- Aug 9, 2017
- Alberta, Canada
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.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.
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!
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.@pineappledan Why do you still want to give insta yield on completion? It's it better to just give yields per turn?
Current instant bonuses are:
- Circus - 500
- Zoo - 1000
- Stadium - 2500
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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