POLL: Some Balance Changes to add to VP

[pineappledan]

What sets for tall tourism isn't the culture modifier. It is simply that the tourism penalty for controlling more cities overweight the yields you get from going wide in the first place. This isn't specific to Brazil, people have complained about the same regarding Sacred Sites reformation and similar attempts in other civs.

I've tried wide tourism and often went Progress with Brazil to see if I could get more from the UI and Artistry's scaler, and I've often found that Tradition simply won faster and made more sense. Brazil's extra gold ended doing more on the gold-starved tree that is Tradition than on Progress, as it allowed you to keep your satellite cities with robust infrastructure; Progress's focus on infrastructure was redundant for Brazil. And the UI meant that your satellite cities contribute with valuable yields almost immediately by simply sending a worker alongside your settler, which addresses Tradition's low production outside the Capital very elegantly. The UA's culture modifier is irrelevant for both of these points that make Brazil work so smoothly with Tradition.

Progress ends not contributing at all for anything that Brazil's uniques attempt to do, the most it does is to set the UI faster thanks to the free worker and improvement speed, and it isn't of relevance in the long run; Tradition's ability to get workers done for its satellite cities is decent enough. It just made more sense that, if you're going to aim for tourism, you're going to pick the trees that are most focused around great works, Tradition and Artistry, and both happen to also be the ones with the best culture and GAP output. In fact, I've found that you end doing better going wide Tradition than wide Progress as Brazil because of the gold and the UI; if you're going to have robust satellite cities regardless of which one you pick, why not pick the one that gives you more great works and GAP that actually help you with a CV? The only thing that keeps players from going wide in the first place is the tourism penalty from owning more cities, not some aspect of Brazil itself.

My opinion is that an early boost for the UI's yields just make Tradition even more desirable for Brazil, not less, and that the culture modifier has little to do with whether you go tall or wide. The culture modifier's role is about Brazil's lategame power, it helps setting the civ to have a solid scaling for that lategame.

Winning a CV is just as much about your opponent's output as it is about your output. The city size modifier exists so that small empires can overcome the much larger culture generation of a larger civ with more cities, and therefore more raw economy. It doesn't necessarily make CV easier to stay small, especially not in the context of a civ that can put a lot of culture onto tiles that can be converted into Tourism later. This mechanic exists so that CV isn't a function of empire size, but rather so CV is a victory type that is somewhat size-agnostic.

All the conversation on Brazil up to this point has also ignored the elephant -- or should I say Gaja -- in the room: There is another civ that Brazil's +%culture modifier during WLTKD overlaps with even more than China: Indonesia. The Candi gives 15% and during WLTKDs; before their recent rework is was 25%, the exact same amount and type as Brazil's UA. Brazil and Indonesia are also the only 2 civs with unique luxury resources. Talk about repetitive design!

@pineappledan Why do you still want to give insta yield on completion? It's it better to just give yields per turn?

The instant yields have been around for a long time, and it's especially important for a building as late as the Stadium that its bonuses not just be per-turn bonuses.
Current instant bonuses are:

• Circus - 500
• Zoo - 1000
• Stadium - 2500

That is a combined 4000 per city in your empire. Personally I think this is the largest single offender for why people complain about early tourism wins. However, that doesn't mean that the concept of instant yields on building construction is bad. I think it just means we shouldn't have 4000 of a single yield type given on an instant basis.

For example: Could Songhai use a nerf? Probably. Should Songhai's UA be nerfed that hard? Ehh. Or as with the Slinger rework, I'm okay with the idea conceptually (albeit the slingers themselves feel pretty useless), but as others mentioned in its own thread, I'm not very fond of what it does with the tech tree.

Everything I have put up for a vote here has been discussed at length elsewhere... sometimes for years. There has been ample time to debate and give feedback on each of these concepts, perhaps with the exception of the late game tourism building reworks, which I only uploaded for people to test last month, but had been proposed last April. All I have done here is compile those disparate conversations into a single referendum that has the backing of a code-complete test mod.

also, everything discussed here can be added and then changed — or reverted — later. This isn’t the final word on any of this. As @Rekk mentioned, my skirmisher change proposal is incomplete, but lays the groundwork for a more popular skirmisher change which would just be my changes and 1 additional promotion. My Songhai changes are just something so that people don’t feel they have to delete Songhai from their games, until a better solution can be coded.

How do people feel about the resource requirements on the power plants by the way? That's a whole lot of iron going unused and the other way around for aluminium.

Iron is still used for boats, and aluminum has always been used for power plants (other than nuclear, of course), I didn't make that rule.

You are right, though, that there are a few things out of whack with late game strategic resource requirements, and my changes here don't address them. Why do guided missiles have any resource requirement, for instance? Looks like you're pushing for even more changes though... that we might have to vote on

 

[Rekk]

Found it: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-version-february-10th-2-10.610241/

February 10th (2/10), 2017

Looked it up. The DLL code has been removed, and the way the bonuses work have been fundamentally changed since. It will be a pain to reimplement without breaking other code.

