expensive late-game research pacts or purchase public schools and research labs and production buildings to fuel a spaceship win, or it can instantly buy you a large army of advanced modern units to get you a military win.

An economic boost is also about the least useful late-game effect (although this may change after the next patch), since most players have more gold than they know what to do with anyways at that point.

This doesn't really make sense to me, since it is so easy to convert gold into military, industrial or scientific power. If you already have so much gold that you don't know what to do with it, then you've already won, or you're not actually trying very hard to win.

 

[Thalassicus]

I think a large amount of gold can have a major effect on who can win; it can buy you a diplomatic victory directly (or frustrate an opponent's attempt to get one) it can pay for expensive late-game research pacts or purchase public schools and research labs and production buildings to fuel a spaceship win, or it can instantly buy you a large army of advanced modern units to get you a military win.

I think for all three uniques to be equally valuable, we can agree a late-game unique must be powerful enough a player can win even if they were losing until then? Otherwise as Sneaks said they wouldn't be very useful. For this to happen the cumulative per-turn benefit of an early or late unique throughout the game should be the same.

Or to think of it visually, the area under the curve (per-turn benefit) of the blue and green lines (early and late uniques) should be equal.



For me this feels like an "I Win" button that doesn't involve the player much. The player's weaker than everyone for most of the game, then gets super-powerful and wins shortly after turn X, whenever the late game unique appears.

In general I think late-game bonuses are more effective in a role as nerfs to early-game bonuses. This is a perfectly viable balance option that's used for many things. However, when bonuses are near (or past) the end of most games (half my games end before the modern era) it's extremely difficult to balance this early/late spread in an effective manner. Even when we can balance something like this, it basically leaves the player with only 2 useful uniques for the majority of the game.

As a matter of personal preference, I like all three uniques to be about equally valuable for a leader.

 

[orangecape]

I don't think having late game UUs or UBs is a good idea. The best example is the b52. How good would it have to be for it to be as useful overall as CC?

If the B52 was actually invincible, would you take a civ with it over CC? I wouldn't. How about if it did double damage and was still invincible? I still take the CC. The problem is of course that if you go up against a civ that happens to have that B52 unit that is actually as powerful as this it makes that part of the game awful and demoralizing, and if you have access to it it feels like cheating.

Really I think the best possible solution is to either remove all late game units (which Thal has pretty much done, and I agree with) or make the other UB/UU and the civ bonus powerful enough that they are good on their own and then add the late game UU/UB with minimal benefits for flavour only. If the minuteman had 20 strength and retained his other benefits no one would question taking the Americans, even if their B52 wasn't very relevant. Also, removing the B52 and having both American UUs be earlier game and useful is fine. I like having 3 relatively balanced benefits though, which usually means not having any UUs beyond the renaissance.

 

[Txurce]

Really I think the best possible solution is to either remove all late game units (which Thal has pretty much done, and I agree with)... I like having 3 relatively balanced benefits though, which usually means not having any UUs beyond the renaissance.

Actually, there is still the Panzer and the Foreign Legion. We have lost the B-52 and the Zero. But you can still draw the conclusion that the devs themselves steered away from late-game units (and zero buildings).

In general I think late-game bonuses are more effective in a role as nerfs to early-game bonuses.

This is true in general, and a good rule of thumb. But a comparison could be made between America with a Stock Exchange, Manifest Destiny and the Minuteman, vs England with the Manufactory, +1 naval, and Longbowman. With a strong SE, I would probably take America.

 

[Ahriman]

I think for all three uniques to be equally valuable

I don't think this is the correct design goal. Factions should be balanced at the faction level, not the specific UU/UA/UB level.

Or to think of it visually, the area under the curve (per-turn benefit) of the blue and green lines (early and late uniques) should be equal.

Agreed, so long as you make this comparison across factions, and not individual benefits.

For me this feels like an "I Win" button that doesn't involve the player much. The player's weaker than everyone for most of the game, then gets super-powerful and wins shortly after turn X, whenever the late game unique appears.

