NEVER Build Walls!

[Bandobras Took]

That's 2/5 of the things it does. The other 3/5 (culture boost, espionage boost, small economic boost) are also pointless compared to what you're giving up.

A Great Merchant?

There's no guarantee Free Market's going to do much if people are in Mercantilism; Castles give +1 Trade Routes anyway, so Corporation won't make much difference, and Assembly Line also requires Steam Power anyway.

So the only point of getting Economics early is to get a free Great Merchant.

If your game needs a free Great Merchant, you've probably got as many problems as somebody who needs a Castle's power graph boost.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

A Great Merchant?

There's no guarantee Free Market's going to do much if people are in Mercantilism; Castles give +1 Trade Routes anyway, so Corporation won't make much difference, and Assembly Line also requires Steam Power anyway.

So the only point of getting Economics early is to get a free Great Merchant.

If your game needs a free Great Merchant, you've probably got as many problems as somebody who needs a Castle's power graph boost.

This ignores so much that it's hard to take it seriously.

You give up:

1. Great merchant (possibly), and do note that with multipliers a mere trade mission can be 2000+ beakers easily. How long until your precious castles with their 1 trade route catch up? Before the end of the game? Before you want economics? Probably not. But let's not stop here.

2. Hammer investment into castles (very material, if you can't factor this into the consideration of castles, your argument instantly fell apart before it started).

3. Corp outdoes castles in every way w/o GLH

4. Infantry are among the best stack defenders in the entire game, if not THE best era-adjusted stack defenders in the game (they probably are). AL also opens up a strong boost (75%). You're going to skip all that to keep using...castles?!

5. The ability to run free market instead of castles, which is a far lower infra investment and may well provide diplo bonuses as well.

Any one of the above is plenty reason to lose the castle bonus quickly, and in practice most of them occur in normal, trades on games.

Or do you regularly build castles with > 100 turns left before you research economics on normal speed?

 

[obsolete]

multipliers a mere trade mission can be 2000+ beakers easily.

It's not just gaining 2K beakers, it's also denying those same beakers to your opponents. So count it as 4K.

Anyway, it seems apparent that Took is the sort of expert player who will delay techs like sci-method until the AI has Fibre-Optics. It is common sense if you think about it, because why let your Obelisks expire? He's an expert at milking your buildings for every penny that he can, for as long as he can. Why waist that extra FREE culture that comes, without having to pay extra troop support!

Anyway, I'm definitely looking forward to some of his games if he gets around them. I'm sure I can learn a thing or two about raping the AI through expirey-stalling tactics.

So Took... when can we look forward this this?

 

[PieceOfMind]

Since you guys are the experts on (the uselessness of) castles, perhaps you can comment on the changes I have made in PIG mod.

• Castles now obsolete with Steel.
• Walls get +25% trade route yield.

And these things might affect it as well:

In addition to their existing prereqs,

• Paper requires Machinery
• Education requires Construction

I have not tested the two tech prereq changes and I'm nowhere near a final decision on those two changes.

 

[PieceOfMind]

It's not just gaining 2K beakers, it's also denying those same beakers to your opponents. So count it as 4K.

To be fair, you can only really call it 4K relative to the opponent who otherwise would have gotten the free merchant. Against everyone else the relative loss is only 2K. Unless you are doing something like taking trades into account?

 

[The Almighty dF]

Since you guys are the experts on (the uselessness of) castles, perhaps you can comment on the changes I have made in PIG mod.

• Castles now obsolete with Steel.
• Walls get +25% trade route yield.

And these things might affect it as well:

In addition to their existing prereqs,

• Paper requires Machinery
• Education requires Construction

I have not tested the two tech prereq changes and I'm nowhere near a final decision on those two changes.

I'm against the trade route yield bonus to walls, I can't really see that making sense.
Just making castles not obsolete early on makes walls better.
Maybe give them a bonus? "We know we're safe because we have walls"

 

[PieceOfMind]

I'm against the trade route yield bonus to walls, I can't really see that making sense.

Do you mean from a realism point of view?
The idea, I guess, is that a city's resources are less likely to be plundered, or that a city that is well secured is more likely to attract merchants to sell goods and so forth. Or even that travellers along that trade route are more likely to stop by in the city for a day or whatever, spending their money into the local economy. Keep in mind the wall's bonus still obsoletes with rifling.

