Possible playtest idea's and Closer look at the Civic-branch
| Author |
Message |
| 2008-11-26 12:38:25 |
 DGatheral wrote: Flo de Haan wrote: I mentioned the importance of agriculture in this topic before. (We discussed this last sunday after playing a full game with 6 players.)
I think agriculture is the most populair card at both inexperienced and expierenced players.
Still I believe it should stay a 100-200 card. I might have its priced raised a bit.
the combo agriculture and architecture does as lot. both at no real drawback. In my group's experience, Agriculture is the most important card in the game. We find it to be overpowered compared to it's cost. Cheap Agriculture also discourages combat as after purchase, most civilizations have enough room to support 9 cities. I would be in support of nerfing this card slightly. Having said that, we only just (last game) discovered the rule that says agriculture doesn't count after you have been the primary victim of Famine. Rulebook 2.09 wrote: 28.314 Primary victims who hold Agriculture must also, immediately after the calamity has been
resolved, remove the amount of tokens on the board that exceeds the printed population limit on
the map (with no regard for Agriculture). This is a one-time penalty. Hence it is better to remove
already temporarily overpopulated areas first when resolving the unit point loss. This is great rule that goes some way to nerfing agriculture. I would support the playtestign of a slight price increase too though. DG. What exactly do you have in mind?
130 ? 140?
not more than that in my opinion...
_________________
WOH CANGHED TEH KYES ON YM KEBYORAD?
|
|
Flo de Haan
VIP 
Joined:
2007-06-22 22:26:30
Posts:
1053
Location:
Netherlands (Heerhugowaard)
|
|
| 2008-11-26 13:52:29 |
You are right, for reasons discussed previously agriculture should be accessible fairly early for historical reasons and also because some countries require early agriculture in order to have a decent game.
Maybe we could playtest at 130?
DG
|
|
DGatheral
Member
Joined:
2008-11-07 14:52:11
Posts:
34
Location:
United Kingdom
|
|
| 2008-11-26 14:08:37 |
I doubt if this increase of 10 is important enough to change. Raising the price more is not good in my opinion.
I'd like to make cards for you with this higher price, but I don't think It'll be high on my playtest list.
Agriculture IS the most populair card and maybe the best in price/quality balance. But maybe it is the most important advance in history anyway.
Apart from fire and the wheel, but these are considered already developed when starting our game.
I agree to the fact that the card is higly needed by some civilizations to compete.
_________________
WOH CANGHED TEH KYES ON YM KEBYORAD?
|
|
Flo de Haan
VIP
Joined:
2007-06-22 22:26:30
Posts:
1053
Location:
Netherlands (Heerhugowaard)
|
|
| 2008-11-30 4:22:46 |
DGatheral wrote: Flo de Haan wrote: I mentioned the importance of agriculture in this topic before. (We discussed this last sunday after playing a full game with 6 players.)
I think agriculture is the most populair card at both inexperienced and expierenced players.
Still I believe it should stay a 100-200 card. I might have its priced raised a bit.
the combo agriculture and architecture does as lot. both at no real drawback. In my group's experience, Agriculture is the most important card in the game. We find it to be overpowered compared to it's cost. Cheap Agriculture also discourages combat as after purchase, most civilizations have enough room to support 9 cities. I would be in support of nerfing this card slightly. Having said that, we only just (last game) discovered the rule that says agriculture doesn't count after you have been the primary victim of Famine. Rulebook 2.09 wrote: 28.314 Primary victims who hold Agriculture must also, immediately after the calamity has been
resolved, remove the amount of tokens on the board that exceeds the printed population limit on
the map (with no regard for Agriculture). This is a one-time penalty. Hence it is better to remove
already temporarily overpopulated areas first when resolving the unit point loss. This is great rule that goes some way to nerfing agriculture. I would support the playtestign of a slight price increase too though. DG. Agriculture is an very powerful card I agree - which is why we threw that extra famine penalty on.
