Beta Trade Route and Trading Post Discussion

[Goodspeed]

Otto

[[Armag] diarouga]

Otto

EP Otto and RE Otto are the same honestly. You just tower ff like a bot and make jans.

[Goodspeed]

Oh. Should probably do something about that..
Why are you wanting to move abus +2 range to IV then?

[[Armag] diarouga]

Oh.. Should probably do something about that..
Why are you wanting to move abus +2 range to IV then

Not exactly the same, now you go 2falc/8jans/1000w/1000c instead of the mameluke timing and you add an artillery foundry from 1000w to make falcs/20range abus. I'd tower ff 80% of the time as otto, and it's just as bot as the RE ff frankly.

[Goodspeed]

Sounds like a different civ to me
But if people aren't using the mosque or SR, I'd buff them further (with nerfs to compensate if needed).

[edeholland]

Otto

Even though Ottoman had some changes, playing them still feels the same to me. Playing Sioux is more different because you go for early teepees, you use other units than just bow riders and you can have a half decent eco.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Sounds like a different civ to me

It's the exact same civ till 12min, then you make artillery instead of cav. The 2falcs/8jans/1000w/1000c ff into falcs might also be better on the RE actually.
People use the mosque (but it doesn't change the civ, it's still low eco), and SR isn't viable.

[Cometk]

German civilization will be completely rewritten with exiled prince removal. It has to be the single biggest change to a civ in ep history?

Sioux

fair. Still comes a close second

[deleted_user0]

:huh: because when germans were designed, aka on nilla, tps were 250w, and they couldn't get an age1 tp. the age1 tp kinda negates their shipment deficit and the stronger shipments just snowball so hard. it's not really overstated, germans is just super strong. nerfing their xp deficit could work, but it also affects no tp maps, on which germans are not unbalanced, but actually in a good position.

I'm saying the difference between how well Germans scale on TPs, specifically the early TP, and how well other (TP) civs do is overstated. I have no opinion on how strong Germans are, but I believe you.

in any case, the foundry for iros is also the same building pretty much as for euro civs. just the name is different but that's really not that relevant.

Did you miss the part where I said I'm also not a fan of that change? To be fair if the name is different, which I didn't know it was, that makes it a little less bad. What makes messing with stuff like this bad is that people reasonably expect a building that is named the same, looks the same and has the same stats to have the same cost.

I honestly don't really see what the argument of "consistency" is supposed to mean. Like what consistency do we have in the units? uhlan, nagi, cossack, kanya 30% RR. Huss & cuir 20%. Spahi 10% crossbows 20% but aenna and cetan 30% i mean... Then EP changed goons to 20% but left musket rider on 30%. Ruyter are 10% while zambs are 30% even tho zambs are a better unit, and about the same price. if different units for different civs can have different costs and state divides, then I don't see why this cant be the case for buildings. Germans 250w tp argument is feasible, and there's both basis for it in balance, and arguably in history as well (germans being the least and latest colonial of the euro civs).

We have consistency in units that are named the same and look the same. A ruyter is not the same unit as a goon. Their stats, cost, name and look differs. Units that are shared between civs, like crossbowmen, hussars, musketeers or even settlers for that matter are all identical with the exception of Russian units but that's their civ bonus.

That historical basis is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Goons amd ruyters are different units yes, but goons and misket riders are basically the same. So are kanya and hussar.

Anyway, if your problem is in the name and the exact same building/unit (rather than exact same function) then we can just give germans a different building. They can get "robust tradepost", which costs more, but has more hp, gives more building xp bonus, but ofc also takes loger to build. Problem solved.

Yes historical arguments are always a stretch, but imo so is your consistency design. Because whenever there is a deviation of that rule (aka russian musketeers and halbs, or indian houses, villagers costing coin or wood) the game is riddled eith examples that break design consistency, but suddenly its ok for you, because its a civ feature. So why could more expensive tps not be a german civ feature? What about port vils which were suddenly cheaper on ep? You made that change for sake of balance. This is the exact same change, except in the opposite direction. I really don't see the principle or rule this change is supposedly breaking...neither is it anything that hasnt been done before.

[Goodspeed]

Anyway, if your problem is in the name and the exact same building/unit (rather than exact same function) then we can just give germans a different building. They can get "robust tradepost", which costs more, but has more hp, gives more building xp bonus, but ofc also takes loger to build. Problem solved.

