However ... in a normal civ game, financial has nothing to do with a specialist economy. The fact that GPP is directly related to financial is nothing short of the Aristograrian phenomenon.
well, first of all going to say it is not my intention to spoil anybody's fun. I do understand your suggestions.
but let's face it, it would be too easy to plan 3 or 4 Golden ages almost in a row - because each Golden age gives a boost to GP growth: You would not need many specialists.
So, yeah, it would not work. And I would feel sorry for the poor AI that would always fall behind, using financial or not.
While I highly dislike the 1-dimensional aspect of Aristograrian, I see no reason to remove it quite just yet ... at least in a mod that doesn't want drastic changes.
Because to me, changing Aristograrian in almost any way will lead to other game changes, and such a mod can no longer be considered merely "tweaking" things imho.
I did not say anything against that. But anyway the problem with Aristograrian is the tech advantage that gives to the financial leaders.
personally, if I knew anything about programming the only thing I would try to do would be to limit the number of tiles per city affected by the financial trait.
Something like 2 pop = 1 working fin tile, 4 pop = 2 working fin tiles, etc to mean that the advantage of the financial is related to the population, making Flauros (who has the best economic combo for the long run) not feast or whip like mad.
obviously, I'm not sure how it would work or even if it's possible (something tells me that it's too complicated), but in my head it sounds better than other drastic changes.
I would argue that the specialist economy is the best for big pop late game (non-fin), but in the middle game everybody needs those aristocratic farms (well, except the elves).
One thing I do think, however, is that even now a duo financial team will overtake a duo non-financial team economically. The question ... is if it would lead to defeat of the non-financial team statistically more than 50% of the time. I think probably yes, but it would be worth testing out in a game like FFH (where tech advantage is not always an I win button ... unlike Vanilla)
it would depend on the map. A barbarian leader that will spawn near the financial can choke him. If they spawn on different continents, well...
Speed is a major issue.
Quick speed hurts the warmongers. Troop movement has a hard time competing against the tech rate. While one is amassing troops and walking them over, someone else is already having better troops. It is true that better troops can lose to mass numbers (even to just bronze warriors sometimes), but it also doesn't take that long for the defender, if he's not sleeping, to get enough in time.
aristocratic farms accelerate the financial leaders a little bit too much for a barbarian leader to use their type of advantages in an effective way without an early choke.
And, in short, quick speed is not balanced for this game. it favors some traits, some civilizations and teching up.
I found complaints in some forums that say that such like the Clan and Doviello are hard to play and suck.
I would hardly make any changes to them. They are very strong and you just have to play their strengths.
The fact that some civilizations are easier to play does not matter. Easier to play in what settings, btw?
The lower the speed the more such war civilizations will rule and more the shy builders will moan.
Flauros or Beeri will not beat the barbarian leaders more than 50% of the time at normal speed assuming a balanced map (not erebus...).
(so, unless as a single player you can jog a ton of golden ages, it just wouldn't be possible in a teamer game, regardless of GPP non share)
)
