Should an 'Agricultural' CSA be added in an expansion pack?

[lockstep]

In the last weeks, a lot of suggestions for additional civ-specific abilities (CSA´s) were made (see http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=25616). IMO, the most promising CSA would be 'agricultural'. I hope that Civ3´s powerful editor will allow to add this ability, but decided nevertheless to post a poll if it should be included in an expansion pack. I suggest the following:

'Agricultural': Free tech - pottery; Effect 1 - irrigated plains yield more food; Effect 2 - enlarged city size without aqueducts/hospitals

My original suggestion for effect 1 was 'extra food in city center', but this was criticized as a possible encouragement for ICS and therefore scrapped. For the same reason, the 'extra-bonus' for irrigated plains should not apply to grassland or grassland with shields. I´d be interested in further suggestions how to encourage the growth of big cities for an 'agricultural' civ without bringing back ICS (e.g., 'let´s change the size of the food box from 40 to 32').

Effect 2 was already present in SMAC, where the peacekeeper faction could grow their bases to size 9 (instead 7) without hab complexes and to size 16 (instead 14) without hab domes.

Regarding the civilizations that are already included in Civ3, I think that the Chinese could be termed an agricultural and industrious civ rather than militaristic/industrious as they are considered now by Firaxis. Anyhow, the addition of an 'agricultural' CSA would not require the change of some of the present civ´s abilities, but could be applied for additional expansion pack civs (and many people, including myself, are longing for them ).

[Dinner]

That's a little over powered don't you think? Personally, I hope the expansion pack doesn't contain any new CSAs. There already are enough and adding more only opens the door to greater abuse.

[lockstep]

We don´t know how strong the effects of other CSA´s are. 'Extra commerce in city centre' (commercial) could be very unbalancing if that would mean 10 additional trade 'arrows'. 'Workers work faster' could break the game if that means a threefolds increase in speed. I don´t think that Firaxis has done so, but I also don´t think that it is impossible as a matter of principle to create a balanced CSA that deals with city growth.

OTOH, you could well be right that my specific suggestion (irrigated plains yield more food) is over-powered. Do you think that it still encourages ICS or do you regard a possible 'only a few big cities'-strategy as dangerous?

[jdd2007]

i think we need this csa, but the effects should be less powerful...

[Pembleton]

This would be quite difficult to balance. Anything that promotes growth is overpowered IMO. Pop growth is essential to civ success.

[d_dudy]

Originally posted by Oerdin
That's a little over powered don't you think? Personally, I hope the expansion pack doesn't contain any new CSAs. There already are enough and adding more only opens the door to greater abuse.

i agree, and would like to point out that all real civilizations farm at one point and how well they farm is a result of the land they live on more than anything. that and techniques. if everybody had tractors you'd be amazed how much food underdeveloped countries could make

[Alexander I]

I agree. The more the better.

Expansion comes with two new attributes: Agricultural and Maritime.

Maritime good for Phoenicians, Dutch, Portuguese
Agricultural great for New Zealand!

[Sarxis]

No. Extra food means faster growth, which is just too big of an advantage.

Besides, who would want to play THAT civ anyhow?

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Pembleton
This would be quite difficult to balance. Anything that promotes growth is overpowered IMO. Pop growth is essential to civ success.

Maybe SMAC is a bad example (because ICS was as present there as in Civ2), but the Alpha Centauri (not the SMACX) factions seem to be regarded as reasonably balanced, although two of them had some kind of 'growth advantage':

- The Gainans received one additional nutrient in fungus; this complies with my suggestion of 'irrigated plains yield more food' for 'agricultural' civs.

- The Hive had an SE factor of 'Growth +1'; this would correspond approximately to a food box with 10% smaller size in Civ3 (e.g. 36 instead of 40).

While the Gaian advantage would result in faster growth and bigger cities in theory (because of the larger overall food supply), the Hive advantage would only cause faster growth. I think both approaches would result in an interesting 'agricultural' Civ3 CSA.

Originally posted by Anunikoba
No. Extra food means faster growth, which is just too big of an advantage.

Besides, who would want to play THAT civ anyhow?

So you think no one would play civs with an 'overpowered' CSA?

I would choose an agricultural and industrial civ because large cities with lots of improvements would suit my playstile.

[Arator]

I voted yes. An "agricultural" Confederate States of America should be added to the mix of playable civs! ;^)

[lockstep]

From the updated IGN preview, we know now that workers can´t irrigate land without a fresh supply of water. IMO, that ensures that my proposal of 'irrigated plains yield more food' does not unbalance the game in favour of an 'agricultural' civ. Effect 2 (enlarged city size without aqueducts/hospitals) seems to be more crucial now, as the city size limit without aqueducts (and access to fresh water) is only 6 in Civ3 (it was 8 in Civ2 and, IIRC, 10 in the original game version). I suggest a maximum city size of 8/14 for 'agricultural' civs.

As the poll shows that a CSA tinkering with the population growth rate is a rather controversial issue (at the moment, 15 users voted 'yes' and 11 users 'no' for 'agricultural'), i´d be interested in some more comments from the opposers. Do you think that a CSA number of 6 is enough, do you fear the return of ICS even though irrigation won´t be prevalent in the early and middle game or do you raise other objections?

[orange]

Agriculture societies aren't necessarily big. Letting them grow without aqueducts et al. is unrealistic. But I like farms yeilding more food

[aaglo]

Originally posted by orange
Agriculture societies aren't necessarily big. Letting them grow without aqueducts et al. is unrealistic. But I like farms yeilding more food

Not to grow forever. If the standard city size without aqueduct is 6, maybe the agricultural would be 7 or 8. That is the way SMAC handles this... thingie.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by aaglo
If the standard city size without aqueduct is 6, maybe the agricultural would be 7 or 8. That is the way SMAC handles this... thingie.

I´d rather say 8 than 7, and I also suggest that cities of an 'agricultural' civ can grow to size 14 (instead of 12) without hospitals. I don´t think this is too unbalancing because hospitals will be available early in the industrial age (and therefore probably in the middle of a typical Civ3 game), while the SMAC equivalent of hab-domes could only be built when the typical SMAC game was pretty much over.

BTW, it´s nice to watch the number of pro´s rising steadily.

[zeh]

Will be a good start for a civ be agricultural.
But I think in the later game it won't have a lot of advantages (like militaristic have), since others can build improvements that gives to them almost the same bonus of the agricultural ones.