I've created the playtest cards for these two options.

The printhseets are previews. for higress please contact me.

Option 1
works for 0, 1 and 2 areas only



Option 2
works for all areas except for areas on flood plains

Playtest MerlokDD january 3rd:



Two positive playtests, one negative on another option. Let's continue any doubt in the appropriate topic, but to me, this new approach will go for official change.

I have to admit I was wrong in my opinion this card would be too complex. I take back my previous point of view. If these are the results, And everyone likes it, let change it this way.

Maybe in addition with slightly changing things on the map.



In addition, this approved my opinion on the poll worth not much. A good way of discussing is not only give the right motivation on a point of view but also the ability to change opinon as any other person might have a good motivation. If I voted in the poll I couldn't change it now.

Hey Everyone,
I have been away for the holidays, so I haven't seen much.

Flo,
Sorry to have come off so strong in my last post. You're right I didn't agree, but my attitude was too harsh.


I'm glad there was a lot of playtesting on this issue, it looks like it helped solidify the card.

Also, I agree with Flo about the polls - there only seem to be about 10 or 11 of us that answer them, and by the time the discussion has developed, the poll isn't very accurate. Perhaps changing the polling system to allow a "change my vote" would help that.

At the end of our playtest at the 29th of december, someone stated that Agriculture is too strong when it voids the need of conflict, ie. when all civilizations can build and support 9 cities on its own area.
Looking at the west map as it is right now, I checked the maximum number of cities it can build on the expected region with the different options of Agriculture. For each civilization I first write the number of cities what can be supported without Agriculture, then with normal Agriculture, then with the Agriculture what doesn't work on Flood plains, and at last with Agriculture which only works on population limits 0, 1 and 2 respectively the (0,1)-rule.

Minoa: 7 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 8 (when not building Knossos and Rhodes)
Celts: 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9
Carthage: 7 - 9 - 9 - 8 - 8 (when not building Carthage and Thapsus)
Assyria: 8 - 9 - 9 - 8 - 8 (when not building Nineveh or Carrhae)
Hellas: 7 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 8
Iberia: 7 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 8
Egypt: 8 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 (when not building Alexandria and Fayum)
Hatti: 6 - 8 - 8 - 8 - 7
Rome: 8 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 8

So even when applying the (0,1,2)-rule all but three civilizations can build and support 9 cities, so I believe this Agriculture still is too strong (when I assume some city sites on high population areas will not be used.) Seen from this view I propose to test the (0,1)-rule instead of the (0,1,2)-rule, and make the map some easier, especially near Hatti.

It's good thing you've taken a closer look at the possible map possibilities

I think making the map easier for the harder civilization is a good option in the first place. It should be NEARLY equal for all civilizations to win, but still leave it up to players how to actually reach this goal. Where each starting position varies on strategy. (this is what the fun always has been)

Still reducing Agriculture to a card worth for only 0,1 areas seems to weak to me. Regard that you change it from THE MOST powerful card into a weak one.

Besides, to me there is no problem if it's possible that all players can reach AND mantain 9 cities. I think this should be the goal rather than to be avoided.

Your calculation was ok in theory, but it did not regard conflicts, calamities, less experienced players, aggressive players, multiple players occupying the same area, and other civilzation advances (streching from engineering to fundamentalism) which alter the situations.

A game (like real life) is never a static, balanced situation where all players have 9 cities and 18 tokens and do nothing to change the situation.

Players will want more and will get more, and all take away possibilites of other players who will try and fight back.

Parts will be wiped out by calamities. Areas will be occupied by barbarians and pirates.

And experience will show how and when to build wilderness cities and when to refrain from this.

More tokens will be needed to attack players holding engineering. Metalworking will require different calculations. Fundamentalism or Cultural ascendancy will decrease a player's possiblities, and so on.




I think changing the map slightly is enough to deal with the problems disussed, and not to seek the problem more in agriculture. This card should still be an effort to hold. It should still be an important card in the game, as it was in history.

I think I agree with Flo on this one. I mean by that argument, Public Works is the most powerful advance in the game, because it essentially halves the amount of support space you need. There's no problem with Agriculture being that important.

Of course, IMO, the (0,1) or the (0,1,2) are both good options, and I would rather see one as the official, and the other as an optional.

Do you mean:

0,1 as official and 0,1,2 as optional
or
0,1,2 as official and 0,1 as optional


If choose for either, i'd prefer, 0,1,2 as official


For Public Works: The power of a card is also measured by its price/quality rate. Indeed PW gives you this advantage, but at a price.
I see Wotw as the best ability, but also at a price.

Agriculture seems best to me, because of it's ability combined with its reasonable price 120. Ofcourse, in the end, it's all based on opinion and style.

Great cards, though are most of the times cards that give you an advantage which won't be obsolete or nullified by another card later in the game.
Therefore cards like metalworking, military, monotheism, etc won;t be regarded as 'best card'

oh whatever...


p.s. i do like architecture too by the way.

If all players can maintain 9 cities, there is no need for conflict, so the players playing aggresively to acquire the required space don't need to play aggresive anymore, unless some nations who wants 9 cities on city sites.
If I have 9 cities, I hope other players can reach 9 cities too, so I can take advantage of my level 9 cards. I can try to hold back a player who is in advantage of me, but often the calamities gives me enough struggle to reach 9 cities (again) next round. And that's why I believe "only three civilizations not reaching 9 cities" is a too large map too.
Yes, my calculations are in theory, but based on regions which can be taken in practice. Players holding 9 cities can make pacts with each other and stay in their own region supporting 9 cities and 18 tokens, without areas populated by multiple civilizations. And that is the thing which we wished to avoid.

Please read my report on a game I played this weekend:

http://www.civproject.net/forum/viewtop ... =4369#4369

I think it's even better to change Agriculture to 0,1,2,3 than to 0,1.

Even with 0,1,2 for agr. the mapboard for 9 players is even too tight rather than too easy. Johannes, you must have experienced the same last time we played (december 28th) with you even getting back to 0 cities.

I think currently we never experienced the mapboard too easy, but always too tight. So I think your calculations may include the right numbers but stays too theoretical.

For Agriculture I do believe now, it should be applied to 4 and 5 areas. I'm doubting for 3 areas.
Carthage and Iberia complained about the card being too expensive (!). 120 is a lot when you need it and it hard to get to a steady 5 cities in the early game. So I think the card should still give those civilization what they need for its price.

I'm looking for Merlok's opinion on this based on january 3rd's game.

I got back to 0 cities because of a militaristic player (who got surplus of space) believing I should win otherwise. And I didn't take Agriculture at all. But let's stay ontopic.

If 120 is too expensive, maybe reduce the price to 110 or even 90 (and increasing another card to above 100) and go for the 0,1,2 rule.

No, other opinons would raise its price to even 140. I believe 120 is just the perfect price.

Also, lowering the price to below 100 would throw over the credit system, and secondly would make the card an overpowered card again which will always be sold out first.

First you want to reduce its power by lowerings its abilities, and now you want to increase its power by reducing its price. Let's not make things more complicated than needed.