The Netherlands

[Gazebo]

Still think my solution was better, but thisis something at least I suppose

You asked for a mule, and I gave you a stallion!

G

 

[Funak]

You asked for a mule, and I gave you a stallion!

G

Thats really not the way I see it. Having powerful improvements that are strong by themselves is a lot more interesting than weaker improvements that buff nearby tiles.

 

[Atlas627]

Thats really not the way I see it. Having powerful improvements that are strong by themselves is a lot more interesting than weaker improvements that buff nearby tiles.

I somewhat agree with this. I think buffing multiple tiles falls into the UB category. UIs feel like they should be situational on a tile-by-tile basis. That's another reason why I want it to not be optimal to always build UIs everywhere.

 

[Gazebo]

Thats really not the way I see it. Having powerful improvements that are strong by themselves is a lot more interesting than weaker improvements that buff nearby tiles.

Sigh...we can already do that kind of functionality with the current XML - this has nothing to do with your idea. This DLL addition is something new. The elements aren't mutually exclusive. Anyways, going to back to the other point:

BUT I do see that a lot of the frustration around UIs is that they are either so strong that they're always better than improvements (and should be spammed), or they're 'just good enough' to be built, but 'not good enough' to compensate for lost yields, especially when related to improvements with adjacency bonuses.

That's the central issue here, and being able to buff improvements around UIs makes up for the potential loss, otherwise we remain in a constant seesaw of balance.

G

 

[Funak]

That's the central issue here, and being able to buff improvements around UIs makes up for the potential loss, otherwise we remain in a constant seesaw of balance.

That was why the idea wasn't to buff the UI, but to make it easier to build, if the polder is buildable at every freshwater tile it doesn't really matter if that one marsh-tile is in the middle of your farmcollection. You'll have plenty of polders anyways, so that one tile wont really matter.
The next best thing to building really powerful unique improvements is to get to build your unique improvement a lot.

 

[Llednar Twem]

Well I at least absolutely love that this seems to have worked. Not sure what yield to give it exactly, but just being able to do this solves my biggest issue with the UI as it stands now.

 

[Gazebo]

That was why the idea wasn't to buff the UI, but to make it easier to build, if the polder is buildable at every freshwater tile it doesn't really matter if that one marsh-tile is in the middle of your farmcollection. You'll have plenty of polders anyways, so that one tile wont really matter.
The next best thing to building really powerful unique improvements is to get to build your unique improvement a lot.

If you can build it on every freshwater tile, it is no longer a polder - it is a farm.

G

 

[Funak]

If you can build it on every freshwater tile, it is no longer a polder - it is a farm.

Not really, since you can build farms on tiles without freshwater access.
I think it is a fair compromise since you didn't want to do the coastal thing I suggested a year ago

 

[Atlas627]

If you can build it on every freshwater tile, it is no longer a polder - it is a farm.

G

I agree. Making it too easy to build just makes it a buffed farm. That's the same way I feel about the "you should always build this over a farm" argument.

 

[PurpleMentat]

I really like the idea of a UI that buffs surrounding improvements in some way. I'm not sure it should be the Polder. Polders boosting nearby Farms also doesn't seem right, thematically. They were used all, not because there weren't other options, but because they provided flat out better farmland than other options. From a thematic standpoint, I really like the idea of the Dutch using more Polders than Farms.

As for the 'any freshwater' part, real world flood plains happen in rivers outside of deserts. If we want the Polder to be buildable in more tiles, without it being any freshwater, land was also reclaimed from the sea (ESPECIALLY by the Dutch). So, let them be built coastal, as well as lakes, flood plains, and marshes?

I just want a bunch of multi-coloured windmill farms in my land ^.^

 

[Gazebo]

I agree. Making it too easy to build just makes it a buffed farm. That's the same way I feel about the "you should always build this over a farm" argument.

Which brings us back to the 'improve other tiles around it' concept to make up for the break in farm adjacency.

G

 

[Gazebo]

I really like the idea of a UI that buffs surrounding improvements in some way. I'm not sure it should be the Polder. Polders boosting nearby Farms also doesn't seem right, thematically. They were used all, not because there weren't other options, but because they provided flat out better farmland than other options. From a thematic standpoint, I really like the idea of the Dutch using more Polders than Farms.

As for the 'any freshwater' part, real world flood plains happen in rivers outside of deserts. If we want the Polder to be buildable in more tiles, without it being any freshwater, land was also reclaimed from the sea (ESPECIALLY by the Dutch). So, let them be built coastal, as well as lakes, flood plains, and marshes?

I just want a bunch of multi-coloured windmill farms in my land ^.^

Well, if you think about the polder as a 'series of levies and canals' around farmland, why can't it buff nearby farms by proxy of benefit from the polder?

G

 

[Bromar1]

Honestly, I'd rather see a food bonus to adjacent tiles than culture. The Dutch get plenty of culture from their UA. Extra food would make progress or authority Dutch more viable.

 

[Gazebo]

Honestly, I'd rather see a food bonus to adjacent tiles than culture. The Dutch get plenty of culture from their UA. Extra food would make progress or authority Dutch more viable.

