Right mechanics, wrong civilization?

[Vermicious Knid]

For the Jotnar, the biggest issue is to remove the primary benefit of city-spam: increased citizen spawn. Make the spawning of Jotnar Citizens unrelated to the number of cities, and you remove a fair amount of the encouragement. It also puts a limit on city sprawl, because if you expand too fast you won't have enough units to defend.
Another thing that would help is to remove the population cap, allowing them to run a halfway decent specialist economy without needing to expand like crazy to keep up in research.

They could probably use the same mechanic as Valkrionn set up for the Grigori...have Citizens spawn at a fairly fixed rate in the capital? Maybe have a series of national wonders that boost the rate?

Or heck...you could kill the spawn mechanic entirely. Scions and Grigori already use it, along with the Mercurians and Infernals (in a different way). Just have them build Citizens.

I agree about the population cap...it seems like too much and is also a bit game-y/arbitrary. They can only work 8 tiles + the center tile...it isn't like they can have large populations in any case.

Perhaps if a harder limit on growth is desired they could only grow to 8(?) naturally, but Jot Adults could join the city? Or they could not grow naturally as all like a fallow civ, but still require food. Not sure how hard that would be to set up...

 

[Valkrionn]

Hmm... Seeing that they're limited to one ring cities, might as well remove the population cap. Outside of a city with Yggdrasil, you aren't going to have a city much larger than that anyway.

Edit: And I didn't really set up the grigori mechanic. I stole it almost entirely from the scions, so credit there goes to Tarq.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I don't know who wrote that wiki entry, but I do not think it is accurate at all.

 

[Vermicious Knid]

I don't know who wrote that wiki entry, but I do not think it is accurate at all.

Seems like you should probably be writing all those entries...you certainly seem to be the most knowledgeable.

 

[Vermicious Knid]

Hmm... Seeing that they're limited to one ring cities, might as well remove the population cap. Outside of a city with Yggdrasil, you aren't going to have a city much larger than that anyway.

Edit: And I didn't really set up the grigori mechanic. I stole it almost entirely from the scions, so credit there goes to Tarq.

What do you think of scrapping the spawn mechanic? Too much?

 

[Valkrionn]

I think it's too much, personally. That's a big part of the way the civ was designed. I don't really care for limiting it to spawning in one city either... Supposed to represent the giants being born. Would be rather odd for them all to be born in one city. I do think the number of cities maintenance in Traditions needs to be dropped, if not flat-out removed... but that will take a few games to balance.

 

[Vermicious Knid]

I think it's too much, personally. That's a big part of the way the civ was designed. I don't really care for limiting it to spawning in one city either... Supposed to represent the giants being born. Would be rather odd for them all to be born in one city. I do think the number of cities maintenance in Traditions needs to be dropped, if not flat-out removed... but that will take a few games to balance.

Cool. I'll play around with it. I'm sure you have 50 other projects to work on.

 

[solistus]

It seems to me that Jotnar city spamming has two (fixable) causes:

1. (at least last time I played them) Jotnar can build settlers normally. Forcing them to consume valuable Citizens to expand would slow them down a lot and fit with the whole 'dwindling race' thing (a new Jotnar being born is a rare event celebrated for a whole month, blah blah blah, so how can they just devote production resources to create a new town of 'em?).

2. The way Citizen spawning works, you pretty much HAVE to city spam to keep getting enough Citizens. Either you play lore-appropriately with a fairly small empire, have no military and fail miserably, or you city spam and steamroll the opposition. Unlike most civs, which have to balance expansion and military, Jotnar get both or nothing - so obviously a smart player will opt for both.

I'm not sure how to solve this, but the current approach (hard cap on Citizens based on number of cities, rapid increase in spawn rate when you're below that cap which mostly happens by city spamming) makes city spam and the snowball effect of improving everything at once or sucking at everything as Jotnar inevitable.

