Poll: which of these changes would you like to see for the Comanche Rider?

[JamesNinelives]

[Edit: please disregard the stats in this poll, I have created a new one that should hopefully be clearer! I can't figure out how to delete the post, but I guess the conversation her may still be somewhat relevant.]

Based on discussion in the Shoshone thread, most people seem to agree that the Shoshone UU - the Comance Rider - could use improvement. There are several other ideas proposed but I thought it would be good to focus on one things that we can agree on to begin with! Multiple options can be chosen.

Moderator Action: Poll deleted and thread locked. - Recursive

 

[Stalker0]

I’ll note that multi choice polls are a bad idea here, we don’t get enough voters to generate good statistics with multi choice polls like this.

I would highly encourage a shift to a single choice poll to increase the chance of a valid result

 

[phantomaxl1207]

I just read some posts on the Shoshone thread:

Survialism III, come at Rifling, gain Science from Pillaging. Make them tanky so they can Pillage.

Maybe we could make them Cuirassier replacements instead (unlock at Gunpowder). Maybe have them heal more in enemy territory so Survivalism III is useful.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I’ll note that multi choice polls are a bad idea here, we don’t get enough voters to generate good statistics with multi choice polls like this.

I would highly encourage a shift to a single choice poll to increase the chance of a valid result

@Stalker0 OK. Generally I prefer single-choice. In the past I've done single-choice polls and had some people tell me that they strongly prefer multi-choice. I wasn't sure how representative that view was.

I'm happy to delete this poll and make a new one if you think that's a good idea. I do think it's worth noting that several people did advocate for more than one change to this unit though (e.g. move earlier and no horse requirement).

 

[Stalker0]

@Stalker0 OK. Generally I prefer single-choice. In the past I've done single-choice polls and had some people tell me that they strongly prefer multi-choice. I wasn't sure how representative that view was.

I'm happy to delete this poll and make a new one if you think that's a good idea. I do think it's worth noting that several people did advocate for more than one change to this unit though (e.g. move earlier and no horse requirement).

i do think the poll should be remade.

my issue is not that multi choice polls are misleading or anything, it’s that the stasticial error inherent to them is much higher than a single choice poll.

now when you have fancy polling techniques and 1000s of respondents, you can work through that, but here we are working with like 80
Responses and none of us are polling experts. So our error rates are high, and therefore it’s best to remove as much of that error as we can, and single choice polls are more definitive and less sensitive to error.

Put more simply, if you use a multi choice poll, unless the results are incredibly lopsided, the most likely result is going to be: “statistically we cannot
Make any determination”

 

[azum4roll]

Single choice polls only work when

1. All choices are distinct and exclusive (kinda, if we ignore the "others" option)
2. We only want to pick one (which is not the case here)

I don't think any kind of poll can determine the exact set of changes we want to make. Well, an approval rating poll with every single combination listed can do that I guess.

 

[JamesNinelives]

i do think the poll should be remade.

my issue is not that multi choice polls are misleading or anything, it’s that the stasticial error inherent to them is much higher than a single choice poll.

now when you have fancy polling techniques and 1000s of respondents, you can work through that, but here we are working with like 80
Responses and none of us are polling experts. So our error rates are high, and therefore it’s best to remove as much of that error as we can, and single choice polls are more definitive and less sensitive to error.

Put more simply, if you use a multi choice poll, unless the results are incredibly lopsided, the most likely result is going to be: “statistically we cannot
Make any determination”

Do you mind if I ask for a bit more information? I don't really understand why there would be so much error. I did find something by Pew (2019) that said "forced-choice questions yield more accurate results than select-all-that-apply lists". But it also said "it had little effect on which items were most or least endorsed". https://www.pewresearch.org/methods...rvey-respondents-only-select-some-that-apply/

We've already sort of established that there's a good case for improving the comanche rider, so I really just want to know if any particular an option is more popular than the others. If two of them stand out I see that as a good result too. I was also hoping that discussion in the comments would be able to work out any contention in the outcome.

By the way, my mum is an experienced statistician (at the Australian Bureau of Statistics) and works on various surveys. I'm somewhat inclined to ask her if there's disagreement about the format.

 

[Stalker0]

We've already sort of established that there's a good case for improving the comanche rider, so I really just want to know if any particular an option is more popular than the others.

By the way, my mum is an experienced statistician (at the Australian Bureau of Statistics) and works on various surveys. I'm somewhat inclined to ask her if there's disagreement about the format.

feel free to ask your mum, as again I am not a trained pollster.

the crux of the issue is saying “which one is the most popular”, that’s what the stats are for… but we have to remember that our polls are not “great”. Our survey questions and answers don’t using full polling rigor and our response numbers are low.

now I can calculate the margin of error for these single choice polls (as the math is trivial), and sometimes our answers have enough consensus that we push through the margin of error and still get a “real” result.

multichoice polls though are much more complicated, and I personally don’t have the skills to accurately suss out margin of error from our results. Combine that with the fact that multichoice polls have higher margins of error to begin with…it’s hard to say if we could ever run a multichoice poll that gave us “meaningful” results

 

[Zuizgond]

I vote for science yield when pillaging specific tiles (like strategic resources for instance).

