I think my biggest concern overall (and would love the Warmongers perspective), is that the bottom of the tech tree feels much weaker to me than the top until Steel. I feel like overall I get a much better economy and wonders with the mid to upper tech options compared to the bottom, and the warfare options at the bottom are not so much better that its worth giving up.
Recent changes: The winners and losers
- Thread starter pineappledan
- Start date
I agree that VP allowing wonders of all eras to be obtainable is nice. However, wonders also shouldn't be basically 100% guaranteed either. Right now, Stonehenge and Pyramids are 100% guaranteed I think. Even on deity, maybe regardless of your start (unless it's crazy production starved I guess?). You don't have to be America or Egypt with their early wonder advantages. My point is that there should probably be a middle ground between never obtainable and always obtainable. Bumping the AI logic to where those 2 wonders go sooner would at least make them more of a gamble or something you have to work for somewhat.
On Deity I only see them go within a few turns of 40. I don't think I've ever seen either go as low as 30 or 31.
BiteInTheMark
Deity
City combat and archers:
At the moment the damage from city ranged attacks are too high and should be lowered. To enable a city a counter attack of an archer rush, base city range should go up to 2 while archer RCS get decreases by 1 to 6
. This way an archer rush should be much more costly and time consuming, making it less attractive. The RCS decrease of archers is in my eyes necessary cause I always produce archers only I ancienz and don't care about any warrior or often even spearman.
Pyramids:
I find that Pyramids change very gamey and boring at same time. Rush pyramids, and you will save hammers with each settler cause they are each time one step cheaper than without pyramids. It pays itself after a short time + you start with bigger capital at settler spam. I wished it would get back its worker rate modifier and give a free worker instead a settler.
Terracotta:
A rework was a good idea, cause it was really AI unfriendly and sometimes game breaking. But the current one isn't that appealing as well.
How would be:
Get 50% of CS of defeated enemies as
and 
Receive 3 lvl 5 Spearman and 3 supply cap
Composite bowman:
They feel too strong for the time they appear, a rush to mathematics and you can obliterate any resistance and even get cities relative quick. A decrease by 1 for
and are a good idea. The Atlatl UU of the Mayan feels now really sad to be played. Literally playing the Cbow with a short period promotion. I think making them much cheaper than the Cbow and giving them a weaker but permanent promotion would give them power back.
Spain:
Give them back their uniqueness. Food for all.
Cho-Ku-Nu and Slinger:
I agree that the previous free promotions were too strong, but their replacements really feel boring and strange.
Wouldnt it be interesting if slingers stay with the retreat mechanic AND get a +50% experience promotion but no other direct combat ability? Less experience than you would gain by logistics double attack but more a "care about your unit focus" .
Cho-Ku-Nu could do more damage, if they haven't moved, less damage and exp than with logistics, but not as strange as the current promotion.
At the moment the damage from city ranged attacks are too high and should be lowered. To enable a city a counter attack of an archer rush, base city range should go up to 2 while archer RCS get decreases by 1 to 6
. This way an archer rush should be much more costly and time consuming, making it less attractive. The RCS decrease of archers is in my eyes necessary cause I always produce archers only I ancienz and don't care about any warrior or often even spearman.Pyramids:
I find that Pyramids change very gamey and boring at same time. Rush pyramids, and you will save hammers with each settler cause they are each time one step cheaper than without pyramids. It pays itself after a short time + you start with bigger capital at settler spam. I wished it would get back its worker rate modifier and give a free worker instead a settler.
Terracotta:
A rework was a good idea, cause it was really AI unfriendly and sometimes game breaking. But the current one isn't that appealing as well.
How would be:
Get 50% of CS of defeated enemies as
and Receive 3 lvl 5 Spearman and 3 supply cap
Composite bowman:
They feel too strong for the time they appear, a rush to mathematics and you can obliterate any resistance and even get cities relative quick. A decrease by 1 for
and are a good idea. The Atlatl UU of the Mayan feels now really sad to be played. Literally playing the Cbow with a short period promotion. I think making them much cheaper than the Cbow and giving them a weaker but permanent promotion would give them power back.Spain:
Give them back their uniqueness. Food for all.
Cho-Ku-Nu and Slinger:
I agree that the previous free promotions were too strong, but their replacements really feel boring and strange.
Wouldnt it be interesting if slingers stay with the retreat mechanic AND get a +50% experience promotion but no other direct combat ability? Less experience than you would gain by logistics double attack but more a "care about your unit focus" .
