AU mod: The Statue of Zeus

[nbarclay]

I'm away from my game at the moment so I can't check (I'll probably be back home later tonight), but isn't the 3-man chariot 2-2-2?

I think the best approach would be to separate the ivory requirement issue from the question of how to balance the SoZ's power better, have each panelist state his preference for the best way to balance the wonder's power, and then have a final vote between the two (or three if a tie so requires) most popular proposals for balancing the wonder. Panelists could change their minds regarding what they personally favor up until all have indicated their preference. That way we'll be sure we have clear input from all the panelists before we start the final vote (and hence that we don't miss something like Alexman's 2-2-2 proposal).

Nathan

[ducki]

If access is the main issue, it would seem that a "good" first version to try out would be the Ivory-free version, and change nothing else.

Just as a first test, mind. Incremental steps. Start small and get bigger. If simply removing the Ivory requirement would bring this wonder in line and remove the impression of being strong or weak based on the Map Generator, maybe that's enough?

I haven't been really shooting for wonders in my epics in the ancient age, so maybe I'll make this change and see what happens with a player that is NOT (edit: NOT NOT NOT) specifically beelining for this, looking to maximize the ACs strength.

I'm starting to wonder if ACs and the SoZ shouldn't be debated separately, but no matter. I'll see if I can get some "test" games done. On that note, I'll probably run with debug on if I can figure out how - are there any potential downsides to editing my conquests.biq file directly(after backing up, of course)? I hate having to go to Civ-Content and prefer to just hit "New Game" or "QuickStart".

[Dominae]

I think we should first vote on whether or not to remove the Ivory requirement. Voting to balance the cost and Ancient Cav stats at the same time is not the right way to approach this, because the Statues of Zeus with and without Ivory requirements are very different Wonders.

So how about: YES/NO - Remove the Ivory requirement from the Statue of Zeus?


Dominae

[alexman]

To save time, we can also vote on two proposed changes to Ancient Cavalry: one if the statue of Zeus requires ivory, and one if it doesn't.

Example:

1. Yes/No: Remove the Statue of Zeus' ivory requirement.
2. Yes/No: If item 1) results in a No, reduce attack factor of Ancient Cavalry to 2.
3. Yes/No: If item 1) results in a Yes, remove Ancient Cavalry's +1 hitpoint bonus.

[Dominae]

No, I really think we shoud keep this discussion simple for now and ask ourselves: "Do we want the State of Zeus to require Ivory in the AU mod". This is a "strategic options" issue, not a "game balance" issue. We can deal with game balance later (it's easier).

Although we want to hurry this process up, we will actually get to an end result we can all agree on faster if we split this issue into simple sequential steps, instead of one big confusing conditional soup (that does not even include all the options we've been discussing).


Dominae

[lockstep]

OK, this is getting silly.

A new (and hopefully simple) suggestion: Every panel member states what he/she thinks should be done with the Statue of Zeus and with Ancient Cavalry. I’ll look at every statement and combine it to one proposal. Then we can vote on this proposal.

I’ll start: Remove SoZ’s ivory requirement AND increase SoZ’s shield cost to 300 AND remove AC’s +1 hitpoint.

[alexman]

Reduce attack factor of Ancient Cavalry by 1

[Dominae]

How are you going to "combine" them into one proposal without running into the same problems we have now? The problem we're having now is that we have too many suggestions and we're voting on all of them at the same time.

Are you just going to copy-paste everyone's suggestions? Then I imagine each panelist will vote for their own idea, which gets us nowhere.

Generally, I think the problem is that we're replacing the debates with votes. This was not the purpose of the panel. The panel was set up to lead us past impasses in debates, not do away with them entirely. The reason we're having so much trouble now is that we're voting on everything and discussing nothing.

Either we vote for everything one item at a time, or we return to discussing pros and cons, trying to convince each other of the best solution.


Dominae

[lockstep]

Well, I figured on looking at each panelists suggestion and asking myself: Does he/she want to fiddle with ivory? Or rather make the SoZ more expensive? Or rather weaken AC? Or does he/she want everything? Or is it an entirely new suggestion? Right now, we have sort of an impasse, and I wanted to end this.