The culture above was just a test to see if the function worked, not an indication of the bonus. That's for you all to decide. IF I had an opinion, I'd say +1 gold or +1 food, and then - for the terrace farm - +1 production.

G

 

[PurpleMentat]

Ah, I missed that coastal thing had been suggested before. If 'lots of polders all over' and 'so good you always build a Polder if you can' are not on the table, I'm not sure there is an option other than buffing adjacent farms.

So, let's look at the numbers. A farm gets 1 extra food for every two farms. In the middle of six farms, there's +3 food. The six farms around the outside are getting nothing from the interior farm, because it brings their adjacency from 2 to 3. Polder seems like it would always be worthwhile in the center of six farms, because you can't have fractional yields on a tile to my knowledge, and 6 of anything (maybe not Gold) is better than 2 food (Polder has 1 higher base food, 2 less for not getting Adjacency). It does take six population to reap those bonus rewards, rather than 1 on the central Farm.

You usually can't get a neat ring like that, in my experience anyway. Other resources, hills, desert, tundra break it up. With any configuration except that perfect circle, you're going to have to choose between getting the Polder bonus on more farms, or keeping more adjacency bonuses. Probably a good place to be, as it helps create interesting decisions and optimization challenges.

So what yield? If the Polder gives a food bonus, then it's back in the 'so good you always build it' category. In fact, the 'god tile' is the single Farm on a Flood Plain inside a circle of Polders. Gotta be gold, for theme and because Dutch have enough culture already.

 

[Llednar Twem]

Food makes a lot more sense than gold, with the argument that you can grow more using the extra water diverted from the polder. Gold is probably more balanced, but doesn't really seem very logical. Also, would it get an additional farm yield when you research whatever tech it is that makes them change to the more colorful polders, or would that be too powerful?

 

[Atlas627]

Which brings us back to the 'improve other tiles around it' concept to make up for the break in farm adjacency.

G

I don't think so? I'm saying I LIKE breaking up farm adjacency, since that means there's actually a decision to make. If we "make up for the break", then I'm back to building Polders everywhere I can.

I guess maybe I'll end up trying to maximize the farm territory around a Polder? I doubt it will work out very well.

 

[Funak]

Don't think of the freshwater polder as a modifier farm, think of it as a reverse Eki, I think that's kinda fun, don't you? They look really pretty when stacked next to eachother.

 

[PurpleMentat]

I don't think so? I'm saying I LIKE breaking up farm adjacency, since that means there's actually a decision to make. If we "make up for the break", then I'm back to building Polders everywhere I can.

I guess maybe I'll end up trying to maximize the farm territory around a Polder? I doubt it will work out very well.

We're not all on the same page as to what the intended balance point of the Polder should be. Until we can hash that part out, the discussion is going to have a low signal to noise ratio, as people will be pulling for their preferred point.

The more I think about it, the less I like balancing Polders so that building a farm might make more sense. The entire idea behind Polders, and the reason they are used all over the world, is they provide hyper-fertile farming and pasturage. It should be a direct upgrade to building a farm, in every situation, in the same way the Brazilwood Camp is a direct upgrade from the Jungle Lumber Mill.

Put another way, if one of my three Unique abilities of my civ, the things that are supposed to make me special and feel cool and powerful, which requires a late Medieval tech to even build, is in direct competition with the most basic improvement of the game that everyone can build from Turn 1, then it doesn't feel special or cool or powerful. I never wish I could build a Temple as Byzantium, a Custom House as Germany, a Circus as the Celts, a Granary as Mongolia, or the Courthouse as Persia. I never want to use less than 6 Kasbahs per city as Morocco, and the times I'm forced into it are poor city placement and feel lousy.

It's only with the Eki, the Polder, the Encampment, and the Terrace Farm where we ask players to decide between using one of their special uniques and the most basic improvement in the game. Eki and Encampment are worth building anyway. I'd like to see the UIs themed on being objectively better farms, actually be better farms in every situation.

 

[Funak]

We're not all on the same page as to what the intended balance point of the Polder should be. Until we can hash that part out, the discussion is going to have a low signal to noise ratio, as people will be pulling for their preferred point.

The more I think about it, the less I like balancing Polders so that building a farm might make more sense. The entire idea behind Polders, and the reason they are used all over the world, is they provide hyper-fertile farming and pasturage. It should be a direct upgrade to building a farm, in every situation, in the same way the Brazilwood Camp is a direct upgrade from the Jungle Lumber Mill.

Put another way, if one of my three Unique abilities of my civ, the things that are supposed to make me special and feel cool and powerful, which requires a late Medieval tech to even build, is in direct competition with the most basic improvement of the game that everyone can build from Turn 1, then it doesn't feel special or cool or powerful. I never wish I could build a Temple as Byzantium, a Custom House as Germany, a Circus as the Celts, a Granary as Mongolia, or the Courthouse as Persia. I never want to use less than 6 Kasbahs per city as Morocco, and the times I'm forced into it are poor city placement and feel lousy.

It's only with the Eki, the Polder, the Encampment, and the Terrace Farm where we ask players to decide between using one of their special uniques and the most basic improvement in the game. Eki and Encampment are worth building anyway. I'd like to see the UIs themed on being objectively better farms, actually be better farms in every situation.

So you're up for the reverse eki idea?