 

[Rekk]

The instant yields have been around for a long time, and it's especially important for a building as late as the Stadium that its bonuses not just be per-turn bonuses.
Current instant bonuses are:

• Circus - 500
• Zoo - 1000
• Stadium - 2500

That is a combined 4000 per city in your empire. Personally I think this is the largest single offender for why people complain about early tourism wins. However, that doesn't mean that the concept of instant yields on building construction is bad. I think it just means we shouldn't have 4000 of a single yield type given on an instant basis.

Delving further into this, instant yields are a good way for a building to be useful in the late game. The alternative is per-turn yields that can get completely obscene.

Ironically, tourism-per-turn is an exception because it directly impacts historic events (which are primarily late game instant yields).

 

[Stalker0]

Alright my general take on things:

Swordsman Change: Yes. A decent change, its still a sword nerf but not a huge one, I think its good.

Skimisher Change: No, it just makes them tanky and fast against ranged units, but they don't really do anything else. Not a fan.

Archer Change: No, at the end I think its too big a change to address a fairly minor issue to me.

Small Unit Change: Yes.

Spain Tweak: No, I think the fix creates more issues than the problem itself.

Brazil: No. The issue with brazil is not culture, its tourism, its ability to win CV lightning fast. Its tourism that should be adjusted, not straight culture.

Powerplants: No, I have never liked this proposal, I personally consider it weaker than our current power plants, which honestly work just fine to me.

Refinery: Maybe. On the one hand, I like the concept, but I'm not sure if I want the building pushed back in tech, it already comes in pretty late.

Tourism Building Rework: Yes, I think its a cool change to try out.

Instant Tourism Changes: Yes, I do think we need to reign in some tourism, this seems like a good start.

National Park: Maybe, that adjacency bonus seems really strong, a cluster of forest could generate some mad culture/science. But on the other hand, this is late game, you need a lot to move the needle...so I would at least be willing to give it a shot.

 

[pineappledan]

Brazil: No. The issue with brazil is not culture, its tourism, its ability to win CV lightning fast. Its tourism that should be adjusted, not straight culture.

Since you've participated in the other debates, I know your full reasoning for/against most of these changes in depth. I just want to point out with this one, however, that if I thought Brazil's culture economy was the problem I wouldn't be proposing to add more of it to the UI. I have stated my actual reasoning earlier in the thread, and it's not that Brazil has too much culture.

That being said, Brazil's very high culture generation is not Not a problem. They wouldn't be such an insanely potent CV civ if they also didn't have a massive 25% in their capital that they can have in perpetuity for the late game, get more policies faster, and achieve their CV prerequisites easier than most civs. Promoting more wide culture via the BWCamp at least emphasizes a wider culture base than piling bonuses into the capital. Currently it is only Polynesia that is doing something like that, and Brazil has the tools to go that direction already, but isn't rewarded enough to make that worthwhile right now.

 

[azum4roll]

Sword Line Changes:
Yes to nerfing Swordsman to 16, but I disagree with changing its free promotion to something less good against ranged, which is already the dominant combat type. On the other hand we should probably buff Pikeman to 18CS so it can actually win against Knights.

Skirmisher Line Changes:
Anything's better than the current version, but I would always prefer (and use) my version.

Archer Line changes:
Yes, but Comp Bows should be back on Engineering. Currency is way too crowded and is not thematically fitting.

small unit CS changes:
Counter proposal: Maori Warrior should be a Longswordsman replacement with 22CS (no Iron required), and Berserker should become a unique Pikeman that unlocks early with 19CS (now weaker but spammable).

England Tweak:
Give the Ship of the Line Splash I+II instead. If Logistics keeps the double XP nothing should get the promotion for free.

Spain Tweak:
I never liked Recon UUs. It really messes with AI unit composition.
I like the Mission though.

Songhai Tweak:
They should not have any Embarked bonus. That's Denmark's thing.

Brazil Tweak:
Yes, but no preference on UI requirements.

Korea Rework:
No to UA change. They're distinct enough from Babylon (tall vs wide) and Arabia (specialists/golden age vs wonders/trade routes). Science through Golden Age and Great People generation may be boring, but still unique.
Yes to Hwach'a rework.
Disagree with the first Seowon change, impartial to others.

Power Plants Rework:
Yes, but maybe Hydro (and Tidal) should use Iron instead of Aluminum.

Refinery Tweak:
Yes, but I'll be taking away some oil spawns (reducing oil deposit size probably).

Late Game Tourism Building Rework/Instant Tourism on Buildings removal:
Sure.

National Parks & Supermarket:
I want the Supermarket only. Lumber mills are so much better than Farms after Zoos that there's already incentive to preserve features. Marsh (and jungles?) can have another yield boost at Biology instead.

 

[Stalker0]

Archer Line changes:
Yes, but Comp Bows should be back on Engineering. Currency is way too crowded and is not thematically fitting.

IF you go with this kind of change, Comp Bows HAVE to be on currency. On engineering it leaves the north side of the tech tree with absolutely no means of defending itself for far too long in the game, it means all competitive games have to go south side. Currency was the only tech that was in a reasonable place timewise on the tree and was a place both north and south could get access to, which is why it became the compromise when this idea was heavily debated.

Comp Bows on engineering is simply a non-starter unless you create a new unit for the north side.

