Discussion in 'Leader Balance' started by Funak, Oct 15, 2014.
+1f/g/p on top of what it produces now.
But no change to the village scaling? Hmm. I think that would remove the Polder-or-village choice, which might make people happy.
Also these yields look pretty good. Should still be in the situational zone of "I almost always want to build Polders if I can" which is fine. Gotta test it though.
No, I'm arguing about a suddenly implemented 'test-version'. This is the main reason why i hate 'test-versions', because as soon as they are added they can't be removed or changed without a unanimous decision.
Well, the Inca were considered top-tier for deity-picks in vanilla, I'm sure that wasn't because of their non-factor unique unit.
On the topic of yields, I'll just assume that the ones saying food instead of gold will just win out and that's what the polder will add to the village. If it is just gold there is no point arguing about anything because the village would probably not be worth replacing a polder for anyways, even with +6 gold from adjacent polders.
Congratulations, you either have two uniques that both sound really weak and really boring; or you have one unique providing good enough yields and an unfair, uncalled buff to villages .
Don't get me wrong, I've been pushing for a change in polder requirements since forever, floodplain starts were just way too unfair.
Having them buildable on all freshwater tiles is a nice change and makes the dutch way less RNG dependent, especially since marshes/floodplains/lakes aren't valid startbiases.
I'm not saying that the dutch can't be buffed, in fact no matter how you do this it is probably going to be a buff. I'm saying there is only so much power you can pump into one unique before balance suffers. You can't for example aim to make William stronger than for example Montezuma just because you want more room to have both an interesting tile and an interesting adjacency bonus.
So your one argument is directly copy-pasting my argument...?
This was present in the base-game as well so it's probably some mechanic that I don't understand, but why would there be hammers on the polder?
I can see Food (growing crops) I can see gold (growing cash-crops) I can see culture (Unique, looks cool, inspires art and so on, tulips) but where would the production come from?
On the subject of yields, I have another reason why I think the village adjacency bonus needs to be dropped, Polders needs the yields to compete with Imperialism and cathedral buffed farms, and I honestly don't think that would be possible while still adding a possible +6 yields to villages and still being balanced, I just dont.
Okay so I understand that you can't make the farm adjacency mechanic work with polders. But (if I'm reading this right) you have the ability to make any improvement buff surrounding improvements. So maybe we could do the farm adjacency work backwards. Let farms have the ability to buff adjacent polders by +1food. All farms will have that ability but it will only be relevant to the Dutch.
I wish I knew how to split up the quote the way you do, I think this would make this clearer.
The Inca unique unit was great. The Terrace Farm was just straight-up great in vanilla because food = science more than anything and science was king.
What's unfair about the buff to villages?
My one argument is not a direct copy-paste. This is what is frustrating me so much when I debate with you. The difference is nuanced. I'll give some examples.
Your version: "I think a unique improvement should feel awesome by itself, not feel like a mediocre farm that makes nearby villages feel awesome"
My version: "a village adjacent to multiple Polders could be a single amazing tile and each Polder could also be good"
Your version: " they need to be balanced around themselves, not around building them in a circle around villages"
My version: "The Polder needs to be strong enough to build by itself instead of farms in some situations. The scaling on villages needs to be better to create super villages"
Reclaiming land to be settled for non-farming purposes would be production, I think.
Ehm, you just add seperate [QUOTE and /QUOTE] .
The incan unique unit was an archer, and it was great until they added the composite bowman. After that it was pretty pointless.
Yes, food was a lot more valuable in vanilla, in fact most yields were a lot more valuable. The point was just that adding a full yield to or from all surrounding tiles is going to be way too much. You're going to run into situations where people pull of multiple +6 or +5 tiles in the same city and that's just going to cause problems.
If the polder can stand on its own, it would be unfair if the dutch had a buff to the village, if the polder can't stand on its own then both the polder and the village would be boring.
We're not debating. Or at least I'm not debating.
I see, so the difference is that your version is unrealistic?
If a tile adds +1 yields to all surrounding tiles (6) then 6 yields have to be removed from that tile in order to keep the values the same. You can't even remove 6 yields from most unique improvements, which means the Polder could not 'also be good'.
And yes I am aware that the Polder can't add +1 yields to 6 surrounding tiles, as you can only fit 3 villages around a polders. However only removing 3 yields from the Polder would still make it not 'also be good' especially considering how spammable the new polder is (the more improvements built per city on average, the lower yields each)
Seems sketchy unless they're growing some kind of firewood.
That's what I thought, but I fully expect it to fail. Here goes nothing.
You mean like the farm adjacency mechanic?
If by stand on its own you mean completely make up for the other deficiencies of the civ, then I agree. If by stand on its own you mean feel impactful and fun, then I disagree.
Ok, so what is this then?
You're no better than Strigvir. Stop disregarding other's opinions because they aren't yours.
