Posts: 7,548
Threads: 63
Joined: Dec 2005
Quote:The internet should either be eliminated, or changed so substantially so as to be unrecognizable. As it currently is though, it completely breaks any game that gets to it.
I didn't think it broke PB1 - instead I thought it was a viable bargaining chip in the late game. I think that's eventually why I got nuked, because I was going to get it instead of Munro.
So Munro did build the Internet, but that's not why he won. (Are you really making me rehash this?  ). That did give him tech parity, but he was already getting gifted techs from Broker and Dreylin.
Posts: 4,443
Threads: 45
Joined: Nov 2009
Cyneheard Wrote:Re: Financial:
It would be a per-city 15% gold boost. So it's like you've got a +15% gold building that comes with the city for free. This is what Final Frontier did (+10% research) for the Avowers of Knowledge.
Also, if Corporations are somewhat balanced, then making them require a Great Person each per civ makes them too expensive.
I'm not a big fan of taking the per-tile bonus away. It was fun to plan around that bonus. Making it a flat +15% seems to take away from the micro potential.
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
Posts: 5,655
Threads: 31
Joined: Apr 2009
regoarrarr Wrote:I didn't think it broke PB1 - instead I thought it was a viable bargaining chip in the late game. I think that's eventually why I got nuked, because I was going to get it instead of Munro.
So Munro did build the Internet, but that's not why he won. (Are you really making me rehash this? ). That did give him tech parity, but he was already getting gifted techs from Broker and Dreylin.
Question: Were there any techs that he got which were only under your control, and not also under Broker and Dreylin?
For No Tech Trading, I don't think the Internet is likely to be much of an issue (how many players are going to be 1st to Computers and 3rd to anything else of note? If the Internet only provides one Space Race tech, then I'd say it's fairly balanced. How often will it produce 2 or 3? Sure, it constrains your late-game tech path a bit, but so does the Space Race in general), so since it's easier to let it stand as-is, I think I'll hold off on trying to turn it from a Project into a Wonder.
The Financial Change: I'm not sure there was all that much thought to it. You always got the bonus on the coast, and on land the answer was to lay more cottages down. It's not like there were many choices in how to get a tile to 2 commerce. Very few people were building river Windmills to get that extra commerce, and that's about it for options.
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
antisocialmunky Wrote:I'm not a big fan of taking the per-tile bonus away. It was fun to plan around that bonus. Making it a flat +15% seems to take away from the micro potential.
I agree, it would be weird to see a financial civ running a specialist economy, for example. You're "supposed" to be cottage spamming with a financial civ. Ideally I'd like to see this trait balanced without losing its characteristic flavor. Keep in mind that with nerfing of slavery and buffing of workshops/watermills, cottages should be slightly less popular tile improvements in general.
Is it possible to tie the tile bonus to a city improvement, so that you need to build something in a city before it receives the +1 commerce? If so, then maybe this commerce-boosting building could be available only to financial civs, or massively discounted for them? (Or they could get one for free in every city).
October 10th, 2010, 03:48
Posts: 23,667
Threads: 134
Joined: Jun 2009
A minor problem with FIN at 2 commerce is that it doesn't provide that early game micro - you spam your cottages, you wait 10 turns max, you get the bonus for the rest of the game on that tile. A boost to gold would increase your options as a Fin leader because it would be slightly better to upgrade units and rush buy than in vanilla, but not enough to make them mainstream. It's a bonus that can be tweaked...but combined with the easy to build banks (Markets I'm unsure of, then you are also making it easier to get up to an additional 4 happy faces, after we just nerfed CHM) you can see quite a gold skew. Which leads us on to the main problem with FIN.
It breaks early game tech. For FIN to be balanced, In civs should be running away with the early game tech. 2 Commerce is part of the problem, so that has to go. 3 Commerce breaks the sea aspect. Neither really works as an elegant solution. The ideal solution would, IMO, not affect research ability for the first 80-100 turns of the game, and even then, would only affect research by decreasing the need to focus on another area.
Addendum: Slavery hasn't really been nerfed that much in the early game, so the synergy with FIN is still there.
Current games (All): RtR: PB83
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71 PB80. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 PBEM23Games ded lurked: PB18
October 10th, 2010, 04:00
Posts: 4,138
Threads: 54
Joined: Dec 2009
Surely it would be possible to make Financial need +3 to work on land and +2 on water?
"You want to take my city of Troll%ng? Go ahead and try."
October 10th, 2010, 04:03
Posts: 23,667
Threads: 134
Joined: Jun 2009
That doesn't really solve the problem though. It pushes back the bonus 10 turns on river grasslands, which are always the tiles first cottaged, so the early game bonus still exists.
Current games (All): RtR: PB83
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71 PB80. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 PBEM23Games ded lurked: PB18
October 10th, 2010, 05:01
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
If you tie the commerce bonus to a building that only financial civs can build (or that only they can build cheaply), it could become available later in the game.
October 10th, 2010, 05:15
Posts: 23,667
Threads: 134
Joined: Jun 2009
I'd be fairly surprised if you could balance that in such a way it wasn't a no brainer decision to beeline that building.
Current games (All): RtR: PB83
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71 PB80. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 PBEM23Games ded lurked: PB18
October 10th, 2010, 06:10
Posts: 6,630
Threads: 47
Joined: Apr 2010
I am not sure if a building would be a good idea. If I am not mistaken, all traits do offer something for free. You do not need to build something to switch civics without anarchy with spiritual and you do not need to build something to get +50% wonder production with industrious. Having only one trait which needs to build something in order to even get his bonus - I don't like that.
Why not simply giving it +1 commerce on tiles with 2 commerce and only 2 commerce. If it has 1 commerce you do not get the bonus, if it has 3 commerce you do not get it as well. That way they get a bonus for their cottages but on quick it will only be for 6 turns for riverside cottages and 13 for non-riverside. And you still keep coast intact for getting more commerce. With 100 cottages (50/50 river and non-riverside) that are 950 commerce more then someone without it. Doesn't seem that much if you think about how much one GP through philosophical can provide.
Did I overlook something?
|