This is a somewhat complex idea off the top of my head, so it may not be doable or balanced, but just to brainstorm: what if Jotnar cities could only grow to an even lower size cap naturally, but additional Citizens could be 'settled' into existing cities to raise it further? Then, spawn rates could be tied to population rather than raw number of cities, ideally so that the same total population would produce slightly higher spawn rates with fewer, larger cities. This way, Jotnar players would have a more 'balanced' decision calculus of expansion to claim more territory versus building up cities. It's somewhat similar to the Scions' city mechanics, but the spawn system would be rather different and the smaller cities would still encourage a different playstyle. This still doesn't entirely solve the problem of making military might increase alongside builder-style play rather than trading off with it, though.

An even more radical solution: block Jotnar from building any tile improvements aside from forts, roads and mana nodes, but allow Citizens to settle as a new type of specialist to produce the bulk of Jotnar food/commerce/hammers. That may be even more impossible to get balanced, though, as great specialists don't count toward city population, so Jotnar could then form uber cities.

Whatever approach is taken, the main issue I see as needing to be solved is that the Jotnar can solve _all_ their problems (lack of military units, lack of commerce, lack of production, lack of resources, etc.) with the same action: city spam. Pretty much every other civ has to weigh the benefits of more territory with dramatic maintenance costs and hammers that could have gone to military units instead. With the insane yields Jotnar can get with the right tile improvements combined with the virtually nonexistent maintenance costs, it's fairly trivial to get a new Jotnar city producing net income rather quickly.

 

[Vermicious Knid]

It seems to me that Jotnar city spamming has two (fixable) causes:

1. (at least last time I played them) Jotnar can build settlers normally. Forcing them to consume valuable Citizens to expand would slow them down a lot and fit with the whole 'dwindling race' thing (a new Jotnar being born is a rare event celebrated for a whole month, blah blah blah, so how can they just devote production resources to create a new town of 'em?).

2. The way Citizen spawning works, you pretty much HAVE to city spam to keep getting enough Citizens. Either you play lore-appropriately with a fairly small empire, have no military and fail miserably, or you city spam and steamroll the opposition. Unlike most civs, which have to balance expansion and military, Jotnar get both or nothing - so obviously a smart player will opt for both.

I'm not sure how to solve this, but the current approach (hard cap on Citizens based on number of cities, rapid increase in spawn rate when you're below that cap which mostly happens by city spamming) makes city spam and the snowball effect of improving everything at once or sucking at everything as Jotnar inevitable.

This is a somewhat complex idea off the top of my head, so it may not be doable or balanced, but just to brainstorm: what if Jotnar cities could only grow to an even lower size cap naturally, but additional Citizens could be 'settled' into existing cities to raise it further? Then, spawn rates could be tied to population rather than raw number of cities, ideally so that the same total population would produce slightly higher spawn rates with fewer, larger cities. This way, Jotnar players would have a more 'balanced' decision calculus of expansion to claim more territory versus building up cities. It's somewhat similar to the Scions' city mechanics, but the spawn system would be rather different and the smaller cities would still encourage a different playstyle. This still doesn't entirely solve the problem of making military might increase alongside builder-style play rather than trading off with it, though.

An even more radical solution: block Jotnar from building any tile improvements aside from forts, roads and mana nodes, but allow Citizens to settle as a new type of specialist to produce the bulk of Jotnar food/commerce/hammers. That may be even more impossible to get balanced, though, as great specialists don't count toward city population, so Jotnar could then form uber cities.

Whatever approach is taken, the main issue I see as needing to be solved is that the Jotnar can solve _all_ their problems (lack of military units, lack of commerce, lack of production, lack of resources, etc.) with the same action: city spam. Pretty much every other civ has to weigh the benefits of more territory with dramatic maintenance costs and hammers that could have gone to military units instead. With the insane yields Jotnar can get with the right tile improvements combined with the virtually nonexistent maintenance costs, it's fairly trivial to get a new Jotnar city producing net income rather quickly.

Well said.


The initial solution I'm going to try (based on suggestions up-thread) is:

1. Eliminate population cap
2. Eliminate or greatly reduce maintenance break on number of cities.
maybe 3. Make settlers available only by upgrading citizens, as you suggest. I like this idea, but I can envision a scenario where you have 1 city and no citizens early...and get unlucky on spawns. Game over. Needs to be an escape clause here. Haven't decided what quite yet...perhaps a building that creates a citizen on completion? You would only be able to pull the trick once a city, so it couldn't get out of hand...

