Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by bhavv, Jan 27, 2015.
Aha, welcome to Civfanatics. Don't defend Agg / Pro or you will be crushed!
Dont doubt Hauptman's experience with the game... and if he says Pro is good, then Pro is good.
Agg, is poopoo though, unless you are Tokugawa.
I agree that Cha and Imp are traits with better potential for warring than Agg or Pro. I personally always play with unrestricted leaders on, Cyrus of the Mongols/Byzantines is my favorite combo
I have found that I hardly like playing without the happiness bonus from Chm. Cyrus and Lincoln are my two favorite leaders, Cyrus for a game where I'm planning a rush, Lincoln where I'm planning to defend myself until I hit some key military tech for some quick conquering.
Protective is situational of course... It's not so great on smaller maps, without aggresive AIs enabled.
I've found my favorite settings, Huge maps, Marathon, aggresive AI, tectonics map script, and no tech trading.
Allowing tech trading made the game progress too quickly, I like long era's. Nothing worse than building a stack of rifles, sending em out to DoW and have them become obsolete even before they attack. Making every civ research it's own techs (even me) drags the eras out longer, and as such, some civs who like to crank units for war end up making hundreds.
So in that situation, I find protective to be one of the best traits to choose. those 2 free promotions means I can stop those super stacks with far fewer units. Once I hit railroad, and promote my purpose built grenadiers, 4 or 5 machine guns can kill 200 units per turn. There is no other way to kill so many so quickly, until nukes.
Also protective gives a real nice commerce bonus for a little while. There is absolutely no reason NOT to build castles in every city. As with stone even a crummy no hammer city can build a castle in 4 turns. My primary cities can build them in 1 or 2 turns... so that's an extra trade route in every city very quickly.
Here's a view of my defensive line on the OCC I just lost... (damn you Mansa!~)
My main fort used up 1 general in order to get a decently promoted MG in there (not counting the medic, as I almost always use a general for that). I had 2 grenadiers do very well, but wanted to finish up one of them with city defense (only had forestry prior to the general) so I "wasted" a general to do that. The remainder of my MGs are just meh.
Now with protective...
Those machine guns came out of the box looking that scary. Look at the size of the green bars man!~
AGG should have given promos to horses, and cheap stables. Maybe all units cheaper.
Nope. They were too busy making that truly awesome Civ5 game that everybody loved to improve Civ4.
Luckily, the mods here usually take in upon themselves to improve those flaws.
I have been playing the Realism Invictus mod lately.
They did give AGG starting xp to mounted and gunpowder units as well as building stables faster.
PRO got 100% GG emergence inside borders.
They toned down the Romans, Incans, Egyptians and added a few more traits.
It feels more balanced so far.
That seems better, but adding +100% GG emergence inside borders is just a weaker IMP.
AGG should get a hammer multiplier on military units
Then AGG would be the ultimate trait for every game, because the fastest way to win a map is to conquer the maximum territory once Currency is complete.
Well, IMP got +1 from barracks, +50% faster production of monument and a couple of RI specific buildings.
Not to mention they added new features called Doctrines and Traditions to use the GGs for.
The "Fierce Warriors" Tradition adds +10 Strength (not Combat1) to new units.
While The Fireships Doctrine will add first strikes and Strength vs. Sailing vessels.
Both are specific paths you the player are taking your civilization down this game and some are unique World Wonders.
So, since IMP can earn GGs faster from anywhere on the map, and many people do a lot of fighting throughout the game, they will have more Doctrines and Traditions, so IMP is still a valuable trait to have.
It's not a new mod. It looks like vincentz was the first one to download it back in Feb 2011. It has had improvements in world graphics and unit ethnicity, more techs and other areas since then of course. It's worth a look.
I haven't had a single OOC error yet which ruined Caveman to Cosmos for me.
IMO everything doesn't have to be 100% equal. The little wrinkles within an otherwise well balanced system give you different things to try out. Different directions to probe the game systems from and increase replayability.
But re. AGG, if you think about the meaning of the word it does make most sense as a bonus to the grunt troops who would benefit from aggression. If combat 1 (effectively 2XP) wasn't considered enough the simplest and likely least disruptive buff would be to up it to 3XP. Or up to 4 from 3 or whatever it is
Re. PRO there have been plenty of threads with ideas for buffing that.
