New Beta Version - October 23rd (10-23)

[pineappledan]

I'll note that this scenario is not necessarily a bad one. For example there are UUs in the game whose traits pass on, and UUs that don't. Both have uses. So the idea of a UI that is replaced towards the end game is not necessarily a bad thing, granted its clearly weaker than a UI that never needs to be replaced, but there is still the possibility of balance with this kind of agribusiness bump.

I completely disagree.

UUs obsolete, but UIs are given in the same slot as a UB, and UBs are definitionally better than the base building they replace. If nothing else, all UBs give at least some base yields over their base building. If UIs obsolete via being made worse than a base improvement, then that civ is worse off than any civ with a UB, because they are functionally playing with no unique infrastructure bonus once the base tile improvements overtake their unique component

to put it another way, you are arguing that a civ with a weaker UI will simply have to have a strong enough UA to carry them through the late game, after all their other unit and improvement bonuses are cast aside. They will have to still go toe to toe with civs whose unique market or aqueduct will never revert to a lesser version of itself, after all.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I'll note that this scenario is not necessarily a bad one. For example there are UUs in the game whose traits pass on, and UUs that don't. Both have uses. So the idea of a UI that is replaced towards the end game is not necessarily a bad thing, granted its clearly weaker than a UI that never needs to be replaced, but there is still the possibility of balance with this kind of agribusiness bump.

Sure, but to be honest I've always found UUs that don't pass their traits on less fun than those who do - and I feel similarly about UIs. Using the unique elements of your civ to your advantage feels good - that's what makes playing different civs interesting, that there are little differences in how you play. I say that as long as it's not unbalanced we should be trying to make the unique elements as interesting - and useful as possible. Why have something designed to go obsolete when it could just as easily not? Also saves on building over stuff with other stuff, which I find a bit tedious myself.

Edit: Granted, something that gives a big impact during a certain era and then moves on is fine. My concern with UIs though is that it makes gameplay more complex in a way that's non-intuitive. Using the benefits of a civ well becomes more difficult when 'should I be using my UI here or a farm' becomes a genuine question. Although I'm not against complex gameplay, I think questions like that should stay relatively simple. Otherwise on large maps it can become all you do with your time.

On that note, I've relatively happy with the Encampment (partly because I play with the events mod) but I think the Terrace Farm in particular could use a buff and it wouldn't hurt Eki to have a small one too. I don't think the civs themselves are underpowered - they actually perform relatively well in my games at the moment. But some UIs seem better than others, and I'm not just talking about those that turn up early-game compared to those that turn up mid-game.

 

[Gazebo]

farms get 1 from the fertilizer tech and potential 33 from agribusiness. Imperialism’s 21 farm boost is dependent on your culture output, of course, but can come around the same time very easily, being the 3rd policy in the tree. That can mean each farm can gain 7-10 yields in the space of a few turns.

Unique tile improvements are not, strictly speaking, straightforward boosts to a replaced building, like UBs or UNWs are. They need to be better than possible tile improvements that might go on that tile instead. If a 10 yield steroid is going to be given to a base improvement in industrial, then UIs that compete for that flat tile space, need to keep up or a player has an incentive to remove/replace their civ’s unique component with better tiles, either by replacing them with farms directly, or placing GP tiles on the valid tiles instead for UIs, in order to make room for farm triangles, and to preserve the pasture resources.

perhaps Hotels and airports could give all UIs a relevant steroid, like +2 to that UI’s main yields?
For example, hotels could give:
Terrace farm: 22
Moai: 22
Eki: 22
Or some other bonus to keep UIs in that space where they are stronger than base tile improvements, but weaker than GPTIs. This contributes to yet more yield bloat, but if the agribusiness is going to give 6 yields to a common improvement, then UIs need something so they don’t become dead weight.

Stalker already noted this, but I don't personally believe that a UI should be 100% better than all other tile improvements all game. Even UBs, though eclipsing their replacements, are not a superior building relative to all other buildings for the duration of a game.

G

 

[Stalker0]

you are arguing that a civ with a weaker UI will simply have to have a strong enough UA to carry them through the late game, after all their other unit and improvement bonuses are cast aside. They will have to still go toe to toe with civs whose unique market or aqueduct will never revert to a lesser version of itself, after all.

