Historically Bronzeworking was a great advance, but (advacned) Ironworking really made a difference.

There has been discussion to dived those two and create a second card doing the same as metalworking does.

so:
Bronzeworking
In a conflict, a holder removes his first token from the area after all players not holding
Bronzeworking have removed their first token.
This is cumulative with Ironworking.

Ironworking
In a conflict, a holder removes his first token from the area after all players not holding
Ironworking have removed their first token.
This is cumulative with Bronzeworking.







Problem is:
We think a card has to taken out of the set tobe replaced by Ironworking where Bronzeworking replaces metalworking.


We do not have the intention to do this or even playtest it.

I'm asking players to come up with a reasonable solution to this idea.


- Regard the equality in the game where one card leads to another
(for example you cannot just replace Trade Routes by Ironworking cause it's not that coinage led to ironworking led to trade empire)
- What card to replace and WHY
(not just 'because I never bought it')
- Keep it historically right
- Think of pricing
- Think of the credit system


anyone?

if you are going to prelace it i would not recomend lowering the prize on bronzeworking. the creditsystem is already so powerful.

i might choose to but ironworking at about 130-150 and with the same credits as bronze.

the idea is that bronze is something everybody should get quickly, or cheaply (as now you can choose). but metalworking, since it is culumative willwith the higher prize be more effective for the player choosing it, but he can't force his neighbours from early on into a stratigy. he can only really buy it with when other players have aquired the credits needed for the bronzeworking, so that he will not be struck to hard by ironworking.

so in this sense ironworking will give you an extended time of better weapons.

i think the credits should stay the same bc the techs work on the same kiind of things

maybe brozeworking could have special credit to sculpture

Let's explain about the system again:
Not everybody knows or sees this

For each row:
The first gives 10 credits to the second gives 20 credits to the third.

Astronavigation (10) Calendar (20) Public Works
Cloth Making (10) Naval Warfare (20) Diaspora
Coinage (10) Trade Routes (20) Trade Empire
Deism (10) Fundamentalism (20) Monotheism
Drama Poetry (10) Rhetoric (20) Politics
Epiricism (10) Medicine (20) Anatomy
Masonry (10) Engineering (20) Roadbuilding
Metalworking (10) Military (20) Advanced Military
Monarchy (10) Law (20) Cultural Ascendancy
Music (10) Enlightenment (20) Philosophy
Mysticism (10) Monument (20) Wonder of the World
Mythology (10) Literacy (20) Mathematics
Pottery (10) Agriculture (20) Democracy
Sculpture (10) Architecture (20) Mining
Theocracy (10) Universal Doctrine (20) Theology
Urbanism (10) Diplomacy (20) Provincial Empire
Written Record (10) Cartography (20) Library




So you cannot just simply replace a card. You'll break the system and that can never be the goal.
The goal here is to find a decent and realistic solution or otherwise this idea will stay an idea.

Cards in the first row don't get specific credits.

If Ironworking is a midrange card, it should only get specific credits from a lowrange and GIVE specific credits to a highrange

Well, the obvious thing is to ditch Advanced Military, move Military in its place (and maybe change its name) and drop Iron Working into the middle. I think most people would rather have the second level of Metalworking rather than a second level of Military.

That might be an option

But I don't see advanced military as a second military.

The system of auxilia used by the romans made a real differnce and was as important for world changes as iron working.

I see this reflected in the card.

Still this is the best option I've heard so far

It might be possible to combine some.

It could also be a solution to the civic being unpopular.


Maybe making Iron Working a Craft/Civic

This is a very complex topic, that probably cannot be solved easily.

Although I agree mcbeth's suggestion is the most obvious, it has a serious drawback, aside from the fact that Advanced Military would be dropped from the set.

There is a very good symmetry in the current card division. Although there are 51 cards, which seems an odd number, there are 12 of each color if you add the single and the dual advances:

Single Dual Total
Arts 8 4 12
Religion 8 4 12
Science 8 4 12
Craft 9 3 12
Civic 9 3 12

Due to this balance, I'd rather not replace a normal Civic by a 'Craft/Civic'.

Further, there are 17 cards under 100, 17 cards between 100 and 200 and also 17 cards >200, which are represented in the table Flo provided. In order to maintain this symmetry, Military would have to shift to the 200+ category, increasing its price with ~50; I doubt if the card is still very interesting then. As a result, we would have to 'spice up' Military in order to make it attractive once again.

As a last point, I doubt if it is fun to have two offensive cards that do exactly the same (though for a different price). Although the 'upgrade' of skills is a nice feature in the computer game and of course historically very relevant, I have my doubts about the use in this game.

So I think the idea of splitting metalworking into two cards is, literally, playing with fire :-)

In the first place, I believe it is very tricky and hardly possible.

But this has been the most realistic proposal so far.

I totally agree to the fact that making Military a cheap 200 card it will be bought more often because it's a cheap 200+ and people need 3 of those.

