Shoshone

[CrabHelmet]

Why would we change anything about Shoshone? They're already really good.

 

[Deadstarre]

i've only been able to make a handful of civs work for deity including Ethiopia, the Aztecs and the Shoshone. Given that, i'd say leave them alone.

 

[crdvis16]

Just finished a game with the Shoshone and noticed that mid-late game their UI wasn't being worked typically, which struck me as odd for a UI. Most UIs that I can think of are generally strong enough tiles that they would mostly be worked, with the exception being a city packed with great person improvements or working tons of specialists. However, it seemed like fairly ordinary tiles were stronger than the UI for satellite cities. I wonder if the camps don't need a few more upgrades throughout the tech tree to keep them strong later on?

Early game they were typically nice tiles, though.

 

[amateurgamer88]

Just finished a game with the Shoshone and noticed that mid-late game their UI wasn't being worked typically, which struck me as odd for a UI. Most UIs that I can think of are generally strong enough tiles that they would mostly be worked, with the exception being a city packed with great person improvements or working tons of specialists. However, it seemed like fairly ordinary tiles were stronger than the UI for satellite cities. I wonder if the camps don't need a few more upgrades throughout the tech tree to keep them strong later on?

Early game they were typically nice tiles, though.

When I look at all the UI in the game, the Shoshone UI seems to be the only one that doesn't care about terrain (no coast and ocean tiles ofc). It's true they can't be adjacent but this still to give Shoshone a lot more freedom where to place them. I feel like, if they get more upgrades later on, then they can become too powerful as you can get so many of this across your empire with proper planning.

 

[crdvis16]

Morocco can pretty consistently get 5-6 Kasbah in each city. In practice you don't really get any more than that with Shoshone between the flat and adjacency restrictions.

 

[infidel88]

Encampment is crap later on, as everything except for UI got boosted recently directly or indirectly by policies. You get +2 Food, +1 Production, +1 Culture, which is MASSIVE. Then +1 Culture and +1 Food at Rifling. +1 Production and +1 Science at Ecology, which are irrelevant. Especially the latter one.

But compare it to polder, which comes 2 eras later and give +3 Food, +2 Gold, +1 Production. I know economics is right behind corner with boosts, but those 2 eras of encampment are crucial. Or to any other UI. Later on it's obsolete - I agree, but this is the price of total OP early on.

And Shoshone has strong UA, so everyone thinks their UI and UU can suck.

 

[Enginseer]

Isn't it's also a mini-citadel providing defensive bonus and damages adjacent unit?

 

[pineappledan]

Isn't it's also a mini-citadel providing defensive bonus and damages adjacent unit?

It's 5 damage and 15% on tile, which is better than nothing, but overall fairly negligible. It combines with the friendly territory CS boost so it doesn't necessarily need to stand on its own in that respect.

The problem is that Encampment gets its first yield boost in Industrial, 4 eras after the UI is unlocked, which is an enormous dry spell. In the intervening time, there are policies/beliefs/buildings which can get pretty much any other improvement up to the power of the encampment.

Perhaps it is intentional, to make Shoshone flag like that, but it's a pretty strange feeling when you realize that your UI might be holding your economy back. Ideally, since the encampments' damage doesn't stack, you should re-space them to every 2 tiles once the initial yield bath subsides, so you retain the defensive perks with minimal damage to your economy.

 

[CrazyG]

I don't know guys. I would so much rather have encampments than UI such as Polders. I don't having fewer yields than a UI which unlocks 2 eras later is a very good argument that its weak.

You can make whatever argument you want on paper, but I have a 100% win rate with Shoshone and I'm confident the encampment is a huge part of that. The yields, not the 5 damage thing (its much stronger on paper than in practice). I'm including multiplayer here; after playing the mod for years (I think) I've literally never lost a game with Shoshone. It's the only civ I can say that about. If I was going to buff Shoshone, I'd look at the UU which is frankly pretty useless.

 

[crdvis16]

I don't know guys. I would so much rather have encampments than UI such as Polders. I don't having fewer yields than a UI which unlocks 2 eras later is a very good argument that its weak.

You can make whatever argument you want on paper, but I have a 100% win rate with Shoshone and I'm confident the encampment is a huge part of that. The yields, not the 5 damage thing (its much stronger on paper than in practice). I'm including multiplayer here; after playing the mod for years (I think) I've literally never lost a game with Shoshone. It's the only civ I can say that about. If I was going to buff Shoshone, I'd look at the UU which is frankly pretty useless.

Yeah, I can't really make the argument that the Shoshone are weak or anything. But I can make the argument that the UI seems kind of weird being pretty strong early but then being mostly unworkable later on. Maybe it would make sense to reduce its yields a tad out of the gate but add in a few bonuses throughout the eras to keep it workable and strong? It could just be a bit of a nitpick too. It just surprised me in my game since I am fairly use to UIs usually being strong and almost always worked/prioritized.

 

[randomnub]

Shoshone are powerful and fun. And that's with just half of their kit being worth play with.

I had a thought while asking myself if I should have turned on or off ruins for a game: is it fair? I never turn off espionage, barbarians, city states or starting bias because such options would be too harsh for some AIs, whose kit is totally dependant on such options being active. An iconic (well, vanilla) part of Pocatello's UA is about ruins, but it doesn't really matter. I think the removal of the original pathfinder UU and the rework on some ruins (no more scout->archer or broken pathfinder->composite upgrade above all, but also removal of useless barb ruins and rework of maps), could have been a good moment to take away the ruin-reliance part of this UA.