I could be talked into making agriculture also increase the penalty for slave revolt as well...
Raising the cost might really hurt a few nations...
Last edited by Velusion on 2008-11-30 4:33:03, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Velusion
VIP
Joined:
2003-02-07 0:00:15
Posts:
387
Location:
USA
|
|
| 2008-11-30 4:32:10 |
Flo de Haan wrote: OK
....
I will playtest these:
I'm curious to see how these changes work. Also I think it's worth noting that if you don't have anyone who plays aggressively in your group you might never notice the full potential of Military + Advanced Mil + Naval Warfare. I've heard a number of players tell me they thought that combo was broken because of how advantageous it appeared in the games they play. But then again most groups haven't really used the special ability cards to thier full potential like yours Flo. 
I'd like to see two experienced aggressive players focus on the civics track and see what they can accomplish.
|
|
Velusion
VIP
Joined:
2003-02-07 0:00:15
Posts:
387
Location:
USA
|
|
| 2008-11-30 13:44:00 |
Velusion wrote: Flo de Haan wrote: OK
....
I will playtest these:
I'm curious to see how these changes work. Also I think it's worth noting that if you don't have anyone who plays aggressively in your group you might never notice the full potential of Military + Advanced Mil + Naval Warfare. I've heard a number of players tell me they thought that combo was broken because of how advantageous it appeared in the games they play. But then again most groups haven't really used the special ability cards to thier full potential like yours Flo. I'd like to see two experienced aggressive players focus on the civics track and see what they can accomplish. Actually you say the military-advancedmilitary-naval warfare is unbalanced. (too weak)
That's what we noticed too.
Not seeing many players use this, may be a result of lack of playtest data.
I think it should be possible to play this strategy. If you keep the drawback of 15 tokens being destroyed form both sides it's out of the question. Civil War can not be traded away, and once you draw it, you're dead, might even be washed off of the map.
Once we apply the change of a maximum of 5 tokens from both sides destroyed players may be actually trying the option.
I know some people playing wargames, who take up any game to play aggressive.
Agriculture:
Adding a additional 5 for slave revolt seems fair to me. Especially cause you can always trade it away, and once anyone holds agriculture, this calamity always has its effect. Besides it makes sense, the more people, the more unrest. Once a slave revolt occurs, more people team up in this revolt.
I'll create a playtest card for it.
_________________
WOH CANGHED TEH KYES ON YM KEBYORAD?
|
|
Flo de Haan
VIP
Joined:
2007-06-22 22:26:30
Posts:
1053
Location:
Netherlands (Heerhugowaard)
|
|
| 2008-12-03 14:52:10 |
Velusion wrote: I approve of the lowering of Adv Mil cost.
I'm not too keen on the "total" non-cumulative method of assigning penalties. That makes these resolve differently than almost every other civ card which is cumulative.
How would this sound:
Quote:
Up the cost of miliary to 180
Remove the Civil War penalty to Military and Naval W. (civil war is already usually bad enough).
Remove the Civil Disorder penalty to Advanced Military
Let me know what you think. I also really think someone experienced (one or two players perhaps) need to really play a game going the adv military route. Let's continue this this discussion here:
http://www.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=498
_________________
WOH CANGHED TEH KYES ON YM KEBYORAD?
|
|
Flo de Haan
VIP
Joined:
2007-06-22 22:26:30
Posts:
1053
Location:
Netherlands (Heerhugowaard)
|
|
| 2008-12-03 14:59:48 |
Flo de Haan wrote: Velusion wrote: I approve of the lowering of Adv Mil cost.
I'm not too keen on the "total" non-cumulative method of assigning penalties. That makes these resolve differently than almost every other civ card which is cumulative.
How would this sound:
Quote:
Up the cost of miliary to 180
Remove the Civil War penalty to Military and Naval W. (civil war is already usually bad enough).
