AU mod: The Agricultural trait

[alexman]

Originally posted by ducki
I agree that - since the Settler is not a UU - changing its cost is inelegant at best.

So Firaxis' decision to give Expansionists a non-UU not only a different cost, but to actually prevent all other traits from building it, must be the clumsiest ever, right?

[ducki]

I didn't really follow that. It doesn't have a different cost from non-Exp civs. It's a trait-unique unit, so to speak. If everyone could build scouts from the get-go, but because Exp civs were immune to barbs, theirs cost 5 shields more, then yes, that would be rather clumsy.

If Agricultural settlers.... see, you drew me out. Grr.

Sometimes I just can't resist, but I'm seriously going to hold off on any more balance discussion until 502 is over. So, no hard feelings, I just want to excuse myself from this one for a while.

[Dominae]

The problem with Agricultural is that people restart to find a starting location that suits them (i.e. that's above-average, often far above-average). Thus the trait's balancing factor, namely it's map-dependency, completely goes out the window. Seafaring is surely as powerful on Archipelago maps (at least a difficultly level easier), which people also seek out when they want to play a Seafaring civ.

I argued this at great length when Conquests first came out.

Ultimately it's up to each individual player to decide whether Agricultural is too powerful or not, because it's up to each individual player to restart or not. You could say that Cattle (the resource) is too powerful because it allows 4-turn Settler-pumps, but that seems silly. It's the same situation with Agricultural.

And no, this is not similar to pre-C3C Industrious. That trait was bar none the best across all maps and opponents. In this way it restricted your choice if you wanted to play a more competitive-type game. Agricultural is only good on a certain subset of starting locations, and is therefore more balanced than what Industrious used to be. Again, it's up the players to keep it balanced.

I'll admit that Agricultural is still a very good trait, even you do not reload (although far cry from what it is when you do). This is mainly due to the fact that Agricultural has abilities in addition to the "next to fresh water" one. But this is something I do not think we can satisfactorily patch with the editor.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Just from the opening screenshot, I can say that AU 502's starting position will be at least fairly good for getting use out of the Agricultural trait. Even if the river that can be seen in the opening screenshot is all we get, I could get four river cities (including the capital) out of it easily, and at least one additional temporary city to help with REXing would also be possible. How much more river will be available beyond that remains to be seen, but this will certianly not be a bad game in terms of being able to get advantage out of the Agricultural trait.

[Dominae]

I've not seen a sample game as an Agricultural civ that did not have a river start. Kind of telling.


Dominae

[vulture]

I have to agree with those arguing for no change. The change proposed is designed not to affect the AI (which it won't early in the REX when the Ai is food-limited, but will hurt them slightly later on when cities are growing and producing occasional settlers), but to weaken the trait for human players. What that means in practise is that players reload a few more times to find a start with a few extra shields. As others have said, the strength of the trait depends on how much reloading you do to find a good start (to some extent). Weakening it doesn't change that.

I suppose the other question is how it affects MP, but as said before, the AU is primarily a SP job, designed to help the AI and add depth to the game - this isn't a depth issue, it's a balance vs the AI issue.

[Fosse]

By the way, the AI would benefit from a Settler shield cost increase, as it often waits on towns to grow to sufficient size with a Settler already completed.

Won't this just give the appearance of the AI getting smarter? It seems like the AI starts building settlers without caring about food production, and the fact that the two are slightly more in-line for a 35 shield settler will just look better, but in fact the AI will probably spend the same number of turns working on the settler (either waiting for growth or the extra five shields).

I'm not a fan of this tweak though... since AI agricultural civs tend to be powerhouses in my games, which I like.

[nbarclay]

When humans play non-Agricultural civs, the only civs affected by a higher cost of settlers would be Agricultural AIs, and they would clearly be hurt to whatever extent they build settelers in cities that can outgrow their production. Also note that AI cities with the Agricultural food bonus would be less likely than other AI cities to be stuck with enough shields for a settler but not enough food. So whether the change would help or hurt AIs on the whole would depend entirely on whether or not the human player is playing an Agricultural civ. That's another good reason not to increase the cost of settlers for Agricultural civs.

[pvzh]

I think fixing agricultural trait properly is beyond editor abilities. Agricultural trait should not have +1 food exempt from Despotic penalty (maybe just for capital only).

Soultion for AU mod would be restore aqueduct to full price.

Besides I HATE costs ending with 5. It puts more pressure to micromanage.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by pvzh
I think fixing agricultural trait properly is beyond editor abilities.

Agreed. And I'm especially sceptical about the concept of a 'handicapped' trait.

[Nor Me]

I support this change, although it looks like I'm in the minority. Of the changes possible in the editor, this is most likely to balance this trait. Settler pumps are the issue which can make Agricultural much more powerful than it appears.

Originally posted by nbarclay
Personally, I don't think modifying civ traits fits well with the purposes of the AU Mod.

While I'd disagree, it's more important to note that we're already doing this a lot indirectly. The changes to curraghs and galleys have a big impact on seafaring. The campaign to make multiple goverment switches more useful would make religious a much better trait although the beta patch has now affected this more radically than any changes we're likely to support. The balance of the traits is different in the AU Mod and we don't want to make avoiding this more important than our other goals.

It's only a small step from this to trying to balance the traits directly. I don't think that this change will alter the agricultural trait that much anyway. It will still be good for the things it is now.