 

[Swinkscalibur]

Aww, you could build a Jotnar Nursery. You build it and the baby will come.

 

[WarKirby]

I'm not in favor of lifting the population cap, or reducing their maintenance reduction much. both are quite fundamental parts of what makes the civs different.

They can spam a near infinite amount of small, insignificant cities. Now, that maybe needs some tweaking, but I think it's a solid concept. More importantly, it's a unique concept.

The changes that are being proposed here - allowing cities to be better, but having less of them - are just pushing them more towards "normal". it reduces the uniqueness. The jotnar are fun in that you can expand as much as you're willing to pay for settlers. Maintenance is pretty much a non issue. Just like Food is a non issue for Infernals. They're freed from one game mechanic, and allowed to do so much more. It offers an interesting and enjoyable playing experience. Personally, I like having a civ that gains uber benefit from corporations/guilds.

Also, the comments about jotnar getting both or none (expansion and military) are wrong. In the past few jotnar games I've played (including on the most recent FF patch) I had an overabundance of citizens easily. But my expansion was still heavily limited. By money!

This point seems to be rather overlooked. Jotnar citizens need 305 to upgrade to a settler. That's a LOT in the early game. You have to lower research significantly to get that. And Every settler you buy, is 7 wild trolls you're NOT buying. Every military unit you buy costs some of that precious gold, and pushes you farther away from the next settler. It gets easier with time certainly, but it's a very slow start. Infinite city sprawl isn't as easy as it sounds. If you find your borders threatened, you're pretty much incapable of expanding because you have to buy a military.

Jotnar can still build settlers though. That's not so easy because of their poor cities, but it is still a problem, and I think it should be removed. I like the idea of the building that gives 1 free citizen, and can be built once per city. That would help in the unfortunate case of not getting a citizen for hundreds of turns.

I think Jotnar could do with some tweaking if they're too overpowered, but great fundamental changes like what's being proposed here, are something I wouldn't enjoy.


PS: If you really have an urge to make massive changes to something, why not have a look at the Hippus? A civ with one UU, no UBs, one unique promotion, and not even the slightest hint of a unique mechanic. I'd argue that they're by far the most bland and boring civ in the game right now, and are desperately in need of some attention.

 

[Vermicious Knid]

I'm not in favor of lifting the population cap, or reducing their maintenance reduction much. both are quite fundamental parts of what makes the civs different.

They can spam a near infinite amount of small, insignificant cities. Now, that maybe needs some tweaking, but I think it's a solid concept. More importantly, it's a unique concept.

The changes that are being proposed here - allowing cities to be better, but having less of them - are just pushing them more towards "normal". it reduces the uniqueness. The jotnar are fun in that you can expand as much as you're willing to pay for settlers. Maintenance is pretty much a non issue. Just like Food is a non issue for Infernals. They're freed from one game mechanic, and allowed to do so much more. It offers an interesting and enjoyable playing experience. Personally, I like having a civ that gains uber benefit from corporations/guilds.

Also, the comments about jotnar getting both or none (expansion and military) are wrong. In the past few jotnar games I've played (including on the most recent FF patch) I had an overabundance of citizens easily. But my expansion was still heavily limited. By money!

This point seems to be rather overlooked. Jotnar citizens need 305 to upgrade to a settler. That's a LOT in the early game. You have to lower research significantly to get that. And Every settler you buy, is 7 wild trolls you're NOT buying. Every military unit you buy costs some of that precious gold, and pushes you farther away from the next settler. It gets easier with time certainly, but it's a very slow start. Infinite city sprawl isn't as easy as it sounds. If you find your borders threatened, you're pretty much incapable of expanding because you have to buy a military.

Jotnar can still build settlers though. That's not so easy because of their poor cities, but it is still a problem, and I think it should be removed. I like the idea of the building that gives 1 free citizen, and can be built once per city. That would help in the unfortunate case of not getting a citizen for hundreds of turns.

I think Jotnar could do with some tweaking if they're too overpowered, but great fundamental changes like what's being proposed here, are something I wouldn't enjoy.


PS: If you really have an urge to make massive changes to something, why not have a look at the Hippus? A civ with one UU, no UBs, one unique promotion, and not even the slightest hint of a unique mechanic. I'd argue that they're by far the most bland and boring civ in the game right now, and are desperately in need of some attention.

