Some comments after playing a bit

[SirPleb]

I've been exploring Conquests for a couple of days now. I may be getting some things wrong and may change my mind later but, FWIW, here are my initial thoughts.

I've played just one full game so far. Didn't quite finish it, played until I had clear control and then stopped. It was an Emperor level game as the Dutch, so that I could try out both new traits at once. All map settings were at the middle (standard size, continents, 70% water, etc.) with default rules and 7 random rivals. It went quickly, wasn't a hard game.

I've also played a number of game starts under varying conditions to check out specific game elements, and poked around the editor a bit. All this only relates to the epic game - I haven't tried any scenarios yet.

Exploring, map trading, and difficulty

These are the areas where I think the epic game has changed most dramatically.

In Conquests, one can not trade contacts with other Civs before Printing Press is learned, and one can not trade maps until Navigation is learned. These changes make exploration a much more important element of the game. More important initially, and its importance lasts quite a bit longer. Effective exploration is now a key game skill. Contacting other Civs quickly is particularly important in Conquests - contacting more rivals, and contacting them sooner, can give your game a big boost. Failing to make contacts can cause you to fall behind.

My initial feeling is that this makes non-Pangaea maps noticeably easier for the human. (Especially when playing a Civ with the new seafaring trait, but not just in that case.) The ability to make high profit trades in Ancient Times with maps is gone, but there's a larger offsetting gain. The AIs do not explore effectively, particularly large bodies of water. I found it easy to contact all of my rivals a very long time before they started contacting each other. The new 15 shield Curragh unit enables early water exploration and helps greatly in this. Even when some AIs did start meeting across the water, they couldn't trade their contacts with other Civs. It took a very long time before all Civs knew all other Civs. During that time I was able to broker techs very profitably. Since most of the AIs knew 1/2 or less of the Civs in the world, they paid good prices for tech

On Pangaea maps it is a different story. At low and medium difficulty levels I think these changes will not change the overall difficulty much, and will perhaps make the early game a bit easier. (Given that the player explores aggressively ) That will be particularly true for expansionist Civs. At high difficulty levels I expect Pangaea maps will be much harder than they used to be - all rivals will know each other quickly, reducing tech prices, just as it used to be. And there's no offsetting gain - instead what was the easiest way to catch up in Ancient Times (maps) has been removed. Pangaea maps at Deity and Sid level are going to be tough.

New traits

Seafaring is very nice. Perhaps a bit stronger than it should be on maps with a lot of water. The extra movement point and the lower chance of suicide boats sinking is powerful for early exploration. Adding those to the new Curragh unit (which everyone gets, but normally as just a 2-move unit) is the icing on the cake.

Agricultural is very strong, as long as there's any fresh water (river or lake) to settle on. It seems worthwhile to me to take a step or two with each settler to get water if possible. The result is fast early growth. I think this trait is a bit over-powered. It wouldn't surprise me to see it take over the favored status which the industrial trait used to have

The reduction in the power of the industrial trait feels appropriate to me in play. Even with the reduction industrious remains a strong trait.

Terrain changes

I like the new bonus resources. The marshes are ok, they add a bit more variety.

But the volcanoes? I don't like them. It doesn't seem to me that they enhance gameplay. They do add yet another large luck factor - whether you have them in your start region and just where they are. Dealing with them can suck up worker time and seems tedious.

Statue of Zeus

This wonder is really cool! It is too much fun in fact - so much that I think it is imbalancing. On any difficulty level lower than Sid I think that, if you've got ivory and you can build this wonder before anyone else, that will set the game up for an easy win. Admittedly I'm speculating here based on just a bit of play. But it sure felt that strong to me when I got it.

This wonder is too much of a wild card for my taste. The luck of the draw goes to whoever has ivory.

MP players may want to agree to ban this wonder.

Taxmen and Scientists

Maybe I just missed it but I haven't seen a note about the change to these specialists. And the change to them is significant, worth knowing about.

Previously taxmen produced 1 gold and scientists produced 1 beaker.

In Conquests taxmen produce 2 gold and scientists produce 3 beakers.

I think this is a great change. Previously I very seldom found it worthwhile to assign specialists in the early game. Now it may sometimes be worthwhile, even at the expense of working a tile in some situations. In the late game I previously found there was little value in distinguishing between these two kinds of specialist. (If I set all specialists to taxmen, that would pay more maintenance and I could set the science slider higher.) Now there's a difference worth considering.

