The Netherlands

[Gazebo]

Gazebo, what are you looking at for numbers? I think the Polder could use one more food or hammer for the base tile (its available at Guilds and on freshwater (which is also usually near flatlands) meaning its competing with river farm fields right out of the gate, which are either +3 or +4 food usually, so +3 food +1 hammer +1 gold seems good (since you aren't just losing the +3/4 food from one farm, but also +1 for some adjacent farms, so this should be usually but not always better). Then a scaling on villages of +2 gold or +1 food? Those villages are also probably replacing farms and farm adjacencies.

+1f/g/p on top of what it produces now.
G

 

[Atlas627]

+1f/g/p on top of what it produces now.
G

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.

 

[Funak]

The reason why you have to elaborate first is because you're the one arguing against status quo.

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.

The Terrace Farms were never insanely overpowered because they were surrounded by unworkable tiles. They ranged from hill farms (which is not unique) to powerful single tiles surrounded by unworkable tiles. But I understand your point in theory. In the case of the Polders, the stacking yield they are providing is gold, which is already the least useful yield with the most inflation, so it doesn't seem to be overwhelming in its best form. The new CBP Terrace Farm might be a problem though, I haven't tried it.

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.

An improvement buffs an individual tile of your choice in the form specific to the improvement type. I'm going to reword the improvements to help explain my point.

Polder: Provides strong yields, buildable only on freshwater tiles.
Dutch village: Provides normal village yields, +1 gold for each adjacent Polder.

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 .

Your final point is the only one that I think holds any merit at all, and is why I also did not want this rework. I like that the Polder had very difficult building conditions but provided very high yields as a result. This resulted in me planning my settling around trying to get Polder-able lands, which I found a lot of fun. However, in the case of games where I got a ton of valid land, it was too easy, and when I got none, it was too boring. Changing the requirements and yields to be more consistent seems fine.

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.

Additionally, the yields have been spread to the adjacent tiles as well, which means that the Polder itself is even weaker than before, but it is a different type of fun.

Now I don't see why the Dutch can't be buffed, since their UA received a significant nerf in the average use case by again changing the requirements and yields. So I don't see a reason why the Polders can't be stronger AND have the village mechanic.

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.

Here is the argument I would make against the mechanic: there can only be so much power in the Polders. Some of that power is being spread to adjacent villages. Unique Improvements are not about boosting overall yields but about creating single amazing tiles. While a village adjacent to multiple Polders could be a single amazing tile and each Polder could also be good, it is difficult to balance that scenario to be consistent yet not overwhelming. Not impossible, but difficult. I think the Polder needs more power overall to balance this situation. 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.

So your one argument is directly copy-pasting my argument...?

Gazebo, what are you looking at for numbers? I think the Polder could use one more food or hammer for the base tile (its available at Guilds and on freshwater (which is also usually near flatlands) meaning its competing with river farm fields right out of the gate, which are either +3 or +4 food usually, so +3 food +1 hammer +1 gold seems good (since you aren't just losing the +3/4 food from one farm, but also +1 for some adjacent farms, so this should be usually but not always better). Then a scaling on villages of +2 gold or +1 food? Those villages are also probably replacing farms and farm adjacencies.

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.

 

[Bromar1]

Success!

Before
After

I set it to give +1 culture to adjacent farms. Works. I'm going to keep fiddling with parameters to make it as efficient as possible, but this will work.

The function can accept any pair of improvements, and any terrain-based yield.

So, now you need to decide what bonuses to give the polder (and terrace farm).

G

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.

 

[Atlas627]

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) 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.

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.

 

[Funak]

I wish I knew how to split up the quote the way you do, I think this would make this clearer.

Ehm, you just add seperate [QUOTE and /QUOTE] .

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.

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.

What's unfair about the buff to villages?

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.

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.

We're not debating. Or at least I'm not debating.

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"

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)

Reclaiming land to be settled for non-farming purposes would be production, I think.

Seems sketchy unless they're growing some kind of firewood.

 

[Atlas627]

Ehm, you just add seperate [QUOTE and /QUOTE] .

That's what I thought, but I fully expect it to fail. Here goes nothing.

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.

You mean like the farm adjacency mechanic?

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.

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.

We're not debating. Or at least I'm not debating.

Ok, so what is this then?

I see, so the difference is that your version is unrealistic?

You're no better than Strigvir. Stop disregarding other's opinions because they aren't yours.

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)

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.

Seems sketchy unless they're growing some kind of firewood.

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?

 

[Funak]

Ok, so what is this then?

This is me explaining.

You're no better than Strigvir. Stop disregarding other's opinions because they aren't yours.

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.

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.

Maybe not, but even if you go down to -2 (and that's generous) the polder would still still look really sad.

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?

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.

 

[PurpleMentat]

First of all I don't understand why I have to give elaborate explanations about anything when no one can even give me one good reason why polders should buff villages. (And 'I like it' 'It is fun' 'It is different' 'It makes them special' are clearly not good reasons)

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

Spoiler :

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.

The reason why you have to elaborate first is because you're the one arguing against status quo.

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.

Here is the argument I would make against the mechanic: there can only be so much power in the Polders. Some of that power is being spread to adjacent villages. Unique Improvements are not about boosting overall yields but about creating single amazing tiles. While a village adjacent to multiple Polders could be a single amazing tile and each Polder could also be good, it is difficult to balance that scenario to be consistent yet not overwhelming. Not impossible, but difficult. I think the Polder needs more power overall to balance this situation. 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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Funak]

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

Spoiler :

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.

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.

 

[PurpleMentat]

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.

 

[Funak]

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.

Could be, but you don't see farms buffing villages.

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.

That's pretty much the only way I see this working.

 

[Atlas627]

This is me explaining.

And when we explain back and forth, isn't that a debate?

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.

You're right. I apologize. But you've done this a lot more than this one time.

Maybe not, but even if you go down to -2 (and that's generous) the polder would still still look really sad.

We're just going to have to disagree on the value of tiles and types of yields, apparently.

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.

Except the Dutch actually did use the reclaimed land for more dense living. Its one of the most densely populated places on the planet.

 

[Funak]

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.

 

[pandasnail]

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.

 

[Atlas627]

Dense living would be represented by food, not by hammers.

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.

 

[Funak]

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.

 

[Atlas627]

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?

 

[Funak]

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.

 

[PurpleMentat]

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)