 

[Rekk]

IF you go with this kind of change, Comp Bows HAVE to be on currency. On engineering it leaves the north side of the tech tree with absolutely no means of defending itself for far too long in the game, it means all competitive games have to go south side. Currency was the only tech that was in a reasonable place timewise on the tree and was a place both north and south could get access to, which is why it became the compromise when this idea was heavily debated.

Comp Bows on engineering is simply a non-starter unless you create a new unit for the north side.

The other choice for Comp Bows on Engineering was moving catapults over to Mathematics, and push players towards the Field line.

 

[Legen]

All the conversation on Brazil up to this point has also ignored the elephant -- or should I say Gaja -- in the room: There is another civ that Brazil's +%culture modifier during WLTKD overlaps with even more than China: Indonesia. The Candi gives 15% and during WLTKDs; before their recent rework is was 25%, the exact same amount and type as Brazil's UA. Brazil and Indonesia are also the only 2 civs with unique luxury resources. Talk about repetitive design!

Since you've participated in the other debates, I know your full reasoning for/against most of these changes in depth. I just want to point out with this one, however, that if I thought Brazil's culture economy was the problem I wouldn't be proposing to add more of it to the UI. I have stated my actual reasoning earlier in the thread, and it's not that Brazil has too much culture.

That being said, Brazil's very high culture generation is not Not a problem. They wouldn't be such an insanely potent CV civ if they also didn't have a massive 25% in their capital that they can have in perpetuity for the late game, get more policies faster, and achieve their CV prerequisites easier than most civs. Promoting more wide culture via the BWCamp at least emphasizes a wider culture base than piling bonuses into the capital. Currently it is only Polynesia that is doing something like that, and Brazil has the tools to go that direction already, but isn't rewarded enough to make that worthwhile right now.

Ok, Indonesia at least gives the same yield on their WLTKD. They also had it for longer than Brazil iirc, so I can concede on that point. I'm not convinced that the proposed buffs to the UI is enough to compensate for the loss of lategame scaling from the +25% Culture, which is why I'm against the UA change. If we can agree on a change that preserves that scaling, I'm ok with dropping the +25% Culture, and I'm relied to know you don't see high culture output as the problem.

How about adding culture to the GAP conversion? When a golden age starts, Brazil also gets culture out of its GAP, alongside the gold and tourism. This at least ensures Brazil has a strong culture scaling without tying it to WLTKD.

Another suggestion, meant to favor wide over tall, is adding GAP yields into the UI, both base and as part of the scaling from techs (and building, as per proposal). A reason why wide doesn't translate into more tourism for Brazil is that the current wide oriented sources of GAP don't scale as strongly as tall oriented sources, a.k.a. Tradition's Splendor and Artistry's Humanism and Heritage, which scale with era. Brazilwood Camps having actual GAP and scaling over time could make wide a lot more attractive for Brazil's UA. The interaction between UA and UI becomes more pronounced this way as well, all while pushing for a wide playstyle, doubly so if the UA converts GAP into culture as well.

By the way, is the fresh water restriction that important? Even before the luxury adjacency restriction, it was already annoying that your Brazilwood Camps could be limited by some random bananas in the wrong tiles. Having rivers and lakes also causing problems just seem like a nightmare, and one that further disincentives going wide.

Of the Amphitheater/Opera House point, I mentioned Opera House as an example of late building, it doesn't have to be specifically that one. If it is just about not overlapping with a tech that already boosts the UI, you could pick some other late building, such as the Museum; this one even smooths out the long period between Acoustics and Radio, and has some thematic elements due to brazilwood trees (and the products made out of them) being used in some brazilian museums to teach the nation's history. I just think that Brazil shouldn't be getting it on an early era, since the civ is designed around lategame scaling.

 

[Stalker0]

The other choice for Comp Bows on Engineering was moving catapults over to Mathematics, and push players towards the Field line.

Catapults aren't enough to be your main defense force for that long, they can't take a hit well enough....nor should they.

 

[Rekk]

Are you currently melee hits with your Composite Bowmen? Because spearmen have a better CS and promotions that work in melee defense.

Catapults start with Cover I, which makes them take ranged hits better than Comp Bows in open terrain, even with Siege Inaccuracy. They do lose out in rough terrain.

Given that Catapults were historically used quite well against field infantry, there's an argument that they don't need Siege Inaccuracy either.

 

[pineappledan]

Another suggestion, meant to favor wide over tall, is adding GAP yields into the UI, both base and as part of the scaling from techs (and building, as per proposal). A reason why wide doesn't translate into more tourism for Brazil is that the current wide oriented sources of GAP don't scale as strongly as tall oriented sources, a.k.a. Tradition's Splendor and Artistry's Humanism and Heritage, which scale with era. Brazilwood Camps having actual GAP and scaling over time could make wide a lot more attractive for Brazil's UA. The interaction between UA and UI becomes more pronounced this way as well, all while pushing for a wide playstyle, doubly so if the UA converts GAP into culture as well.