Scoring Changes

Previously all scores were multiplied by the following values according to difficulty level:

Chieftain: 1, Warlord: 2, Regent: 3, Monarch: 4, Emperor: 5, Deity: 6

In Conquests the multipliers are:

Chieftain: 1, Warlord: 2, Regent: 3, Monarch: 4, Emperor: 5, Demigod: 6, Deity: 7, Sid: 8

I think the introduction of Demigod level, and the associated increase of Deity scoring from *6 to *7 is a good thing. The jump in difficulty from Emperor to Deity was too big, and the increase in score factor for Deity is appropriate.

The strange thing to me is that, having seen that too-large jump between Emperor and Deity, and having fixed it, they then went ahead and did the same thing in introducing Sid level - it is too large a jump from Deity level. The gap between Deity and Sid levels seems even larger than the previous gap between Emperor and Deity.

I've written some details about Sid level further down. For this section regarding scoring, suffice to say that I think the Sid score multiplier should be at least *9.

Changes to Existing Difficulty Levels

Levels up to and including Emperor have not changed significantly as far as I can see in the editor.

Deity level has been made a bit harder I think. I'm basing that on changes I see in the editor, haven't played enough to get a feel for these changes.

Changes I see to Deity are:

1) The optimimum number of cities, as a percentage of the base number for the map size, has gone down from 70 to 60.

2) The inter-AI trade rate (i.e. how cheaply and therefore how quickly the AIs sell things to each other) has increased from 160 to 170.

"Sid" Difficulty Level

This new difficulty level is a big jump from Deity. Differences I can see in the editor are:

1) The AIs start with 50% more military units than at Deity, and with twice as many settlers and workers (2 and 4 respectively instead of 1 and 2.)

2) The optimimum number of cities, as a percentage of the base number for the map size, is 50. (It is 60 for the new Deity level and was 70 for the old Deity level.)

3) The inter-AI trade rate is 200. (It is 170 for the new Deity level and was 160 for the old Deity level. Goes up by 10 per level for most of the difficulty levels.)

4) The big one - the AI's "cost factor" is 4! This means that the AIs need only 4/10th as much of anything as the human needs. E.g. the AI needs just 4 shields to build a warrior vs. 10 shields for the human; AI cities need just 8 food surplus to gain a citizen vs. 20 food surplus for the human.
The cost factor for the AI is 10 at Regent, 9 at Monarch, ... 6 at Deity. And then it takes a big jump from Deity down to 4 at Sid level. Which means the AIs can produce 50% more at Sid level than at Deity. (Can build a wonder in 2/3 the time, etc.)

Another thing about Sid level: I'm not positive if this is a Sid level issue, but in popping a total of at least 40 goody huts with an expansionist Civ (Incas) at Sid level, I never got anything from the huts except warriors, gold, and maps. No tech, no settlers, no villages. At Emperor level with Incas a tech and a settler were included in the first five huts I opened. I haven't checked the difficulty levels between Emperor and Sid.

The F8 Screen

I'm disappointed by the new "Victory Status" screen which is the default display when F8 is pressed. The information on this screen is indeed very welcome! But:

1) The display format is messy. It doesn't even use Windows-like panels to organize the information, it is pretty much just a bunch of text.

2) I don't like it being the default display for F8. Personally I most often want to see the score display (the old default) and I find it clumsy having to use the mouse after clicking F8 to get there. (Haven't found a keyboard shortcut.)

3) I'd like to see tile counts for the domination limit instead of percentages. If it has to be percentages, a decimal point or two would be nice - the difference between 65% and 66% can be a lot of tiles.

Leaders, Military and Science

I haven't had good leader luck, haven't had any of either kind yet in Conquests. But I still want to comment on the changes in this area.

I don't know why the ability of military leaders to rush great wonders was removed. A couple of guesses though, reasons which make sense to me: Perhaps it was to reduce the very large luck factor they introduced - a leader at just the right moment to rush a key wonder could be game altering. Perhaps it was to reduce the value of a military approach to the game. Perhaps I haven't guessed the reason.

What I don't understand at all is why the new science leader now has the ability to rush great wonders. (Assuming it does. I've read that it does, have not tried it yet.)

This doesn't make sense to me. It seems that the odds of science leaders are even less than military leaders. So the variability in their production will be even higher, making them even more of a game altering random element. If removing that ability from military leaders was intended to eliminate the imbalance which favored military approaches (to get game altering leaders), why replace it with a new feature which favors research approaches (for the same reason)?

