Are civs in a25 more unique/specific?

[maroder]

I agree very much with the type of civ uniques @chrstgtr is proposing. Unique techs are fine, but from a non competitive player perspective they don't make much difference for the unique felling of a civ.

It is way better to have something unique that you can easily see and experience. I.e. some phase two champ, the war dogs, the workers ele or as an extreme example the Scythians from DE who have a completely different gameplay.

@ValihrAnt for that reason I also agree that D4280 is superior to the alternative D4233

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I'm curious about the economic bonus applied to the pyramids. What's the historical justification here? Or even what's the non-historical justification? 

[maroder]

I guess they are culturally important and strengthen the gathering morale of unites who see them. Same as the Iberian monument.

[Locynaeh]

2 hours ago, maroder said:

I agree very much with the type of civ uniques @chrstgtr is proposing. Unique techs are fine, but from a non competitive player perspective they don't make much difference for the unique felling of a civ.

It is way better to have something unique that you can easily see and experience. I.e. some phase two champ, the war dogs, the workers ele or as an extreme example the Scythians from DE who have a completely different gameplay.

@ValihrAnt for that reason I also agree that D4280 is superior to the alternative D4233

 

I can only agree with it: for a casual players, tech differences aren't really relevant, unique buildings, items, units, building improvments, etc. things which are really visible are.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Locynaeh

[Dakara]

A25 look fine no?

For me except the pathfinding is good ( too many unit in same spot)

All civ is playable and have a little difference 

[LetswaveaBook]

16 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

It looks fine. It's probably pretty good boost, but it doesn't look "special" in the same way that celts' building pop bonus was "special" or mace's siege workshop was "special" in a23.

It's the totally unique civ aspects (like the celt house bonus) that I think are the most fun, but are also the most difficult to come up with (in fact, in a23 not all civs had something like this).

Special things don't mean diverse game-play. Kushites had their pyramids for a while, but it did not affect their game style.

So here comes the example of https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4280 which is something that affect the style of kushites. Not by adding something special, but by empowering what we all ready have. There are more examples like this:

Naked fanatics: They are totally unique and you can produce them. There is no reason to produce them though. Gauls also get the trumpeter.

Athenian Council chamber: You get an unique building to produce heros (I admit, somewhat similar to Gauls, Spartans, Persians and Mauryas). However you only touch the building to train the heroes and maybe you get a tech there. So it is a building with hardly any meaning in the game. Maybe allow it to train (some) champions would be nice or give it a territory root as the Persian and Mauryan palaces have.

All helenistic factions get the Theatron: Not that anyone really would consider building them. I would suggest adding them to p1 with cheaper cost and lesser effect (10% territory boost). Once you get to p2, you would be able to do an upgrade to get the full territory boost. It might also open some possibilities for theatron related bonuses.

Colonization: This is a unique tech, that you most often don't find any place for in your games. Reducing the price of this technologies to 15ow,150m might create a nice option.

Pillars of Ashoka: This could help to diversify the Mauryas, but unfortunately there is currently no reason to build it. An idea would be that if would increase the speed of traders and grant experience to healers withing the range of the pillar.

Mauryas: They get something unique of their champions and it deals a lot of crush damage. It is not the the elephant, but mace champion. It is unique, but nobody bothers making it. I think this is because human units have to much crush resistance (Reducing crush resistance might also mean that other units need to be rebalanced. Note: Kushite macemen also suffer somewhat from this problem).

Temple of Vesta: When I play Romans, I tend to forget that it exists. If we made it more potent (larger aura range), it would be more of a defining feature

Cavalry diversity of Persians: The persians have an amazing number of 6 different cavalry types in their stables. The fact that this diversity is not really used makes this a shame. So balancing all cavalry to give each of them an unique place could help. It would also help if Chariots and Cataphracts were unlocked with the same upgrade (also goes for Seleucids).

Finally Kushite mercenary camps: If you want to double down on diversity, you might want to reduce to cost of these camps to 100w,50m to put an emphasis on their uniqueness.

So there you find a way to diversify all factions but Britons and Iberians. For britons the was a woad technology proposed in A24. Certainly the Iberians are all ready diverse. I think we could do better in terms of diversity if we only used the thing that we all ready have. Also we could improve our heroes and  I welcome any suggestions on

 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

11 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

All helenistic factions get the Theatron: Not that anyone really would consider building them. I would suggest adding them to p1 with cheaper cost and lesser effect (10% territory boost). Once you get to p2, you would be able to do an upgrade to get the full territory boost. It might also open some possibilities for theatron related bonuses.