Originally posted by Arrian
Any way to have that extra food from the city square ALWAYS get eaten by despotism, instead of the current situation, where you get the bonus food if you're on fresh water?

That would be far more radical if it were possible and I probably wouldn't support it. This way, we'd be reducing the early benefit of Agricultural but probably not by much.

Originally posted by ducki
Why 35? Would this still allow an Agr. civ to have a 4-turn pump on identical terrain to a non-Agr. civ that could get a 4-turn pump?

I'd have thought 34 would be better for this. That would mean that a site that was a 4-turn settler pump for a non-Agricultural civ with irrigated plains or mined non-bonus grassland and spare forest would always be a 4-turn pump for an Agricultural civ.

But I know Dominae wouldn't support 34 as it's an even number.

Originally posted by nbarclay
Also note that AI cities with the Agricultural food bonus would be less likely than other AI cities to be stuck with enough shields for a settler but not enough food.

In my experience, it's the other way around. Cities with the Agricultural bonus are likely to work high-shield, low-food terrain as the AI likes to keep 2 excess food. So these cities are more likely to have enough shields but not food.

[Ision]

the question of 'handicapping' the trait really boils down to one thing;

Will the proposed change slow down any overly pro-human advantages of agri, while still keeping AI CIVs with this trait in line with the typical AI performance.

I believe that Alexmans proposal should not be so quickly dismissed out of hand. If the change (or any varient of the proposed change) were to slightly reduce the extreme human advantage while not nerfing AIs - then the rationale is perfectly in keeping with the goals of the AU Mod.

Perhaps it is not a good idea, and the Agri AIs will not cope well - if however, that is not the case, then the idea should be given some serious consideration.

The argument that a trait specific 35 shield settler is some how too extreme of a departure is simply not valid. A trait specific settler is no more a departure than the expansionist scout - the free tech of sci - or the trait specific workers of Industrious.

Ision

[ducki]

Originally posted by pvzh
Soultion for AU mod would be restore aqueduct to full price.

I don't get how this helps...
the biggest reason that Agriculture is overpowered is that in the situations where you don't need the aqueduct, you get extra food.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Nor Me
In my experience, it's the other way around. Cities with the Agricultural bonus are likely to work high-shield, low-food terrain as the AI likes to keep 2 excess food. So these cities are more likely to have enough shields but not food.

I missed that point, but assuming AIs behave the same way my governors like to (which they almost certainly do), you're right. Thus, Agricultural AIs would indeed tend to get one more shield per turn than other AIs under many circumstances. I guess I'm too used to thinking like a human.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Nor Me

While I'd disagree, it's more important to note that we're already doing this a lot indirectly. The changes to curraghs and galleys have a big impact on seafaring. The campaign to make multiple goverment switches more useful would make religious a much better trait although the beta patch has now affected this more radically than any changes we're likely to support. The balance of the traits is different in the AU Mod and we don't want to make avoiding this more important than our other goals.

It's only a small step from this to trying to balance the traits directly. I don't think that this change will alter the agricultural trait that much anyway. It will still be good for the things it is now.

In the case of Seafaring curraughs and galleys, the main issue is that human players can use them very, very effectively in a way in which AIs are programmed not to use them at all. If Seafaring AIs used suicide curraughs and galleys effectively to make contact with distant civs, a Seafaring human could have a monopoly on overseas contact and tech trading only in games where no Seafaring AIs are present. But because AIs do not use suicide ships, the advantage of being less likely to sink is applicable only to human players, not to AIs. Thus, toning down the power of that ability is directly a matter of eliminating an advantage that human players have over AIs that have the same trait, and the fact that the trait itself is weakened is (at least in my view) mostly incidental.

As further evidence that the effect on the Seafaring trait was largely incidental, consider the fact that we'd already weakened galleys in the PtW version of the AU Mod to undercut the advantage that suicide ships gave human players. The facts that Seafaring civs can use that advantage even more effectively and that curraughs let them use it earlier in C3C gave us some extra incentive to make similar changes in the C3C version of the Mod, but the fundamental problem and our efforts to deal with it actually predates the introduction of the Seafaring trait.

Similarly, the shift in balance in favor of Religious civs if changing governments twice instead of once becomes more attractive is (as best I can tell) purely incidental to our reasons for liking the idea of making a second government change more attractive. I do not recall hearing anyone even hint that a desire to make the Religous trait stronger is a significant motivating factor in that regard. Personally, I view the impact on the Religious trait as a disadvantage to making a second government change more useful, not as an advantage (although I don't view the disadvantage as great enough that it should stop us).

In contrast, the sole and exclusive purpose of the proposal to increase the cost of settlers for Agricultural civs is to weaken a particular trait. Further, while AIs use the Agricultural trait's food bonus differently from how humans tend to use it in that they focus more on production and less on food, it is nonetheless something that AIs get a clear benefit from (except when settlers or workers are delayed enough waiting for cities to grow to offset not just the production advantage building the settlers or workers but also the production advantage building other things in between). And where our changes to curraughs and galleys had no side effects that could possibly create situations in which the Seafaring trait would be a disadvantage to a civ at particular times and places in the course of the game, increasing the cost of settlers for Agricultural civs does. Thus, I see far more differences than similarities between the two situations. In my view, it's a leap, not just a small step.

Nathan