I don't think this is the case, because I don't think the area under the blue line is all that "large".
Very few civs have abilities that are all that powerful in the big scheme of things.
The benefits of most faction bonuses over 500 turns is pretty low, so you don't have to have that big a change for 200 turns to still be of equal overall value.

Keep in mind, the stock exchange is not that late. Its 1 tech past factories. Are you saying that factories come too late to have any significant impact on the game?

If we were talking about a stadium or nuclear plant UB, I'd agree, but the stock exchange is not that late.
You could also have it come a tech earlier, like the English UB, if you liked.
Its also no later than the Arabian oil bonus.

In general I think late-game bonuses are more effective in a role as nerfs to early-game bonuses.

I don't really understand what you're saying here, can you give an example?

it basically leaves the player with only 2 useful uniques for the majority of the game.

I don't think this is a fair comparison, since many UUs expire quickly and have negligble ongoing impact, and many UBs have benefits only valuable in the short-term.
How useful are Babylonian Bowmen after the first 150 turns? Does this mean that Babylon is only playing with 2 uniques for the majority of the game? Or 1, since the marginal impact of the walls bonus is trivial once you're into the midgame.

So for most factions, you're not really "experiencing" many of their uniques for the majority of the game.

The best example is the b52. How good would it have to be for it to be as useful overall as CC?

The B-52 is a terrible UU because its a specialist unit in a weak role, which is why we're getting rid of it in this mod. UUs should be on core units, particularly late-game.
The Panzer is still a pretty good UU though.

But a comparison could be made between America with a Stock Exchange, Manifest Destiny and the Minuteman, vs England with the Manufactory, +1 naval, and Longbowman. With a strong SE, I would probably take America.

Right, this is the kind of comparison to make.
Or compare to Germany.

 

[Ahriman]

To use your picture analogy (where balance comes from having constant area under the curve):

If we were in a situation where the impacts were very large relative to total civ power, then I think you would have a good point:

Spoiler :

In this kind of case, the power of the late-game ability would be very high.

But I think we're in more like a situation like:

Spoiler :

So, I don't think we need to have a game-breakingly large bonus in order to make a late-game UB valuable but not overpowered.
I would consider a stock exchange replacement (Commodities Exchange? Securities Exchange?) which, in addition to its normal effect, gave +1 gold per 2 population. And then tweak the value slightly up or down to compensate balance.

 

[Sneaks]

I guess my issue with a stock exchange is that I don't build them now. They cost too much, and are online for such a short period before game over. I start them in a lot of non-production cities towards the end, but that is really it.

 

[Txurce]

I interpreted Thal saying "in general I think late-game bonuses are more effective in a role as nerfs to early-game bonuses" as the former being more effective as a counter to an earlier, more powerful bonus (rather than as a buff to a civ with a relatively weak SA and first UU/UB). This makes sense to me, although of course we don't want to have any pattern be too universal.

There's an obvious comparison between England with a Manufactory and America with a Stock Exchange (worth Sneaks building!). There is also value in going with the Stock Exchange, because it fits America's late-game historical corollary.

On the other hand, just because I think America and England would be roughly equivalent doesn't mean either of them is particularly attractive in that formulation (particularly England). And I still think the Frontier Fort is more fun. This choice seems to come down to entertainment value vs verisimilitude - both of which enhance game play. There's no clear right answer for me.

 

[Ahriman]

I guess my issue with a stock exchange is that I don't build them now. They cost too much,

Well, that's an easy issue to fix in itself; perhaps with a cost reduction.

 

[Ahriman]

I would certainly prefer a "frontier fort" to the Pioneer unit, but I'd prefer a late-game boost to either. My problem with the frontier fort is that in general city walls (particularly in older eras) are something that get built in big, established cities, not those on the fringe.

You will have something called frontier fort that is really about building big core empire cities.

 

[rhammer640]

I tend to build walls in frontier cities cause those are the cities that would get attacked

 

[Dunkah]

I guess my issue with a stock exchange is that I don't build them now. They cost too much, and are online for such a short period before game over. I start them in a lot of non-production cities towards the end, but that is really it.