I like this a lot, I could imagine it would help to do a building rush against another player.

[sil-vous-plait]

it appears to me online "competitive" players always jump on whatever bandwagon emerges from minuscule unbalanced advantages across versions (i.e. sling/ram in a23, archers in a24, what appears to be merc cav in a25), so maybe it's overstated how homogenous things need to be...there will always be some lever to manipulate, so to speak

Edited September 24, 2021 by sil-vous-plait

[Locynaeh]

1 hour ago, sil-vous-plait said:

it appears to me online "competitive" players always jump on whatever bandwagon emerges from minuscule unbalanced advantages across versions (i.e. sling/ram in a23, archers in a24, what appears to be merc cav in a25), so maybe it's overstated how homogenous things need to be...there will always be some lever to manipulate, so to speak

Yes, in this idea, that's why I think that it is almost impossible to get a perfect balancing without playing too similar civilisations (one or two visible differences would not be enought), that's why it could be a good idea to create a kind of optionnal system as proposed by vv221 :

On 22/09/2021 at 10:03 AM, vv221 said:

I remember that Age of Empires Ⅱ (sorry, not the best example of civilizations diversity outside of a couple exceptions) provided an option for that: by default all civilizations would use their own technology tree, but you could enforce a default tech tree for all players if you wanted to play a very balanced game.

Another option would be to provide civilization "sets", a bit like what Battle for Wesnoth proposed through "eras": you can chose to play with a core/balanced set, perfect for multiplayer, or with a full/extended set, including civilizations with more interesting gameplay quirks.

I guess what is important to remember is that there are players who have much more fun with imbalanced gameplay. Playing human against AI is imbalanced anyway, and can not be balanced by playing very similar civilizations, so in my opinion the game could be much more engaging in such modes by embracing the imbalance instead of trying to level it.

 

[Dizaka]

21 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

Special things don't mean diverse game-play. Kushites had their pyramids for a while, but it did not affect their game style.

So here comes the example of https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4280 which is something that affect the style of kushites. Not by adding something special, but by empowering what we all ready have. There are more examples like this:

Pyramids actually did affect their gamestyle.  Most good kushite players built a pyramid around/near metal/stone and then also built their farms around this pyramid.  Usually, kushite farms are built in such a way that they are within the range of the pyramids.

That change would be awesome though.  That's what I'd like more of for civ differentiation.  The only issue I see is that currently pyramids count towards p3.  Being a p1 building I guess they won't count?

Edited September 24, 2021 by Dizaka

[LetswaveaBook]

17 minutes ago, Dizaka said:

The only issue I see is that currently pyramids count towards p3.  Being a p1 building I guess they won't count?

In the diff you see that at line 15 it reads:

<VisibleClasses datatype="tokens">Village Pyramid</VisibleClasses>

So it does not count towards p3.

 

[Dizaka]

1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:

In the diff you see that at line 15 it reads:

<VisibleClasses datatype="tokens">Village Pyramid</VisibleClasses>

So it does not count towards p3.

 

TY.  Sort of coding / coding tools illiterate even if I can do basic stuff.

That may make Kushites really fast, especially if pyramid becomes cheaper then you only need 2 buildings in p2 for p3.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

1 hour ago, Dizaka said:

TY.  Sort of coding / coding tools illiterate even if I can do basic stuff.

That may make Kushites really fast, especially if pyramid becomes cheaper then you only need 2 buildings in p2 for p3.

As it stands right now, the small pyramid costs 300 stone 100 metal. It means someone will need to be mining stone if they want barracks and pyramid. This also makes the booming of the civ a little more variable and creates room for improvement there. I don't think it will make them as fast or faster than civs like ptol rome or iber.

 

[Dizaka]

12 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

As it stands right now, the small pyramid costs 300 stone 100 metal. It means someone will need to be mining stone if they want barracks and pyramid. This also makes the booming of the civ a little more variable and creates room for improvement there. I don't think it will make them as fast or faster than civs like ptol rome or iber.

I think it will.  Especially if (based on the chats there) costs are reduced and it still counts towards p3 (based on changelog).