Honestly, I'm playtesting the changes I proposed right now...and they aren't weaker. Killing the pop cap doesn't make a huge amount of difference. Even if you are farming floodplains you aren't going to get huge. Killing the pop cap does make them slightly less different...but for that you gain religions being more significant, the possibility of a specialist economy, and a reason to build improvements other than mills. I think that more than balances out.

Killing the maintenance break doesn't prevent them from spamming cities...it just requires you to make difficult decisions while expanding. As it stands now there is NEVER a bad time to add another city...and that is jacked up.

What I did to the Traditions civic: Removed maintenance break for number of cities, switched upkeep to none, added an enslave chance. The thralls had to come from somewhere, after all. Right now I have the extra citizen triggering with house of the ancestors...but that was just because I wanted to get to testing rather than dream up another building.

Looks good so far. I fixed the problem with adults not spawning at game start (the unitclass wasn't listed in civinfos) and added yields to mountains (same hammers as hill). I've been scorching up flood plains along a river, growing at a reasonable pace. It is about turn 80 and I have 3 cities...I size 10 and 2 smaller ones. Several Jot Workers, a Troll, Egrass, and a pile of Thralls. I'm middle-of-the-pack in terms of score, playing Pangea tectonics on Diety. Seems fine. Spam much reduced. Still very competitive.

As for Hippus...I'm not opposed to playign with it. Anybody got some interesting ideas? Honestly I hate them so much right now I was considering making them a second centaur civ as a personal flavor change.

 

[WarKirby]

plenty of ideas for hippus.

Mounting. In any city with a stable, any hippus unit (which is not already mounted, or is invalid, like siege/ships) would be able to mount a horse. This can be done via a promotion that changes the artstyle. And I could probably be persuaded to do some art for it....

Other effects of the promotion:
1. Changes unitcombat to Mounted
2. Removes defensive bonuses
3. +2 movement
4. +20% withdrawal chance

It always bugged me that Hippus couldn't have Mounted Mages. I really thought that was a missed opportunity.

 

[Vermicious Knid]

plenty of ideas for hippus.

Mounting. In any city with a stable, any hippus unit (which is not already mounted, or is invalid, like siege/ships) would be able to mount a horse. This can be done via a promotion that changes the artstyle. And I could probably be persuaded to do some art for it....

Other effects of the promotion:
1. Changes unitcombat to Mounted
2. Removes defensive bonuses
3. +2 movement
4. +20% withdrawal chance

It always bugged me that Hippus couldn't have Mounted Mages. I really thought that was a missed opportunity.

Well considering I already have that code written for my on-hold Bannor project, I think that can be arranged.

I did the artstyle as well on my mini-mod and had it working, so that would be no problem aside from the work and finding art. If you want to give me a list of units you are wanting/willing to do art for I'll put it together.

 

[deadliver]

plenty of ideas for hippus.

Mounting. In any city with a stable, any hippus unit (which is not already mounted, or is invalid, like siege/ships) would be able to mount a horse. This can be done via a promotion that changes the artstyle. And I could probably be persuaded to do some art for it....

Other effects of the promotion:
1. Changes unitcombat to Mounted
2. Removes defensive bonuses
3. +2 movement
4. +20% withdrawal chance

It always bugged me that Hippus couldn't have Mounted Mages. I really thought that was a missed opportunity.

Huh, i am sitting here thinking about hippus. I think they should be almost entirely mounted with non-mounted troops used mostly for city (they have cities?) defense.

A mounted mage would be awesome! I think they need a radical departure from regular civ. For example they should have mounted warriors from the get go, UUs for every cavalry unit in the game, possibly a unique resource (such as fine breed horses from History of three kingdoms).

 

[Vermicious Knid]

In my mounted line revamp module chariots are available at exploration if you have horses.


Since the Hippus castle provides horses...they could easily start with chariots, at least.


If we wanted to allow them to mount with no requirement other than horses, they could indeed start the game with mounted warriors.


A mounted settler and mounted scout would be pretty sweet as well. Maybe the settler could use the covered wagon art from the Masquerade unit with minor modifications?

