The Kasbah

[hokath]

So Villages, Towns, Chateaux, Forts, Citadels and probably some other improvements cannot be built next to each other. Especially for the latter three this prevents carpeting the fourth ring of your cities in an impenetrable wall of fortified archers.

But the Kasbah, available at Masonry, can do this.

Spoiler :

Petra aside, the yields are very sexy. Should this be changed?

 

[Funak]

Considering how rare desert is, and how terrible desert without hills or floodplains is I don't think it is overpowered.

However, if changing the Kasbah and maybe desert in general would lead to a better gaming experience is another question.

I was actually thinking of some ideas earlier but I'm not really sure they are actually needed, Kasbah makes flat-desert-cities decent for morocco while they are pretty close to unusable for every other civ, but does nothing if you're outside the desert, that seems like a pretty balanced UI to me.

 

[hokath]

You can always up the yields to compensate, (though I think they are already too high)
I'm more concerned about the consistency of the +50% bonus w.r.t. the other improvements

 

[Funak]

The thing is, I don't think they are too high at least when you compare ones built in flat desert.

But I see the point about the defensive aspect is your main concern, and to that I just have one real response: That is the point. Kasbah along with their UU are supposed to make Moroccos deserts impenetrable.

 

[Llednar Twem]

I've played a few games as Morocco recently, and didn't really like how "blanket everything with Kasbah" seemed like the way to go, nor did I like how comparatively minor the (very spread out) tech boosts were. One idea I had was to buff the base yields and tech boosts, but restrict the Kasbah to featureless desert only.

New yields could be something like 221 base, 11 at chemistry, 11 at industrialization, and 2 at radio.

 

[Funak]

New yields could be something like 221 base, 11 at chemistry, 11 at industrialization, and 2 at radio.

That was one of my ideas aswell. The other one involved making them restricted to every 6 tiles(not next to other Kasbah) and gives them a stronger buff along with providing freshwater access to all surrounding tiles. This would also include a buff to freshwater desert-tiles in general, letting them have 1 food just like in CEP.

But then again I'm not really bothered by the blanket Kasbahs.

 

[Llednar Twem]

I don't really like "no two adjacent" rules for two reasons. First, it just feels really arbitrary and artificial. Second, it makes trying to adjust for revealed strategics hell.

"Oh, this encampment was on top of a strategic I couldn't see. Guess I'll have to move it to put a mine there. Which means I'll have to move all these other encampments too. Oh but some of them I cant because I put great tiles in the way."

At least with the chateau that the rule originated from in the base game you could avoid that last one by not putting great tiles next to luxuries.

 

[Funak]

I don't really like "no two adjacent" rules for two reasons. First, it just feels really arbitrary and artificial. Second, it makes trying to adjust for revealed strategics hell.

"Oh, this encampment was on top of a strategic I couldn't see. Guess I'll have to move it to put a mine there. Which means I'll have to move all these other encampments too. Oh but some of them I cant because I put great tiles in the way."

At least with the chateau that the rule originated from in the base game you could avoid that last one by not putting great tiles next to luxuries.

I'm still fine with how it currently is, but someone didn't like fields of Kasbah next to eachother, which is a valid point.

 

[Llednar Twem]

My main problem with how it currently is would be that whether it's hill, flood plain, or flat desert you just put a kasbah there and it's better than any non-GTI alterative. Buffing them and restricting them to featureless desert would mean you still farm flood plains and mine hills. It would probably also cut down on the ability to spam defensive tiles without resorting to the potentially messy adjacency restriction. Sure you'd have a few next to each-other, but you wouldn't be covering the whole desert with them.

 

[joosegoose25]

I don't really like "no two adjacent" rules for two reasons. First, it just feels really arbitrary and artificial. Second, it makes trying to adjust for revealed strategics hell.

"Oh, this encampment was on top of a strategic I couldn't see. Guess I'll have to move it to put a mine there. Which means I'll have to move all these other encampments too. Oh but some of them I cant because I put great tiles in the way."

At least with the chateau that the rule originated from in the base game you could avoid that last one by not putting great tiles next to luxuries.

For what it's worth, this is how I've always felt as well. Since chateaus are restricted to luxuries I can tolerate the rule, but I really don't like expanding the rule to include other improvements. It's more annoying micromanagement than anything else to me.