Perhaps I'm not getting it. I would think that neither kind of leader should be able to rush great wonders, or both kinds should be able to. Either way seems fine to me. But the way it is now, there's a bigger than ever wild card in the deck we're playing with, which isn't something I like.

 

[derekroth]

I don't know why they decided that great military leaders can't rush wonders anymore either. I used to just use my great leaders to make one army, build the heroic epic and then use the rest to make wonders. However, armies are SO much more powerful now that I don't mind the fact that military leaders can't rush wonders anymore. It is more fun to watch your army detroy everything in its path anyway!

 

[The Economist]

I think the reason that military leaders can no longer rush wonders is this: its not so much the random factor, its the fact that (especially on higher difficulty levels) you can keep a civ alive with a few cities left and slam their units down to 1hp with bombarding units and then kill them with elites until you get the military leader, allowing you to get many many wonders. Since on higher difficulty levels the AI will have more units, usually, it makes it easier to abuse the AI once you've got it down to where a civ is just desperately cranking out units in a last ditch attempt to save itself (although I'm sure its a lot harder to get the civ down to that point, but if you do you've effectively won as long as its early enough in the game). You just refrain from taking its last few cities and get a military leader every 4 - 5 turns until you've rushed so many wonders that you practically can't lose.

I know its easier said than done, but I believe that is their reason for making military leaders not able to rush wonders.

As to why scientific leaders can rush wonders, like you said, its because they're harder to get on higher difficulty levels. To be able to research a tech before anyone else does is pretty difficult on the higher difficulty levels, I'd imagine. Its a lot harder than just getting lucky when you win with an Elite. If you got a military leader in PTW, you'd virtually always just use it to make an army with 3 of your best multi-movement attack units and win one battle so that you can get the Heroic Epic, and then just use every other leader to rush wonders. There wasn't a lot of strategy to that except in getting the leaders.

Now that it depends on research, you'll have a really tough choice: do i rush a wonder, or do I take +25% to research for 20 turns, possibly letting me get another scientific leader?

I think they also didn't like that rushing wonders was pretty much the primary way that people built them, aside from the "palace pre-build", which is kind of like a low-grade cheating since the AI can't do it. I mean, I still do palace pre-build, just because otherwise I'd have almost no shot at getting wonders. Oh well...

 

[warpstorm]

Give the Economist a cigar.

 

[vanderbilt_grad]

Agricultural - Yes this is a very strong trait early game. Late game it's not as valuable IMO.

Exploring changes - pretty much agree. AI needs to explore better.

Statue of Zeus - this one is a little powerful. 3.1.2 or 2.2.2 with no extra hp would have been better IMO. As it is this unit is too good for too long.

Victory Status - This is where I agree the most. I like the victory status screen ... I just don't like it as the default. The old score screen makes a better default. The graphical representation of all civs gives more info more quickly than the Victory Staus screen.

To be honest I hadn't noticed that military great leaders couldn't rush wonders now. I'm still playing my first game. I used my first MGL to build an army. The second I used to rush a palace. This change weakens the military trait the most ... and I'm not sure that this is a bad thing.

 

[Puppeteer]

SirPleb, one big (IMO) change you didn't mention is that the science max research time increase to 50 turns making minimum science gambits riskier. Another interesting change is the defensive bombardment added to many units and the AI's effectiveness in using them for defending cities and unit stacks. (These have been mentioned elsewhere, but I suppose I was surpised you had no comment.)

(Advance note: all my Conquest games have been Emperor level so far.)


I haven't had a close encounter with a volcano yet. In a current game I have marshes near cities where I just rushed my FP, so I should get to experience those soon. On the other hand, since you can't settle on them I was able to block a settler pair landed from another island for 40+ turns from settling where I didn't want him to. It was a shuffle-type 3-unit block while other units were warring with my island-mate. I avoided killing the settler pair because I was afraid that civ had the resources to mount an effective offensive from accross the ocean.

I agree the Statue of Zeus seems imbalancing, and the need for ivory is an odd factor. In one game a civ on my continent got it, and it was a worry for a while, but the AI didn't seem to stack the ancient cavalry as effectively as other units so I was able to pick them off offensively to good effect. (But they're still tough little buggers.) In a game I was playing last night I as Celts shared medium island with England and was working on booting them off my island when they started building the SoZ. I had the situation in hand but left that city alone until it built SoZ and then took it immediately after. I saved the game and went to sleep shortly after, so I haven't used the ancient cavalry on offense yet; additionally I have no horses on my island so I'm curious to see if that affects the temple's production. It should, you know? (England had no horses, either.)

