[SPOILER] PB37: Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the most aggressive of them all?

[Ichabod]

I just posted in the mod thread. Tldr isn't that the astro bulb is op it's that the cost of defending is too high.

In this game, that is highlighted quite well by the sheer cluster fuck that was Couers second war against me causing him to implode. That's still happening btw, lowest score, and now food for dtay. But I ended up investing so much into tech to fight him that I lost the opportunity to stack up and eat China. That war also shows the problem with single unit stacks and charismatic, the access to the second promotion is too much to overcome on water but not an issue in land combat with the diversity of unit types. Diversification of naval units does help rein that minor issue in.

What about changing the naval promotions altogether? Remove anything that gives combat bonuses, considering how swingy it becomes. Maybe add promotions that give extra cargo and some other stuff (big nerf to CHA either way). If naval CHA is the problem, you could add an easier way for players to get XP on naval units before Drydocks, so that CHA is not the only one with access to double promoted ships (maybe harbors could give 3XP to naval units?).

Or make the promotions like they were in FfH - if you get a combat bonus, you lose movement; if you get more movement, you lose cargo space; if you get more cargo space, you lose strength.

Probably too much for the scope of RtR, though.

[Krill]

Would you rather the entire promotion system be rebuilt and relearn specifically for naval combat, potentially including SDK mods, or alter a few units within an already know system?

[Ichabod]

Would you rather the entire promotion system be rebuilt and relearn specifically for naval combat, potentially including SDK mods, or alter a few units within an already know system?

Point taken. I was thinking more in the line of the naval game implementation being fundametally flawed (which I'd say is arguable -> coastal defense, CHA promos), not only in the specific instance of beelined galleons.

To be fair, I don't think there's actually an issue to be fixed in this regard, so I'd prefer no changes whatsoever.

[Krill]

I think the issue with charismatic in naval warfare is a symptom of the lack of variety of units: you don't attack AGG axes in the ancient era with none agg axes do you? You use chariots if you have to fight the war. This option doesn't exist in the naval game.

Is it a problem? I don't think it is good design to have lose buttons in a strategy game. Another example of a lose button is vanilla Cataphracts. There is no counterplay except shitloads of siege so it got nerfed.

Is the astro beeline OP? No. Is it so expensive that it is almost impossible to get it to pay off enough? Yes. Is this the reason there is no counter to it? Obviously. A beeline so expensive that there is no counter except to do it yourself and then accept the hammer cost does lead to distorted games.

It almost makes sense to drastically lower the cost of Astro, cut the tech cost to limit the harm, but it doesn't fix inherent problem that there is still no counter to it except still take Astro yourself. Lowering the cost of caravels makes it a bit more viable to defend with them but it's still not ideal, because of the lack of value in caravels compared to galleons.

Tldr Being attacked by Astro shouldn't lose you the game and it pretty much does. The aim is just to change that point. The best way to do that I leave to your imagination.

[Krill]

I mean, halving the cost of astro, or maybe putting it down to 5/8 so a bulb doesn't quite cover it helps shit, but having the possibility of using either hammers in caravels that have longevity against other units, or teching to Gunpowder and Optics for Privateers if (as a tech leader) you are invaded by someone behind gives options. There are ways to counter galleons then that don't cripple early ren tech.

But maybe there are other options there.

All that said, I find the idea of one move ironclads and SoL that deal collateral as much more enriching of the naval game, but that's just for a richer naval game with more interesting naval tactics than building SoDs. The Astro beeline defence is the real issue.

[Ichabod]

I understand what you are saying, but what makes an astro beeline different from every other "bad play" that ruins someone else's game? Like a misguided axe rush or something like that. Yes, the counters are easier in the axe rush situation, but the defending player will be behind the other players just the same.  I don't think there's really a way to prevent this things from happening, it's the nature of the game.

I think Astro actually works well as a potential game turning tech, where a Civ a little behind can hurt a leader that forgets about it. If the tech tree is more homogeneous in the distribution of units, those catch up situations will cease to exist. Not sure if that's good or bad, but perhaps it is something to consider.