This conversation has convinced me that we should unlink Tradition and Artistry from having this 3-pronged overlapping focus. The easiest way to do this is by reshuffling a few bonuses to strip Tradition of its GA bonuses:

• Swap the 50 on GP birth from Splendor (Tradition) with the 50 on GP birth from National treasure (Artistry)
• Remove the 25% GA length from the Tradition finisher -- changing the instant GAP to gold on splendor is a buff, so taking this small GA length buff, which is only 2 turns on standard, is fair
• Change the yields from Wonder construction on Heritage from GAP to Gold -- that way, Artistry retains 1 instant bonus and 1 instant bonus

Now Brazil is free to choose whatever Ancient Policy tree it wants, because none of them have any GAPs

I would be hesitant to add another source of GAPs to their kit, because they do already have a mechanic that allows them to create a lot of excess happiness that they can leverage for golden ages. With brazilwood luxuries, they also have a commodity to trade for other luxuries as another method for triggering Carnivals

Of the Amphitheater/Opera House point, I mentioned Opera House as an example of late building, it doesn't have to be specifically that one. If it is just about not overlapping with a tech that already boosts the UI, you could pick some other late building, such as the Museum; this one even smooths out the long period between Acoustics and Radio, and has some thematic elements due to brazilwood trees (and the products made out of them) being used in some brazilian museums to teach the nation's history. I just think that Brazil shouldn't be getting it on an early era, since the civ is designed around lategame scaling.

To recap, with a resource bonus on Amphitheater, Brazilwood Camp would have:

• +1 in classical (amphitheater)
• +2 in Medieval (Physics)
• +2 in Renaissance (Acoustics)
  
• +2 in Modern (Radio)

4 tech yield boosts is the most of any UI; only Kuna, Moai, and Eki have 4 boosts.
swapping the resource boost from the amphitheater is something I would be somewhat loathe to do. As I said, it's a cultural building thematically linked to performing arts, and it already has other resource boosts on it. I would rather not add a resource boost onto a building that doesn't already have them. Instead, I would suggest moving the Physics boost to Industrial. Perhaps to Archaeology, as you suggested?

By the way, is the fresh water restriction that important? Even before the luxury adjacency restriction, it was already annoying that your Brazilwood Camps could be limited by some random bananas in the wrong tiles. Having rivers and lakes also causing problems just seem like a nightmare, and one that further disincentives going wide.

The NoFreshWater limitation is slightly more permissive than Luxury adjacent; it should result in a few more improvements, but it's obviously more restrictive than just letting them be in forest/jungle and noTwoAdjacent.

The reason I chose that is because:

• The Mayan Kuna already has any Forest/Jungle and NoTwoAdjacent for a bonus. We want to avoid having 2 UIs with identical build conditions, and the Kuna is a bit weaker than the BWood camp.
• NoFreshWater is a slight nod to the biology of the Pernambuco tree, which does best in well-drained soil with low to medium humidity. Of course, Brazilwood trees have historically been seen along coastlines and in river valleys, but they don't do well in waterlogged soil, and apparently growing them is somewhat difficult. It's not perfect, but it's at least somewhat grounded in a realistic portrayal of the UI, whereas the current luxury adjacency is purely arbitrary.

 

[Legen]

This conversation has convinced me that we should unlink Tradition and Artistry from having this 3-pronged overlapping focus. The easiest way to do this is by reshuffling a few bonuses to strip Tradition of its GA bonuses:

• Swap the 50 on GP birth from Splendor (Tradition) with the 50 on GP birth from National treasure (Artistry)
• Remove the 25% GA length from the Tradition finisher -- changing the instant GAP to gold on splendor is a buff, so taking this small GA length buff, which is only 2 turns on standard, is fair
• Change the yields from Wonder construction on Heritage from GAP to Gold -- that way, Artistry retains 1 instant bonus and 1 instant bonus

Now Brazil is free to choose whatever Ancient Policy tree it wants, because none of them have any GAPs

I would be hesitant to add another source of GAPs to their kit, because they do already have a mechanic that allows them to create a lot of excess happiness that they can leverage for golden ages. With brazilwood luxuries, they also have a commodity to trade for other luxuries as another method for triggering Carnivals

I suppose that works. Though, there's still the matter that the GAP from GP birth scales with era, one reason I pointed out for tall GAP outscaling wide GAP sources. What do you think of GAP from GP birth not scaling with era and Artistry's scaler having more GAP per city? That would help push it more towards wide. That would also address the point I made from the UI gaining GAP from techs, as the intent was to make wide sources scale to a comparable degree with tall sources.

Instead, I would suggest moving the Physics boost to Industrial. Perhaps to Archaeology, as you suggested?

That is reasonable, given Physics is relatively close to Amphitheaters in the tech tree.

By the way, what of the Zoo proposal (culture nerf)? Brazilwood camps are buffed by Zoos simply because of the forest/jungle tile condition, so that proposal is a nerf to the UI.

The NoFreshWater limitation is slightly more permissive than Luxury adjacent; it should result in a few more improvements, but it's obviously more restrictive than just letting them be in forest/jungle and noTwoAdjacent.

