Jump to content

Differentiating Civilizations: Persian


 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

The consensus is to change the Persian wonder to the Throne Hall of Darius (the "Apadana"). We'd change the current "Apadana" structure to the "Tachara" (Winter Palace). We can then use the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, et al. for a new Capture the Wonder game type. :) 

that's nice. also the complex of Naqsh-e Rustam is worth considering if you ask me. maybe it would seem weird to "build a mountain",but it would be appreciated in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/06/2022 at 7:02 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

we need to vote on this option once and for all. i'm tired of all civs playing the same way.

("this option" being Civ unicity)

The real question is "when".

It's probably possible to balance very different civilizations once the game is ready for a somehow freeze of new features, it's an entirely different thing to keep them balanced when they occur frequent changes as the game evolves.

One compromise would be (while waiting for the perfected game) to have a few civs balanced for competitive multiplayer, even if they're not that unique, and have very differently playable civs for the rest of the game, even if they're not that balanced (of course if unbalanced, they shouldn't be more powerful than the first batch).

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LienRag said:

("this option" being Civ unicity)

The real question is "when".

It's probably possible to balance very different civilizations once the game is ready for a somehow freeze of new features, it's an entirely different thing to keep them balanced when they occur frequent changes as the game evolves.

One compromise would be (while waiting for the perfected game) to have a few civs balanced for competitive multiplayer, even if they're not that unique, and have very differently playable civs for the rest of the game, even if they're not that balanced (of course if unbalanced, they shouldn't be more powerful than the first batch).

 

 

Have sense.We don't want the AoE IV mistakes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LienRag said:

One compromise would be (while waiting for the perfected game) to have a few civs balanced for competitive multiplayer, even if they're not that unique, and have very differently playable civs for the rest of the game, even if they're not that balanced (of course if unbalanced, they shouldn't be more powerful than the first batch).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think that I've read your post long ago and that influenced my proposal here (sorry I didn't quote you, I knew it was not an entirely original idea but didn't remember who wrote it initially).

Note that what I wrote is a bit different from your idea : basically it keeps only the "first tier" that would be balanced with each other, the other civs would not have to be necessarily balanced between themselves.

So it's more splitting the problem in two, one of balance for the first tier (much easier to fix since there would be 3-5 civilizations in that group) where it is agreed that uniqueness, while good, takes second position towards balance; and the second of uniqueness where it's easier to be creative when relieved of the necessity to keep balance with everyone (not to say that these civs would need to be unbalanced, but balance can take second position).

Also, it's more a provisional situation, as when the game reaches 1.0 it can be possible to be more thorough both about balance and unicity.

 

But there's no point in trying to do the very difficult task of keeping 13 or more civilizations both unique and balanced multiple times as each new release shatters the very-hard-to-reach equilibrium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/06/2022 at 10:56 PM, LienRag said:

("this option" being Civ unicity)

The real question is "when".

It's probably possible to balance very different civilizations once the game is ready for a somehow freeze of new features, it's an entirely different thing to keep them balanced when they occur frequent changes as the game evolves.

One compromise would be (while waiting for the perfected game) to have a few civs balanced for competitive multiplayer, even if they're not that unique, and have very differently playable civs for the rest of the game, even if they're not that balanced (of course if unbalanced, they shouldn't be more powerful than the first batch).

I agree with the principle that, when trying to make something unique, we should rather risk making it weak than OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Everyone, I concede that some people dislike the speedy axe cav unit I proposed. With the differentiation of persia patch approved, this unit would probably make the civ OP anyway.

However, the "Lite" buff I proposed still seems appropriate: (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4683) gives the unit comparable DPS to swordcav, but with double the attack repeat time and less armor compared to swordcav.

The unit obviously still has its crush/mobile siege capabilities, which is the trade-off for less armor.

It would seem strange to commit all these differentiating changes to persia without properly addressing axe cav.

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/06/2022 at 8:01 PM, Stan` said:

@Stan` @Lion.Kanzen

Sorry for late reply , i was traveling 

if i get it correctly the discussion is if in Persian empire (old era ) women were involved in military actions or not.

well it depends you look at which period of time , I believe you are referring to Achaemenid empire

during the Achaemenid empire era and even after that till the end of Sasanian Empire ( invasion of Arabs) women had equal rights same as men .. they were free to chose their occupation and they also get paid equally to men based on their performance.... 

not only during the Achaemenid and since long time back every child ( boy / girl ) had to learn swim / using bow / riding horse... no difference between the King's child or farmer child .. boy or girl you had to learn these skills ( because of this Parthian army was strong even without standing army)

Also they had chance to join military although it was not common .. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantea_Arteshbod

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apranik

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Sura_of_Parthia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_I_of_Caria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordiya

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

@borg- Can you give an explaination why the value of the food tickle for the persian ice house starts at 0.5 food per second?

 

with a gain of 0.5 food per second, the ice house does not seem to me as a good investments. Later in the game, I know there is a technology, but I suppose we would want the ice house to be  reasonable investment without the technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 14/08/2022 at 12:55 AM, LetswaveaBook said:

with a gain of 0.5 food per second, the ice house does not seem to me as a good investments. Later in the game, I know there is a technology, but I suppose we would want the ice house to be  reasonable investment without the technology.

What exactly does the Ice House do before you research that tech?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/08/2022 at 2:55 AM, LetswaveaBook said:

@borg- Can you give an explaination why the value of the food tickle for the persian ice house starts at 0.5 food per second?

 

with a gain of 0.5 food per second, the ice house does not seem to me as a good investments. Later in the game, I know there is a technology, but I suppose we would want the ice house to be  reasonable investment without the technology.

It seems reasonable to me.

A woman farmer gathers at a .5/s and have a cost of 85 res (50 for the woman, 20 for the pro rata portion of a field, and 15 for the pro rata portion of a house). So an ROI of .0059. Once upgraded

An icebox gathers at .5/s and has a cost 200. So an ROI of .0025. Iceboxes also can be upgraded to be more efficient that woman farmers. Ice boxes also don't take up pop space, which becomes very valuable at some point in most games. 

The ROIs are actually a little closer than that because the inputs for farming are more "expensive" than the inputs for iceboxes. Farming requires all wood and food, which are in-demand p1 resources. Food is also gathered more slowly than other res. Meanwhile, icehouses require wood and stone. Stone is a less valuable p1 resource. 

To me, that seems fair given that iceboxes are less likely to be captured than woman are to be killed, and will have a constant stream of income (whereas women will garrison during raids). I can imagine scenarios where I use both ice boxes. Obviously, some gameplay styles will be better than others in different circumstances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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...