Discussion in 'General Balance' started by ElliotS, Feb 16, 2018.
For new players, though, it seems arbitrary.
While I agree, to get to that final polish I think it’s ok to hardcode a few things.
I think the herbalist nerf was good. I now chop forests but not excessively...as with lumber mills and workshops they become great tiles again.
If tundra needs specific help, then so be it. But I don’t think reverting a good change to account for a corner case is a good idea.
Personally I’m still not convinced tundra needs the help either
New players might like better balance though. Not needing to reroll tundra starts, or having the option to choose something other than Stars and Sky would is probably better than avoiding a buff that feels arbitrary.
I understand that some people would rather have worse balance for more realism, but I don't agree. I think an option or modmod might be the right solution.
I'm in favour of forests getting back 1+ food from herbalists and in return losing yields from one or more later buildings.
Or alternatively we could allow CAMPS to be built on all forest tiles after researching an early tech (granting 1+ food and perhaps adding yields later on via buildings), while changing the goddess of hunt pantheon to "improved resources with camps". That would force the player to choose between camps (generally more food) and lumbermills (generally more gold/production) on forests.
And maybe after reinstating the herbalist bonus workshops could be changed from a forest-buffing building to a building that gives an extra yield to all villages (and perhaps taking away a later extra yield to villages from a later tech) and GPTIs.
I think we can have better balance without making it feel all bland and the same. Adding production to production starved desert and food to food starved tundra feels like a way to have everybody playing on plains and grassland, that might be the best from a balance purpose but it's so boring.
Yea terrible spelling from my part on that sentence, was related to chopping. Ignore ignore.
I need to think on this. I think we can do better. I may need to add a new bit to buildings to achieve the same effect so that the bonus isn’t so arbitrary as it is now.
I look forward to what you come up with!
Here's my plan.
I'm adding a YieldPerX table for buildings. It will work like the Pantheons that modify feature yields:
Herbalist: +1 Food for every 2 Jungle or 2 Forest tiles worked by the City. +1 Production from Plantations and Camps worked by the City.
The Herbalist retains its niche, yet doesn't yield creep too much. Helps heavy forest/jungle and Tundra starts evenly.
Caravansary: loses 10% city connection gold, but gains '+1 Gold and Food for every 2 Desert tiles worked by the City.'
Benefits Desert starts generally without making the building a Desert-exclusive choice.
Caravansary -> will this apply to flood plains and oasis tiles as well?
Herbalist -> looks good to me, but perhaps it will make camp starts too strong, especially with the Goddess of Hunt pantheon? If possible, I'd rather have herbalist not buff camps, but instead have "2 jungle or forest tiles" instead of "2 forest tiles or 2 jungle tiles". That way it will be easier for a mixed jungle/forest start.
Mixing is not possible - the rules are the same as with Pantheons. I think having Camps start strong overall, but fall off (due to fewer upgrades down the road) is fine, and it is also flavorful re: hunting-gathering.
Caravansary will apply to all desert tiles, yes. If it is too strong we could drop to 1per3.
Why not both? People around desert are mostly traders. People around tundra are hunters. Both have limited food, but have other 'yields' that make up a little.
I like Caravansary desert effect. Makes sense. Also, not placing the gold in the tiles is a good move, since it could mesh with Petra, and the golden age effect.
For herbalist, I'm not sure. Can't it be something like the caravansary? +1 production and science every 2 tundra tiles worked by the City?
With your proposal, we are bringing back 'forest forever'.
I don't think that +1 food per 2 forests is 'forest forever' - it is a bonus that will fall off with time.
I wish I could agree. But somehow it strikes me as the same thing we had before, perhaps weaker. Not enough to help growing in tundra starts, too much to avoid keeping forests for later. I hope I'm wrong.
Well, +1f flat per forest was too much and no one chopped. As it is now, most people chop them. So....+.5f per forest is literally the happy medium.
Thanks for the reply. Considering what you write, I think it's a good idea to try out your proposal for herbalists.
As for the caravansary and the desert tile buffs, I'm still against any kind of general buffing of desert tiles via buildings or adding flat yields to tiles, because resourceless desert should be useless, as is in real life. If someone starts in the desert area, he'd better rush for Spirit of the desert (let's say that represents the Bedouin cultures, knowledge of the desert etc.) or Petra, which will give him a strong foundation for the game. If he fails at either of that, he'd better settle his subsequent cities away from the desert (he should know by the time he builds the second settler whether he'll get the Spirit of the desert).
Well, resourceless desert will remain useless, as you can't work a tile that has zero yields (literally can't put a worker on them in the UI). So what this would do is make it so that, for example, working a desert resource on a hill and one on flat ground would net you +1f/g. So each is worth .5f/g more with the Caravansary.
This isn't true though, or is just bad play. There are many cases to keep forests, and anyone who's chopping all or most of them is playing poorly.
6 tiles of forests before: 18 food, 6 production with no effort.
6 tiles of farms on grassland: 25 food with optimal placement and lots of time spend improving the tiles.
6 tiles of farms on plains: 19 food, 6 production with optimal placement and lots of time spend improving the tiles.
6 tiles of forests now: 12 food 6 production with no effort.
6 tiles of forests with your proposed: 15 food 6 production with no effort.
Then enter lumber-mills.
6 tiles of forests before: 18 food, 12 production. (Also 6 science)
6 tiles of farms on grassland: 25 food with optimal placement.
6 tiles of farms on plains: 19 food, 6 production with optimal placement.
6 tiles of forests now: 12 food 12 production.
6 tiles of forests with your proposed: 15 food 12 production.
Then enter workshop and civil service:
6 tiles of forests before: 18 food, 18 production. (Also 6 science)
6 tiles of farms on grassland: 25 food with some additional via riviers. (Hard to calculate)
6 tiles of farms on plains: 19 food, 6 production with some additional via riviers. (Hard to calculate)
6 tiles of forests now: 12 food 18 production.
6 tiles of forests with your proposed: 15 food 18 production.
I think that the current situation is fine. It competes with optimal farm placement, while having no adjacency requirements of it's own. It's slightly worse than a perfect mega-farm, which it should be.
I don't know how people can argue against a single production or food on desert or tundra, and then claim forests should be superior to actual farms. It's far more ludicrous. People deforested for a reason.
To be fair, 'no effort' is not accurate - there's a production cost for the Herbalist, as well as the gold maintenance.
Okay, but I don't think it's comparable to the effort of making that many farms.
I think my conclusions are fine.
Separate names with a comma.