Really? I build these in every city.
Perhaps you guys are a bit over qualified for this sort of thing...

 

[Sneaks]

I should add the caveat that I am a Deity player, with games that usually do not last longer than 250 turns.

 

[Thalassicus]

I actually don't like the current iteration of the steam mill much either. It fits thematically and is a good bonus, but I'm not sure it's terribly exciting. This is because my perception of the role of uniques has actually changed in the past few months. This is from the 5 Favorite Leaders poll:

Fun and favorites are a very subjective thing. If a leader simply got +30% gold and nothing else, that'd be powerful, but probably not as fun as some cool bonus that changes gameplay in a more interesting way. I like traits that let us play differently instead of just better.

The thing about the steam mill is it just lets us be a little better at production a little earlier. The way it's implemented is very unique (a building available earlier than normal) but its effect on gameplay is not unique. Elizabeth also isn't rated very highly on that poll, and after working to completely redesign one of her uniques it's a clear sign I need to improve it. I still like the general concept of representing English industrialization with an early steam mill, but need to add some effect to it that will significantly change English gameplay.

A good example is the Longhouse, it changes the way the Iroquois get production instead of simply buffing it. Most uniques are built this way.

This is why I like the frontier fort. +50% growth rate is huge and can let newly-settled cities catch up to the others very quickly, while simultaneously protecting them from attack. It has the potential to fundamentally change the way Washington plays throughout the entire game.

===============

It looks like most people who wanted to vote in the poll have done so. I won't actually be doing any leader changes until the next testing cycle and will keep watching the poll for more votes, so if you haven't voted yet please do so! In the meantime though, here's some of my priorities of what to work on.

Arabia - Trait, or possibly Bazaar
Babylon - Walls of Babylon
England - Steam Mill
Germany - Trait
Mongolia - Trait
Rome - Trait
Songhai - Mud Pyramid Mosque
Spain - Probably trait (not sure yet)

These 8 civilizations all got very low votes for 'fun factor'. Babylon is partially due to the fact Neb was in the special edition (so not as many people can play him), but I do think the walls aren't terribly exciting. Bismark will be the first one I work on since not one of 23 people said they have fun playing Germany.

• Arabia: I think it might be interesting to make this leader strongly favor "wide" empires by altering Bazaars or the trade route bonus somehow. Harun does already favor this to some extent, but not in a particularly interesting way - just a passive buff to an already-existing value.
• Babylon: Not sure yet.
• England: I'm thinking about some way that enhances specialists for the Steam Mill, since they're a very small nation (geographically) that exerted immense impact on the world, something most easily represented in Civ by specialists. This would likely replace the cost reduction. I recognized from the start reducing cost is a rather boring change to the building, but it was good enough at the time and I wanted to move on to other things.
• Germany: All your barb are belong to us.
• Mongolia: Possibly something like +50% citystate capture bonus instead of a combat bonus. Combat is already so easy any bonuses in that regard don't really make the game more fun, and this would truly make Temujin the anti-Ramkham.
• Rome: I think Augustus would be more interesting if his trait is simply buffed so it becomes a more pivotal part of gameplay. Ideally I'd make it affect both building and purchases... but I don't think there's any way I can do that.
• Songhai: The unique temple is terribly non-unique with just a slight culture bonus and less maintenance. I'm not sure what effect to add to make it more interesting, but it's on my todo list.
• Spain: I don't really know enough about the civ to say what to change, though I've heard the trait basically makes playing the civ a lot like gambling. Could everyone who's played Isabella give their thoughts?

 

[DeAnno]

[*]England: I'm thinking about some way that enhances specialists for the Steam Mill, since they're a very small nation (geographically) that exerted immense impact on the world, something most easily represented in Civ by specialists. This would likely replace the cost reduction. I recognized from the start reducing cost is a rather boring change to the building, but it was good enough at the time and I wanted to move on to other things.