Just making castles not obsolete early on makes walls better.
Maybe give them a bonus? "We know we're safe because we have walls"

The 25% trade route yield will have little impact early on in the game where trade routes yield only about 1 each. Giving them +1 instead might make them a bit too good. They cost 50, compared with the temple's 80.

The other reason I like the +25% trade route modifier is that it is giving a small economic boost to Protective leaders. That boost is very small but at least it exists.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Since you guys are the experts on (the uselessness of) castles, perhaps you can comment on the changes I have made in PIG mod.

• Castles now obsolete with Steel.
• Walls get +25% trade route yield.

And these things might affect it as well:

In addition to their existing prereqs,

• Paper requires Machinery
• Education requires Construction

I have not tested the two tech prereq changes and I'm nowhere near a final decision on those two changes.

Castles would probably remain a bad investment.

Walls, on the other hand, would vary from "not worth it" to " "decent priority".

For example, isolated empires with GLH would want them in every coastal city they had, since they're cheap (a bit worse than harbors on a hammer basis, though BETTER for protective or civs with stone).

Your changes still wouldn't discourage the lib path. The reason castles suck remain the tech pre-req being something the AI beelines just about 100% of the time. Moving their uselessness to steel probably wouldn't help much - steel is one of the most powerful in-era war techs in the game and anybody planning a serious offensive would take it ASAP. It might get delayed a bit longer than economics on occasion but the chances of a good ROI on castles doesn't appear to vary by enough...

 

[PieceOfMind]

Castles would probably remain a bad investment.

Walls, on the other hand, would vary from "not worth it" to " "decent priority".

For example, isolated empires with GLH would want them in every coastal city they had, since they're cheap (a bit worse than harbors on a hammer basis, though BETTER for protective or civs with stone).

Your changes still wouldn't discourage the lib path. The reason castles suck remain the tech pre-req being something the AI beelines just about 100% of the time. Moving their uselessness to steel probably wouldn't help much - steel is one of the most powerful in-era war techs in the game and anybody planning a serious offensive would take it ASAP. It might get delayed a bit longer than economics on occasion but the chances of a good ROI on castles doesn't appear to vary by enough...

Even despite the fact that to be able to research Education you'd also be able to tech Engineering? If you are not beelining cannons, you can now tech economics and Assembly line while castles are still functional. That's a pretty significant improvement IMO. Of course, if cannons are such a high priority then it will be an economic sacrifice, which helps to balance out the power of cannons anyway.

Remembering that with stone or Protective, castles are already a lot cheaper than libraries, I can't agree that castles would be a poor investment for that time period. The tech prereq changes I mentioned above will slow down the rate at which you can research Liberalism as well. Consider how the great scientist bulb priorities will change because of having to tech Metal Casting and Machinery, in case you didn't already.

Regarding the GLH and its trade routes, +25% from the walls is not going to do anything on a 1 trade route unless you've got +75% trade routes from something else.

Considering that the +25% is always off the base yield, even offshore cities you settle which get the trade route modifier for being overseas still wouldn't get an immediate benefit from the wall, unless their base value increased enough (the cities would have to be big enough).

In other words, I'm wondering whether you were taking this into account TMIT? I can't see walls being a high priority very early on for the trade route modifier. Maybe in a large classical-era-or-later city or the capital, but that is not so bad, and that is where I'd like walls to gain more economic utility anyway.

EDIT... One final thing. I am of course also trying to do my best not to overpower castles. I want to make the castles a good alternative strategy but not necessarily the strongest. Most of the changes I make in this mod are supposed to follow that rule. In other words, addressing the balance - not tipping the balance.

 

[DanF5771]

Regarding the GLH and its trade routes, +25% from the walls is not going to do anything on a 1 trade route unless you've got +75% trade routes from something else.

50% for Harbor + 25% for being connected to the capital --> Walls can make trade route yields for a single city jump from 4 to 8 = that's some ROI, especially for Mao.

Castles obsoleting @ Steel takes all the oomph away from Izzy's Cannons .

 

[PieceOfMind]

50% for Harbor + 25% for being connected to the capital --> Walls can make trade route yields for a single city jump from 4 to 8 = that's some ROI, especially for Mao.

True, but it's not exactly the walls doing the heavy lifting there.

Do you think giving the walls the +25% is too much? I'm not sure whether you have an opinion on it. I am looking for feedback, or alternatives, after all. I could make it +20% instead.

Castles obsoleting @ Steel takes all the oomph away from Izzy's Cannons .