I know it's not listed

 

[pineappledan]

I vote for strategic resource stealing gaining 1 Strategic Resource copy from pillage.

I would like to note that such an ability makes better sense if the Comanche is Not unlocked earlier and Retains its strategic requirement. Military science is at the same tier as 2 strategic buildings, 1 tech after 1 strategic is revealed and 1 tech before 2 other strategics are revealed. It's perfectly placed.

I'm specifically against the idea of removing the strategic requirement, because that only serves to let you phase out horses 1 era earlier and convert them into Agribusinesses faster and easier. No strategics bonuses make a lot more sense for units that are earlier, or unlock at the same time as their resource reveal, but you've had horses for 5 eras by now. When combined with the strategic steal ability, it seems like a countersynergy to make them not depend on strategics themselves. I think it hurts flavor and theme if both bonuses are given.

I would be in favor of yields on pillage being added to the DLL as a promotion ability more generally though. I don't like the current building-centric implementation, it's too rigid. If the yields were granted via promotion you could give UUs yields on pillage, or specific unit types (ie. melee only). You could unlock via policy, wonder, or building.

 

[looorg]

While the "stealing strategic resources" idea is interesting as an idea it is also horribly broken if it is permanent. So in a typical war then I could just empty enemy lands of resources and then they'll just never see them again? Or is it a temporary thing? Where would they go? Would there be some kind of dummy resource under the capital that just contained stacks of resources of all kinds?

Then there is perhaps the "realism" factor (even tho of lesser importance perhaps). What would this be? The indians came in and rode off with your entire coal pit/iron ore mine/drank all the oil? While somewhat over the top and silly I'm also partly serious. Perhaps it should be more like a "forced trade" in that if they pillage say a size 3 iron ore mine they get 3 iron ore for "trade deal time" (depending on game speed) and then it's cancelled? This permanent removing or repainting the landscape sounds quite bad imo. That said I'll abuse the hell out of it if I play them then, I don't think the AI might be as successful in that regard.

So in some theoretical war I go in and I pillage all the Iron, the victim will then never be able to build a single future unit or building that will require it (canons, artillery, minefield ...). Coal would be even worse (no factories, trains, seaports for you!). Trading for those resources isn't really a viable option. Oil (no airforce for you in the future!) etc etc.

 

[pineappledan]

Maybe we should use different words than "steal". What I proposed in my original post is that you just gain 1 copy of that Strategic resource when you pillage the relevant tile. The tile itself doesn't lose anything, it just becomes pillaged.

@JamesNinelives described in the poll that the SR would be destroyed; I never suggested that be the case. Please change that poll option description. If the SR were to be removed on pillage, that would feel really bad. Also, it strains believability as @looorg points out. There is a difference between carrying off Some iron or horses and taking an Entire Mine's worth.

Is this confusion to blame for why this idea isn't gaining in the polls?

 

[Rekk]

Gain 1 strategic resource after pillaging (don't reduce opponent's resource).

I'm okay with gain yield on pillage in addition to or instead of gains strategic.


Keep horse requirement. Unlocks at the same tech.

 

[looorg]

Maybe we should use different words than "steal". What I proposed in my original post is that you just gain 1 copy of that Strategic resource when you pillage the relevant tile. The tile itself doesn't lose anything, it just becomes pillaged.

I would say it was better but still horribly abusive. Would you be able to hit the same spot again? Hit it, +1, back off let them repair the tile, hit again, +1 ... If you dont care about city-state rep you would just farm and abuse some city-state for endless strat resources.

 

[pineappledan]

I would say it was better but still horribly abusive. Would you be able to hit the same spot again? Hit it, +1, back off let them repair the tile, hit again, +1 ... If you dont care about city-state rep you would just farm and abuse some city-state for endless strat resources.

You could, yes. You would have to quit a war, wait long enough that they repaired the tile and hit them again. Do I think this is abusive though? Not really, no.

This is similar to what Aztecs do for free Golden Ages. Pillaging and then quiting until the enemy can repair and then repillaging is also the core of what Denmark does on Every tile starting in Classical, not just specific resources in Industrial. Prora gives you 100+ culture on pillages on every tile too. And these are on yields that are infinitely more flexible and useful, because they're yields with no saturation. You can sell excess Strategics, but it hits a pretty definite saturation point where you just don't need any more horses etc.

So between endlessly despoiling a city-state with 1 iron deposit and 5 other improved tiles, would I rather do that with Denmark and receive 720 or do that with Shoshone and receive 1 iron?