Has anyone else noticed that strategic resources are more scarce? Maybe it's just coincidence, but in my Conquest games so far my civ and other civs rarely have both iron and horses before taking a lot of land away from a neighbor.

I'm glad you said that about taxmen and scientists. In my Celt/England island game I haven't used the lux slider yet. Every time the need came up a 3-beaker scientist seemed to be the best overall option speeding research significantly, and after turning research off in anticipation of building the Great Library I used taxmen. I never used specialists that much that early in the game before. (The lux situation was also helped by my having 1 very early lux, a second semi-early lux and a total of 4 luxes on my island.)

I like the new F8 victory info and don't mind the notepad-like appearnace of it, but now that you mention it it doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the game. On the other hand I wish I could tell it which screen I want to see when I press F8. In some games I frequently check culture, and in others I want to see power. I rarely care about the score and probably don't need the victory numbers until late game.

I haven't had a Scientific Great Leader yet, but the game is played a bit differently when I know I can't rush a great wonder with a military leader; last night was the first time I discovered the tech requirement for building a Palace because I didn't have it available as a prebuild and was far behind on tech. (Luckily the AI never researched Literacy and I built the GL from a granary prebuild.) On the other hand the armies are much more appealing and I can still rush the FP or Palace. For what it's worth, it doesn't make sense to me, either to take wonder-rushing away from the military leaders and create a scientific leader that does the same thing, but The Economist may have figured it out.

 

[eric2075]

Puppeteer, I was just going to ask the same thing about strategic resources being more scarce. Getting iron used to be almost a given, but not anymore. Luxury resources are more scarce too from what I can see.

Another thing I haven't seen mentioned much is the AI won't trade techs very easily in the early game either. It really hurts if you can't beat them to some tech to trade with.

 

[chiefpaco]

Originally posted by SirPleb
Exploring, map trading, and difficulty
These are the areas where I think the epic game has changed most dramatically.

I'll bet. Having tried this myself by modding up a plain Civ3 game this made the game feel almost unfamilliar at times. I liked the slower map discovery of the game and how exploring was made more valuable. Knowing the entire sea before I built my first naval unit always seemed ironic. I don't suspect these changes help the AI much - whether they are conscious of just how valuable contact is and how far they explore to get contact.

New traits

Ever since I first read Agricultural I've wanted to try it. Sure sounds powerful unless a real dry map comes about - which it can. Still, given better food production opens some new options - fast growth to city status, more heads to pop rush, faster production of settlers/workers early.

Taxmen and Scientists
I've always played some variation of this - increasing taxmen and scientist values. Just never seem useful without the increase.

The F8 Screen
3) I'd like to see tile counts for the domination limit instead of percentages. If it has to be percentages, a decimal point or two would be nice - the difference between 65% and 66% can be a lot of tiles.

Hehe. Wondered if that would be enough info for a serious strategist. Even 66% isn't 66.6666%. I'm real glad something was included but I agree the presentation might have been better.

Leaders, Military and Science
I think the rewards of winning a battle are sufficient without producing insta-wonder builders. After all, the enemy unit is destroyed, land is gained, cities are captured, and you're on your way to conquest or domination. I've heard armies are a bit better but haven't read the exact changes. So getting these leaders isn't all that bad, is it?

Having a Scientific leader now rush wonders seems as illogical on the surface. But being the first to a tech in a close game is not the advantage it should be but now with this change it helps. Maybe that was the thinking. Perhaps it also tilts the game advantages to the peaceful player - which did seem necessary.

I was wondering how the new governments play out. What did you use?

 

[Bamspeedy]

Agriculture: I would never had allowed them to even think about adding this trait if I had contact with Firaxis/Atari/Breakaway when they were in the beginning of designing C3C. Obviously with an 'ag' trait, you need to give some sort of food bonus, but we all know how powerful extra food is....

MGL and SGL wonder-rushing issues:

On higher levels, you should NOT get early wonders so easily like you could by getting MGLs. There is something wrong if you are *depending* on luck in order to get the pyramids, great Library, etc. Sure, there are some ways to increase your chances of a MGL, but really, it all comes down to luck. Luck isn't really 'strategy' or 'skill'. Some people cannot beat deity if they don't get the Great Library. The whole point of deity/sid is that you start out way behind and you shouldn't be able to catch up so easily by winning one battle.