All part of the plan!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Even despite the fact that to be able to research Education you'd also be able to tech Engineering? If you are not beelining cannons, you can now tech economics and Assembly line while castles are still functional. That's a pretty significant improvement IMO. Of course, if cannons are such a high priority then it will be an economic sacrifice, which helps to balance out the power of cannons anyway.

The problem is AI tech priority. You go engineering, you might not be able to trade it at all. You go education, you get to bulb it and even if you don't you're likely able to trade it for an effective 100%-200% beaker effective value over teching engineering. Trades are the greatest multiplier in any game where they're allowed. With trades off, the math likely changes (and you want to stay alive, so prolly engineering).

Remembering that with stone or Protective, castles are already a lot cheaper than libraries, I can't agree that castles would be a poor investment for that time period. The tech prereq changes I mentioned above will slow down the rate at which you can research Liberalism as well. Consider how the great scientist bulb priorities will change because of having to tech Metal Casting and Machinery, in case you didn't already.

Machinery is open for trade in the early ADs at the latest on the higher difficulties. Sometimes, even BCs. A lot of players would (will) just trade for it easily, after partial research or whatever.

libraries themselves are bad investments in non-commerce/scientist spec cities, although needing them for oxford makes them more common too.

Regarding the GLH and its trade routes, +25% from the walls is not going to do anything on a 1 trade route unless you've got +75% trade routes from something else.

I know that, but I gave the isolated empire example for a reason: your base trade is going to be quite high. Enough to invoke the bonus.

EDIT... One final thing. I am of course also trying to do my best not to overpower castles. I want to make the castles a good alternative strategy but not necessarily the strongest. Most of the changes I make in this mod are supposed to follow that rule. In other words, addressing the balance - not tipping the balance.

It's hard because the typical behavior required to succeed gives castles a small window. I think maybe even pushing back their obsolete tech quite far would be best (for the economic side). This would make AI behavior a little more viable and give castles a reason to be built ahead of alternatives that usually exist in that time period...although the science multipliers and so forth will STILL often win out.

 

[The Snug]

Do you mean from a realism point of view?
The idea, I guess, is that a city's resources are less likely to be plundered, or that a city that is well secured is more likely to attract merchants to sell goods and so forth. Or even that travellers along that trade route are more likely to stop by in the city for a day or whatever, spending their money into the local economy. Keep in mind the wall's bonus still obsoletes with rifling.



The 25% trade route yield will have little impact early on in the game where trade routes yield only about 1 each. Giving them +1 instead might make them a bit too good. They cost 50, compared with the temple's 80.

The other reason I like the +25% trade route modifier is that it is giving a small economic boost to Protective leaders. That boost is very small but at least it exists.

Generally speaking, castles were regional seats of power presided over by a high-ranking official, and were indeed symbols of power designed to deter raids from outside influences (read: Ragnar, bandits, hostile neighboring potentates, etc...). The military strength and stability coupled with the very presence of a wealthy administrative aristocrat naturally attracted merchants. Castles subsequently became centers of commerce; reflected in the game by the bonus trade route. Hence, adding an additional 25% doesn't seem that unreasonable as it simply further reflects and underscores the aristocratic presence and precedence.

As to a GM, it sure seems risky to me to gamble on being the first to discover it, especially with 50 other civs out there. I suppose the person that wishes to argue against me here will simply assure me that they are easily the first to the Oracle, to Liberalism, to every religion, every free GP and every corp in the game, which I suppose must be a very satisfying feeling to possess--even though they must naturally be playing the game on settler level.

Besides, all of this talk regarding castles as being foolhardy simply bcz Engineering is a worthless tech to pursue seem disingenuous to me. I find the extra movement to be game-breaking for me in increasing my mobility, and I find a stack of Trebs to be killer in offensives and Pikemen essential in stopping El's and knights. There is more to Engineering than simply castles. It is not a dead-end worthless tech, especially if one is engaged in war, and by this time of the game I usually am. I find that if I skip it, I will usually rue that decision when my armies can't move, and I'm getting run-over by fast-moving enemies. There are valid military concerns to consider here too, rather than simply economic ones (which castles do address, in their own fashion).

I had the unusual, and interesting happenstance last week, where I had an ice civ marginalized into the very north, whose economy derived 80% from foreign trade. Castles figured prominently into that 80%.

 

[The Snug]

It's hard because the typical behavior required to succeed gives castles a small window. I think maybe even pushing back their obsolete tech quite far would be best (for the economic side). This would make AI behavior a little more viable and give castles a reason to be built ahead of alternatives that usually exist in that time period...although the science multipliers and so forth will STILL often win out.