The reason I chose that is because:

• The Mayan Kuna already has any Forest/Jungle and NoTwoAdjacent for a bonus. We want to avoid having 2 UIs with identical build conditions, and the Kuna is a bit weaker than the BWood camp.
• NoFreshWater is a slight nod to the biology of the Pernambuco tree, which does best in well-drained soil with low to medium humidity. Of course, Brazilwood trees have historically been seen along coastlines and in river valleys, but they don't do well in waterlogged soil, and apparently growing them is somewhat difficult. It's not perfect, but it's at least somewhat grounded in a realistic portrayal of the UI, whereas the current luxury adjacency is purely arbitrary.

I'm aware of those reasons, but fresh water is a tough condition due to how common it is, and, for a human player, that rivers can be hard to spot on jungle heavy areas. It also makes the UI subject to the map generator, as there are map mods/scripts that try to be more realistic regarding vegetation and water; Brazil could end being buffed or nerfed by your choice of map script and its version. Jungle bias is particularly bound to place Brazil in places with plenty of fresh water in those types of maps.

One alternative is to make it not adjacent to mountains. Brazil has few high altitude terrain, with the few ones being relatively low altitude (no more than 3000 meters) compared to the ones seen in other nations, including Peru and Chile (both almost at 7000 meters) on the same continent. This restriction could reflect that geography. Mountains are also much easier to spot when planning where you can build the UI in your future cities and should be less of an issue regarding map scripts.

 

[BaldSamson]

Background: Participated a bit in the early 4UC design days under a different account. I maintain my own balance layer and I set up AI-only battles for testing.

Sword Line: Yes, not sure on the "Professionalism" promo name - maybe just Shield Mastery?

Skirmisher Line: No.
Question - Skirmishers do have access to Cover I, etc. so this could potentially stack?
I don't like how it's lumping in a nerf to Mongolia in the form of tribute reduction. Frankly, it doesn't have anything to do with the change to Skirmisher line, so it should be addressed as a separate question.

Archer Line: Maybe. I like the idea of adding the slingers and changing the techs for availability. Composite Bowman in their current form seem to be around forever and IMO already have too much CS. You are adding CS to the whole line which I very much disagree with. There should be a strong disincentive for standing your ground with an archer with no defense in front. The RCS changes are fine (on first glance). If I had my druthers, I'd remove indirect fire from the Bowmen and the whole line and leave that niche for the artillery line.

Small Unit CS changes: Yes, I agree on both.

England: No, I don't understand this change, why it's necessary or desirable.

Spain: Yes, very cool idea. Now if you could just have them spread plagues on new continents, we'd be getting REALLY thematic You could add some gold/faith generation from revealing new tiles (very simple, thematic, and should help Spain build those fleets)

Songhai: Yes. The embarked defense/visibility never made sense to me. I think they they need something in return here though. Maybe change war canoes could change to {insert new name} that provides additional defense against city attacks? This should still make them effective raiders, they just don't move around the map like lightning.

Brazil: Yes, in spirit.
UA - I agree losing 25% culture bonus during Carnival, but I give them a 15% GAP instant yield to Culture/Science on GA start. This promotes keeping them small and emphasizing BW bonuses keeps them focused on Forest/Jungle.
Brazilwood camps - lose all rules other than non-adjacency. This is how I have them set up and it still requires some thought on where to build them, as you are trading culture for production by not building lumber camps. Losing that production does hurt. I don't find the argument that BW camps become too similar to Kunas compelling and would suggest changing their rules instead, if that is meaningful to others. (Why should you need forests to build stone structures again?)

Yes, on the bonus from Amphitheater, helping curve them out.

I make similar changes to Brazil in my own balance layer, and even change their UU quite a bit. I also make the BANDEIRANTES promotion available to the entire scouting line, so you don't have to avoid discovering tiles in the early game, which is not a fun/interesting mechanic to me.

Spoiler Brazil Changes :