Other hippus thoughts: If horse use is very prevalent, they should have an easier time maintaining a far-flung empire. The Mongols spring to mind. Break on number of city/distance maintenance?

 

[deadliver]

In my mounted line revamp module chariots are available at exploration if you have horses.


Since the Hippus castle provides horses...they could easily start with chariots, at least.


If we wanted to allow them to mount with no requirement other than horses, they could indeed start the game with mounted warriors.


A mounted settler and mounted scout would be pretty sweet as well. Maybe the settler could use the covered wagon art from the Masquerade unit with minor modifications?

Other hippus thoughts: If horse use is very prevalent, they should have an easier time maintaining a far-flung empire. The Mongols spring to mind. Break on number of city/distance maintenance?

Good point. They could start with a mounted warrior using your mod. I agree with the mounted settler and scout ideas as well. Most units should be mounted, with some garrison foot troops of fair to middling quality.

Besides some balancing, that would be the easy part.

 

[WarKirby]

lower distance maintenance sounds nice. I like it.

Also, I was thinking, perhaps a couple more unique promotions. With level requirements.

Supreme Horse Control (req. level 6)

• Can recieve defensive bonuses
• +25% city strength
• Immune to Fear

Representing a warrior who has bonded so well with his mount, that the horse is like a natural extension of him. and so he can fight like a melee warrior who is simply faster. Thusly negating the major mounted weakness.

That +25% city strength shouldn't be a bonus, though. I think it should be a negating factor. I would say that all mounted units really need a city strength penalty.


Manouevrability (req lv4)

• +40% strength in open ground
• +10% withdrawal chance

Open ground here, is defined as any tundra, grassland, plains, broken lands or fields of perdition tile, which does not contain any features, and no improvements other than road/farm.


Oh, one other idea though, just to prevent too much early overpoweredness
Have an autoaquire promotion for all hippus mounted units, as long as you do NOT have the horseback riding tech.

Unskilled Rider
--------------------
-1 movement (so 2 movement, instead of 3)
-20% strength

Then hippus could be allowed mounted troops right from the start, but some of their power would be locked until they research horseback riding, and turn it into a science. Mainly, it would prevent them just rushing bronze working and making mounted axemen without even bothering with HR.

 

[far_wanderer]

plenty of ideas for hippus.

Mounting. In any city with a stable, any hippus unit (which is not already mounted, or is invalid, like siege/ships) would be able to mount a horse. This can be done via a promotion that changes the artstyle. And I could probably be persuaded to do some art for it....

Other effects of the promotion:
1. Changes unitcombat to Mounted
2. Removes defensive bonuses
3. +2 movement
4. +20% withdrawal chance

It always bugged me that Hippus couldn't have Mounted Mages. I really thought that was a missed opportunity.

I've mentioned an idea like this several times before, except with an actual "horse" unit that has to be built, and as a mechanic for everyone, not just the Hippus. In the idea I suggested, the Hippus had a spell that could summon normal horses whenever they wanted, and a UU version of the buildable horse that was even better.

I suggest avoiding a unitcombat change, however, as that does odd things to promotion availability.

 

[Vermicious Knid]

lower distance maintenance sounds nice. I like it.

Also, I was thinking, perhaps a couple more unique promotions. With level requirements.

Supreme Horse Control (req. level 6)

• Can recieve defensive bonuses
• +25% city strength
• Immune to Fear

Representing a warrior who has bonded so well with his mount, that the horse is like a natural extension of him. and so he can fight like a melee warrior who is simply faster. Thusly negating the major mounted weakness.

That +25% city strength shouldn't be a bonus, though. I think it should be a negating factor. I would say that all mounted units really need a city strength penalty.


Manouevrability (req lv4)

• +40% strength in open ground
• +10% withdrawal chance

Open ground here, is defined as any tundra, grassland, plains, broken lands or fields of perdition tile, which does not contain any features, and no improvements other than road/farm.

Good ideas. The first one is easy...second one might be a little tricky to write.

City strength penalty...I agree. Should be global for mounted units, actually. I'm considering an auto-acquire promotion for all mounted units that does just that.

What about flanking? I don't think it is currently utilized by any units, but the tags are sitting there.