Remove the Civil Disorder penalty to Advanced Military
Let me know what you think. I also really think someone experienced (one or two players perhaps) need to really play a game going the adv military route. Let's continue this this discussion here: http://www.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=498That takes me to the same thread..
|
|
Velusion
VIP
Joined:
2003-02-07 0:00:15
Posts:
387
Location:
USA
|
|
| 2008-12-03 15:12:28 |
so.
wrong copy paste:
back here:
http://www.civproject.net/forum/viewtop ... =3930#3930
Velusion wrote: I approve of the lowering of Adv Mil cost.
I'm not too keen on the "total" non-cumulative method of assigning penalties. That makes these resolve differently than almost every other civ card which is cumulative.
How would this sound:
Quote:
Up the cost of miliary to 180
Remove the Civil War penalty to Military and Naval W. (civil war is already usually bad enough).
Remove the Civil Disorder penalty to Advanced Military
Let me know what you think. I also really think someone experienced (one or two players perhaps) need to really play a game going the adv military route. We were talking about this change: Quote: NAVAL WARFARE (160)
- Your ships may carry one additional token.
- You may use ships instead of tokens as casualties in conflict.
- CIVIL WAR: A total of five unit points from both factions are destroyed.
- CIVIL DISORDER: One additional city is reduced
- PIRACY: One less city is reduced.
MILITARY (170)
- you construct and maintain ships, and move, after all players not holding Military.
- CIVIL WAR: A total of five unit points from both factions are destroyed.
- CIVIL DISORDER: One additional city is reduced
- Nullifies Diplomacy.
ADVANCED MILITARY (260-240)
- You may use tokens from areas adjacent by land as casualties in battle, but must leave at least one token in each area used this way.
- CIVIL WAR: A total of five unit points from both factions are destroyed.
- CIVIL DISORDER: One additional city is reduced
- Nullifies Cultural Ascendancy. Velusion proposed this: Quote: NAVAL WARFARE (160)
- Your ships may carry one additional token.
- You may use ships instead of tokens as casualties in conflict.
REMOVED: - CIVIL WAR: A total of five unit points from both factions are destroyed.
- CIVIL DISORDER: One additional city is reduced
- PIRACY: One less city is reduced.
MILITARY (170- 180)
- you construct and maintain ships, and move, after all players not holding Military.
REMOVED: - CIVIL WAR: A total of five unit points from both factions are destroyed.
- CIVIL DISORDER: One additional city is reduced
- Nullifies Diplomacy.
ADVANCED MILITARY (260-240)
- You may use tokens from areas adjacent by land as casualties in battle, but must leave at least one token in each area used this way.
- CIVIL WAR: A total of five unit points from both factions are destroyed.
REMOVED- CIVIL DISORDER: One additional city is reduced
- Nullifies Cultural Ascendancy.
_________________
WOH CANGHED TEH KYES ON YM KEBYORAD?
Last edited by Flo de Haan on 2008-12-03 15:19:41, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Flo de Haan
VIP
Joined:
2007-06-22 22:26:30
Posts:
1053
Location:
Netherlands (Heerhugowaard)
|
|
| 2008-12-03 15:14:03 |
What is does:
ADVANCED MILITARY
The original CIVIL WAR drawback of Military now only applies to Advanced Military. No question about cumulative or not, for there is yet only one card that does this.
I like this idea, cause our intention was to keep the maxium of destruction at 5 from both sides. We tried several options to reach this. either way it should not lead to more destruction than nescessary.
This new Advanced Military is fine to me.
MILITARY
Military is never an optional card, but a key-card that certain players REALLY want. I think removing Civil war from it, makes the card a fantastic card.
TWO upsides, for only one downside. a drawback for a calamity that can be traded away. I'd sugest even raise the price to 190 for this.
NAVAL WARFARE:
Let's NOT raise the price for Naval Warfare. I really think this card makes the game more interesting if it retains its reasonable price as it both invites people to play a little more on the military side and it would make people purchase Diapsora more easy. I underlined invites, because any player that doesn't want to play aggressive doesn't have to.