 

[Naeven]

I don't really like "no two adjacent" rules for two reasons. First, it just feels really arbitrary and artificial. Second, it makes trying to adjust for revealed strategics hell.

"Oh, this encampment was on top of a strategic I couldn't see. Guess I'll have to move it to put a mine there. Which means I'll have to move all these other encampments too. Oh but some of them I cant because I put great tiles in the way."

This.

 

[Funak]

This.

Well, main problem with this is that you either make the Kasbah on flat desert tiles stronger than farmed floodplains, leading you to the situation where you rather settle your city away from rivers, which is crazy imho.
Or you design the Kasbah on flat desert to be weaker or about the same strength as farmed floodplains and suddenly just going for floodplains is just as good, and this UI becomes even more situation than it already is.

 

[Gazebo]

I don't really like "no two adjacent" rules for two reasons. First, it just feels really arbitrary and artificial. Second, it makes trying to adjust for revealed strategics hell.

It can be a chore, I agree but it also makes for a more interesting and varied landscape aesthetically and yield-wise. Blankets of trading posts were ugly and gamey, and blankets of encampments would also be ugly (and possibly also gamey, considering all the hunting they would do).

In the interest of making Kasbahs more unique, what if we made it so that they can only be built adjacent to cities? Imagine a ring of Kasbahs around all of Morocco's cities – it'd make them look big and powerful, and be historically/thematically appropriate (Kasbah = old city/citadel). We could even add an adjacency bonus for each Kasbah next to a city, so that they get stronger the more of them around the city there are.

G

 

[Funak]

It can be a chore, I agree but it also makes for a more interesting and varied landscape aesthetically and yield-wise. Blankets of trading posts were ugly and gamey, and blankets of encampments would also be ugly (and possibly also gamey, considering all the hunting they would do).

In the interest of making Kasbahs more unique, what if we made it so that they can only be built adjacent to cities? Imagine a ring of Kasbahs around all of Morocco's cities – it'd make them look big and powerful, and be historically/thematically appropriate (Kasbah = old city/citadel). We could even add an adjacency bonus for each Kasbah next to a city, so that they get stronger the more of them around the city there are.

If you're going to keep the desert-requirement this isn't going to work out. Desert-requirement is already harsh enough, having a second requirement on top of that is going to murder.

 

[Finarvi]

I like adjacency requirements for reasons Gazebo mentioned. About city adjacency idea: I'm not sure. I think that player should build these buffed forts where he need them.

 

[Gazebo]

If you're going to keep the desert-requirement this isn't going to work out. Desert-requirement is already harsh enough, having a second requirement on top of that is going to murder.

No, I'd remove the desert requirement entirely, making it purely a city-adjacent bonus UI.

G

 

[Funak]

No, I'd remove the desert requirement entirely, making it purely a city-adjacent bonus UI.

Then I'd like to disagree with you, that would kill what's unique about morocco in my opinion. Desert settling is a fun concept and unless you're going to move that to another civ I don't want to see it gone.

 

[Llednar Twem]

Maybe desert settling could be further encouraged for Arabia somehow instead? We are trying to revamp that UA at the moment. It was always a bit awkward for morocco to want to settle in the desert with no way around the desert movement penalty anyway. Celts have a similar problem with forests, really.

 

[Gazebo]

Then I'd like to disagree with you, that would kill what's unique about morocco in my opinion. Desert settling is a fun concept and unless you're going to move that to another civ I don't want to see it gone.

Then there's an impasse – if you keep Kasbah's as a desert UI, then blankets-o-kasbahs are a reality. I'm fine with that, but the conversation seemed to indicate otherwise. Doesn't matter to me, really.

G

 

[Funak]

Then there's an impasse – if you keep Kasbah's as a desert UI, then blankets-o-kasbahs are a reality. I'm fine with that, but the conversation seemed to indicate otherwise. Doesn't matter to me, really.

I'm not really sure where the conversation was going, but I gave a solution for fixing the blankets, even if that part really doesn't bother me at all.
That was having them not be buildable next to each other and having them buff nearby (desert)-tiles to make farming them viable.
This would also severely reduce the number of kasbah in the game and would make it more of a niche than a unique improvement, but that's the way I feel about the Portuguese UI aswell.