It's alot harder to be the first to a tech on deity, than it is to get a military great leader on deity.

0% science really shouldn't be what Civ is about, so you get rewarded if you can research yourself. Granted, that is harder to do on high levels, but that's part of what makes high levels difficult!

Something needed to be done with armies. Nobody really used them all that much. So they were GREATLY boosted in abilities/power, and since MGLs can't rush the pyramids/great library for you (but still the forbidden palace), people will now use armies alot more and bring the army aspect back into the game.

Warmongering is still the better option (just capture the wonders), but at least the balance between researcher-warmonger is a bit closer.

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by The Economist
I think the reason that military leaders can no longer rush wonders is ... you can keep a civ alive with a few cities left ... allowing you to get many many wonders.

That seems as good a theory as either of mine, but I find it equally unpalatable. I don't think I've ever been in a situation where I could get a leader every 4 or 5 turns unless it was also a game where I was already in a winning position. So it seems to me that removing it for this reason just reduces the options in how to play a game out from an already strong position.

Originally posted by The Economist
As to why scientific leaders can rush wonders, like you said, its because they're harder to get on higher difficulty levels.
...
If you got a military leader in PTW, you'd virtually always just use it to make an army with 3 of your best multi-movement attack units and win one battle
...
Now that it depends on research, you'll have a really tough choice: do i rush a wonder, or do I take +25% to research for 20 turns, possibly letting me get another scientific leader?

It still doesn't make sense to me. As I see it there are two ways it might work out in practice (I don't know which since I don't understand the details of scientific leader production yet):

1) If science leaders appear often enough to be predictably obtainable. If this is the case then I think there will be two side-effects:

1a) For people who are playing games they can readily win (i.e. at a bit lower a difficulty level than they can actually handle), playing for science leaders will become a technique exactly the same as playing for military leaders used to be, in the same type of game and with the same consequences.

1b) Scientific Civs will become more preferred than they currently are.

2) If science leaders appear seldom enough to not be worth trying for as a deliberate game altering strategy. If this is the case then I think they are a huge imbalancing factor, more so than military leaders used to be. In compared games such as GOTM, a science leader at an opportune moment would make a lot of difference.

Regarding the use of a scientific leader being a tough choice, for my use I disagree. I won't have a hard time with this decision. I'll rush a wonder at any point in the game where one which is important to my strategy will be available soon. I'll only take the 25% when there's nothing else I can use the leader for.

For me it was a slightly tougher choice with military leaders, but not much. I almost always go the opposite way from what you described, usually using early leaders for wonders. The Heroic Epic approach doesn't even break even until the fifth leader. With the stronger armies in Conquests, I might now find the choice with military leaders a bit tougher - if I still had that choice

Bottom line is that it still seems to me to be best by far to either give both kinds of leaders great wonder rush ability, or neither. If both there'd be more ways to play the game than before and more decisions. If neither the game would be more balanced. Vs. as it is now which seems to imbalance things at least as much (and my feeling is even more) than whatever imbalance previously existed in this area.

Originally posted by Puppeteer
SirPleb, one big (IMO) change you didn't mention is that the science max research time increase to 50 turns making minimum science gambits riskier. Another interesting change is the defensive bombardment added to many units and the AI's effectiveness in using them for defending cities and unit stacks. (These have been mentioned elsewhere, but I suppose I was surpised you had no comment.)

Though I was trying to focus on stuff I hadn't seen mentioned elsewhere, you're right, I should have mentioned those. They both change the game's feel noticeably. I'm not wild about the minimum research time increasing to 50 turns. Personally if it needed to be changed at all I'd have voted for decreasing it! Seriously. Because to me it seems like an interesting choice to be made and thus enriches the game. So far I've tried the 50 turn gamble a few times and not succeeded once. It doesn't seem to be a very useful option anymore. But I do like the defensive bombardment change - it doesn't seem to require a big change in strategy but it is interesting.

Originally posted by Puppeteer
On the other hand, since you can't settle on [marshes] I was able to block a settler pair landed from another island for 40+ turns from settling where I didn't want him to. It was a shuffle-type 3-unit block

Puppeteer pulling the strings again, good fun

Originally posted by Puppeteer
Has anyone else noticed that strategic resources are more scarce?