--======================================================
-- == brazil ==
--remove luxury adjacency requirement for brazilwood
UPDATE Improvements SET AdjacentLuxury = 0 WHERE Type = 'IMPROVEMENT_BRAZILWOOD_CAMP';
-- allow early scouts to build brazilwood camps
INSERT INTO Trait_BuildsUnitClasses
    (TraitType, UnitClassType, BuildType)
VALUES
    ('TRAIT_CARNIVAL', 'UNITCLASS_PATHFINDER', 'BUILD_BRAZILWOOD_CAMP'),
    ('TRAIT_CARNIVAL', 'UNITCLASS_SCOUT', 'BUILD_BRAZILWOOD_CAMP');
-- add +25 rough defense to BANDEIRANTES promotion
UPDATE UnitPromotions SET RoughDefense = 25 WHERE Type = 'PROMOTION_RECON_BANDEIRANTES';
-- set BANDEIRANTES promotion on entire scout line
DELETE FROM Unit_FreePromotions WHERE PromotionType = 'PROMOTION_RECON_BANDEIRANTES';
INSERT INTO Trait_FreePromotionUnitCombats
    (TraitType, UnitCombatType, PromotionType)
VALUES
    ('TRAIT_CARNIVAL','UNITCOMBAT_RECON','PROMOTION_RECON_BANDEIRANTES');
-- changed from +3 gold/science/culture -> 1 gold/border growth +2 GAP
-- better early game at the expense of mid-game. brazil gets eaten too easily
DELETE FROM UnitPromotions_YieldFromScouting WHERE PromotionType = 'PROMOTION_RECON_BANDEIRANTES';
INSERT INTO UnitPromotions_YieldFromScouting
    (PromotionType, YieldType, Yield)
VALUES
    ('PROMOTION_RECON_BANDEIRANTES','YIELD_GOLD', 1),
    ('PROMOTION_RECON_BANDEIRANTES','YIELD_GOLDEN_AGE_POINTS', 1),
    ('PROMOTION_RECON_BANDEIRANTES','YIELD_CULTURE_LOCAL', 1);
UPDATE Units SET PrereqTech = 'TECH_EDUCATION' WHERE Type = 'UNIT_BANDEIRANTES';
-- remove culture bonus from WLTKD
UPDATE Traits SET WLTKDCultureBoost = 0 WHERE Type = 'TRAIT_CARNIVAL';
-- science/culture boost on start of golden age.
INSERT INTO Trait_GAPToYield
    (TraitType, YieldType, Yield)
VALUES
    ('TRAIT_CARNIVAL', 'YIELD_SCIENCE', 15),
    ('TRAIT_CARNIVAL', 'YIELD_CULTURE', 15);
-- a little more flexibility on founding, since you'll typically be in the jungle with rivers/hills
INSERT INTO Trait_FreePromotionUnitClass
    (TraitType, UnitClassType, PromotionType)
VALUES
    ('TRAIT_CARNIVAL','UNITCLASS_SETTLER','PROMOTION_IGNORE_TERRAIN_COST'),
    ('TRAIT_CARNIVAL','UNITCLASS_PIONEER','PROMOTION_IGNORE_TERRAIN_COST'),
    ('TRAIT_CARNIVAL','UNITCLASS_COLONIST','PROMOTION_IGNORE_TERRAIN_COST');

Korea : Yes.
UA - makes sense to me
Hwacha - Yes.
Seowans - I do something similar and remove their jungle science bonus to encourage a slightly different playstyle(chop baby chop). GPTI boosts make sense to me.

Power Plants: Yes, but tidal plant science seems too much.

Refinery: Yes, but agree with Stalker that moving it back in the tree isn't great.

Late Game Tourism: meh, I agree with the sentiment that CV is too quick, but still think that could be addressed with simpler changes.

Instant Tourism on Building: yes for circus, no to the other 2. prefer a simpler reduction nerf to instant yield similar to Zuizgond.

National Parks + Supermarket: yes, should be fun to try and balance.

 

[BaldSamson]

This conversation has convinced me that we should unlink Tradition and Artistry from having this 3-pronged overlapping focus. The easiest way to do this is by reshuffling a few bonuses to strip Tradition of its GA bonuses:

• Swap the 50 on GP birth from Splendor (Tradition) with the 50 on GP birth from National treasure (Artistry)
• Remove the 25% GA length from the Tradition finisher -- changing the instant GAP to gold on splendor is a buff, so taking this small GA length buff, which is only 2 turns on standard, is fair
• Change the yields from Wonder construction on Heritage from GAP to Gold -- that way, Artistry retains 1 instant bonus and 1 instant bonus

Now Brazil is free to choose whatever Ancient Policy tree it wants, because none of them have any GAPs

I agree with removing the GA elements from Tradition, but no need to add gold from GP birth. I like that Tradition is lacking a steady source of gold, as each tree should have tradeoffs. Currently, I do something a little crazy and add +1 working range to the capital from the Throne room, and culture from GP birth @splendor. It's fun and makes the tree very unique. I've always thought that the Tradition tree should move faster than Progress (which is it's tradeoff). Progress was almost always > Tradition until I added that additional working range.

 

[azum4roll]

IF you go with this kind of change, Comp Bows HAVE to be on currency. On engineering it leaves the north side of the tech tree with absolutely no means of defending itself for far too long in the game, it means all competitive games have to go south side. Currency was the only tech that was in a reasonable place timewise on the tree and was a place both north and south could get access to, which is why it became the compromise when this idea was heavily debated.

Comp Bows on engineering is simply a non-starter unless you create a new unit for the north side.

Disagreed. It's always a gamble if you decide to focus the top tree, early or late game. You can have Musketman and Tercio against Landship if you decide to go full top tree vs someone who goes full bottom.

 

[pineappledan]

Songhai Tweak:
They should not have any Embarked bonus. That's Denmark's thing.

I don't agree that Denmark is the only civ who is allowed to have any bonuses to embarkation. Denmark does not have a bonus that removes the penalty for attacking from embarked (though his UU does), so I don't see anything wrong with another civ having amphibious bonuses as long as they are different from the Danish ones.

small unit CS changes:
Counter proposal: Maori Warrior should be a Longswordsman replacement with 22CS (no Iron required), and Berserker should become a unique Pikeman that unlocks early with 19CS (now weaker but spammable).

I think this is a great idea and I wish I had thought of it

England Tweak:
Give the Ship of the Line Splash I+II instead. If Logistics keeps the double XP nothing should get the promotion for free.

