Shoshone

[crdvis16]

I tell yuh what, we’ll move the yields up to gunpowder and see how it goes. If it’s not crazy, we keep it.

G

If I understand correctly, won't this just change the point at which encampments become obsolete? This sounds like it will make them stronger mid-game but they will still probably fall off too much late game.

The current buffs (according to the wiki) are:

-2F, 1P, 1C base
-add 1C, 1F at rifling
-add 1P, 1S at ecology

What about changing that to something like:

-2F, 1C, 1G base (1 less production but add 1 gold, overall nerf early game)
-add 1C, 1F, 1P at gunpowder (restore that 1P and unlocks earlier)
-add 1P, 1S, 1C, 1G at ecology (add an extra 1G, 1C)

I think this puts it more in line with other UIs. It's easier to spam, has fewer yields, but still enough yields to stay stronger than the generic improvements all game hopefully.

Though any changes that nerf it early while buffing it later would probably work if others with a better grip on the yields comparison have a suggestion.

 

[chicorbeef]

We should move the Rifling bonus to Gunpowder and the Ecology one to Rifling. It would make thematic sense too.

 

[Gazebo]

We should move the Rifling bonus to Gunpowder and the Ecology one to Rifling. It would make thematic sense too.

That's how I read the change - was I wrong?

G

 

[pineappledan]

That's how I read the change - was I wrong?

It was never my intention to argue to change the ecology boost. It's too late to matter, so it's a non-entity. I think moving the boosts forward from rifling/eco to Gun/Rifling would be a good idea, but I had only originally meant to propose the rifling boost get moved forward

 

[doublex55]

The Shoshone are already very strong. This change will probably make them overpowered right? But I think it’s more important for the UI to feel like a worthwhile thing to build, even if it obsoletes lategame. If they are too strong after tt his change, would it be enough to remove the goody hut choice? Would we need to nerf the UA or UU slightly?

 

[ChefGuevara]

I don't think nixing the ruin buff would be necessary unless the encampment got some pretty big buffs, which I don't think is what's in mind here.

 

[tu_79]

Unique units and unique buildings are always better than their counter parts.
Unique improvements have to compete with other yields. They could stronger than GPTI and natural wonders, but they should never be weaker than the average tile.

Shoshone encampment is a mini fort with yields. We typically build forts at the borders, if ever, since when we feel like going aggressive, fighting is preferably done in enemy territory. But, oh well, playing a defensive civ means that the bulk of the combat is better done at home.

We don't leave forts where the land is safe, since there are many better options. So, encampment just needs to be better than an unbuffed village. Farm clusters sure can be better, but they just provide food, good for tall playing, but not Shoshone's style. Buffed villages can be better, but how many villages with a trade route can we possibly fit in one city? GPTI are also better, but by going wide, the number of GPTI per city is lower.

The late game not working the land is a common issue for any civ with an unique improvement. Once specialists become cheap, farm clusters + specialists is the default option, except for the border cities that might be too unhappy for working on specialists. So, the only way to keep UI relevant is expanding the territory before the UI loses its usefulness.
Small buffs are not going to change this.

 

[crdvis16]

The only time I can see myself not working a good UI is in a tradition capital where I'm loaded up with GP tiles and soecialists. Any other city of mine works good land tiles pretty much throughout the game in addition to specialists, so for Brazil/Maya/Polynesia/etc I pretty much work every UI I have. The only civ I had seen where I didn't work their UI consistently was Shoshone past the mid game (and it seems like Netherlands was in a similar state, I just haven't played them in a while). Hopefully the change that was made will remedy that, though I imagine since it didn't get paired with a buff elsewhere the Shoshone might be stronger now than they should be. I guess we'll see.

 

[Gidoza]

I don't think nixing the ruin buff would be necessary unless the encampment got some pretty big buffs, which I don't think is what's in mind here.

I think you missed some of the earlier points - it's not really about nixing the ruin buff, but replacing it with something more stable, since often people don't play with Ruins.

 

[Rekk]

Finally, I'd like to make the argument that Encampments should be moved from Military Theory to Trade. Firstly because the structures they represent (groups of tipis/teepees) were primarily living quarters designed to accommodate a nomadic lifestyle rather than military structures. Secondly because they were traditionally made from buffallo skin, and Buffalo unlocks on Trapping (which leads to Trade) rather than Animal Husbandry (which leads to Military Theory). This is significant because (at least to my understanding) the buffalo were hunted rather than being domesticated animals. Particularly with the current tech swap, the Shoshone need to research Mining in order to get to Military Theory (and Encampments), which feels a little odd.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I forget this thread existed! Thanks for sharing my thoughts, Rekk .

While I'm here, I play Shoshone almost exclusively and my view on encampment yields currently is that they great. I've seen people talking about farm triangles and villages on roads, but personally I try to maximize the number of encampments I have in my empire. Apart from anything else, it supplements my culture output significantly! Also, because Encampments can't be built adjacent to one another, you can usually alternate encampments and villages. If you plan your land use carefully, it's quite rare to have to choose one over the other.

Honestly, the concept of farms + specialists as the default seems odd to me. Sure, I have specialists in my capital, and my guild cities. But my other cities grow faster (and produce more yields) if I let them work the land instead.

I should mention is that I use the Events and Decisions mod for VP, which buffs encampments from around Architecture onwards (+1 faith, +1 GAP). Everything else is vanilla though. I like to take the Urbanization tenet under Freedom, which gives +2 food to UIs. As a result, my Encampments tend to give strong yields throughout my game.

 

[CrazyG]

Honestly, the concept of farms + specialists as the default seems odd to me. Sure, I have specialists in my capital, and my guild cities. But my other cities grow faster (and produce more yields) if I let them work the land instead.

