lemmings121 wrote:Not a huge fan of the church xp, native tp xp and other ideias to create alternative xp on no tp maps.
Imo, just like only a few civs are viable at water maps, only a few are good on 5tp maps, it is ok to have only a few civs favored at no tp maps. What I do think is that we have to increase the amount of viable civs on each kind of map.
All this discussion sounds like "I want to play german on all maps."
But what are we doing in favor of Sioux in indonesia? Dutch in Klondike? Those are even bigger issues than German on thar desert.
Just adjust map pool to have less no tp maps if less civs are viable there.
Eh it’s really Ottoman I mostly think about but Germany sort of too. I think the plan for the long haul though is to try and balance around the existence of TPs thus alternatives were needed for non TP maps. So it’s less about what we do for Sioux on Indonesia and Dutch on Klondike but streamlining the game across all maps rather than having balance radically change based on map. A little change is fine but tp vs non tp is so drastic for some civs, it makes balance difficult.
Upon reflection native tps giving exp might not be the best. I did mean it only as an isolated change well away from everything else I was proposing in my separate native threads. That obviously wasn’t clear. What should have been clear was that I was okay with going ahead with the church xp.
My reasoning was ‘Well nobody uses these things most of the time anyway right? They exist in similar ways to TPs’ and of course I know most of the units aren’t worth using and the techs are dicey in some cases but some people don’t know that.
In any case if I want to move to make them sometimes worth building, a passive benefit like this now isn’t the right way to go about it even if it is a good balance call because they’d always get built, which defeats the purpose of what I’m trying to achieve... even though some might accuse me of other things .