So my proposal:
Quote: NAVAL WARFARE (160)
- Your ships may carry one additional token.
- You may use ships instead of tokens as casualties in conflict.
REMOVED: - CIVIL WAR: A total of five unit points from both factions are destroyed.
- CIVIL DISORDER: One additional city is reduced
- PIRACY: One less city is reduced.
MILITARY (170- 190)
- you construct and maintain ships, and move, after all players not holding Military.
REMOVED: - CIVIL WAR: A total of five unit points from both factions are destroyed.
- CIVIL DISORDER: One additional city is reduced
- Nullifies Diplomacy.
ADVANCED MILITARY (260-240)
- You may use tokens from areas adjacent by land as casualties in battle, but must leave at least one token in each area used this way.
- CIVIL WAR: A total of five unit points from both factions are destroyed.
REMOVED- CIVIL DISORDER: One additional city is reduced
- Nullifies Cultural Ascendancy.
_________________
WOH CANGHED TEH KYES ON YM KEBYORAD?
|
|
Flo de Haan
VIP
Joined:
2007-06-22 22:26:30
Posts:
1053
Location:
Netherlands (Heerhugowaard)
|
|
| 2008-12-03 18:00:07 |
Agreed on all points.
Perhaps we can move the Diplomacy negator ability to another - more deserving card?
|
|
Velusion
VIP
Joined:
2003-02-07 0:00:15
Posts:
387
Location:
USA
|
|
| 2008-12-03 20:24:43 |
One more thing concerning the Militaries:
What about swapping the calamity effects between Military and Advanced Military? So I suggest Military to have the Civil War drawback, and Advanced Military the Civil Disorder drawback.
Reason for this idea to make Military not too attractive to have. The fun about Military in Advanced Civ was that people purchasing the card chose to have a risky card with a good upside and others on purpose not buying it because of the side effects. As a result, this made the card more effective, since the effect fades away as more people purchase it (like what eventually tends to happen with Metalworking). Therefore, I would like to keep the Civil War drawback (the most feared one in my opinion), and as a result I would like to 'trade' it with the side effect of Advanced Military, which is likely not to be purchased by many people because of its price.
|
|
Gerart de Haan
Senior Member
Joined:
2008-01-18 20:29:07
Posts:
58
|
|
| 2008-12-03 20:27:50 |
Quote: Perhaps we can move the Diplomacy negator ability to another - more deserving card? I'm sorry, but can you explain what you mean with this?
|
|
Gerart de Haan
Senior Member
Joined:
2008-01-18 20:29:07
Posts:
58
|
|
| 2008-12-03 21:02:30 |
Gerart de Haan wrote: Quote: Perhaps we can move the Diplomacy negator ability to another - more deserving card? I'm sorry, but can you explain what you mean with this? Military has an ability to make you immune to the diplomacy advance.
|
|
Velusion
VIP
Joined:
2003-02-07 0:00:15
Posts:
387
Location:
USA
|
|
| 2008-12-04 3:08:43 |
Gerart de Haan wrote: One more thing concerning the Militaries:
What about swapping the calamity effects between Military and Advanced Military? So I suggest Military to have the Civil War drawback, and Advanced Military the Civil Disorder drawback.
Reason for this idea to make Military not too attractive to have. The fun about Military in Advanced Civ was that people purchasing the card chose to have a risky card with a good upside and others on purpose not buying it because of the side effects. As a result, this made the card more effective, since the effect fades away as more people purchase it (like what eventually tends to happen with Metalworking). Therefore, I would like to keep the Civil War drawback (the most feared one in my opinion), and as a result I would like to 'trade' it with the side effect of Advanced Military, which is likely not to be purchased by many people because of its price. I'm fine with that.
|
|
Velusion
VIP
Joined:
2003-02-07 0:00:15
Posts:
387
Location:
USA
|
|
|