Additionally, you can build it when going from p1 to p2, so it is possible to spend ess time spent building things in p2 for p3.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Dizaka

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@Dizaka it seems they would be a fast civ then, I was not aware of the price reduction ideas.

[LetswaveaBook]

2 hours ago, Dizaka said:

Especially if (based on the chats there) costs are reduced and it still counts towards p3 (based on changelog).

Additionally, you can build it when going from p1 to p2, so it is possible to spend ess time spent building things in p2 for p3.

If I interpret the code correctly, the pyramid will be a p1 building and does not count towards the buildings you need for p3.

The price reduction does make it easier, but I doubt if the pyramid will be overly good. The pyramid has still 120 seconds build time and that you could also use that time for chopping wood and getting the wood upgrade.

[Dizaka]

4 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

If I interpret the code correctly, the pyramid will be a p1 building and does not count towards the buildings you need for p3.

The price reduction does make it easier, but I doubt if the pyramid will be overly good. The pyramid has still 120 seconds build time and that you could also use that time for chopping wood and getting the wood upgrade.

Ah darn.  Then it makes it sort of pointless until endgame to be built.

The beauty of the pyramids being built in p2 is b/c they count towards p3 and help resource gathering.  If they only help w/ resource gathering they're likely to be built later on, instead of earlier - especially with the build time.

Should pyramids be moved to p1 and count towards p3 would make then used more for kushites, more uniquely provide a different gamesytle for kushites, and add to the uniqueness instead of the normal "p2 buildings for p3."

[ValihrAnt]

10 hours ago, Dizaka said:

10 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

If I interpret the code correctly, the pyramid will be a p1 building and does not count towards the buildings you need for p3.

The price reduction does make it easier, but I doubt if the pyramid will be overly good. The pyramid has still 120 seconds build time and that you could also use that time for chopping wood and getting the wood upgrade.

Ah darn.  Then it makes it sort of pointless until endgame to be built.

The beauty of the pyramids being built in p2 is b/c they count towards p3 and help resource gathering.  If they only help w/ resource gathering they're likely to be built later on, instead of earlier - especially with the build time.

I don't see why them not counting for P3 will lead to them being built later. It's true that this bonus requires investment and some time to pay off, which is why I don't want to increase the cost of the pyramid more.

I can talk you through my experience with this bonus a bit. In no extra food starts it makes the most sense to place the Pyramid for farms, with extra berries for wood. I found it best to build the pyramid with a single unit quite early on (pre 20 pop) and as the pyramid is completed to send 1 or 2 units to stone, to later afford a 2nd pyramid. The effects of the bonus really become noticeable at around minute 7 when you can suddenly afford so much more than normally. The extra resource influx really sets them up for a strong late game and going Phase 3 with plenty of spare resources for whatever the heart pleases.

[Dizaka]

9 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:

I don't see why them not counting for P3 will lead to them being built later. It's true that this bonus requires investment and some time to pay off, which is why I don't want to increase the cost of the pyramid more.

I can talk you through my experience with this bonus a bit. In no extra food starts it makes the most sense to place the Pyramid for farms, with extra berries for wood. I found it best to build the pyramid with a single unit quite early on (pre 20 pop) and as the pyramid is completed to send 1 or 2 units to stone, to later afford a 2nd pyramid. The effects of the bonus really become noticeable at around minute 7 when you can suddenly afford so much more than normally. The extra resource influx really sets them up for a strong late game and going Phase 3 with plenty of spare resources for whatever the heart pleases.

Currently they are 300 stone and 100 metal (+15% gather speed).

A barracks costs 100 stone and 200 wood.

An elephant stable costs 200 stone 200 wood.

p1-p3 metal/stone upgrades cost 100, 200, and 300 stone, respectively (+25% bonus).

If you build 2 pyramids it is the equivalent stone of 6 barracks or about 90% of the stone to p3.

 

The only real place I would build 1 pyramid to max out the pyramid's usage.  Such a location is by the CC's stone/metal so that food gatherers can also benefit.  In such a situation you get the most benefit for your resources.  I wouldn't really use my first pyramid near a woodline unless there is some kind of mine there.  Stone/metal upgrades in p1 use 100 stone each and 200 food each.