Cho-Ku-Nu could do more damage, if they haven't moved, less damage and exp than with logistics, but not as strange as the current promotion.
pineappledan
Deity
Even if you give back the
food, it’s still a UA composed of spare parts from other civs. Bonus on settle from Carthage, bonus on conquer from Assyria, negates pressure better than Celts. A small instant yield on any tile gain, but tied specifically to each tile purchased/earned/settled/conquered/culture bombed/claimed with ruins. That still makes Spain a hybrid, but of 4 civs on unique triggers.
Vanilla pyramids gave a free worker. I think going back to that and the 25% work rate sounds fair at that 1st tech tier. It satisfies the immediate and long term bonuses. The early settler is fun, but I’m not sure if it’s worth it at that early tech if it means sacrificing all other bonuses.
Omen of Peace
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2018
- Messages
- 404
Vanilla Pyramids gave 2 Workers, no?
I'd vote to keep the Settler - more interesting/strategy-altering than a Worker or two.
Many good proposals here.
The reworked Terracotta with a fixed army sounds great, though we can argue on the number and type of units.
Yes to the small Ranged line needs.
Yes to boost the bottom of the tree. Perhaps we could move another Wonder there?
Yes for the early forest-cutting but with no hammer bonus (granted by a later tech or two), if that can be coded.
I'd vote to keep the Settler - more interesting/strategy-altering than a Worker or two.
Many good proposals here.
The reworked Terracotta with a fixed army sounds great, though we can argue on the number and type of units.
Yes to the small Ranged line needs.
Yes to boost the bottom of the tree. Perhaps we could move another Wonder there?
Yes for the early forest-cutting but with no hammer bonus (granted by a later tech or two), if that can be coded.
Gothic_Empire
AKA, Ramen Empire
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,502
I normally just lurk, but enough people are tugging on this chain that I think I'll add my two cents. The Pyramids and Terracotta Army changes were a breath of fresh air. I rarely built them before, and now I'm looking for excuses to try. I don't care that something is "gamey" in a game. That's where gamey things go.
Stet stet stet
Stet stet stet
JamesNinelives
Emperor
I would be happy to see a buff to the Terracotta Army, but I feel this is significantly too strong (especially that it gives free strategics so early in the game). I don't mind it giving a preset number of units, but all those benefits make it better than the pre-changes Terracotta Army (which was pretty decent).
I think it's worth noting that AI competition for wonders has been improved recently. So this isn't an issue that's going completely under the radar.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
- A comp bow has 100%/85% of the
- crossbows the same situation as CBows; they unlock 1 tech after pikes and knights.
- Crossbowmen have 20
- Crossbows have 88%/63% of a Pikeman/Knight's CS.
- Musketmen unlock 1 tech behind tercios and at the same level as lancers.
- Muskets have 31
- Muskets have 88%/59% of tercio/lancer's CS
Hold up there. There is a huge difference between 85% and 63-59%. Lancers smash musketmen, just as they should do. And knights also hit crossbows (which unlock at a rather inconvenient tech btw) for good damage without taking much in return.
Certainly c. bowmen stand up a lot better against horsemen than archers do, but before Mathematics horsemen dominate the ancient era so frankly I'm glad something can. Similarly Knights are the dominant unit in the medieval era, so being able to stand up to them with something that unlocks later in the tech tree makes a lot of sense to me.
As with some previous discussions, I think the way you have presented the situation is very much as someone who is attacking rather than someone who is defending. And it leads to hyperbole. I would be willing for c bowmen to drop to CS 10 or even CS 9 as they would still be pretty useful, but please don't present ranged units as if what is true for one is true for all of them.
Last edited:
I think this is a lot worse than the old one, I used to get 7 or 8 units from it. I think for a while it started a golden age, then it gave like 500 culture on completion. But maybe 4 units is enough? I think its base cost is 180 hammers. Horse + spear + chariot is 220 hammers, but the reward needs to be big to compensate for risk taken and it raises the cost of future wonders.
I think the horses would just help the AI who otherwise might use all their horses then have their healing blocked when they get Terracotta.
Guynemer
King
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2002
- Messages
- 880
The other thing to consider with the possibility of TCA giving a set number of units: what about unique units? When the events system gives free units, they are standard, not unique. Would the TCA do the same? If they give uniques, that could be a potential nightmare for compatability with modmods.
