Pie's Ancient Europe

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Ancient Europe' started by pie_at, Feb 5, 2010.

  1. hnrysml

    hnrysml Warlord

    Joined:
    May 18, 2016
    Messages:
    240
    Only some civilisations can research certain techs in this mod, such as Glass, but most techs that a civilisation cannot research can gain it by conquering a city of a civ that has the tech, or completely a trade order for that civ
     
  2. Porphyrogenita

    Porphyrogenita Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2022
    Messages:
    1
    Hello, has anyone experienced a weird lack of difficulty in the XXXL map with 53 civilizations? I've played >200 turns of it, but most of the AI's barely developed and I was getting way ahead of them with little effort or knowledge of the mod (it's my first time playing it and it's breathtaking otherwise!). Barbarians also don't spawn at all, which feels off, even though I suppose large spawns would only gimp the AI further. Animals are a threat in early turns but can't keep up in difficulty the way barbarians at least try. Does changing the difficulty level do anything in this map, since the AI's seem to be fixed to noble? I added a few barbarian towns around my civ for another run but I'm not sure that will be enough.
     
  3. pie_at

    pie_at PAE-Let's play ancient

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,766
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Austria
    Yep, only special CIVs can discover it, eg Egypt. You find the CIVs listed in the pedia in the research sheet.
    other CIVs have to conquer it from them.

    Por: Hm. did you try other maps? perhaps it's the amount of CIVs which is slowing down development.
     
  4. Antigenes2

    Antigenes2 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Messages:
    246
    I'm finding AI development to be quite slow as well, though I've really only been playing on the 18 civs+barbs map. But just conparing it to the previous patch it seems slow. Two possibilities I can think of (beyond any changes there may be under the hood): The reductions in fish is creating a lack of food and population growth. And immigrants no longer being able to found cities. On the barbarian map the AI is really struggling to make headway.

    One suggestion I have: cedars are hard to see now. I think the old darker graphic was better.
     
  5. mourndraken

    mourndraken King

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2003
    Messages:
    922
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    54°30′59″N, 128°35'59"W
    Today is Tuesday, 2022-02-22
    and 12 years anniversary from my first PAE comment
    there are just too many twos on this Tuesday and not notice
     
  6. pie_at

    pie_at PAE-Let's play ancient

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,766
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Austria
    Barbs: ok, I will have a look at this. But I can't change the immigrants cause of the OCC mechanics.

    cedars: yes, for me too. I'll change that.

    grats :D
     
  7. Antigenes2

    Antigenes2 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Messages:
    246
    I don't think it's the barbarians (or the fish or immigrants come to that). I played the Egyptians on the Orient map and found the same thing. I couldn't get a second city before 2000 by which time I still hadn't built the pyramids. All the other civs were slow as well. It seems to be OK up to bronnze working, then slows down after that. It was just one game though, perhaps a change in build order will help.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2022
  8. Gardarel

    Gardarel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2020
    Messages:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Hey Pie,

    I was thinking about the warrior resources: Thracians, Cretans, et cetera. It suddenly struck me as weird that I can train Thracians hundreds of miles away from Thracia. In fact, I can import Thracians from a civ on the other end of the map and then train them in my cities. 20 at a time, for that matter (given that I have 20 cities, of course). As much as I like training Thracians (and putting them to work), this does not seem accurate to me. My layman's suggestion would be that every x turns a unit will appear on the resource tile. Or that a unit will be available as a (paid) mercenary every x turns, the more you have in service, the more expensive they'll get. Or a combination of those two options. They can even start out with a bonus promotion now and then, like the units I train myself.

    Also, given their way of life, a camp seems better suited to train Thracians than a town.
     
  9. pie_at

    pie_at PAE-Let's play ancient

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,766
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Austria
    yes, Thracian bonus resource is a very strong resource in game. as they stand for a very huge country of nomad warriors. Those units costs one gold+. so 2 gold per unit and mounted Thracians even 3 gold per turn each. If you can afford that, why not? You don't need local units then.

    I think, the time you create them in town is the time they travel to your city. In PAE each unit costs more hammers. Territorial units costs +100% per unit more. So I think, it's a kind of limiting hordes of them. except you have so big cities that you can handle that easily. But then you could create four/five/six times more local warriors instead.

