Shoshone

[pineappledan]

I'd be more than happy for the Encampment to get another 11 at Advanced ballistics just so we could stop having this conversation

When Comanche unlocks, Encampment has just had its last tech boost at Rifling, so it is 3221, which is on the lower side, but holds its own against anything other than super-boosted farms or boosted Railroads/Rationalism villages. It still has its defense boosts, so even if it is only on par, it's still worth keeping. But at that level, Encampments aren't such a strong bonus that Comanches can just sit back and let their economy passively grow stronger than everyone else, they have been coasting for 5 eras, and now the other civs' bonuses have unlocked and caught up, and the infrastructure bonuses that are available to ALL players are nearly equivalent to the Shoshone's Ancient advantage. Now the Shoshone need to take the initiative. And they have a UU that unlocks at that moment so they can do just that.

So I would like to see the focus be put on making the Comanche a good enough unit that it sustains the Shoshone for another era. The timing is all there for them to do that.

P.S. Eki aren't that good. they're in a similar category to the Encampment by Industrial, just barely hanging on. They get 1 good tech boost at Chivalry and that's about it. The saving grace for Eki in the late game is they don't compete with Farms for freshwater tiles.

 

[DeAnno]

If it wasn't weird flavor I would suggest giving Comanches Paradrop. Even if it is weird you can sorta justify it saying they're sneaking behind enemy lines instead of actually paradropping. The fact is that's the only way you can really do any raiding by then in a lot of situations, the front lines are just too crowded.

 

[chicorbeef]

Personally I think the Eki is better than the Encampment, the is just more useful than the and Eki's Chivalry buff is considerably earlier than Gunpowder.

Either way, even if Comanche Riders were stronger, they'd be competing with Berber Cavalry and Cossacks, both of whom have strong combat bonuses but are still not defining features of their civ.

I think Comanche Riders should lose the Horse requirement to start, and I'm not opposed to further buffs, but the Encampment is kind of underwhelming and deserves its own conversation as well. I think bonuses with Horses/Bison would be nice, perhaps it could buff nearby resources and/or camps/pastures instead of being buffed by them as a way to make it a bit distinct from other UI's and synergize better with certain pantheons/improvements?

 

[Forsti]

Would removing the horse requirement actually make any difference? Comanche riders isn't an early UU and the Shoshone have a lot of land anyway, so a lack of horses shouldn't be an issue for them. If you think comanche riders need a buff, it should be something that actually matters. That being said, even if comanche got some massive buffs, the Shoshone would still be a weak civ and I wouldn't see much reason to choose them over most other civs.

For me, the problem with the Shoshone is the super weak UA. Additional territory is a sort of nice early buff to your cities but it doesn't net you enough yields to make you actually snowball in a meaningful way and it's value drops off very fast once the cities get going. Choosing rewards from ancient ruins also doesn't make that big of a difference, since pretty much all the rewards are valuable nowadays. It also hurts when your starting warrior finds 4 ancient ruins and your pathfinder finds city states and other civs. The issue of the weak UA is emphasized by the lack of direction of the Shoshone when it comes to victory conditions. The Shoshone have nothing going for any victory type. The only thing they do well is defend against aggression but it doesn't contribute to winning, it only helps them not to lose.

 

[pineappledan]

No horse requirement means Shoshone units wouldn’t compete for horses with agribusinesses. So Shoshone could phase out horse units 1 era earlier.

that mainly serves to make farms even easier to boost, and able to compete better with encampments. So it would contribute to making encampments weaker.

 

[chicorbeef]

No horse requirement means Shoshone units wouldn’t compete for horses with agribusinesses. So Shoshone could phase out horse units 1 era earlier.

that mainly serves to make farms even easier to boost, and able to compete better with encampments. So it would contribute to making encampments weaker.

That seems like a very roundabout reason to avoid the Horse requirement removal. Tbh tho, I'm fine with it staying or going, but I just think either the UA or the UI need to be improved (or both) because I don't think Comanche Riders would be good legs to stand on for the Shoshone in general.

 

[stii]

Do people normally build agribusinesses? A bit off topic but I always find them to be too low reward to every be worth building even ignoring the horse requirement.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Agribusinesses can be very powerful if you have a lot of relevant tiles, so yes I do tend to build them. I don't see anyone disagreeing that Comanche riders could use a buff, so how about we just start there? We can buff the encampment as well if needed.

 

[Thibix Magnus]

How about non-upgraded tiles with bisons, horses, deer, catle, sheep, provide strong amounts of culture or science that represent a tempting trade-off to building camps or pastures? Either in the UA, or those adjacent to encampments. It would represent a nomadic knowledge that doesn't require fixed infrastructure for livestock management.

And in that case it would make sense that raiders don't cost horses, or that encampments connect adjacent strategics and luxuries without needing to improve the tiles.

Commanche raiders could get science on pillaging (and even more on plundering trade routes) to represent the fast adoption of rifles and guns.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I do like the idea of encampments buffing bison and horses, and your reasoning is solid. I would also be OK with encampments just buffing adjacent camps/pastures.