MarvelOfRain
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2019
- Messages
- 57
Problem is that it is almost impossible to make them obtainable just sometimes. If the AI is set to prioritize them more it will finish them on T30 every time and you cannot obtain them ever - unlike with the other Wonders there is really no random variables that would determine when they can get it (how was their start, did someone attack them, did they snowball well...) . Also just changing the turn to get them is super hard to get right since people play on different settings and obtainable might mean a different turn for them.
The only real solution would be introducing some random seed decision if the AI should go for the Pyramids/Henge (probably hard to implement + will be just about pure luck) or an entire new system like the Wonders Expanded mod, that gives most Wonders building requirements.
It is fine where it is right now - you can get them consistently but you cannot really build much before them.
AndreyK
King
I think that new TCA is good, better then before, just culture bonus could be made higher
I've played a bunch of early games as Brazil the last few days going for Pyramids.
I've gone:
Shrine->monument(invested)->Pyramid and I've gotten Pyramid every time (this is on Deity). I typically finish it around turn 35 or so. Stonehenge is even easier- you go monument->Stonehenge and you get it every time. In my experience, neither wonder typically gets built until T40ish. I'm not sacrificing much to get these wonders. I still get my first policy and my pantheon like normal.
I just think it's boring that a civ with no early bonuses can get Pyramid or Stonehenge guaranteed without making any sort of real sacrifice. An AI could choose to go after those wonders the same way as the human and make it a gamble. If that AI happens to be America or Egypt then it becomes even more of a gamble as those civs have early game advantages. But as far as I can tell the AI doesn't fully commit to those wonders and instead must be building monument/shrine/warrior or something or not researching the tech first.
If the AI went after those early wonders the same way then the player would have to evaluate if their start makes it likely that they will get those wonders in time. Your start is all flat land and no production? Maybe you shouldn't try it.
In my experience, these are the only two wonders that are like this. Every other wonder requires more commitment and planning to get and otherwise has risks of not building it in time.
Maybe a simple solution would be to put a 1 policy requirement on Pyramid to at least delay when you can start building it? That would probably be enough to make it more competitive as it gives the AI a buffer. That probably doesn't work for Stonehenge though- Stonehenge only makes sense if you build it early for the free pantheon. The other solution would be to teach the AI to more fully commit to those wonders the same way the player does.
My own solution has been to not build those early wonders unless it makes sense thematically for the civ because otherwise it just feels too cheesy/easy.
Do you have ancient ruins turned off? I recently started playing with them again, and AI will build Pyramids or Stonehenge before turn 30 somewhat regularly.
The 1 policy requirement was removed so that building them wasn't dependent on finding culture ruins, but that was a long time ago when social policies were a lot cheaper.
My issue with Pyramid is that it lines up poorly with my playstyle/path and Stonehenge have more value.
That said there are probably scenarios where pyramids are better.
Crossbowmen are very strong, especially for defensive play as it allows for skipping the bottom tech tree part (while sometimes viable I'm not fond of archer units conquest).
Too strong? I don't think so.
Terracotta was in dire need for a change because the AI was not able to utilize it in the same way as a human player.
Its currently on a slightly weak side but the increased tile improvement speed is very handy for wide authority, the culture gains are a bit on the low side but wide/conquest is sufficiently strong as is.
Not sure what to change without making it too good.
That said there are probably scenarios where pyramids are better.
Crossbowmen are very strong, especially for defensive play as it allows for skipping the bottom tech tree part (while sometimes viable I'm not fond of archer units conquest).
Too strong? I don't think so.
Terracotta was in dire need for a change because the AI was not able to utilize it in the same way as a human player.
Its currently on a slightly weak side but the increased tile improvement speed is very handy for wide authority, the culture gains are a bit on the low side but wide/conquest is sufficiently strong as is.
Not sure what to change without making it too good.
Good point- I'm playing without events/ruins (and without research agreements, tech trading/brokering though that's not relevant here) so the early game is slower and more predictable as a result. I should have remembered to say that so that we'd be talking apples to apples.
Does playing with ruins add enough variability to make Stonehenge/Pyramids a gamble or are they still basically guaranteed if you go right for them?
Honestly I think the culture on Terracotta is pretty good. You can average a kill once a turn pretty easily, that would be the same as the building have 10 culture, which is a wonder I'd happily build. I just think its boring to add culture on kills when its something you can already get.
Just got Pyramids on turn 29, but Stonehenge went on turn 28. That's with marble in my capital. With ruins on Deity I'd say they are very risky and probably not worth it (unless you just rereroll if you lose them, which I bet most people do).
Similar threads
- Locked