I do not share the fairly common opinion that free logistics just shouldn't exist anywhere. However, Splash I + II is an acceptable proposal to me.
What is important to me is that SotL not have Both, free Indomitable And cheap, immediate access to Logistics.

By the way, what of the Zoo proposal (culture nerf)? Brazilwood camps are buffed by Zoos simply because of the forest/jungle tile condition, so that proposal is a nerf to the UI.

That is a very good point, and an oversight on my part. We might need to increase BWood's last 2 tech yield increases to 3, or maybe 21 to compensate for the lower yields from the Zoo.

I'm aware of those reasons, but fresh water is a tough condition due to how common it is, and, for a human player, that rivers can be hard to spot on jungle heavy areas. It also makes the UI subject to the map generator, as there are map mods/scripts that try to be more realistic regarding vegetation and water; Brazil could end being buffed or nerfed by your choice of map script and its version. Jungle bias is particularly bound to place Brazil in places with plenty of fresh water in those types of maps.

One alternative is to make it not adjacent to mountains. Brazil has few high altitude terrain, with the few ones being relatively low altitude (no more than 3000 meters) compared to the ones seen in other nations, including Peru and Chile (both almost at 7000 meters) on the same continent. This restriction could reflect that geography. Mountains are also much easier to spot when planning where you can build the UI in your future cities and should be less of an issue regarding map scripts.

I play with a terrain texture pack which makes the terrain much clearer, so maybe I'm less sympathetic to this than I should be. I believe even Brazil's TSL has a huge swatch of jungle/forest between the Amazon and Paraguay rivers with no water access -- which is where BWood grows anyways. Being at the mercy of a mapscript is kind of true of every unique improvement.

a mountain non-adjacency blocker would be new code.

England: No, I don't understand this change, why it's necessary or desirable.

this is more of a bug fix. free indomitable gives access to logistics immediately, so just giving free logistics is a nerf that only gives SotL the most powerful naval promotion, rather than the 2 most powerful promotions.

Question - Skirmishers do have access to Cover I, etc. so this could potentially stack?

They do have access to Cover and It would stack, yes. However, since the base RCS they defend with is so low, cover has little effect. A very small base number with a large modifier means piling on more modifiers has diminishing returns.

I don't like how it's lumping in a nerf to Mongolia in the form of tribute reduction. Frankly, it doesn't have anything to do with the change to Skirmisher line, so it should be addressed as a separate question.

The change is to make all post-chariot skirmishers 5 moves and very low RCS. If Mongolia retained its +2 moves and ZOC then the skirmishers would be excessively fast, but still do very little damage. This change to +1 attack means skirmishers can be real damage dealers, and have only 1 less move than they had before. This makes Mongolian skirmishers more usable in the new skirmisher rework; piling more movement on top of a unit with 5 base movement is overkill, and just produces more micro for players without an appreciable increase in strength.

+50% on the tribute modifier is still very considerable, but at +100% it is just excessive. With the Authority tree adopted, I have manged to tribute more than an entire policy off a cultural CS before. It's just way too much.

Overall, the +1 attack and new skirmishers is stronger than what Mongolia had before w.r.t. unit bonuses, so a compensatory nerf to his tribute bonus -- which is obscenely powerful right now, frankly -- is more than fair.

Archer Line: Maybe. I like the idea of adding the slingers and changing the techs for availability. Composite Bowman in their current form seem to be around forever and IMO already have too much CS. You are adding CS to the whole line which I very much disagree with. There should be a strong disincentive for standing your ground with an archer with no defense in front. The RCS changes are fine (on first glance). If I had my druthers, I'd remove indirect fire from the Bowmen and the whole line and leave that niche for the artillery line.

I have already lowered the CS of archers once in my own tweaks due to similar feedback. specific CS changes can be easily made, but it's the broader concept that should be the main focus.

Brazil: Yes, in spirit.
UA - I agree losing 25% culture bonus during Carnival, but I give them a 15% GAP instant yield to Culture/Science on GA start. This promotes keeping them small and emphasizing BW bonuses keeps them focused on Forest/Jungle.
Brazilwood camps - lose all rules other than non-adjacency. This is how I have them set up and it still requires some thought on where to build them, as you are trading culture for production by not building lumber camps. Losing that production does hurt. I don't find the argument that BW camps become too similar to Kunas compelling and would suggest changing their rules instead, if that is meaningful to others. (Why should you need forests to build stone structures again?)

Yes, on the bonus from Amphitheater, helping curve them out.

I make similar changes to Brazil in my own balance layer, and even change their UU quite a bit. I also make the BANDEIRANTES promotion available to the entire scouting line, so you don't have to avoid discovering tiles in the early game, which is not a fun/interesting mechanic to me.

That's a very interesting set up, and there's a few things in it that I like very much.

I don't like how your change strips the Baneirantes of pretty much their only useful ability. By making the yields on exploration part of the UA and the entire recon line, at that point you may as well just put the Pracinha back as the UU, because the Bandeirantes are nothing but an explorer with higher CS. What I would do is split the promotion, so all Recon units gain GAP on exploration and then the Bandeirantes have an additional promotion that also gives on exploration.