Being able to pick your ruin of choice, a thing that usually doesn't even put you ahead of another civ randomly being awarded the same options, doesn't make or break this civ. It's fluff, and it only matters for few turns on the majority of maps. I think we're pretty much done removing all unnecessary and not-synergetic fluff in UAs, I can only think of faith on Ethiopia's strategic resources and bonus CS next to natural wonders for the Iroquis, and in those cases there's at least some cultural background (I guess those small UA benefits represent Solomon's mines and... some link to nature... ), they last whole game and aren't turned off by a default game option.

All this to say that I'm ignoring that part of their UA and stop feeling bad for Shoshones when turning ruins off, because I'm done getting border growth twice as Russia or America

Comanche Riders UU: they fit conceptually, have a nice vanilla graphic, work for a peaceful civ due to their role as skirmishers/pillagers to harass the enemy while your main forces protect the homeland (this really works better in multiplayer I guess), and are a late game unit hence balanced on a civ with early game advantages and snowballing potential. And yet I deem them useless . I mean, they come late and are a quite pathetical upgrade of an already niche combat class. For all pratical purposes, aka in any map where it's hard to move 3 tiles in enemy lands without meeting a river or a feature, 5 movement and no cost to pillage isn't better than Berber's 'ignore terrain cost', and 'retreat when attacked' feature is already on Camel Archers, so after upgrades we end with similar units: they lack uniqueness as well.

I don't know how to address Shoshones lack of features: among them, the lack of scaling for the UI, but it's already good... I guess they're low on G's priority list if at all because for all pratical purposes, this civ does perform well.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I feel like the Encampment's pretty good but I also dislike it's tech distribution. Eki IIRC has same yields butt more techs upgrading it and comes earlier. Encampment's far easier to spam, though, so there's a trade off. However I don't think the UI or the civ would become OP if an early renaissance or preferably late medieval tech gave it a yield or two. It'd improve it's sense of progression at least.

 

[Chandler]

Would it be possible to build the Encampment improvement on top of forests and jungles, without removing them? That way, they'd benefit from the extra yield, as well as their upgrades from the Herbalist, Workshop, University and Zoo. Or would that be too much? Maybe only on top of forests? Maybe only after researching a certain tech, such as Metal Casting (Lumber mill tech) or Machinery (Logging camp tech)? This would probably lead to some rearrangements in your lands, to make space for new Encampments. But, well... it kind of fits with the nomadic flavor of them... I guess.

You may argue that'd make Lumber mills and Logging camps obsolete for the Shoshone, but I don't think so. You still wouldn't be able to build one Encampment next to another, so that would leave some tiles between them. Also, I think Logging camps and Lumber mills would still give more Production than Encampments, specially the latter, more so if you pick the Industry policy tree, with Entrepreneurship.

Here's how they'd look around Medieval era (with both Workshop and University built), and around Information era (with the Zoo and Urbanization policy, as well as the two tech upgrades).

Spoiler :

The tiles are definitely better, but... broken?

I don't know, might be too much of a headache for a civilization that doesn't really need any buff. But it's just an idea to make them more appealing later on, though with some investment in rearrangements.

 

[Guynemer]

I do think encampments are a bit underwhelming, though the rest of Shoshone's kit is strong enough that it may not matter. I hate chopping forests/jungles for anything other than plantations (I even try to plan my roads so that villages will be on empty terrain and leave the woods alone). And while they were predominantly a plains people, they absolutely took advantage of the wooded northwest as well.

 

[chicorbeef]

Moving the Rifling bonus to Gunpowder and the Ecology one to Rifling would be nice and would fix this nicely. Not sure if we want to buff the Shoshone though.

 

[pineappledan]

I agree, moving some of the bonuses forward is all that’s needed. There’s this massive classical-industrial dead zone for this UI. It’s weird

 

[Mad Madigan]

I second moving the bonuses to earlier techs, but I think that's all that is needed. Improvements that don't remove forests/jungle should be rare and extra special, as otherwise it's always better to not chop them down as the bonus yields from University/Workshop/Zoo have to be taken into account. Right now the only improvements that don't remove forests/jungles (besides Lumber camps/mills) are Kasbahs and Kunas. Kasbahs don't remove forests/jungles due to their strict placement rules, and Kunas can only be built on them, so their yields are balanced around this.

 

[CrazyG]

Right now the only improvements that don't remove forests/jungles (besides Lumber camps/mills) are Kasbahs and Kunas. Kasbahs don't remove forests/jungles due to their strict placement rules, and Kunas can only be built on them, so their yields are balanced around this.

Brazilwood camps too.

But I agree with you regardless.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

The shoshone are strong, but their encampment feels situational to me and definitely isn't part of why they're fun to play.

 

[Gidoza]

I'm wondering if the goody hut bonus should really be part of the UA. As some have pointed out, the randomness of Ruins would make them inappropriate for real tournament play (if that were ever to happen...), but in any case I don't play with Ruins because the extra randomness changes too much about the early game. A UA shouldn't be based on something that's optional and probably negative.

An alternative option would be to be able to pick a "goody hut" the first time you meet a City-State, or discover a Natural Wonder.