As for 'replacing the debates with votes' ... sorry, I only tried to do my best. We can surely return to discussing pros and cons, but in that case it would also be helpful to know what solution each panel member prefers.

So ... I want to get rid of ivory, and also weaken the SoZ/AC combo somewhat. alexman only wants to weaken AC, but to a greater extent. What about you, Dominae?

[lockstep]

BTW, I can also live with Dominae's 'keep this discussion simple for now'- approach. In this spirit: Get rid of the ivory.

[Dominae]

Well, I think I've been pretty vocal about this matter:

1. Statue of Zeus should not require Ivory.
2. Statue of Zeus should cost more Shields to build, to make it more similar to other Ancient era Wonders.
3. Ancient Cavalry need not have a +1HP bonus.

The first point is major, the second makes sense in light of the first, and the third is mere personal preference.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

Personally it's not the power of the Wonder that bothers me, it's the fact that it grants this power on a very random basis. Put another way, the Statue of Zeus is not overly powerful if every civ has access to it (are the Pyramids too powerful? Sun Tzu's?).

Frankly, I've never viewed Sun Tsu's as a first-class wonder. If I can't get Sun Tsu's, Sistine, and Leo's all three, Sun Tsu's is the first of the three I'm willing to give up.

The Pyramids are likely comparable to the SoZ in overall power, but because their power is so long-term, they don't create the kind of short-term imbalance problems that the SoZ does. A human player doesn't steamroll AIs easily just because he has the Pyramids (except maybe if he builds them with an ultra-early SGL), and the Pyramids aren't nearly as likely to spur an AI to try to steamroll the player in the ancient or early medieval era as I get the impression the SoZ is.

Consider what a player could do on Emperor beelining to SoZ and using the Pyramids as a prebuild. Such a strategy would significantly compromise a civ's REXing, but compared with an early archer rush, the cost/benefit ratio would be excellent. And with a commercial, seafaring, or industrious civ (thus starting with one or the other of the prerequisites for Mathematics), I doubt that the strategy would fail often if executed properly. (I made a couple attempts with that technique on Deity and came pretty close in one of them. With the French, I succeeded, but they're a special case since they start with both prerequisites for Mathematics.)

Nathan

[ducki]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Consider what a player could do on Emperor beelining to SoZ and using the Pyramids as a prebuild. Such a strategy would

I don't think we should be balancing for specialized strategies - I'm not saying that's what we're doing, I'm just saying that statement set off my alarm bells.

If we try to balance for all the beelines and special cases that a skilled player can create for himself, I think we're setting ourselves up for failure.

I personally can't see myself beelining for Math because the Philo beeline is just so powerful in comparison - in my opinion. I can see where some players might choose that route, but I don't think it's anywhere near as overwhelmingly attractive as other beelines - say Mil. Trad. - or the ToE->Hoover slingshot.

I don't think that we should consider what a player could do in any specialized situation until it becomes a case of most players doing in most situations.

None of this is to say I don't think some change to SoZ is good. I support some attempt to rebalance either SoZ OR AC in a larger way and whichever is left in a lesser way.

I just don't think we should fall into the trap of balancing specifically for strategies that some players might use. More important are the forgone conclusions that most players usually make(like ToE-Hoover).

I'll hop down off the soapbox now. No offense intended Nathan.

[Arrian]

Doh! That's what I get for not playing civ for a couple weeks: I did forget the Hittites.

Personally, I'm one of those who kinda likes the ivory requirement precisely because it's different. And honestly I do wonder what adding yet another ancient wonder to the AI's build list (for all of them, instead of the 1 or 2 that might have ivory) would do.

-Arrian

[Tall Stranger]

I wouldn't mind the ivory requirement IF SoZ wasn't such a potential game breaker. If its game impact was no greater than, say, Colossus, then it would be a cute, secondary Wonder that could be considered a "bonus" Wonder for those lucky enough to be near ivory.

As it stands, I'd urge our distinguished panel to first eliminate the ivory requirement and see how that affects things. As Arrian points out, it's hard to determine how that change will affect the choice the AIs make in which wonders to pursue and thus how easy it is for the human to get it. Once we see how that works, we can then figure out whether AC is too powerful or whether the SoZ should produce them less frequently (if possible).