You got it. That's exactly what I am saying (though I think there are civs with both UIs and UBs as well...I think). Now, is that the current balance with Civs...probably not, and if this version stands it might require some adjustment. Do I think such an adjustment is possible...I certainly do. Do I think this is the right way to go...as I stated before I'm on the fence.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Stalker already noted this, but I don't personally believe that a UI should be 100% better than all other tile improvements all game. Even UBs, though eclipsing their replacements, are not a superior building relative to all other buildings for the duration of a game.

G

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. The idea is just that they be better than comparable tile improvements. I know that's vague because there are so many factors to consider, but for example a farm with two adjacent farms, a mine, or a single lumber mill/logging camp.

Most UIs come with a restriction on where you can build them - so it's not like people are never going to build anything else. The example I posted has villages, UIs, farms, a mine, and a logging camp working in harmony together.

Obviously great person tile improvements are going to outperform UIs, as are certain villages e.g. those on city connections with caravans passing over them. Or if you invest in things that are geared towards particular types of improvements e.g. Churches, Goddess of Renewal etc.

 

[pineappledan]

Even UBs, though eclipsing their replacements, are not a superior building relative to all other buildings for the duration of a game.

As an example, UNWs are probably the easiest way of demonstrating my point.

the assyrian royal library gives 3 to all libraries in all cities, in addition to many other large bonuses (more XP, free GW, free library). Overall it’s global yield steroid is the weakest of any UNW, and low by UB standards, so we can try to consider it in a vacuum since it is a comparably low bar. In order to match that low bar, a civ with a UI needs to be able to leverage that component, such that they get the equivalent of +3 worth of extra yields per city per turn In perpetuity. Creating a situation where base improvements create a defined window, and balancing perpetual UB/UNW yields vs ephemeral Uai yields sounds both difficult and frustrating. Failing all other bonuses, a UB always, ALWAYS guarantees 2-7 yields per city, every turn, in perpetuity. If a UI can’t match that then that better be one hell of a UA.

If UIs are submerged and obsolesce, that doesn’t seem interesting, either for balance or for engagement. I don’t want to go around stripping my civ of its unique cultural signifier in industrial, that removes the character from that civ, and homogenizes the late game.

I want my space-age Shoshone tipis, thank you very much. I don’t want to live in a world where Polders - already a low tier UI - asserts itself for only 2-3 eras, and then all those river tiles are replaced with plain-Jane farms.

 

[Gazebo]

As an example, UNWs are probably the easiest way of demonstrating my point.

the assyrian royal library gives 3 to all libraries in all cities, in addition to many other large bonuses (more XP, free GW, free library). Overall it’s global yield steroid is the weakest of any UNW, and low by UB standards, so we can try to consider it in a vacuum since it is a comparably low bar. In order to match that low bar, a civ with a UI needs to be able to leverage that component, such that they get the equivalent of +3 worth of extra yields per city per turn In perpetuity. Creating a situation where base improvements create a defined window, and balancing perpetual UB/UNW yields vs ephemeral Uai yields sounds both difficult and frustrating. Failing all other bonuses, a UB always, ALWAYS guarantees 2-7 yields per city, every turn, in perpetuity. If a UI can’t match that then that better be one hell of a UA.

If UIs are submerged and obsolesce, that doesn’t seem interesting, either for balance or for engagement. I don’t want to go around stripping my civ of its unique cultural signifier in industrial, that removes the character from that civ, and homogenizes the late game.

I want my space-age Shoshone tipis, thank you very much. I don’t want to live in a world where Polders - already a low tier UI - asserts itself for only 2-3 eras, and then all those river tiles are replaced with plain-Jane farms.

It is a matter of balance, yes. But keep in mind that UIs scale a bit differently than buildings - the number you can place is map-dependent, both map size and map type.

I also believe that if someone decides to go all-in on farms, they should be rewarded for it.

G

 

[Guynemer]

I think the point is that it is never the wrong choice to build your unique building everywhere you can.