Better. But every other civ gets a 200w, regular trading post, to me that qualifies as a consistency that I wouldn't want to mess with. That's just me though.

Because whenever there is a deviation of that rule (aka russian musketeers and halbs, or indian houses, villagers costing coin or wood) the game is riddled eith examples that break design consistency, but suddenly its ok for you, because its a civ feature. So why could more expensive tps not be a german civ feature? What about port vils which were suddenly cheaper on ep? You made that change for sake of balance. This is the exact same change, except in the opposite direction. I really don't see the principle or rule this change is supposedly breaking...neither is it anything that hasnt been done before.

Vill cost was already not consistent. Dutch vills cost coin, Indian vills cost wood, Russian vills cost 90f, etcetera. This isn't a consistent design in the first place, so it was okay to change. The same applies to the Indian house change. Like vill cost, house cost differs across civs, and on top of that Indian houses were already cheaper.

[[Armag] diarouga]

India house cost change lol. Another change that needs to be reverted.

[deleted_user0]

Anyway, if your problem is in the name and the exact same building/unit (rather than exact same function) then we can just give germans a different building. They can get "robust tradepost", which costs more, but has more hp, gives more building xp bonus, but ofc also takes loger to build. Problem solved.

Better. But every other civ gets a 200w, regular trading post, to me that qualifies as a consistency that I wouldn't want to mess with. That's just me though.

Because whenever there is a deviation of that rule (aka russian musketeers and halbs, or indian houses, villagers costing coin or wood) the game is riddled eith examples that break design consistency, but suddenly its ok for you, because its a civ feature. So why could more expensive tps not be a german civ feature? What about port vils which were suddenly cheaper on ep? You made that change for sake of balance. This is the exact same change, except in the opposite direction. I really don't see the principle or rule this change is supposedly breaking...neither is it anything that hasnt been done before.

Vill cost was already not consistent. Dutch vills cost coin, Indian vills cost wood, Russian vills cost 90f, etcetera. This isn't a consistent design in the first place, so it was okay to change. The same applies to the Indian house change. Like vill cost, house cost differs across civs, and on top of that Indian houses were already cheaper.

Sure, i see what you mean but i just dont see why its such a decisive argument that the inconsistency is just for 1 civ. I mean when nilla came out, infantry training was consistent for all civs except russia, which trained in batches. With crates, all civs have dynamic crates, except china. Imo consistency should come second to balance. If that at all, imo it could come 10th.

[Goodspeed]

I'd still explore alternatives first. Hence the "you could but yuck" and not "you couldn't".

[WickedCossack]

You have to bear in mind 'ugly' changes are completely subjective.

Things like cheaper vils for port or 250wd tp for germans don't even register as any different for me. Something like spanish gold though throws my whole game off and I feel like im playing another game completely.

[Kaiserklein]

German civilization will be completely rewritten with exiled prince removal. It has to be the single biggest change to a civ in ep history?

Sioux

Exactly, and we all know what kind of disaster the sioux changes are. I'm not sure why we keep doing this sort of huge changes. I regret the times where we were extra careful with ep changes and taking our time to progress step by step.

[deleted_user0]

tbh, the teepees didn't really change how sioux is played, they're mostly changed by the maps. on RE sioux could play raiding style, because civs had to leave base for hunts at 7 mins. On EP sometimes you can stay in base for 20 mins, and the angles to raid are usually easy to block off, the maps aren't as open as many of the re maps, with nat tp's and lakes or cliffs creating chokes that can easily be walled off or built in for LOS. And ofc, the BR nerf also plays a role.

In any case, on RE I already played sioux the way I play it on EP, aka, get tps and make axe wakina mostly. it's just a bit stronger here.

[Garja]

If we remove the ability to build teepees with infantry by default we are probably done with balancing Sioux. And that's not cause the eco teepee change is ideal but because cba to argue forever on it and because it's a cheap way to fix the "no TP map" issue.
Other than that we can consider tweaking the Dog Soldier BB to a dog every 4 minute, but that's a very specifci meta change so needs more games to be confirmed as necessary. It's also a super easy change to add or revert so it can be included at any point.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Wtf
I agree that building teepees with infantry doesn't make sense and should be removed but it is NOT a balance issue.
It is a design issue.

[Garja]

Except when Sioux win because of that.