The way I see it is that it is more prudent, early on, to build the barracks and use the storehouse upgrades for stone/wood.  I view the pyramids as more of something to "top off the bonus" rather than supplement it (due to being 15% vs 25% for wood/stone/metal or 20% for food).  Allowing it to be a p3 building nullifies this disbenefit and adds a unique feature - a p1 building that is a p2 building counting towards p3.

 

Edited September 25, 2021 by Dizaka

[LienRag]

On 22/09/2021 at 10:03 AM, vv221 said:

I agree that the civilizations lack a distinct feel outside of graphics. I guess this is because of multiplayer balance that you do not go with more original concepts?

Another option would be to provide civilization "sets", a bit like what Battle for Wesnoth proposed through "eras": you can chose to play with a core/balanced set, perfect for multiplayer, or with a full/extended set, including civilizations with more interesting gameplay quirks.

 

Then why not have Civilizations for balanced multiplayer (they don't need to be so many, actually if people want perfectly balanced multiplayer they can just all play the same civilization) and other Civilizations for fun (that would not need to be reduced to the 8 actually available in vanilla) ?

As you wrote, it can be done as "sets", and even have some historical background to it, as actual civilization tends to standardize their military equipment and tactics after they get beaten by a superior enemy...

So have a "Roman Imperium" set where all civilizations will keep their distinctive skins while getting the roman roster and technology tree ?
(minor variations available if they are not unbalanced)

Also, Civilizations being unbalanced is not necessarily  a problem if there is not one Civilization constantly superior to others; it can even be used as a handicap game (giving the best Civilization in a match or a team game to the lowest ranked player).

[Dizaka]

2 hours ago, LienRag said:

Then why not have Civilizations for balanced multiplayer (they don't need to be so many, actually if people want perfectly balanced multiplayer they can just all play the same civilization) and other Civilizations for fun (that would not need to be reduced to the 8 actually available in vanilla) ?

As you wrote, it can be done as "sets", and even have some historical background to it, as actual civilization tends to standardize their military equipment and tactics after they get beaten by a superior enemy...

I don't think bands/sets are necesary.  As long as there is a "basic template" for damage and bonuses based on "history" there is still place for uniqueness.  If people want a balanced 1vs1 then they should play the same standard civ for 1v1.  However, I think civs should be balanced and unique so that there isn't a preference of a certain civ that dominates multiplayer.

[LienRag]

1 hour ago, Dizaka said:

 However, I think civs should be balanced and unique so that there isn't a preference of a certain civ that dominates multiplayer.

Fine by me, but the whole thread comes from the fact that these two objectives apparently contradict each other.

And the important point for the game experience is that Civs are unique, so when balance goes against uniqueness the point that makes the Civ unique should stay and balance should be sought by other mechanisms (like sets).

[Dizaka]

1 minute ago, LienRag said:

Fine by me, but the whole thread comes from the fact that these two objectives apparently contradict each other.

And the important point for the game experience is that Civs are unique, so when balance goes against uniqueness the point that makes the Civ unique should stay and balance should be sought by other mechanisms (like sets).

I actually don't think they contradict each other.

The only reason on what happened between a23 and a24 happened because it appears that (1) conventions in the simulation weren't standardized and (2) archers needed a lot of fixing as they were unusable.  However, a23 had a good balance of uniqueness, imo.

Right now, what I am seeing is we're going with a25 where slingers/archers/skrimishers are more balanced and now the civs can be "topped off" with their uniqueness.  It's a shame of what happened to Ptolemies (no-wood buildings, requiring more time) but right now there is a really pretty close to being a good base for all civs/strategies.

Generally, I'm excited for what will be happening in the future.  However, gotta complain and make sure voice is heard on what my opinion is on current uniqueness of civs.  Also, macedonians need a lot of love.  Rome could use some of it too. (talking about siege)

 

[LienRag]

Since as of now I only played a23, I may not be the best to talk on this subject.

I only want to have this uniqueness (that, as you say, exists in KenWood) preserved, as it is indeed fun to play.

I want to test a25 but if the civs are copypasta of each other, I'm a bit wary that the improvements to the game come at a cost too high for my taste.

[vv221]

@LienRag, please consider giving a try to a25, feedback on the current version would be a much better base for potential improvements

What we all want (well, I guess this is what we all want) is to improve the feeling of uniqueness in the future releases, not that each of us stay "stuck" on a good ol’ build that will no longer evolve.