New Beta Version - June 9th (6/9)

[Funak]

Wouldn't this be a bit of an early setback as you'd quickly be swarmed by barbs? Personally I'd rather just have the production cost of pathfinders be reduced as they're really only useful early on and their value only diminishes as the game goes on.

I don't see how this stops you from building a warrior first in the place of the scout you build first these days. In fact since a warrior is cheaper it would even save you a few hammers.

It would also be a nerf for the Shoshone.

Maybe? But honestly it would just make more sense, as Shoshone starting with a pathfinder isn't mentioned anywhere in the UA.


It might end up a nerf for Aztecs, but maybe the Aztecs should still start with their UU?

 

[ElliotS]

If that's the case I'd like to see unlimited barb XP. (or at least a higher cap.)

Getting swarmed by barbs is so painful that you should at least get kick-ass troops out of it.

 

[Funak]

If that's the case I'd like to see unlimited barb XP. (or at least a higher cap.)

Getting swarmed by barbs is so painful that you should at least get kick-ass troops out of it.

I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with anything. How does starting with a warrior change how badly you're swarmed with barbs at all? It's not like a warrior can clear barbcamps or anything like that. In fact starting with a scout would marginally reduce the chance of a barb-camp spawning close by as you'd have slightly more vision on average.

 

[Charos]

If that's the case I'd like to see unlimited barb XP. (or at least a higher cap.)

Getting swarmed by barbs is so painful that you should at least get kick-ass troops out of it.

Yeah, this is one of the edits I always make after updating. I know the xp cap is to stop humans cheesing it by farming barb camps to make super soldiers, but I don't do that and I only play single player, so I uncapped it by setting the cap to - 1.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I agree with Funak. I'm in favour of all civs starting with a pathfinder. Even the Aztecs, this tinniest of nerfs wouldn't hurt them.

 

[cammcken]

Eh, I disabled the free AI recon, so I wouldn't care either way.

But on a similar topic, has anyone noticed how Authority conscription results have changed after this update? 4 / 5 conscripts I got after unlocking the policy were scouts.I didn't need them so just used them as garrisons (Same as spearmen). I only experienced it once, so I don't have much data. And I don't know what I think of this, just letting people know.

 

[tu_79]

If that's the case I'd like to see unlimited barb XP. (or at least a higher cap.)

Getting swarmed by barbs is so painful that you should at least get kick-ass troops out of it.

This was the case in the last patch, and it worked wonderfully. That high leveled unit wasn't so powerful, because what can do a better scout? After the first three levels of survivalism it doesn't hit any stronger. But better sight, more sources of XP and medic were good rewards for staying alive against those barbs. I wouldn't ask this for all units, only scout line.

My pathfinders still die too easily if sent alone to explore, specially if they can't upgrade to scout soon. I wish we had tried the squishy scout instead.

 

[Charos]

Eh, I disabled the free AI recon, so I wouldn't care either way.

Where in the mod files is this option? I'd like to try it out.

 

[CrazyG]

Starting with a pathfinder instead of a warrior sounds like something worth trying out in a beta.

Eh, I disabled the free AI recon, so I wouldn't care either way.

But on a similar topic, has anyone noticed how Authority conscription results have changed after this update? 4 / 5 conscripts I got after unlocking the policy were scouts.I didn't need them so just used them as garrisons (Same as spearmen). I only experienced it once, so I don't have much data. And I don't know what I think of this, just letting people know.

Happens to me as well. Scouts aren't so bad, but I wish I didn't get so many explorers

 

[ElliotS]

I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with anything. How does starting with a warrior change how badly you're swarmed with barbs at all? It's not like a warrior can clear barbcamps or anything like that. In fact starting with a scout would marginally reduce the chance of a barb-camp spawning close by as you'd have slightly more vision on average.

Because you'll need to spend hammers for warriors if you have an abundance of barbs, or save your hammers/gold and wait till spearmen if you don't. The people with many AI near them will know sooner and not need to build as many or any military units super-early, thus giving them a bigger advantage over those isolated and likely to be swarmed.

I mean I'd be for the unlimited XP change either way, but I think it's more important in this case.

 

[bigcat88]

I don't see much difference between pathfinder or warrior start. Cause if u will start with pathfinder u need warriors against barbs. The only difference - if near ur start city (2-5 turns) are CS or some ancient ruins -> pathfinder is better, cause he can do that fast and return back. And if there are a military CS and it will gift u a unit... so if u are lucky on map position and RNG generator -> pathfinder is better. All other ways I don't see the difference.

 

[intelli]

Whatever civ has Cooperation seems to usually be the leading AI player to the point of snowballing vs the others, presumably because AI is so good at prioritising growth?