The yields in question do not all have the same value. The number of tiles used also matters. Since the adjacent yield requires the use of more space and a specific type of improvement (thus limiting yield types), there can be extra total yield. It does not have to be a 1-to-1 exchange.
What does production represent anywhere else? On forests its probably woodcutting, hills are probably mining, but villages are probably artisans and later industry. Why would Polders reclaiming land for more people in villages not be production?
This is me explaining.
I gave you a three line explanation to why it wouldn't work, that's way more than Strigvir would have done.
Also I don't see why me calling your suggestions unrealistic would be any worse than you saying my arguments lacks any merit.
Maybe not, but even if you go down to -2 (and that's generous) the polder would still still look really sad.
Not if the land is used as a farm or a plantation, I mean normal farms and plantations don't provide you with productions, and having more fertile ground wouldn't really change that.
I'll chime in here as the guy that suggested village adjacency specifically.
The intent was to reward an aesthetic that matches Dutch polder country while competing with stacked up farms (including Churches and Imperialism). Here's a photo to show the aesthetic idea in my head
Village in a line, on a road, adjacent to the polders. The original suggestion was a food adjacency. The concept was you'd get nearly as much food as the farms, gain in culture and gold, and lose some production (depending on trade routes). Without having the road and/or trade route bonus, you were better off building the polder. Even with it, you were losing food to gain production if you weren't adjacent to at least 3, and the polder's food yield wasn't quite what a fully buffed farm could do (talking a farm with Imperialism and 6 adjacents). If you do get a village surrounded by polders, then you've matched the food of three maxed farm tiles (easy to get in most cities with fresh water) and gained some culture and gold. I've gone into detail on the math for the yields involved over an area in a couple different posts, if people want to see it again I'll happily do so.
My ideas on what a unique improvement can and should do were largely based on them occupying the 'non-unit' spot. All of the UBs in the game are pretty darn awesome (barring Songhai, that one's weird), so the UIs need to be that kind of awesome. The Dutch UU is very special purpose. Their UA is highly map generation dependant and seems balanced around best-case scenario. Letting their UI be the consistent awesome seemed reasonable.
It's really not the status quo. It's a test of an idea some new guy (hi) tossed out, with some balance testing ahead of time. At the moment, the guy that suggested it isn't happy with the idea, and on the fence about asking we scrap the idea of polder-village adjacency.
I don't think I understand. UIs aren't meant to increase overall yields? If not, what purpose do they serve? If I can't get more out of my city using the UI than mines and farms, then I'm not going to build the UI.
I'm also not a fan of having hammers on the Polder. If we want it to get production, let it give enough food I can build more production, either by being awesome itself so I can build mines or by granting food to a production improvement like the village.
Thank you, that's actually an explanation.
Okay here however the real problem comes, those houses aren't exactly villages. They are more like houses . If you look at normal farms they are structured about the same way, people working the farms had to work somewhere.
I'd again point out that ingame polders-rings around villages really looks horrible and I would love to avoid those if only out of asthetics reasons.
Sure, each is a house. A whole bunch of houses together, with a small community of people that work the fields together, is a village.
I'm with you on avoiding the ring-of-polders. It's no good. Originally, I preferred a non-stacking adjacency bonus, but was told that would require a different function and was to be avoided if possible. IMO, polder at 3 food giving adjacent village 2 food nonstacking would server the purpose.
Could be, but you don't see farms buffing villages.
That's pretty much the only way I see this working.
And when we explain back and forth, isn't that a debate?
You're right. I apologize. But you've done this a lot more than this one time.
We're just going to have to disagree on the value of tiles and types of yields, apparently.
Except the Dutch actually did use the reclaimed land for more dense living. Its one of the most densely populated places on the planet.
Dense living would be represented by food, not by hammers.
As somebody who works probably too many specialists in my core cities, I am a much bigger fan of super tiles than spread out benefits. That's playstyle, though, for sure, just throwing in my two cents in what I'd enjoy from a UI.
Dense living really should be represented by both together. Food to cause the city proper to grow, and hammers to represent all those extra people doing something that isn't farming because there's no space.
That's represented by getting extra citizens from that extra food.
Who work other tiles or as specialists. The people living out there on the reclaimed land aren't doing either, they're working in the city producing things, which is represented by hammers.
An a different note, now that the Dutch don't need marshes for their UI, perhaps their start bias should be changed from Grassland to Coast? It always seemed odd to me that a civ with a boat UA might be nowhere near the coast. And is it possible to have a bias for rivers?
Bias for rivers is possible, and should really be done. No idea if rivers or coast is better however.
I believe civs can be given tiered biases, so if the first is unavailable it will place by the second. I'd suggest the river is more important to the civ overall (the sea beggar feels very disconnected from the otherwise peaceful, trade, gold, culture focused civ)
Separate names with a comma.