    It's your choice what you're hiring.
     
  10. Gardarel

    Gardarel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2020
    Messages:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    So I am not actually producing/training the unit, I am investing hammers (and therefore gold) to get them over to me as fast as possible... Yes, that works really well! I dont have any other problem with the way those type of units are balanced.


    Also, I have been wondering, have you ever played with the idea of completely overhauling the health system? I say this very humbly because (as your thoughts on Thracians prove once more) you have thought of so, so much and see workarounds through game mechanics that I have missed completely. And maybe it's impossible to do a complete overhaul because it messes the game up so badly it becomes a burden to play. I just dont know. That being said, some elements in the current system seem hardly realistic.

    Clams and crab are the best example, I guess. I just don't see how I would be able to transport them to other cities and still get a +1 health bonus when I feed them to the locals. I would rather expect a small epidemic. So fish, clam and crab only +1 locally. Build a smokehouse (curing hut would be more accurate) and receive +1 in all cities for cured fish but not for clams or crab (I have never found any instances of those, nor have I ever found derivative products like clam oil or crab powder that warrant a health bonus). Same should propbably go for deer and livestock. Or do you feel that once cows (pigs, sheep) are domesticated, smaller herds live near all your cities? But how about deer then?

    Banana... Also only local health benefits. Importing banana (from vassal most probably)... Dont they go bad? Another thing: why did you choose to make banana not cultivable? I mean, they were obviously cultivated. Right?

    Loss of health bonuses can be compensated easily. My first option would be to look at increasing the number of cultivable resources per city. To make that playable, you would have to make it a bit easier to cultivate. A few more wagons, or collecting a grain or olive kernel from any city that consumes grain or olives rather than having to obtain it from a city that actually grows it. If this would make it too easy, I would be more than willing to accept a smaller chance of succes of cultivation. So much has gone wrong in history! You could also give grapes (raisins) their health bonus back. Or add other fuits that may be dried like figs. Apart from dates, those play no role in the game. I guess nuts are included in the base food for forest. You could even give grain their health bonus back, although I understand that staple foods in actuality don't add up. When a people starts eating rye, they will most probably start eating less wheat or whatever they were already eating. Maybe granary +2. But now I'm just rambling on.

    Bottom line is: for me personally (and others with me, I presume), cultivation was a huge improvement to the game, but it kind of grew old on me. Find barley, get barley, cultivate barley, done. Find Pig, get pig, cultivate pig, done. I would very much welcome a more elaborate system of cultivation. Bet hey, I am a builder in a game that in my opinion leans towards war pretty heavily. Maybe most can't wait to go to war and don't want to bother with micromanagement and I have been typing all of this for nothing. :D
     
  11. pie_at

    pie_at PAE-Let's play ancient

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,766
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Austria
    Yes :scan:

    This sounds good.

    there is a curing hut in PAE. it provides an extra health point. it can only be built when you possess fish, deer, cow, pig or sheep.
    your idea is now, that the general bonuses (pig, deer, fish, etc) don't provide global health points (health points are always global, except those from buildings). the idea is not bad, but it is technical not possible to give them only local health without a building. The AI also wouldn't understand its worth if they provide no health or no happiness and would trade them for nothing.

    So technically, it is ... not easy to implement it that way.

    I think CIV provides global health for those resources because they assume to have curing huts in cities automatically.


    I like the idea, to create a new bonus resource that gives global health and can be traded eg cured fish and cured meat (because, so I can reduce some health bonus, I think there is too much of it in PAE).

    What I could think of:
    I could remove health bonus from fish, crab, clam and pig, deer, cow, sheep. giving them more food bonus only (local bonus).
    A curing hut for fish (local fish, crab, clam (why not? they can also get salted getting a cured product)) would produce cured fish, that provides +1 health in each city.
    A curing hut for meat (local cow, pig, sheep, deer) would produce cured meat, that also provides +1 global health.

    This would reduce health bonus in game (what I recommend) from 7 to 2. (3 water and 4 land resources).