 

[Txurce]

Because you'll need to spend hammers for warriors if you have an abundance of barbs, or save your hammers/gold and wait till spearmen if you don't.

You will always need a military unit vs barbs. I can't remember a game where I researched Bronze Working before having a barb hit my capital.

 

[Funak]

Because you'll need to spend hammers for warriors if you have an abundance of barbs, or save your hammers/gold and wait till spearmen if you don't. The people with many AI near them will know sooner and not need to build as many or any military units super-early, thus giving them a bigger advantage over those isolated and likely to be swarmed.

I mean I'd be for the unlimited XP change either way, but I think it's more important in this case.

And otherwise you need to spend hammers on pathfinder, assuming you're not planning to scout with your warrior (which kinda negates your other point).
Also if you're not building a pathfinder to scout out your surroundings you have no way of knowing if you're isolated or not

 

[ElliotS]

And otherwise you need to spend hammers on pathfinder, assuming you're not planning to scout with your warrior (which kinda negates your other point).
Also if you're not building a pathfinder to scout out your surroundings you have no way of knowing if you're isolated or not

The idea is that if you start with a pathfinder you'll be able to more accurately asses how many military units you'll need earlier, and thus save hammers.

Even if you don't agree with that premise, I'd really like barb XP to be raised to level 4, if not unlimited. It's not like Authority doesn't already benefit from farming barbs, though if some anti-farming methods were built in I'd be okay with that as well.

The more I play with friends the more I realize that being swarmed with Barbarians is really crippling, and I think the extra XP would both make it easier to dig yourself out of that hole with smart play, but give you a reward for doing so.

 

[CrazyG]

The more I play with friends the more I realize that being swarmed with Barbarians is really crippling, and I think the extra XP would both make it easier to dig yourself out of that hole with smart play, but give you a reward for doing so.

I feel like I've suggested reducing the penalties for being terrorized by barbarians like a billion times, but the response I always get is to play with chill barbs. You lose about a turn to turn and half of hammers if you get terrorized, even if you have a warrior able to immediately attack the barbarian unit you can still get terrorized twice. Getting terrorized 3 or more times can easily be game over if your start wasn't great to begin with

 

[Txurce]

I feel like I've suggested reducing the penalties for being terrorized by barbarians like a billion times, but the response I always get is to play with chill barbs. You lose about a turn to turn and half of hammers if you get terrorized, even if you have a warrior able to immediately attack the barbarian unit you can still get terrorized twice. Getting terrorized 3 or more times can easily be game over if your start wasn't great to begin with

I agree that there isn't even remotely a counter for some early barb swarms, which can certainly set you back.

The more I play with friends the more I realize that being swarmed with Barbarians is really crippling, and I think the extra XP would both make it easier to dig yourself out of that hole with smart play, but give you a reward for doing so.

This would help, although I don't know if it makes enough of a difference early, like CrazyG says.

 

[zeofig]

I'm in favour of the pathfinder start. I think it makes for more fun and flexible gameplay, and reduces the annoying phenomenon of the AI jacking all the ruins at higher difficulties. The pathfinder can be pretty effective against barbs too, once you get Survivalism I or II.

Another thing I think might be cool is if a few nearby ruins were revealed to the player at the start of the game. On immortal, I pretty much just restart if I don't get a couple of ruins, because it's so hard to get going without the +15 culture. This is especially a problem with progress, because you often want to delay growing your city to get the sweet science boosts and beeline some tier 2 tech, but if you are unlucky and don't get +15 culture then you have to delay growth for way too long.

Alternatively, would it be worth considering removing culture ruins entirely and making the first policy cheaper, if that's possible? I think doing this would really balance out different starts and make things less RNG. The other ruins bonuses are fine imo and are more interesting, while the +15 culture feels pretty mandatory, especially for progress without any culture tiles to work (even after it was nerfed from +30).

 

[ElliotS]

This would help, although I don't know if it makes enough of a difference early, like CrazyG says.

If you're in a high barb area and get terrorized 3 times that's like max 3 turns of hammers worst case scenario. (More than that is avoidable in 99.9% of cases.)

I'd trade 3 turns of hammers for a training ground for my early warriors. I think seeing your position, getting some leveled troops and using them for an early war advantage could work pretty well.

 

[bigcat88]

Even if you don't agree with that premise, I'd really like barb XP to be raised to level 4, if not unlimited.

I played on unlimited barb exp(450 exp cup) - the best tactics with such change - hunting pathfinders. 4 pathfinders(2+2) -> and barbs are crying. It's not very funny.
But increase some exp cup is a good idea. But not to much, imho.