Only if the base commerce is already very high. And generally speaking, your capital is going to produce the majority of your science and with it running bureaucracy, there shouldn't be any reason that your capital can't whip out a (especially with stone) castle so fast that it wouldn't be more than a blip on your radar. I mean, what's a turn or two? You can easily sandwich that castle in between an observatory and university.

In the remainder of your cities, which will most likely not be commerce rich (unless you're just a real CE freak), a castle will do a great deal more for you than a very expensive university or observatory. Talk about long build times offsetting the potential value to your civ, these warrant more discussion than castles. For a hammer and SE hybrid guy like me, castles do more for my economy as my trade routes are so good.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Machinery is open for trade in the early ADs at the latest on the higher difficulties. Sometimes, even BCs. A lot of players would (will) just trade for it easily, after partial research or whatever.

libraries themselves are bad investments in non-commerce/scientist spec cities, although needing them for oxford makes them more common too.

Out of curiosity, what would they trade for Machinery? Civil service I'm guessing.

I know that, but I gave the isolated empire example for a reason: your base trade is going to be quite high. Enough to invoke the bonus.

By base trade do you mean number of trade routes? Wouldn't the isolated empire example have the lowest base trade (for each trade route) due to being not connected to any foreign cities?

It's hard because the typical behavior required to succeed gives castles a small window. I think maybe even pushing back their obsolete tech quite far would be best (for the economic side). This would make AI behavior a little more viable and give castles a reason to be built ahead of alternatives that usually exist in that time period...although the science multipliers and so forth will STILL often win out.

That's ok, they don't necessarily need to come before the science multipliers, they just need to be a more viable alternative.

Is there something else that would help lessen the strength of the typical way to succeed?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Out of curiosity, what would they trade for Machinery? Civil service I'm guessing.

Indeed, CS and Philosophy are probably common. I've seen (and started to occasionally mimic since the people doing it did so on deity) getting music 1st for the great artist also, and music can trade into both CS and machinery fairly easily.

By base trade do you mean number of trade routes? Wouldn't the isolated empire example have the lowest base trade (for each trade route) due to being not connected to any foreign cities?

Of course you hold off on the walls until you meet AIs . Though if someone guns the astro bulb that can be pretty early using bulbs...! Any other situation with a lot of foreign, coastal trade is potentially applicable as well. What I'm saying is that they'd actually be decently useful to build with your change, although somewhat awkward as they may get built in cities less in need of the military aspect in SP .

Is there something else that would help lessen the strength of the typical way to succeed?

Variance in AI tech path. I dont think the AIs should go skipping feudalism or something, but what if more of them were willing to go edu-----> lib for example? Maybe with a check of "#'s of civs contacted > 2" or something so they could trade for some defense. Pulling the free tech off lib, changing tech costs, or re-working the strength of gold multipliers (similar tech line) are options too, but I'd be the first to point out the difficulty in balancing those changes easily.

Only if the base commerce is already very high. And generally speaking, your capital is going to produce the majority of your science and with it running bureaucracy, there shouldn't be any reason that your capital can't whip out a (especially with stone) castle so fast that it wouldn't be more than a blip on your radar. I mean, what's a turn or two? You can easily sandwich that castle in between an observatory and university.

Such a capitol would also need to build oxford as a priority. As for other cities, they need library/uni until you can build oxford, and at least some of them are going to be on units.

I guess putting a castle up in the capitol is OK if you have spare hammers+stone though, since the Bur. bonus is multiplicative with commerce and all.

 

[Bandobras Took]

This ignores so much that it's hard to take it seriously.

You give up:

1. Great merchant (possibly), and do note that with multipliers a mere trade mission can be 2000+ beakers easily. How long until your precious castles with their 1 trade route catch up? Before the end of the game? Before you want economics? Probably not. But let's not stop here.

Well, assuming I'm building castles after researching Economics . . . oh, wait.

2. Hammer investment into castles (very material, if you can't factor this into the consideration of castles, your argument instantly fell apart before it started).

do note that with multipliers

Yes, buildings are a hammer investment. Libraries, Universities, and Observatories are hammer investments.

3. Corp outdoes castles in every way w/o GLH

Well, assuming I'm building castles after researching Corporation . . . oh, wait.

4. Infantry are among the best stack defenders in the entire game, if not THE best era-adjusted stack defenders in the game (they probably are). AL also opens up a strong boost (75%). You're going to skip all that to keep using...castles?!