But if you have a UI instead of a UB, it is NOT an optimal strategy to build it everywhere you can, and that leaves the UI Civs feeling a bit underpowered in comparison.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Stalker already noted this, but I don't personally believe that a UI should be 100% better than all other tile improvements all game. Even UBs, though eclipsing their replacements, are not a superior building relative to all other buildings for the duration of a game.

G

Major difference:
Buildings are not competing with each other (some exclude each other, but are in most cases on par in power)
Its not like I build the market first and then have to demolish it to construct a lighthouse, cause later in the game the impact of the lighthouse is greater than the market. A UB is always better than its counterpart, and its better the whole game, not only an era.

With such yield explosions like agribusiness or wind/hydro plant, you only fight symptoms, but not the problems.
You asked, "is it not odd to you that farms and pastures go unworked in the modern era?" and I say, there are 2 simple answers:
1. Growth in later stages of the game isnt rewarded. Everywhere pop up instant yields from several buildings and policies. Single GP can deliver thousand of times the amount of yields a simple citizen or even specialist can deliver. The amount of yields your citizens/specialists deliver goes more and more into the direction of a quarter of your empire. The former core of yield generation, working a tile gets more and more worthless, and I find that sad.
2. Look at the yield progression of the standard improvements without any policies and non-core buildings:
Lumbermill on forest: +1 >>>>> +61
Logging camp: +1 >>>>> +5+1+1
Village (with railway+trade route): +21 >>>>> +4+6+1
Mine +1 >>>>> +7
And now on the Farm: +1 >>>>> +4 (+5 with river)

I know, you can use adjactancy bonuses, but this isnt always possible. The yield increase over the length of the game is much smaller than by any other improvement.
I would suggest buffing the base food output of the farm to +2, independent if on river or not AND give an additional bonus for farms to a building or technology. Lumbermills should also lose 1 cause they are in my eyes extremly overperforming, especially in comparison versus logging camps.

 

[Gazebo]

Major difference:
Buildings are not competing with each other (some exclude each other, but are in most cases on par in power)
Its not like I build the market first and then have to demolish it to construct a lighthouse, cause later in the game the impact of the lighthouse is greater than the market. A UB is always better than its counterpart, and its better the whole game, not only an era.

With such yield explosions like agribusiness or wind/hydro plant, you only fight symptoms, but not the problems.
You asked, "is it not odd to you that farms and pastures go unworked in the modern era?" and I say, there are 2 simple answers:
1. Growth in later stages of the game isnt rewarded. Everywhere pop up instant yields from several buildings and policies. Single GP can deliver thousand of times the amount of yields a simple citizen or even specialist can deliver. The amount of yields your citizens/specialists deliver goes more and more into the direction of a quarter of your empire. The former core of yield generation, working a tile gets more and more worthless, and I find that sad.
2. Look at the yield progression of the standard improvements without any policies and non-core buildings:
Lumbermill on forest: +1 >>>>> +61
Logging camp: +1 >>>>> +5+1+1
Village (with railway+trade route): +21 >>>>> +4+6+1
Mine +1 >>>>> +7
And now on the Farm: +1 >>>>> +4 (+5 with river)

I know, you can use adjactancy bonuses, but this isnt always possible. The yield increase over the length of the game is much smaller than by any other improvement.
I would suggest buffing the base food output of the farm to +2, independent if on river or not AND give an additional bonus for farms to a building or technology. Lumbermills should also lose 1 cause they are in my eyes extremly overperforming, especially in comparison versus logging camps.

I don't think putting more food on the farm is the solution. I think rewarding the already-sizable food bonuses possible from farms with some alternative yields is the key.

G

 

[Gazebo]

I think the point is that it is never the wrong choice to build your unique building everywhere you can.

But if you have a UI instead of a UB, it is NOT an optimal strategy to build it everywhere you can, and that leaves the UI Civs feeling a bit underpowered in comparison.

UI is only one part of a civ's power.

G

 

[pineappledan]

Yeah. It’s one of three.