Finally, if you indeed make privateers not require Astro, you should probably think about the Colossus. It's weighted down due to being obsoleted in Astronomy, but if you can keep your coast secure without Astro, by teching gunpowder instead, perhaps it will become too powerful.

[Krill]

Look at this game.

I got hit by a 300 hammer stack of chariots with covering spear and axe in the mid T60ies. I'm playing a slow starting leader, and I built Oracle. I'm currently third in GNP, MFG and crop yield. I've managed to recover from a misguided ancient era war by not picking dumb fights and playing efficiently, focusing on specific first to bonuses and per turn output, which is basically playing the long game. I've fought two further wars, one of which required whipping out triremes, and the second war with Couer to take islands.

The known tech bonus, the nerf to whipping, changes to workshops, the Renaissance era tech bulb are all designed to stop someone playing a farmer's gambit running away with the game. They work.

Whatever happens to Astro and galleons, there must be a window of opportunity for galleons to inflict damage on an opponent and for the benefitting player to hold gains. Part of the reason I think Astro has to be kept as a bulbable tech is that it is a way for a player just slightly behind to force that window of opportunity. Privateers OTOH shouldn't be bulbable, which is why the argument for them to be at Gunpowder is persuasive, neither Guilds nor Gunpowder is bulbable, and Paper plus Education is over 5k beakers.

So IMO dropping the cost of Astro is something worth considering, as is potentially upping the price of Gunpowder slightly. Maybe make both 3k beakers, Astro down from 4k, Gunpowder up form the 2.5k. and if Privateers need Optics, that is a difference of about 3.5k beakers if Astro has a bulb. That is a definite window.

Also, I should probably admit here I forgot Privateers had hidden nationality....

[Ichabod]

You recovered from an ancient era war, but your position in the game has definetely suffered because of it, and that was my point. There's no way to avoid a player from damaging another player through bad choices. I think it's the same situation when defending against an Astro beeline. You'll suffer, but it doesn't mean you won't be able to recover (I don't think it automatically loses you the game, as you've said). The rate of suffering and recovery will vary per game and situation, just like the ancient era war example. I won't go into specifics due to spoilers, but I think there are examples of this in this very game.

Nerfing "I win" buttons is a worthy goal (Cataphracts were in this department, I think), but getting rid of "You lose" buttons is just impossible.

Finally, another specific thing to consider about Privateers at Gunpowder is that getting Privateers would mean no wasted beakers when getting to Frigates, compared to someone that went for Galleons and Astronomy (as Gunpowder is a prereq to Chemistry). Considering a tech leader would get additional benefit from going Gunpowder first (knights, muskets) and no wasted beakers when going for the next evolution of naval unit (chemistry and frigates), I worry if it won't become too good of a choice. It kind of covers your bases both on naval and land, which may be a bit too good. But I struggle to see where Privateers could be placed in a way that makes sense, other than Gunpowder.

Anyway, I can now better understand the problem you want to solve with this change. But I don't think it's a solveable problem and, in that case, it's better if things stay the same. The proposed change seems likely to just give a bigger advantage to a player already in the lead (another option to defend against Astro, a bit further down the line, but definetely having more side benefits, conveniently placed on a similar track from a Liberalism push or a Knight rush) than it'll help a middle of the pack player against a misguided attack from a player that just bulbed Astro, which I think is your main intention.

[Krill]

I've had a long day of dealing with idiots more interested in bureaucracy than helping people, so I'm aware that what I may now write could come across as annoyed. I just want to state that this isn't the case, and it's good to actually discuss things and to challenge if these are issues that need to be fixed and even have the philosophical argument of how much effort is change worth.

But basically,.if something like this is an issue, just how big an issue is it? Does it need a perfect solution? Hell no, I'd say it just needs to be somewhat less punitive to a defend, not completely ignorable.

Is the privateer change completely effective? Probably not. If I thought I had all the answers though I'd not raise shit for discussion and just code stuff.

[Bacchus]

The no wasted beakers argument is why I'd rather have something other than Optics unlocking the Privateers. Maybe CS, maybe Engi (probably too much), maybe Literature.