Since I also need Steam Power to get assembly line, why can I not head for Steam Power first, and maybe snag Railroad anyway for greater mobility for my troops?

5. The ability to run free market instead of castles, which is a far lower infra investment and may well provide diplo bonuses as well.

Assuming the other AIs are in Free Market and not mercantilism.

And, well, if I started building castles around the time I researched Economics . . . oh, wait.

Any one of the above is plenty reason to lose the castle bonus quickly, and in practice most of them occur in normal, trades on games.

In normal, trades on games, Axemen become obsolete quickly. Therefore it's worthless to build Axemen, correct?

Or do you regularly build castles with > 100 turns left before you research economics on normal speed?

Actually, I adapt my game to the map. It can be surprising to hear that, given that everybody apparently researches the exact same techs in the exact same order and trades the exact same way every game. If the situation has called for Espionage, I've likely built Castles for some extra points while also getting a bit more culture in a city, an extra Trade Route, and some security in a border town.

Anyway, it seems apparent that Took is the sort of expert player who will delay techs like sci-method until the AI has Fibre-Optics. It is common sense if you think about it, because why let your Obelisks expire? He's an expert at milking your buildings for every penny that he can, for as long as he can. Why waist that extra FREE culture that comes, without having to pay extra troop support!

Perhaps someday, with hard work, I can become the expert player who thinks that Economics is the only worthwhile tech in the entire game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The issue isn't that castles are worthless, BT. It's that in the vast majority of standard games, other options are better investments because they offer better returns or last longer than castles.

Yes, castles suck even if you build them before you reach the techs that obsolete them. Frequently even if you don't prioritize them. Try to come up with arguments to the point that very important techs obsolete them, rather than dancing around the issue with sarcastic (and worthless) retorts.

If you go steam power first on normal speed, for example, then tech AL, that's still < 100 turns (unless you're teching slowly? Then WHY are you teching slowly? If it's for war, you better not be building castles, but rather units), even if you tech economics as late as possible while still beelining AL. So rather than bring non-issues into this discussion, why not demonstrate a few typical game situations where building castles is actually a superior investment to everything else that city can build in terms of returns? I doubt you'll manage w/o special settings, but it would be interesting.

If you can come up with some sound math in terms of what turn you typically complete castles, and what turn you obsolete them w/o major concessions, maybe the body of evidence given by high level play over several years can be weakened enough to consider castles viable under the current rules.

If you can do that, maybe you can learn a thing or two, and not miss the point with ignorance like:

In normal, trades on games, Axemen become obsolete quickly. Therefore it's worthless to build Axemen, correct?

Axemen, if used to capture cities, offer a high ROI (more cities, less future competition). Our point here is that castles do not. By the way, if you build a pile of axemen and then don't use them in battle, they were indeed something ranging from "poor choice" to *very* worthless...over-priced HR garrisons at BEST, maintenance and vicious opportunity cost at worst.

 

[Bandobras Took]

The issue isn't that castles are worthless, BT. It's that in the vast majority of standard games, other options are better investments because they offer better returns or last longer than castles.

Yes, castles suck even if you build them before you reach the techs that obsolete them. Frequently even if you don't prioritize them. Try to come up with arguments to the point that very important techs obsolete them, rather than dancing around the issue with sarcastic (and worthless) retorts.

Very important techs obsolete them, but they aren't the only techs on the tech tree. If you're researching something else to give you an advantage, what's the worry?

If you can come up with some sound math in terms of what turn you typically complete castles, and what turn you obsolete them w/o major concessions, maybe the body of evidence given by high level play over several years can be weakened enough to consider castles viable under the current rules.

I would like a body of evidence from high-level play. It would certainly be better than stuff like:

Anyway, it seems apparent that Took is the sort of expert player who will delay techs like sci-method until the AI has Fibre-Optics. It is common sense if you think about it, because why let your Obelisks expire?

The next time Scientific Method obsoletes Obelisks, I'll happily pay attention. In the meantime, I'll play Civ IV, where Obelisks and even Monuments obsolete with Astronomy. I also wouldn't mind it if high-level play was equivalent to accurate posts instead of sarcastic ones.

Now a question -- how many times have people tried getting castles early and keeping them going?

 

[kochman]

You guys are kind of arguing the same point, yet arguing against each other

Castles/Walls have their uses, but are generally only to be applied when defense pushes them into importance, rather than just the other concerns which don't really stack up to too much of significance.