I think losing the Tourism is a big blow to Brazil's uniqueness; they are one of the few civs that have any direct tourism in their kit. Adding different yield types in addition to the Tourism is a great idea though; we can explore options for what people think is a fitting yield for them, to get on that trigger. We could even make it 25%GAP to and , and put some culture back into the UA that way if people wanted; I still am of a mind that culture in the UA of any kind detracts from the BWood camp, but at least it would be a better method of adding the yield than a banal WLTKD modifier.

 

[Legen]

Brazil: Yes, in spirit.
UA - I agree losing 25% culture bonus during Carnival, but I give them a 15% GAP instant yield to Culture/Science on GA start. This promotes keeping them small and emphasizing BW bonuses keeps them focused on Forest/Jungle.
Brazilwood camps - lose all rules other than non-adjacency. This is how I have them set up and it still requires some thought on where to build them, as you are trading culture for production by not building lumber camps. Losing that production does hurt. I don't find the argument that BW camps become too similar to Kunas compelling and would suggest changing their rules instead, if that is meaningful to others. (Why should you need forests to build stone structures again?)

Yes, on the bonus from Amphitheater, helping curve them out.

I make similar changes to Brazil in my own balance layer, and even change their UU quite a bit. I also make the BANDEIRANTES promotion available to the entire scouting line, so you don't have to avoid discovering tiles in the early game, which is not a fun/interesting mechanic to me.

I don't like how your change strips the Baneirantes of pretty much their only useful ability. By making the yields on exploration part of the UA and the entire recon line, at that point you may as well just put the Pracinha back as the UU, because the Bandeirantes are nothing but an explorer with higher CS. What I would do is split the promotion, so all Recon units gain GAP on exploration and then the Bandeirantes have an additional promotion that also gives on exploration.

I think losing the Tourism is a big blow to Brazil's uniqueness; they are one of the few civs that have any direct tourism in their kit. Adding different yield types in addition to the Tourism is a great idea though; we can explore options for what people think is a fitting yield for them, to get on that trigger. We could even make it 25%GAP to and , and put some culture back into the UA that way if people wanted; I still am of a mind that culture in the UA of any kind detracts from the BWood camp, but at least it would be a better method of adding the yield than a banal WLTKD modifier.

I don't agree about Bandeirantes having weaker yields for the sake of early exploration. Right now, Bandeirantes's yield potency plays an important role for Brazil to the civ's Renaissance Era, as those yields are timed for the era that has the largest amount of cultural world wonders. Having a sudden influx of of those yields put Brazil in a great position to compete for those wonders. The unit is fine as it is, has solid historical flavor and fulfills a proper role in what the civ wants to do.

I proposed adding GAP to culture conversion as well, I don't think science should be there; Brazil is very focused on one victory condition with little to nothing for the others, which is what justifies the civ's strength for CVs. I think this is a more unique way of giving Brazil a high culture scaling than the WLTKD modifier.

That point about the Kunas make sense; Brazil's UI had the jungle restriction since BNW, while the Kuna was a shrine replacement. Nothing about Maya's original UB demanded anything about the terrain. I think that, if Brazilwood camps and Kunas are similar due to terrain restrictions, it is the Kuna that should have its terrain conditions reviewed, not the brazilwood camps.

I still think the "no fresh water" requirement is a bad idea, given that there's a desire to push Brazil towards wide. The UI is what can push towards wide, and requires each new city to be able to justify the increased culture and tourism penalties; limiting further how often the UI can be built means some expansions won't be able to justify the penalties. The luxury adjacency itself pushed Brazil further into playing tall due to the difficulty of finding places where a luxury would also have adjacent forest/jungle tiles, and I can see the "no fresh water" restriction doing the same.

Another thing against the "no fresh water" restriction is that cultural civs give additional priority towards settling near fresh water, as that is a requirement for Baths and its +10% culture during GAs. Since Brazil is also expected to trigger GAs frequently and, therefore, benefit frequently from this building, the civ has very strong incentives to settle near fresh water; the UI should not be at odds with that.

I still am of a mind that culture in the UA of any kind detracts from the BWood camp

All of Brazil's uniques provide culture and gold, UU included, so why is culture on the UA an issue? The civ is supposed to be both cultural and focused, so it makes sense to have its uniques pointing towards the same yields. Many other focused civs do something similar; India has growth on UA and food on the UB, Babylon has GS bonuses on the UA and a scientist slot on the UB, Byzantium gets faith discount on the UA and extra faith on the UB, Carthage gets gold plus resource diversity on the UA and trade routes plus additional resource diversity for more gold on the UB.

If Brazil were designed as a generalist or adaptive civ, like Indonesia or the Celts, I'd see the point of diversifying what the uniques do. But, being a focused civ, I don't see why the uniques have to provide different yields; in fact, I expect them to provide the same. You even pointed out about Brazil needing to be distinctive from Indonesia on the WLTKD point, so it makes sense to keep Brazil distinct from them, whose uniques provide different yields from each other, by keeping Brazil's uniques providing the same yields instead.

 

[usadefcon1]

How about the name Discipline instead of Professionalism?

 

[usadefcon1]

Or you could rename Drill I,II,III to Sappers I,II,III and call this new promotion Drill.