    No, not in CIV. :D
    otherwise, yes :)

    hm... I don't know... they ripen during transport nowadays... and it's not possible in CIV to allow only edge neighbours to trade them. I let them as they are.

    That's right. Why not.

    but you can obtain it from other cities, but more expensive (40 instead of 20 gold and 60 via trade agreement from another CIV).

    that's true. Although grapes->raisins is similar to fish->cured fish. And I don't need an extra building for fish.

    If I reduce health (from above), I could add them +1 health.

    I really want to reduce all the health bonus resources because they are too much! I'd prefer building levees, aqueducts, etc... so that only high technological CIVs have big cities and not nomad CIVs for instance.

    How?
    Find pig, get pig, cultivate pig, done.
    With cured meat: Find pig, get pig, cultivate pig, build a curing hut, done.

    So the curing hut is not a good idea?

    Shall pigs, cows, sheeps, deer only give local bonus? then it's just finished when you can't cultivate them anymore.

    no, it was very helpful. :thumbsup:
     
  12. Gardarel

    Gardarel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2020
    Messages:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    I am aware. It's just that in the English version it is called a smokehouse. Only in the text of the civilopedia entry for smokehouse is it suddenly called a curing hut. I think the latter is more accurate since civilizations had various ways of curing food.

    Ok, bummer. Let's see if there is a way to work around it.

    Very interesting. For me this suddenly raises the question: why do food resources give a health bonus? My interpretation used to be: now we have pig and pig is food and food is healthy. But now a different answer comes to mind. What if a health bonus from food is a bonus you get for the ability to prevent disease through preventing famine. That would basically come down to the ability to preserve food. What you propose seems to go in that direction. So: pig = food per turn; cured pork = health bonus. Olives and their oil are preservable, so they get a health bonus, Dates are preservable = health bonus. Banana? Not preservable but maybe they should be an exception to my own new rule because they provide so many vitamins and potassium they deserve a bonus in itself? I'm trying to meet you halfway regarding the banana's. I still dont think civs should be able to trade them, the trade routes back in those days were just way too long. And when they are made cultivable, any civ with jungle can grow them. No jungle, no bananas. Seems reasonable to me but do as you like. ;)

    I agree that in the early game a reduction of health bonuses would be desirable. Removing health bonus for animals (just like you did with grain) would be the obvious way. As I described above I even think there is a logic to it. I don't see it as necessary to give more food bonus at once though. Another option would be to allow cultivation of more food bonuses per city, so that your food production grows gradually with small steps that require an effort. In my mind this represents slight local improvements in farming techniques. Here lies the opportunity to make my wish for a more significant role for cultivation come true. Wagons, spreading resources to farms, pastures and plantations, would be playing almost as big a part in growing cities as the workers that build the improvements. There might be serious hangups though since it increases potential food output per city radius. You're the expert on that. It changes the effect of the invention of the scythe for example, or the difference between plains/grassland/jungle/hills based civs. Also very important: can you make the AI adjust to this system?

    Salted clams and crab? I'm not convinced ancient civiliziations produced those. It may be, I just never came across any examples. Also, before you build a saline or have a salt mine, would you have enough salt? On the other hand, I was under the impression that cured fish was actually distributed inland (and possibly traded). If you want to provide extra health on coast, maybe settling on coast can give a +1 bonus because of the temperate climate.

    As for meat, I think that's okay but there would no longer be any added value to having sheep, cows AND pigs in your realm. I think that's a pity because I like to scout the earth for resources. On the other hand, I don't think the Indians are any less healthy for not eating beef and neither are the Hebrews for not eating pork. There still is a difference becuase the tile revenue is different with every animal. But that is a really small influence on the game. A little less exciting but not too much of a problem, I guess. Maybe the differences in the revenues different animals produce can be emphasized. Although I hardly see any room for that since more resources per city would probably warrant a reduction of revenue, rather than an increase.