Hmmm, I've been without horses twice already. Thought it was just luck of the draw.

Originally posted by chiefpaco
Ever since I first read Agricultural I've wanted to try it. Sure sounds powerful unless a real dry map comes about - which it can.

Yup, and even on desert there are interesting possibilies. I've found that an oasis in the desert (and there seem to be a good number of them) is, for an agricultural Civ, exactly as good as wheat on plains. The oasis gives 2 food and the irrigated desert adds 2 food for an agricultural Civ. Plus one shield of course. That makes a nice tile in Despotism

Originally posted by chiefpaco
I was wondering how the new governments play out. What did you use?

I haven't explored the new governments yet. I plan to play a game as a religious Civ in a while in order to go back and forth a bit. It may be hard to really know how they fit into various strategies until we've played them a fair bit - on the surface in their descriptions, it seems to me that both can be useful but neither is likely to be overwhelming.

So far I've just used Despotism -> Republic or Despotism -> Monarchy. I have found that it is easy to get nailed by the new unit support structure for Republic. Once you really get rolling on expanding the empire, Republic seems fine, the free unit support is adequate. But early on, if switching to Republic asap, it is easy to have too many units and end up paying heavily for support. I think the powerful technique of going to Republic quickly still works but must be played a bit more carefully. Things which can help include foreign workers (maintenance free), industrious trait (need less early workers), dense builds (more cities -> more free unit support), and of course minimizing the number of units built before they are required.

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
Agriculture: I would never had allowed them to even think about adding this trait if I had contact with Firaxis/Atari/Breakaway when they were in the beginning of designing C3C. Obviously with an 'ag' trait, you need to give some sort of food bonus, but we all know how powerful extra food is....

Yup, especially you, oh titan of tight builds and master of milking!

I'd thought agricultural would be something like cheaper granaries and/or faster irrigation and/or ability to irrigate hills.

But free food? Whoosh!

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
On higher levels, you should NOT get early wonders so easily like you could by getting MGLs. There is something wrong if you are *depending* on luck in order to get the pyramids, great Library, etc. ... Some people cannot beat deity if they don't get the Great Library.

There sure is something wrong there. I don't believe it is possible at deity to play for a predictable leader for any Ancient Times wonder. Counting on that kind of luck is not a sensible way to play.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I'd thought agricultural would be something like cheaper granaries

Makes it too easy for the human who knows how to operate granaries efficiently. Granaries are very powerful, and 30-shield granaries would be too unbalancing.
There is a risk involved (you might not have fresh water-or at least not right at your starting position).
I think it would be balanced if there was no free food while you are in despotism, but then many won't like the trait, becuase it takes so long before you get any benefit from the trait. I'd be willing to take that investment (looking at the long-term instead of the short term), but many players would not. They want something exciting about their trait early in the game.

ability to irrigate hills.

This has been suggested alot, but I don't really understand the fascination with it. You turn a hill into a plain.

There sure is something wrong there. I don't believe it is possible at deity to play for a predictable leader for any Ancient Times wonder. Counting on that kind of luck is not a sensible way to play.

Well, it depends on the situation of course (how slow the tech pace is, if the target AI is distracted by other AI/barbs or used up many of his units fighting somebody else, etc.). Doing a mass upgrade of warriors to swords is an easy tactic to facilitate this.

Oh, BTW, What do think about the increased costs of upgrades?

But you would agree that if someone gets the Great Library on deity, then they aren't really playing deity anymore (more like high monarch/emperor).

With MGLs, you could have nearly unlimited chances for a leader to rush a wonder ('Fishing for great leaders'). SGLs you have limited chances (can only research so many techs).

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
I think it would be balanced if there was no free food while you are in despotism, but then many won't like the trait, becuase it takes so long before you get any benefit from the trait.

I think so too. But I see your point about the problem with that approach. And even with that change to balance it, agricultural would probably still be overpowered in terms of a HOF high score

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
Oh, BTW, What do think about the increased costs of upgrades?

I haven't played a massive upgrade yet. I do think this is a good change, and perhaps it should go even further. But it does seem wise to start with just this much increase and then see how it goes. After a while it should become clear whether the increase is enough or more is necessary to stop upgrading from being an overpowering technique.

I think that until now there's been more advantage in upgrading than there should be - that the balance should shift so that building units and upgrading units have roughly equal appeal, before considering Leonardo's. What do you think about this change?