If a civ has a UI, I tend to work very few farms, but sometimes take food from religion, to really work all of the UI possible. I think the idea of working a ton of farms to get specialists is pretty heavily flawed unless playing India.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Some thoughts on the gameplay aspect of my suggestion for moving Encampments from Military Theory to Trade. In terms of balance I think it's fairly similar - takes the same number of techs to unlock, Military Theory is still worth taking without it. From a Shoshone perspecitve, Trade would be pretty strong with it - but I think that's true of any tech where one of your uniques unlock.

One synergy it does create is with the UA for recon units. Fishing and Trade both require Trapping, and Fishing is a great way to make use of the Shoshone's UA. This does favour the top of the tech tree. I'd be happy to have the encampment right in the middle but that position is currently occupied by Construction which doesn't seem like a good fit.

Another aspect is that this change would well with early defensive/peaceful play (archers, trade routes) and work less well with early offensive play (barracks, horsemen, spearmen, etc). I think given the Encampment has a somewhat defensive design in gameplay terms (as does the Shoshone's UA) this makes sense.

Also, from my opint of view Military Theory switching with Construction in the current beta has had somewhat the opposite effect - the Shoshone currently have to go a little more out of their way to unlock the encampment unless they are playing aggresively (with it's new position and loss of Temple of Artemis, Military Theory is less of an obvious go-to for me).

I am curious as to how other people play the civ though, as I tend to favour a particular playstyle.

 

[pineappledan]

I agree with you that tipis are made of hunted buffalo skins, by a hunter-gathered civilization. But gameplay trumps realism, you know. The encampment comes so early that it influeces strongly Shoshone early research. If you put it away from Military Tradition and its horseman, then encampments are likely to be available later than now. Shoshone are aggressive expansionists, and an early clash is very likely; something that's going to be harder if you beeline Trade. It ends up being a nerf. If we ever need a Shoshone nerf, we could try this.

I mean, that's really only if you anger someone so thoroughly in the first 50 turns that they declare war on you. This also ignores that comp bows are on the top of the tree now, and that's a pretty solid defensive unit.

From a history perspective the proposed tech change makes sense to me, but also just considering the defensive flavor on the UA/UI, you can just as easily make an argument that the UI allows you to focus on infrastructure and solid development first, while permitting you to make do with technologically inferior units to defend yourself. What we know about Shoshone history is pretty much exclusively their struggle against a technologically superior military force encroaching on their lands. So maybe that's a roleplaying benefit there?

 

[tu_79]

Maybe it's the way I used to play Shoshone. Settle as fast as I can until the neighbors become too threatening, then hold.

Archers were not enough to make safe my cities if the enemy had horsemen, so I needed to know where the horses were and take some spearsmen too. Even with an extra technology from the pathfinder, I didn't dare to beeline trade. Maybe I could settle fewer cities, but it looked like a waste of the UA.

Now, things have changed quite a bit. Happiness doesn't allow for too many cities in a row, not like when we were able to settle ten cities before the first engagements, and horsemen are not the threat they were before, so maybe it's not that hard to beeline trade nowadays.

 

[pineappledan]

Archers were not enough to make safe my cities if the enemy had horsemen

Comp bow is at writing, and they are 11, only 2 below horsemen. If you can rush Writing, I think you're safe. It seems like the swordsman rush is the bigger concern in the latest patch, and comp bows are at a similar tech level.

Happiness doesn't allow for too many cities in a row, not like when we were able to settle ten cities before the first engagements, and horsemen are not the threat they were before, so maybe it's not that hard to beeline trade nowadays.

Between happiness and settlers just being incredibly slow to get out in this new patch, no one is as likely to get into a diplomatic spat this early anymore anyways.

 

[Stalker0]

horsemen are not the threat they were before, so maybe it's not that hard to beeline trade nowadays.

One key note here is that archers in rough terrain can take a hit from a horseman now unless its incredibly promoted. That's a big deal.

 

[Rekk]

I like @JamesNinelives' proposal.

 

[CrazyG]

Trade is pretty out of the way and generally not a tech priority, I already find it awkward that the Huns have their UI there. One of the encampments big perks before was its central location, to match that you would need it on either construction or calendar. Construction already has two UI, calendar has only 1, so I'd vote for calendar myself.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Thanks for your thoughts everyone. I don't want the Shoshone to be purely defensive - I like Enginseer's comment that one of the strengths of the civ is that they are versatile. You can expand agressively, or you can use your benefits to be more defensive and focus on working the land.

I liked the Encampment's central position as well, which is one of the reasons I thought about proposing a change.

I guess the main reason that it came up is because I used to be able to rush Military Theory and get Horsemen, Encampments, and Temple of Artemis all at once (plus Barracks for Goddess of Protection). I think things are probably a bit more balanced now in terms of Military Theory not being the obvious go-to, but to me is also feels a bit like a nerf for the way that I like to play the Shoshone.

I actually wouldn't mind encampments being on Calender is that it's still closer to Buffalo than it was before, it's relatively central, and it allows me unlock Temple of Artemis and encampments at the same time again. Construction is in a nice position, but it doesn't feel like a good thematic fit for Encampments to me.

I still like the idea of Trade in that comes from Trapping (and buffalo) directly, and that trade helps you share ideas and learn useful things from one another. But Calender might actually be better in terms of not favouring the top of the tech tree too much, and the concept of seasons and change fits well with the Shoshone's nomadic lifestyle - which prompted the use of mobile shelters like tipis that can be set up in an encampment. I just didn't want to argue for that position initially because it would feel a bit selfish (it's ideal for my playstyle in the current beta).