    I meant when I'm visiting another civ with a trade wagon or merchantman. When Rome (the city) is inland and grows wheat and my merchantman is in coastal Ravenna where they eat wheat, why can't I buy a sack of grains there? Why do I have to go all the way to Rome? What is really annoying is that sometimes a civ doesn't build a city close to a grain. When it (eventually) improves the tile, I still can't buy that type of grain since it is not in any city's radius. This also happens when a civ pushes it's borders into another civ's city radius. The grain is right there on an improved tile and they are consuming it all through the empire, but I can't get any anywhere! :mad:

    If you really want to reduce health, I think there are some rare bonuses that could do without a health bonus. Take amber, people used to believe (some still do, by the way) that it had healing properties. In my opinion, if you want to give amber a bonus it should be a happiness bonus (also without a forge) because it made poeple believe they were healthy and therefore happy. But believing you are healthy is not actually being healthy. So you could skip that one. Exactly the same goes for magnetite. I would much rather see Figs being introduced than those two. Silphium? Kind of like the Urus. A bit of lore is nice, but if you want to reduce health bonuses, you might consider to reduce Silphium's bonus.
     
  13. pie_at

    pie_at PAE-Let's play ancient

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,766
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Austria
    Ah, yes I see. I rename it to curing hut.


    Because otherwise the AI would trade it for nothing. A bonus resource should have health or happiness bonus. either itself or as part of a building.

    Why food should give health bonus: otherwise your cities couldn't grow (unhealthiness decrease food per turn).

    I agree

    The AI is not the problem. I can explain this to the AI.
    But if all cities have bonus resources around every plot, I don't know if this is really a player's wish. Isn't it better to have strategic rules/limits to think of?

    You're right. No health bonus for clams and crab. only food bonus. shall crab and clams get cultivated via workboat then?

    Yes, it was a pity if sheep, cows and pigs would give no added value.... I could change the cultivation system for that:
    now it works like this
    Settlement: 1 bonus possible (either pigs, cows or sheep or grain)
    Village: 2 bonuses possible (2 livestock/grain, no matter which)
    City: 3 bonuses possible (3 livestock/grain, no matter which)
    Provincial city: 4 etc.

    what if I change that system from "no matter which" to it must be different? only one certain bonus allowed. the amount of possible bonuses will be the same.
    So if you only have cows, you have to get another bonus resource to distribute to a village.


    This has strategical reasons. A city can become a trading center that provides +1 trade route. If I could trade those special goods from every city, then every city can get a (famous) trading center even if it has Pop 1 and stucks in an inhospitable tundra landscape.

    I want that Cyprus is the copper hot spot and not eg. Alexandria. I want that your merchant travel to the Baltic Sea to get amber. This is more accurate. And it would distort the bonus value and the difficulty if you can trade amber eg just 6 plots from Syracuse to Carthage.

    OMG NO!
    In ancient Rome amber was used as medicine and as a protection against different diseases. Calistratus, the famous physician of those times, wrote that amber protects from madness, powder of amber mixed with honey cures throat, ear and eye diseases, and taken with water cures stomach illnesses. Even in Egypt and Persia you can found amber in medicine.

    Magnetite was used to stop bleeding and controlled haemorrhage, as well as purgative.

    Silphium could be used to treat cough, sore throat, fever, indigestion, aches and pains, warts, and all kinds of maladies.
     
  14. Gardarel

    Gardarel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2020
    Messages:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    I think we are having a misunderstanding here. I am not questioning whether there should be health bonuses for food. In fact: you are the one who came up with the idea of reducing health bonuses. As I said before: I understand why. But if cow doesn't give a health bonus anymore (even though their meat and milk are healthy), but it does give a health bonus after it is cured, we should provide an explanation for that. So I came up with the idea that as a rule in general (exceptions like banana are fine with me), only preservable bonuses give a health bonus. Preservation is how European civilizations grew (and any civs located in seasonal climates for that matter): making sure we had enough food stocked to survive when hard times (winter, drought, livestock death, fungal plagues, etc.) struck. My new idea is that health bonuses from food represent this. I hope I am making myself clear.

    I just wanted to create a more elaborate system of improving land, rather than just inventing irrigation, preservation and the scythe, where all farms/pastures bump up their yield at once. But you are right, I wouldn't know where I would set the limits or why. And more importantly: whether you have to use workers/wagons to get the +1 or not, the outcome is the same, it's just more work. I can imagine players (myself included) would find this extra work nothing more than a nuisance after a game or two, so I'll let it go.