 

[looorg]

So between endlessly despoiling a city-state with 1 iron deposit and 5 other improved tiles, would I rather do that with Denmark and receive 720 or do that with Shoshone and receive 1 iron?

I would say we have very different priorities, or play very different games, in that regard. I would much rather have say a permanent free coal then getting a few pieces of gold or culture that would in turn not probably be a turns worth of income. In exchange I would be able to build another factory/trainstation/seaport and that would just be so much more valuable.

I would then pretty much just declare war, pilage tile, peace out, wait, repeat. Say a free coal from nothing every 10-15 turns? I wouldn't even bother killing units or pillage the other tiles. Just do that over and over again until I have all the resources. Iron, Horses etc are usually not an issue. It's usually coal I would say that is what tends to be missing. Not enough to have all the buildings everywhere. Much more valuable.

If your reputation is in ruins anyway just do it to multiple city states. No more resource limitations.

When you have like Prora etc 100 culture is nothing. Sure all tiny yields combined becomes big combined and after time but by itself it's a small fraction of a normal turns income at best. It doesn't even compare to getting a free resource out of nothing. I guess you could just do it over and over again until you get monopolies on them to for more bonuses.

 

[pineappledan]

Make no mistake, I would want the ability to be good, but I don't think it's overpowered in relation to what existing bonuses gives w.r.t. free yields.

Yes, I think that some free copies of resources are quite valuable, but I don't think they are disproportionately more valuable than what Denmark can do already. Plus, I think the idea of having both kinds of pillage bonuses in the game adds diversity and interest to their playstyles. I would rather not have Comanches merely be an era-locked Denmark knock-off.

I would much rather have say a permanent free coal then getting a few pieces of gold or culture that would in turn not probably be a turns worth of income. In exchange I would be able to build another factory/trainstation/seaport and that would just be so much more valuable.

Sure, it is valuable to have that extra coal to build 1 more building, but what is the sum value of having an extra factory on empire that you wouldn't otherwise have? What % of that factory's value is captured by its SR requirement, and not its build cost or Maintenance? the 1 coal is only 1 of 3 components. It's not as simple as coal having infinitely more value than some amount of yields, but the value of coal is abstracted, which I like.

 

[looorg]

I would rather not have Comanches merely be an era-locked Denmark knock-off.

Which is totally understandable. That said getting a good but fleeting yield is one thing. A permanent reward in the form of a resource is another. It's less so when you don't actually steal it as previously (suggested or misunderstood).

Sure, it is valuable to have that extra coal to build 1 more building, but what is the sum value of having an extra factory on empire that you wouldn't otherwise have? What % of that factory's value is captured by its SR requirement, and not its build cost or Maintenance? the 1 coal is only 1 of 3 components. It's not as simple as coal having infinitely more value than some amount of yields, but the value of coal is abstracted, which I like.

Considering that you can't even build it if you don't have the resource that is somewhat hard to say. That said even if you have it temporary you could build it and then just pay extra maintenance for it later, which may or may not be viable depending on your economy. Consider that every factory you already have become a little bit better if you build another one. It might not be a big deal on certain game speeds or map sizes where you don't have that many cities, but on the other side of the spectrum it's a whole different ballgame. If you can have a factory and a trainstation/seaport (and some other buildings the scaling increases) everywhere you are in another production league all together. Something that, depending on map size etc, is usually not viable unless you get very lucky with resources or conquer the world or manage to get Hexxon. I don't think I ever said "I wish I had just a bit more culture this turn", but I can remember wishing many times that I had some more coal/iron/horses etc.

But I'm willing to try it. I think it will be overpowered and bonkers but it could be interesting.

 

[pineappledan]

But I'm willing to try it. I think it will be overpowered and bonkers but it could be interesting.

A late game UU on a civ like Shoshone, whose kit is otherwise just coasting on Ancient era bonuses, should probably be pretty bonkers.

Berbers are a stronger unit, and they are supported by a civ whose kit is snowballing on era-scaling per turn yields like crazy in this era. Cossacks are crazy strong, and backed up by a civ whose UB is online, and has double the power of Shoshone's defensive turtle ability, on top of a strong natural SR advantage.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Maybe we should use different words than "steal". What I proposed in my original post is that you just gain 1 copy of that Strategic resource when you pillage the relevant tile. The tile itself doesn't lose anything, it just becomes pillaged.

@JamesNinelives described in the poll that the SR would be destroyed; I never suggested that be the case. Please change that poll option description. If the SR were to be removed on pillage, that would feel really bad. Also, it strains believability as @looorg points out. There is a difference between carrying off Some iron or horses and taking an Entire Mine's worth.

Is this confusion to blame for why this idea isn't gaining in the polls?

To be fair PDan I said 'and/or'. Nobody explained in clear language in the thread exactly how the mechanic would work and we seemed to kind of be going in circles in terms of what topic to focus on so I wanted to do something.

I'm happy to change the poll to better represent what you intended! I thought that would be the more reasonable option myself.