I’m astounded it’s come to arguing for/against any civ with a UI being reduced to their UA in modern. I thought this debate was why Mongolia’s UA was extended to armor units, so we didn’t have obsoleting bonuses outside the UUs. I thought extending UU obsoleting until the unit after it upgrades was so we could have more time with a civ’s unique components. Implementing a UI obsoletion, and then defending it specifically as a valid design choice, seems at odds with how the mod has treated Uniques up to this point.

what is the reason NOT to boost UIs with more than that single ideology boost, or reel farms back in? Why do farms NEED to be worked so badly in late game that it justifies 7 yields on a single tech, with another 5 optional ones on policies?

 

[Gazebo]

Yeah. It’s one of three.

I’m astounded it’s come to arguing for/against any civ with a UI being reduced to their UA in modern. I thought this debate was why Mongolia’s UA was extended to armor units, so we didn’t have obsoleting bonuses outside the UUs. I thought extending UU obsoleting until the unit after it upgrades was so we could have more time with a civ’s unique components. Implementing a UI obsoletion, and then defending it specifically as a valid design choice, seems at odds with how the mod has treated Uniques up to this point.

what is the reason NOT to boost UIs with more than that single ideology boost, or reel farms back in? Why do farms NEED to be worked so badly in late game that it justifies 7 yields on a single tech, with another 5 optional ones on policies?

It's not a cut-and-dry scenario, you're blowing this way out of proportion. The existence of a buff to farms does not suddenly invalidate UIs. Besides, this is all napkin math - let's see some actual in-game utility here before we burn down the castle.

G

 

[Moi Magnus]

It's not a cut-and-dry scenario, you're blowing this way out of proportion. The existence of a buff to farms does not suddenly invalidate UIs. Besides, this is all napkin math - let's see some actual in-game utility here before we burn down the castle.

G

By the way, is "farm adjacency bonuses" something that can easily be buffed by buildings? Or would it required new code?
Because if the problem is that peoples fear farm are becoming universally good, we could change Agribusiness to "+1 and +1 to farms, and an additional +1 and +1 for every two farms adjacent". So that a farm would need 4 other adjacent farms to get this +3/+3, hence quite circumstantial.

 

[Bromar1]

It's not a cut-and-dry scenario, you're blowing this way out of proportion. The existence of a buff to farms does not suddenly invalidate UIs. Besides, this is all napkin math - let's see some actual in-game utility here before we burn down the castle.

G

Yeah, I don't fully understand why everyone is so fixated on farms. Am I the only one who realizes how powerful pastures are now? Horse pasture is gonna be something like 2f8p3g2s with monopoly, better than a manufactory in some cases.

I think what might smooth out some edge case issues might be to lower the bonus slightly and spread it to more resources. Maybe +2prod/+2gold on fish (Not fishing boats), pastures, deer and bison camps, banana plantations, and wheat farms. This would specifically exclude GPTI and luxuries. Also, since you can't build farms etc on these bonus resources, none of these tiles would interfere with prime real estate or farm triangles

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I also believe that if someone decides to go all-in on farms, they should be rewarded for it.

And..... why?
Going all-in for one type of yield in a city is punished with unhappiness, and this is fully intended, why should it be the complete opposite with farms?
I also have never heard that countries with majority of farmers are able to deliver a great production output. What does those farmers collect on their farms, making them able to build universities and power plants faster than a mineral rich country full of mines?

I don't think putting more food on the farm is the solution. I think rewarding the already-sizable food bonuses possible from farms with some alternative yields is the key.

If more food for farms isnt the solution, why do we have then food for farms as an ideology tenet? Or a policy in the imperialism branch?
You are wrong, more food on farms would make it more lucrative to work those and get more population. Thats what farms are for. Getting more food would mean my citizen is working more efficient and its less attractive to use this citizen as specialist or on a lumber mill. If your conclusion is true, I wouldnt need any lumbermill or logging camp, I could cut everything and simply plant farms everywhere, cause an absolutly unrestricted, no-brainer improvement would give more yields than some which need special conditions.

The existence of a buff to farms does not suddenly invalidate UIs

Every farm will be more efficiant than the netherlands UI Polder and the Huns UI Eki (except eki giving 1 ), which have placement restrictions.
In allmost all cases better than the Inca UI terrace farm.
Comparable with the Shoshone UI Encampment or the Morocco UI Kasbah, but only cause those also give culture/science.