And science on pillage would be cool . It would feel more worthwhile that way.

 

[ilikepickles]

How about non-upgraded tiles with bisons, horses, deer, catle, sheep, provide strong amounts of culture or science that represent a tempting trade-off to building camps or pastures? Either in the UA, or those adjacent to encampments. It would represent a nomadic knowledge that doesn't require fixed infrastructure for livestock management.

I like the idea of having stronger bonus resources as Shoshone, it matches well with the UA's ability of getting you more land, but I don't know if buffing unimproved resources is the way to go. I feel like it would be really strong early but completely fall off later (already a reocurring issue with the Civ), as both pastures and camps get important bonuses from buildings and techs.

Not an expert on Native American history, but would building stuff as camps to hunt really be out of flavour for the Shoshone? Maybe the Encampment could give a production buff to nearby camps (not sure if that requires new code) or just get more yields itself by being adjacent to camps. Just a minor gripe tho, overall I like the idea of hunting resources getting some sort of bonus by being nearby Encampments.

 

[pineappledan]

This is some bizarre misconception that the Shoshone were out on the Great Plains hunting bison, like the Siksika? Most of them weren't. Shoshone land covers the Great Basin in present day Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. It's mostly desert or brushland, or highland forests, not conducive to large herds of bison. Eastern Shoshone tribes hunted Bison, and there were some that wandered into more central Shoshone territory, but they were a minority and not indicative of the wider culture.

how does giving a bonus to adjacent resources/improvements on the encampment not just exacerbate the problem you claim exists where all the bonuses on the UI and UA are early? You would have to severely nerf the base Encampment yields, because now every camp or pasture near flatland has the potential for +3 adjacency bonuses from encampments in a ring around it.

 

[Emperorman1]

Would you really have to nerf it? +1-3 yelds to pastures from an UI doesnt sound that much to me.

 

[pineappledan]

Discussing the UI is nothing but a distraction. The complaints cited were that the Shoshone power is all early game and the UU is weak. The UU is industrial era, so making the the UU stronger addresses both criticisms. Outside of some more tech yields, Boosting the ancient-era encampment further is not only pointless, it’s counterproductive to your stated aims. It ignores 1 criticism and exacerbates another.

 

[chicorbeef]

I don't think the problem was that Shoshone's bonuses are early, I think people just don't feel the Shoshone are all that powerful. I think the core of Shoshone's problems is that the choosing ancient ruins is much less powerful than it was in vanilla and Shoshone feel like they're lacking something.

Buffing the encampment doesn't really resolve that but I proposed that moreso because I think the Encampment by itself could be a bit more interesting and use a buff.

Buffing Comanche Riders is good but I don't see how it can be the crux of the civ. Though if we want it to have more weight and importance, why not make it available at Rifling? That's a meaningful buff that I think people will take advantage of.

 

[DeAnno]

Buffing Comanche Riders is good but I don't see how it can be the crux of the civ. Though if we want it to have more weight and importance, why not make it available at Rifling? That's a meaningful buff that I think people will take advantage of.

I agree that an excellent way to make a very late UU good is to move it up a row earlier.

 

[Stalker0]

Let me add this in an alternative idea. this idea would be an addition to the shoshone's current suite, not a change.

When founding your capital, two ancient ruins appear.

Here is what I'm thinking:

• Shoshone's balance and interestingness is heavily influenced by whether ancient ruins are on or not, and I would argue this setting is off more often than many other options (for example I would bet a much greater % of people use spies than ancient ruins). However, by guaranteeing Shoshone two ancient ruins (whether the feature is on or not), would give Shoshone some consistency regardless of setting.

• Shoshone lacks a real power spike. Encampments are "nice", more terrain is "nice", comanche riders are "nice". But I would argue none of these generate a true power spike for the civ, and I think that's one of the reasons they feel lackluster. Ancient Ruins are in theory their power spike but others have noted that ruin balance is decent and so the Shoshone aren't necessarily getting more power than anyone else. However, if we ensured they got a couple of ruin bonuses beyond anyone else....that gives them an early game power spike that they can enjoy.

 

[Bruhmoment]

How about we make a poll on what needs to be buffed? Because right now, it looks like it's split up between comance riders and encampments

 

[Stalker0]

How about we make a poll on what needs to be buffed? Because right now, it looks like it's split up between comance riders and encampments

I think that is too narrow. If such a poll were to be made, I think the better question is "what aspect of the Shoshone needs to be fixed?"

Is it early power, late power, is the design not thematic, is the civ not interesting? If we all agree with the problem is then we can brainstorm solutions together. The issue right now is people are circling around solutions without an agreement on the problem....and you can never get consensus that way.

 

[Drakle]

Well a non Shoshone change that would help its balance is fixing the ancient ruin that gives a bunch of land. That cheapens the UA a lot.

Anyway if a vote, I'd vote the UU. But I think both could be buffed a little.