    Well, I'm not saying they should never get a health bonus. I'm just saying I don't think they were cured in those days. Clam and crab are healthy I guess, but not preservable. In my 'preservable=health system' that should indeed mean that they get a food bonus only. But I'm not sure yet whether or not you agree with my 'system'.

    Anyway, yes, I think you should keep the workboat. They could represent the extra work a high yield tile needs compared to a regular water tile.

    That wouldn't be my solution because again, I ask the Why? question. What does it represent in the real world? I don't see it (yet).

    I have a different idea.

    - What if sheep would make it possible to construct a Weaving Mill that gives +1 health locally (woolen clothing was important protection) or even better: a global resource.
    - Pigs don't get a seperate building, they just yield a lot of food, significantly more than cow or sheep.
    - About cow I am not 100% sure. I think a cheese dairy is justifiable. +1 because cheese can be preserved. Cows produce a lot more milk than sheep, so I think that is sufficient explanation why you can't build a cheese dairy with sheep. Also, sheep are hard to milk because they never shed their prey animal instincts.

    Edit: I have been reading up on the history of cheese (Cheese and Culture: a History of Cheese and its Place in Western Culture by Paul Kindstedt, found online). The first cheeses were goat and sheep cheeses in the fertile crescent. So although later in history cow cheese became predominant, it's hard to reserve cheese dairy for cow's milk. Still, there must be a way to give cattle an interesting place in PAE. The plow, wagons and all development those made possible, it would never have been there without oxes. I will keep thinking.

    But If you start down this road, a Tanner (Gerberei, buildable with any animal) is something you pretty much must also incorporate in the game. This way you would end up with +4 from animals: cured meat, woolen cloth, leather and cheese. This is the same amount you have now, but you only get it after invention of technologies and creating buildings. Is that something that you like or do you want to lower health bonuses per se? When you choose to give a health bonus for leather and wool, I think you should also put flax on the map somewhere since linen played a similar role. Come to think of it, a Weaving Mill can be built with sheep OR Flax.

    Edit: I think every civ automatically grows flax. Implications of civs without flax would be too great.

    Yes, I understand that. It would be a shame to let that go to waste. I wasn't even thinking of amber, only of cereals et cetera. But you are right: there should be no difference.

    But do you think there could be another solution for my problem with unimproved tiles, or tiles not in a city radius? In my current game my neighbour Carthage has rice in it's capital's city radius. I would really like to cultivate that rice! But they didn't build a farm until something like turn 300. It was crazy and frustrating. I think I should be able to load rice in the tile itself. Why should I not pick some rice and go home? Carthage wouldn't care, they were not even using the rice. This would also be a remedy for the resources out of any city's radius. It is however contradictory with the current practice that in neutral territory you first have to build a trading post to load a good on a wagon. So, I don't know... Something you can do here or should I just stop whining because I can't get what I want? :lol:

    Edit: You could also make it a spy mission to steal seeds. I know this has actually happened with coffee beans stolen from Mocca at some point.

    I know amber and magnetite were used as medicine, I just don't believe they had much real effect. I mean, I really don't think amber helped against madness (whatever he meant by that). Of silphium we can never be sure. But anyway, I'm totally fine with you keepin it as it is! It is way more fun to play thinking like a character from back then anyway!
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2022
  15. pie_at

    pie_at PAE-Let's play ancient

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,766
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Austria
    I agree with most of your suggestions. Except one: I want to lower health bonus!
    But this is not said, to use cow, sheep, pig for other things, as you said: you are a builder, you want to build up your cities. Because you are the second "builder" I know - in the German forum a user named JD had the same suggestions last year - I am willing to add more buildings for those daily things every civilization had in general.

    You could help me, in making a list of buildings that shall get included into PAE. And those buildings don't need to get more health or happiness, they can add food, prod, culture or even as prereq building for other buildings or as a prereq building for units (eg tanner)

    The point about getting bonus res from neutral/foreign territory: I'll ask in the german forum. This would fully destroy the basic feature of CIV to trade via audience.
    but yes, I am not averse about that.
     
  16. Reverse Ideology

    Reverse Ideology Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2021
    Messages:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Hello, I have a question regarding Christians: is there a way to stop them from trashing my cults?
     