The trouble is with any tweak to the existing game there are always lots of ways it could unintentionally screw existing mechanics up, or e.g. make a trait suddenly overpowered in an unexpected way.
Changing the traits within what is effectively a new game, i.e. a big mod, well yes the more interesting and elaborate the better .
I totally agree, the multiplier would have to be small.
I also agree that things don't have to be equal. Don't undersell AGG either the free combat 1 is effectively the amount of XP required for the last promo the unit earned.
It's effectively worth the price of your next combat-line promotion, not a mere 2XP. For a 10XP unit AGG is worth 7XP, assuming you want combat IV. A plain initial XP bonus would be much worse in comparison.
True - small X number of XPs become less significant as time goes on. In fact by trashing the suggestion you prove my other point about even apparently simple changes
If the devs had wanted exact balance (assuming they could ever do enough playtesting to achieve it) we would see more trait bonuses like
PHI: +87% GP emergence
IMP: +53% settler production
CRE: 45% production of library, 48% theater, 59% colosseum
Of course that would be ridiculous! It's simpler to understand if they're all round numbers, 25%, 50% or 75%.
So they kept the traits broadly balanced, knowing they're not exactly equal, and see if people can find angles on them. Deity players have found PRO useful - I bet in a couple of years somebody will discover some reason that actually AGG is be the best trait!
For you doubters of both Protective and forts.
I picked a fight with the most powerful nation because I saw a stack go by a few turns before i got grenadiers... so I knew she had some close. Shaka seeing that I was at war with the most "powerful" nation, being number two (acording to Livy!~) thought I was ripe for the taking... and sends his stack.
Load up the save, hit end turn. Enjoy the carnage.
Here's how my Leonidus ended up after that stack.
That was fun, complete carnage! Took 20 minutes to go through the motions
Should be said that you have tech advantage here, and very profitable terrain, but that was very, very impressive. By my count, the attacking stack had 149 units, though a great deal of those were knights and elephants. Leonidas killed 94 of them, and a handful more withdrew. One rifle died. One. Leonidas ended up with slightly more XP, 355. Fun stuff.
Saw something similar in one of my games once, though at a much smaller scale (normal map and speed). A bunch of Cho-ko-nus with topped first strikes were upgraded to MGs, and landed on a hill next to an AI's capital. Some died in the end, but it was mass slaughter of the attacking AI stack.
As for the discussion, I don't much like protective either, but I do reckon that a lot of the good traits (and UU/UB) are seen as good due to how we play the game. Early-ish warfare and expansion is how we mostly play, so civs with advantages there will be seen as better. Play differently, and the picture might have been different, like the mention by some of multiplayer.
Personally I'm glad everything isn't 100% balanced (not that anything ever will be). It sort of adds another difficulty layer by playing 'worse' leaders, civs and traits, and adds more spice to the game. I also think it's important that they're loosely based on real leaders and civilizations, so you can't exactly give a big boost to England or America in the ancient era, nor a boost to Incas in the industrial era. It has to somewhat mirror the historical situation.
Alright, I'm enjoying Deity now...
Anyways, this happened...
Leonidas broke 1000xp. That's going to be one amazing Mechanized Infantry.
That tech advantage is what I work for. A fort, and protective lets me all but ignore military in order to gain that advantage.
a few units on that wooded hill allowed me to focus on early wonders... the lighthouse is broken good, and the pyramids help a ton as well (representation). Shakas first attacks although they killed the units on the hill, used up his catapults to do so. So that meant my capital had full defensivness and little threat of being taken. Once I got crossbows and landsknechte, that hill became impregnable, and I started farming experience to pile up the generals. Imp + Great wall = Lots of generals quickly. And under representation, that makes for god units and more research.
As far as the "profitable land". I'll admit after 3 starts that didnt work perfect, there was some editing to be done. Mainly the stone and marble, and a couple extra sea food to feed all those hills.
Agg/pro is good for promotions for units and for war. So if you have these traits then you would expect that your units will be better than most other civilization's units. The only part that could be an issue is the bad economy Im guessing especially in the higher difficulties.
Separate names with a comma.