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
But you would agree that if someone gets the Great Library on deity, then they aren't really playing deity anymore (more like high monarch/emperor).

I sure would! Getting the Great Library removes the heavy pressure of being behind in tech for a long time, and that problem is a key part of the deity level challenge. OTOH, I think that taking the Great Library is one of the solutions to the deity tech problem, in those games where it can be taken in time to matter

 

[DrSpike]

I've been playing Dutch starts to test the new traits. With the right land agricultural is absolutely killer in the key early expansion phase. However it seems a bit of a gamble to me.........with the wrong land you have a trait that's merely nice, since by the time you switch govt one more food is less important.

3 move Curraghs are nice, and if the suicide runs are much easier it's a very powerful trait. Anyone have the numbers on the chances of sinking in sea and ocean?

 

[Beekeeper]

Puppeteer, not having horses does not invalidate the Statue of Zeus. My first epic game was with the Russians and I did not have horses in my territory (I've noticed resources are much scarcer, too, as are cattle, wheat, etc.). I prioritized Statue of Zeus over Temple of Artemis (I did have ivory), started popping out units and used them to help destroy a neighbor who did have horses and other things I wanted.

In another game, I conquered a city that had the Knights Templar and on the very next turn it had popped out a new unit. Pretty cool. The 5 turn span between new units does not reset if the city changes hands.

BTW, the scarcity of resources will make getting the Iron Works wonder even harder.

No one has mentioned the civil engineers yet and they are pretty cool. Each one gives you 2 shields of production. This does not show up on the production line, but it does decrease the time to completion by the appropriate amount. Would you consider this a bug or not? I have a city on an island with 15 shields but only 1 blue one. I started messing around with the citizens and realized that if I set up 3 tiles correctly, I can have the other 3 citizens turned to engineer specialists, giving me 7 blue shields per turn. Pretty powerful without having to micromanage by producing units in the capital and disbanding them (after transport by ship) to the island city.

After noticing this, I messed around with the citizens some more and I did not see any benefit to policemen. Does anyone else see how they benefit? The icon indicates a red coin stack, buy my civ's income did not change when I changed the citizen to policeman.

Scientific Leaders are pretty random, but the odds are low, at least for non-scientific civs (2% according to the documentation). I'm playing a Monarch level game with Mayans, to get a feel for things and I have been the first civ to discover almost all the technologies after my Great Library expired. I'm now researching motorized transport. Anyway, I've only had 1 SGL and by my estimate I've been the first civ to research 24 of the past 31 technologies discovered. If they wanted to tone down the impact of a SGL, then it could be restricted to only rushing scientific wonders. At the same time, you could allow the MGL to only rush military great wonders, in addition to small wonders.

 

[cgannon64]

@ Scientific GLs: I'm glad that they made only them rush wonders. Now its alot harder to rush a wonder - they are almost always hand-built in my games - which gives them a little more value, I think. And on higher levels that 20-turn research boost looks VERY tempting, even worth sacrificing a wonder for.

@ Volcanoes: I agree with this. In a current SG of mine I foolishly built a city near a volcano, but then I realized that the city WILL be destroyed at some point in the game. Not only that, but the longer it takes the worse it is, since that's more and more infrastructure and population that is going to be replaced. I don't mind volcanoes that much, and I don't care that much if they make you move a city spot. But they are a little too deadly, IMO, if you build a city right next to them.

@ Seafaring: It does seem a little overpowered on Archipelago maps, but you have to realize that's its only overpowered on ONE type of map, which is a good thing. At least its not like Industrial in vanilla and PTW - just too good all around.

@ Agricultural: I don't think this trait is too overpowered. Maybe on lower levels, yes, but I think on Emperor+ this trait may only net you another city or two. I'm finding from SG experience though (see sig) that this trait can be very powerful in a desert start. It turns deserts into plains, after all, and suddenly that huge stretch of desert seems worth settling. (Can Agricultural civs irrigate hills? If so, I wouldn't even bother). Of course, from my SG I am also learning that my first statement (Agricultural doesn't grant you a huge boost on higher levels) is also true, considering we're in a cramped start.

@ Exploring: I'm happy with this change. It makes the Ancient Age feel longer, since you don't know everyone and where everyone is by Map Making. It gives Expansionist a nice boost, and it gives the ancient age a more "local" feel, since you can only really interact with your direct neighbors.

@ Statue of Zeus: I agree this may be overpowered. Having it require a luxury makes it very depended on luck. I think they should either reconfigure the way Ivory is dispersed so everyone gets a good chance of getting it, or make it not require Ivory.