You can ask the question whether that is a problem, since it has drawbacks compared to other 200+'s in addition to the fact we are looking for a way to make RED be a more popular color in the game.


Adding one offensive card to the game where you take away another in fact wouldn't change THAT much.

You replace military by ironworking
you replace Advanced Military by military

In total (apart from the costs) you don't change much


Ironworking can be a civic/craft but never a full civic to me.


What you say about playing with fire:

One player buying Military does not always result in other players feeling the need to keep up.

Metalworking though has this effect a little more.

Having two metalworkings in the game this will definately make other players having to buy at least one.
(if you can conquer a 1-area containing 2 enemy tokens by moving only one token in. which is REALLY powerfull)

This will make the card some prerequisite to keep up in the late game.


Therefore I think, though realistically the card should be added, it will not help the game. I might become an arms race.



I think this idea is off

I have another idea of Iron Working:
We have Bronze Working -> Military -> Iron Working
Iron Working is a +200 Craft which has the following: During conflict versus a non-owner, each time you have to remove a token, opponent removes a token too. Aggresives the effect of Barbarian Hordes (since they have Iron Working too, represented by ten additional Barbarian Tokens.)
So Advanced Military is removed, but we can make for example Trade Empire a Civic.
In the discussion about the Civil Disorder and Civil War drawback, we can make Military makes Civil War more destructive (5 tokens are destroyed on each side) and make Naval Warfare aggrevates the effects of Civil Disorder (by reducing all but one less city.)

This keeps the total amounts of cards from each colour equal.

I don't think that'll work

Barbarians should not get metalworking in my opinion
they're devastating enough.

Rather not make civil war drawback stronger, as we were looking for a way to make the drawback even less strong. As well as the Civil Disorder drawbacks.

I think Trade Empire should not be a civic but remain a craft. It fits in the row of trade routes and agriculture.

Besides it think this option will unbalance the game even more.

anyone?

Although I have not been involved in the first years of the Civ Project and did not see the creative process taking place, I am convinced that the inventors did a great job creating the current set of cards, rules and calamities. As a result, I don't like messing around with the foundations (i.e. creating or dropping cards, changing colors etc. although I do like to help fine tune the ones that have been created before...

Actually that's something I totally agree with.

The reason I started this topic was not:' We're going to change stuff and how are we going to do it', but rather, 'what would be the only way to change this only if we would change it'. Because I doubted from the start that this would be a reasonable option in messing in the basics of the game.

But I did want to give the thought a chance.

When holding Iron Working, 15 Barbarian tokens are not devastating anymore. Now they loses two units each time you lose one unit, so approximately Iron Working divides the effects of Barbarian Hordes by two. The Barbarian Hordes drawback of 10 additional Barbarian tokens only nullifies this effect a bit.

In the official rules the drawbacks are as follows:
Military: 5 units in a Civil War, 1 city in a Civil Disorder.
Advanced Military: 5 units in a Civil War, 1 city in a Civil Disorder.
Naval Warfare: 5 units in a Civil War, 1 city in a Civil Disorder.

In new playtests the drawbacks are as follows:
Military: 2 units in a Civil War, 1 city in a Civil Disorder.
Advanced Military: 2 units in a Civil War, 1 city in a Civil Disorder.
Naval Warfare: 1 units in a Civil War, nothing about Civil Disorder.

In my proposal the drawbacks are as follows:
Military: 5 units in a Civil War, nothing about Civil Disorder.
Iron Working: Nothing about Civil War or Civil Disorder, but 10 additional units invades the empire during Barbarian Hordes.
Naval Warfare: Nothing about Civil War, 1 city in a Civil Disorder.

I believe these drawbacks are weaker than the drawbacks used in the playtests right now.

Hi Johannes

Firstly about playing with fire, please read Velusion note too:
http://www.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=272
I stick to Velusions opinion as he's the former chief (and Jonno as his follw-up) . Nevertheless I did start this topic, so I wanted to give the thought a chance only.

There has already been some other suggestion that drops the 1-2-2 system. And for the playtest-series I intend I'm going with that option.

please read this topic:
http://www.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=498

At least I am not thinking of adding ironworking anymore because of the results of this discussion in this topic here.

Therefore removing any other military card is off to me too.
Not unless somebody comes up with a great proposal that really makes sense ofcourse.

But 'till that moment I haven't seen a reasonable option for really trying this.

Ofcourse you can organize a game yourself to playtest an idea like I do. I'm happy to play along with you, if you do.

The same goes for your new Diaspora idea. (http://www.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=474)
Except for a totally new Wonder of the World-concept in which your ideas were involved, I'm looking for fine-tuning only.

I am not against radical ideas to make a major change in cards, but as playtests don't happen every day, and it's not so easy to get enough folks together that want to playtest, I'm trying to only playtest thing I think will work, not to throw thing over, and as mentioned, fine-tuning.

The reason for the Wotw change was only because the card actually did nothing.

The thought of splitting it up into bronze and iron is nice from a historical perspective...

However, like Flo said, it would be hard to add it to the game without changing some big things around.