By the way, is "farm adjacency bonuses" something that can easily be buffed by buildings? Or would it required new code?
Because if the problem is that peoples fear farm are becoming universally good, we could change Agribusiness to "+1 and +1 to farms, and an additional +1 and +1 for every two farms adjacent". So that a farm would need 4 other adjacent farms to get this +3/+3, hence quite circumstantial.

Why does the buff have to be restricted to farms and pastures? Increasing the yields of a pasture with horses cause I invest horses is a bit weird.
Looking into the reality, horses were also used to pull cutted trees in the forests and to pull boats on rivers.

 

[Gazebo]

By the way, is "farm adjacency bonuses" something that can easily be buffed by buildings? Or would it required new code?
Because if the problem is that peoples fear farm are becoming universally good, we could change Agribusiness to "+1 and +1 to farms, and an additional +1 and +1 for every two farms adjacent". So that a farm would need 4 other adjacent farms to get this +3/+3, hence quite circumstantial.

It is new code, yes. Not the hardest code to create, but it is new code, and a little bit memory intensive at that.

And..... why?
Going all-in for one type of yield in a city is punished with unhappiness, and this is fully intended, why should it be the complete opposite with farms?
I also have never heard that countries with majority of farmers are able to deliver a great production output. What does those farmers collect on their farms, making them able to build universities and power plants faster than a mineral rich country full of mines?

If more food for farms isnt the solution, why do we have then food for farms as an ideology tenet? Or a policy in the imperialism branch?
You are wrong, more food on farms would make it more lucrative to work those and get more population. Thats what farms are for. Getting more food would mean my citizen is working more efficient and its less attractive to use this citizen as specialist or on a lumber mill. If your conclusion is true, I wouldnt need any lumbermill or logging camp, I could cut everything and simply plant farms everywhere, cause an absolutly unrestricted, no-brainer improvement would give more yields than some which need special conditions.


Every farm will be more efficiant than the netherlands UI Polder and the Huns UI Eki (except eki giving 1 ), which have placement restrictions.
In allmost all cases better than the Inca UI terrace farm.
Comparable with the Shoshone UI Encampment or the Morocco UI Kasbah, but only cause those also give culture/science.


Why does the buff have to be restricted to farms and pastures? Increasing the yields of a pasture with horses cause I invest horses is a bit weird.
Looking into the reality, horses were also used to pull cutted trees in the forests and to pull boats on rivers.

Well for one thing, farm != yield.

"If your conclusion is true, I wouldnt need any lumbermill or logging camp, I could cut everything and simply plant farms everywhere"

I can't talk to you when you make leaps in logic. You're headed down paths I can't follow, anakin.

G

 

[Recursive]

I don't believe anyone here is advocating for a massive buff to one improvement to the exclusion of every other improvement, and that's all I'll say about this debate.

Personally, my observation is that there's a lot of accusation and hostility in this thread (it's been pointed out as a problem on several occasions, not just here but in general), and, without pointing fingers at anyone in particular, I don't imagine it's providing a good public image for the mod or encouraging people to contribute their voices to the community here.

Furthermore, I feel it might be best if people were to move detailed debates on balance changes to separate threads to avoid derailment of the main thread, since disagreements on balance seem especially prone to this problem.

This isn't meant as an accusation to anyone in particular, but it seems like discussions here can get heated in a non-constructive way, and I think addressing that is appropriate.

 

[CrazyG]

Is there much reason to not build the Pyramids every game? The AI didn't finish it until 43 this game, so you don't even need to make mining your first tech. You pay a small premium on top of the settler to keep the food, and get 1 culture 1 great engineer point. That's worthwhile alone. With the worker bonus it just seems crazy.

 

[Gazebo]

Is there much reason to not build the Pyramids every game? The AI didn't finish it until 43 this game, so you don't even need to make mining your first tech. You pay a small premium on top of the settler to keep the food, and get 1 culture 1 great engineer point. That's worthwhile alone. With the worker bonus it just seems crazy.

If you do logging, I'd be curious to see your logs.

G