 

[Dr Tiny]

I don't like F8 going to that notep[ad screen either, the graphs are more obvious. I do like the info that the new screen gives you though, I just wish it wasnt the default screen for F8.

Strategic resources are a lot rarer now, my 15 city empire has 1 horse tile in it, and I had to place a city all alone to get them. Iron seems to be just as rare, my empire has a southern border of hills and mountains ie quite a lot and none of them had iron. I have noticed this scarcity in other games I started in C3C.
Luxuries seem to be similar as before.
Bonus land is quite common but more varied now with the new bonuses.

Volcanos are fun, I just wished they were a little more exciting when they erupted. A great big boom and shaking screen and flowing lava graphics if its in/ close to your empire. More fun than "the volcano has erupted and 4 tiles tiles being polluted.

Goody huts are really wierd, I was playing the Byzantines (Seafaring and Scientific) and every other hut was a tech. I had similar experiences with the Greeks. When I played the Dutch I hardly had any techs. Is tech chance altered by being scientific now?

Seafaring is a great trait, I really like it. 3 move point curraghs are great for exploration.

You can play your PTW and vanilla civ saves in C3C, but you might not like seeing what it does to a once efficient empire

Oh and I seem to either start half a world from every one else or almost next to 3 other civs now.

 

[JonathanValjean]

I thoroughly enjoyed your comments, SirPleb. Coming from a master player, they carry much weight. I agree with much that you said, especially the default of the F8 screen (although, like you, I welcome the new information), and the leader ability to rush great wonders: either both scientific and military alike should be able to rush great wonders or neither of them should have the capability.

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by Beekeeper
I have a city on an island with 15 shields but only 1 blue one. I started messing around with the citizens and realized that if I set up 3 tiles correctly, I can have the other 3 citizens turned to engineer specialists, giving me 7 blue shields per turn.

Thanks Beekeeper - I was wondering whether Civil Engineers would produce shields which were "before corruption" or "after corruption", haven't gotten far enough in a game yet to test it. Your observation here makes it clear that they are after corruption, i.e. that each engineer will add two shields regardless of how far a city is from the Palace/FP. This makes the engineers very powerful indeed!

Originally posted by Beekeeper
After noticing this, I messed around with the citizens some more and I did not see any benefit to policemen. Does anyone else see how they benefit? The icon indicates a red coin stack, buy my civ's income did not change when I changed the citizen to policeman.

I haven't tried policemen yet. But I suspect that what they do is reduce corruption by a small amount, and that in cities which are totally corrupt (i.e. where the net income is just 1 coin, all the rest are lost to corruption), a policeman is likely to make no difference. E.g. if a city is 200% corrupt, assigning a few policemen might reduce it to 150% corrupt, but that makes no difference in the final result - it is still totally corrupt. Policemen will probably help only in cities where the corruption is less than 100% or just a bit over it.

 

[rabies]

Great comments Sir Pleb. I have played one full c3c game so far as the mayans. I ended up dominating the world in 1110 AD. I ended up using the game as an excuse to try new things. Here are a couple I learned.

Mausoleum - could potentially be a great early wonder to be used for nabbing other early wonders. This one lets you get a core city up in size without happiness issues, allowing you to get a 12 point city using all its tiles without having to raisse hte lux slider to extremes.

Resources - were scarecer in my game as well. Made it much for fun. I controlled 50% of the world at one point, and realized that I did not have any coal in my borders. I was shocked.

Feudalism: A mixed bag. I rushed right for this government, and stuck with it all game. the war weariness is a real drag in conquest/domination games. On the other hand, I found the unit support great (as I would fill captured territory that was corrupt with smaller cities)...and the pop-rushing was very, very nice in getting large enemy cities down in population very quickly to help prevent culture flips.

Knights Templar: so-so. Free 5 attack units are nice, but in truth, I barely used them. They could not keep up with my advancing knights.

Mass upgrade costs: Awesome. I did not knwo this was in the game. imagine my 'sticker shock' when I went to upgrade my 35 horsemen to Knights. At 120 gold a pop, I could afford to upgrade 5. This combined with the 50 turn research rate makes it much harder for those who relied on min sci gambles to save money for mass upgrades. I tried the Iron discon trick once, but ended up with a bunch of horsemen standing around waiting to be upgraded. I eventually just built the knights outright.