  17. pie_at

    pie_at PAE-Let's play ancient

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,766
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Austria
    nope. this is the way of monotheistic being....

    the only thing you could do is to knock the religion out of your cities. but it will come back.... it's a difficult venture.

    I intend to show the late antiquity and its way to become a "dark age"... more will come in one of the next patches.
     
  18. Reverse Ideology

    Reverse Ideology Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2021
    Messages:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    That's fair. The enternal debate between gameplay and h i s t o r i c i t y. Annoying, but understandable.
    Also, "next patches", man I remeber it as if it was yesterday when I downloaded the mod when you first released it. I only created this account fairly recently so I could get some help with a bug, but we've come a loong way...the mod kept me hooked to CIV IV ever since.
    Great work, prost!
     
    pie_at likes this.
  19. LuciusJunius

    LuciusJunius Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2022
    Messages:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Hello, Pie! I’m new to the modding world, so I apologize if this isn't the appropriate place to post this. Over the last year or so I have created a heavily researched extra-large map of the Middle East, and two scenarios based on it, and now I want to share them with the world.

    I’ve absolutely loved playing your mod! I’ve had a keen interest in the ancient world ever since I was a kid, so when I discovered PAE, I was excited by all the new civs and leaders, particularly the Assyrians, Hebrews, and Hittites. However, I noticed that almost all existing scenarios are focused on classical-era Greece and Rome. Bronze Age leaders like Rameses, Hattushili, and Agamemnon are cool, but they feel out of place going up against the likes of Caesar and Alexander the Great.

    So I created an extra-large (127x90) map of the Mid East in two versions, one populated with Bronze Age leaders and the other populated with Iron Age leaders. I’ve tested both extensively for playability, making numerous changes after each run-through. Some highlights:

    1 – With some minor exceptions made for playability, resources only appear in places where they were actually available in the Bronze or Iron ages. For example, there is no useable iron anywhere on the Bronze Age map, though unavoidably some might be “discovered” through quarry building. There is also no stone or metal of any sort in Mesopotamia. Making trade deals with your opponents is a necessity, not an option!

    2 – The Nile, the Tigris, and the Euphrates are all navigable, and their courses change considerably between the two scenarios to reflect their wandering over time. They are made using Bank and Ford tiles, which carry trade much earlier than Coast tiles. I also created a new unit for myself, the Papyrus Boat, to let these civilizations take full advantage of navigable rivers at an early date, but the map is still playable without it.

    3 – The start dates and game speed are set up such that the Bronze Age scenario lasts 560 turns and ends in 1200 BC, while the Iron Age scenario lasts 680 turns and ends in 500 BC. It took some trial and error to get these dates to line up with the tech tree in a believable and playable way, so I wouldn’t recommend changing the game speed except to do your own experimentation.

    4 – I built both scenarios using the base version of PAE VI that came out in 2019. A few days ago, I downloaded Patch 6.7 from moddb.com. The scenarios still loaded just fine, so I’m hoping there won’t be any conflict there.

    Now my question is how do I share these scenarios? Like I said, I’m new to this whole thing. Right now, I have both scenarios saved on my computer as WorldBuilder files. Can I just upload those files? If so, where? Or do I need to compress them into a RAR file?
     
  20. Gardarel

    Gardarel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2020
    Messages:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Amsterdam

    I did a lot of thinking and this is what I came up with. In the end I chose not to start a sprawl of new buildings. I don't want to build just to build.

    - So... Sheep, Cow, Pig and Deer do not give a health bonus. I guess if you implement this, Elephant and Walrus shouldn’t either. Horse and Walrus should however be a source for cured meat. Elephant I don’t think so, but I’m not sure. A friend of mine once told a girl in a club that pastrami is made of elephant’s ears. She was shocked, until he told her that the elephants don’t mind because their ears just grow back. But seriously, I have no idea about eating cured elephant.

    - Since cured meat now gives a health bonus, I think the +1 food for pasture with the invention of Preservation should be dropped.

    - Farms should be buildable with the invention of Agriculture (not The Plow) but workers take a lot of time to build them (since they are using just hoes). With the resource Cow or Horse and The Plow (which beside Agriculture should also require Husbandry): building time of farms is halved.