Maybe add a Statue of Liberty-like effect to the city once the Steam Mill is built, giving each Specialist +1 Production?

[*]Rome: I think Augustus would be more interesting if his trait is simply buffed so it becomes a more pivotal part of gameplay. Ideally I'd make it affect both building and purchases... but I don't think there's any way I can do that.

One indirect way to buff the production bonus he has would be to make purchasing buildings in the Capital cheaper (possibly wildly cheaper) so he could buy them there immediately upon getting a tech and then immediately build them everywhere else at bonus speed.

[*]Songhai: The unique temple is terribly non-unique with just a slight culture bonus and less maintenance. I'm not sure what effect to add to make it more interesting, but it's on my todo list.

Since this civ is built to be really aggressive, maybe have the special temple also give units built in the city XP or a special promotion?

 

[Thalassicus]

I like your ideas for England and Rome, Rhys. I was thinking of something very similar for the steam mill. Perhaps a gold boost to make it more distinct from the statue of liberty, and represent mercantilism... England was a very wealthy nation for a time.

Doing some research into Askia and the Songhai, it seems it was a very wealthy and highly-educated empire, but Askia was not actually all that great at military campaigning. He seems to have primarily relied on alliances for success. A science effect on the mosque might be more appropriate, since the mosques were centers of learning in the Mali and Songhai empires. Askia recruited many scholars from neighboring regions of Africa to teach at the Songhai mosques.

Interestingly, the Songhai had a standing army in peacetime to protect economic trade... a rarity in premodern civilizations.

 

[Txurce]

I still like the general concept of representing English industrialization with an early steam mill, but need to add some effect to it that will significantly change English gameplay.

This is why I like the frontier fort. +50% growth rate is huge and can let newly-settled cities catch up to the others very quickly, while simultaneously protecting them from attack. It has the potential to fundamentally change the way Washington plays throughout the entire game.

Your variation on Rhys' idea - gold from every specialist - is a good one, in that it's powerful, and that it should steer England in a certain direction. Given their other traits, it's not OP, either.

I've always really liked the Frontier Fort, and if we can't find an equivalent that works in a later era, would be very happy with that.

The German barb notion is a fat pitch that has been waiting six months for somebody to knock it out of the park.

I couldn't be more in favor of making the Leaders more distinct. I would keep in mind that it's a small and inexact poll; Arabia was my #6, and I play with Songhai and Spai some of the time. More to the point, some of the civs you mentioned changing strike me as among the most distinct of the bunch. Unless a civ is also UP, I wouldn't change any of the DLC civs, which were all clearly designed to stand out. Specifically:

It's generally agreed that Babylon is a top-echelon civ, with as specific an optimal path as any. They don't need a buff, or to be made more distinct. That seems to seriously narrow the reasons to change them.

The Mongols are also super-distinct, and I don't think anyone finds them UP. Your suggested change narrows their path, and makes them less devastating. In this case I think you might be forcing the optimal way to play a little too much (and similar to Songhai). But I'm not sure.

Spain is a boom-or-bust exploration civ. I would imagine that this goes against your preferred playing style, but it doesn't go against everyone's. Sometimes I am in just the mood for a roll of the dice where I wind up with either a borderline-OP situation, or with just a decent civ. Like all of the DLC, Spain is very distinct.* If that's what you're going for in general, then I'd consider leaving them alone as well.

However, there might be a sweet spot satisfactory to all that still makes exploration the way to go for Spain. This would be a Natural Wonder buff that pays less for being first, but more for being an also-ran, and that also buffs the bonus for settling near one.

Moving on to the others, your proposed buff to Rome wouldn't make them much more distinct, but it would make them better. It's a good idea, pushing them up to strong-power status. (A lot of what you're doing also raises many civ's games, which is al to the good.) Another way to go here is to drop the Ballista and buff their Workers.

The Songhai happen to strike me as pretty distinct, and definitely not UP. The science-temple proposal doesn't make them more distinct or more fun to play - just a little better. I'd view this as an okay but relatively minor change.