Jump to content

Teamwork Team Bonus Concept


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I'm kind of at a loss as to what to do for the Britons.  Have any good ideas? After browsing some history I've not gotten many ideas about their interactions with other peoples.  I basically only learned that they had trade relations with Gaul tribes across the channel. 

A generic teamwork bonus idea I thought of was to allow a civ to use allied dropsites without having to research diaspora... but I didn't really find any historical justification for it.

 

Edited by Philip the Swaggerless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

I'm kind of at a loss as to what to do for the Britons.  Have any good ideas? After browsing some history I've not gotten many ideas about their interactions with other peoples.  I basically only learned that they had trade relations with Gaul tribes across the channel. 

A generic teamwork bonus idea I thought of was to allow a civ to use allied dropsites without having to research diaspora... but I didn't really find any historical justification for it.

 

Dogs give damage bonus to allies, if upgraded.

Chariot skrimishers would be cool.

Chariot archers would be cool too.

Chariot spear cavalry would be interesting too.

If you have 1 chariot of each type bunched up together you get a defensive bonus to allies (not self)?  Could be a very micro-ranged bonus like roman dmg hero.

Edited by Dizaka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Philip the Swaggerless if the britons were a civilization that developed rapidly, then you could give them a -50% phase up time and cost team bonus. To make use of its value, you would need to maintain close communication for rushing different phases, perhaps one player rushes to p2 another tries to go fast p3 and the other 2 borders rush from the start (of course it could be applied in many ways).

There is much complaining about iber and ptol bonuses and I think there need to be more creative and particular team bonuses that indirectly foster teamwork and challenge the throne of the existing good bonuses. Perhaps a team bonus where men could farm would be cool too, or perhaps one that increases cavalry carrying capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/04/2022 at 7:35 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Yeah, they'd research Cartography at some point, but the point would be that you could position your Spy into your ally's base before turning on them. :) Things like that. So, if you catch an ally's Spy in your base, you might get a little suspicious. Drama. :) 

here I have the conceptual design. I need more support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

@Philip the Swaggerless if the britons were a civilization that developed rapidly, then you could give them a -50% phase up time and cost team bonus. To make use of its value, you would need to maintain close communication for rushing different phases, perhaps one player rushes to p2 another tries to go fast p3 and the other 2 borders rush from the start (of course it could be applied in many ways).

There is much complaining about iber and ptol bonuses and I think there need to be more creative and particular team bonuses that indirectly foster teamwork and challenge the throne of the existing good bonuses. Perhaps a team bonus where men could farm would be cool too, or perhaps one that increases cavalry carrying capacity.

I liked the ideas borg came up with for the Britons, giving them more options than other civs in p2, but having a lower potential than other civs once in p3.  As for the phase up time bonus, I've come up with something similar to that for the Athenians, whom I have added to my original post.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 04/03/2022 at 12:07 PM, LetswaveaBook said:

If my history is correct, the Romans stationed some citizens in allied towns. I don't know if it is workable, but a Roman team bonus could allow team members to put a garrison buiding(with a limit of 1) in allied towns if the owner of the building is "in some sense" the dominant player. So if an ally has an garrison building in your territory, he is the dominant player and the "weaker player" can't build a garrison building in territory of the dominant player. I would also be in favour of it being an unfair relations, where the weaker player needs to accepts the domminance for protection but in return the "weaker" player get a disavantage. Like having his own military troops train slower (+20% training time might seem fine), less grain gathering rate(The garrison eats the food) or a lower population limit (the lost population capacity could be added to that of the "dominant" player). This would be a slightly abusive relationship that could benefit the team in some situations and give some extra strategical options as a team. But that concept would need more thought.

From what I've read the term provincia originally meant a responsibility or assignment given to someone involving leadership in a remote area.  From that of course we have the familiar term Province.  So we could call the bonus "Provincia."

I've been thinking about ways to implement the Roman bonus.  What I have now is giving the Roman a "provincia" building.  I don't know if it should be called "Provincia" or "Promagistracy"  or something else.  Only 2 buildings can exist at a time, they must be built in allied territory, and cannot be built within 400 meters of each other. 

To simulate Roman domination I could give it a large aura with a minor ally gathering nerf (5%) and give the building itself a metal resource trickle as if it were a tax being received from the locals.  I think this would add character, but for players to actually use it the benefits must outweigh the costs... Further, a range aura is problematic because if the range is not big enough it can be built in an area that will not affect any gatherers, but if it's too big it can affect another unintended ally.  So I'm not confident about adding that system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

*added Seleucid idea to original post

I think it suits Seleucid history to create a bonus centered about marital alliances. However I must admit that I also like the cheaper colonies.

So I would be in favor of keeping the current team bonus and allowing Seleucids to produce a princess. What exactly should be the bonus that a princess would provide, is something I would leave open for discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...