    - On second thought, I don’t think a tanner is a good idea. Every civ has leather. And linen, for that matter.


    About Cow, Pig and Sheep:

    Pig (+1 food, +3 food with pasture)

    - No building. Pigs get a huge food bonus because they are not used for any other goal than their meat.


    Cow (+1 food, +1 food with pasture):

    - New building: Ox Training Farm (I don't know a better word): +10% food and +10% production in the city. Requires: The Plow, Cow (in city radius). Cows themselves don’t yield much food in the beginning. Their milk was not drinkable for humans except babies (lactose tolerance in humans did not develop until later times). I also dropped the hammer bonus, which moved to the Ox Training Farm. Although I think this bonus accurately reflects the impact of Oxen in history, I feel it’s a little out of balance with the bonus of the Stable, which only gives 10% production bonus. Maybe the Stable should get a commerce or trade route bonus on top. Another option would be to make Ox Training a National Project, which upon completion gives food and hammer bonuses mentioned above in all cities. But in that case, you only need one source of Cow per civ. I do not think that is the way to go.
    - Although the tile yield is low in the Stone Age, having Cow becomes a big deal a little later on, and I think rightly so. At first Pig and Sheep are more interesting, but as your city grows, the Ox Training Farm becomes something you defenitely want.
    - As a little workaround for civilizations that start without Cow: maybe defeating an Urus doesn’t kill it, but captures it. The captured Urus can then be used to become a source of cow (or sold as a rarity, or slaughtered for +10 food and a temporary +1 happy, why not?).
    - When you decide to drop the Pasture +1 from Preservation, you could consider giving +1 for Cow with The Scythe. I have read (can’t remember where, but it was a serious source) that La Tène culture invented the scythe not to harvest cereal (they kept using the sickle) but to mow large patches of grass, which was then stored as hay. This became necessary because when population grew, the amount of cattle needed to grow with it, but animals starved during winter.


    Sheep (+1 food, +1 food and X commerce with pasture)

    - Let’s start by saying I want to make sheep interesting. They do not yield enormous amounts of food like Pig, nor do they warrant a production bonus like Cow. So, we are left with commerce. I initially wanted to add a Wool Weavery (50 hammers?) for a 10% commerce bonus (like the Stable, the Ox Training Farm, the Camel Camp). However, this bonus feels like it is too high. That is half a Bank. Wool was important, but that important? So, what other options are there? A tile yield bonus (+2 commerce, I guess), plus a 5% commerce bonus from the Wool Weavery. That could work, but then the Wool Weavery feels like it is hardly worth building. A third option would be to forget about the Wool Weavery altogether and have a pasture with sheep yield +3 commerce. A bonus that is very intersting in the early game and gradually becomes less and less important as time passes. I think I prefer that last option.

    This way Cow, Pig and Sheep give a very different effect. Still, you can only cultivate 2 resources per city for a long time… What choices will you make? Of course, I am open for debate on how high the bonuses should be. Maybe Sheep should get a larger food bonus because their milk was drinkable. Or maybe their Commerce bonus can be upped with Aesthetics. Or in case the Wool Weavery does survive, it gan give a culture bonus with Aesthetics and/or a +1 happy from Dye. Otherwise, in the later game, you are better off getting rid of all your sheep.



    Some other things:

    - I don’t think Cow, Horse or Sheep should be cultivable in Forest, Dense Forest or Jungle. They graze. Yes, there are a few types of 'horses' that originally lived in forested areas but those were ponies that were small enough to maneuver through trees, seek camouflage in undergrowth and were not hindered by low branches when fleeing. Once they were bred to be the magnificent animals that changed history, there was no way of placing them back in forest.


    - I would rename Veterinary Medicine to Rudimentary Medicine. Why veterinary when there is no invention specifically regarding medicine for humans? This way, you combine them and you honor the words of Ashoka: “Everywhere King Piyadasi made two kinds of medicine available, medicine for people, and medicine for animals.”


    - Drop the Rice Barn (and its health bonus), it is just a type of granary. Or make a granary for every cereal (no, don’t choose that option).
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2022

Share This Page