We all agree, I hope, that Agriculture is the best advance in the game. Each civilization holding agriculture is able to have and support nine cities in their associated area, so colflict isn't necessary anymore. Reducing cities is less devastating, and for some areas the civilization benefits from reducing cities rather than suffering from it. But at least it reduces the suffering from many calamities (especially a Slave Revolt.)

So for its price it is too powerfull. Since this project is created to give many strategies an option, it must be an option to not acquire Agriculture too. That can be made by making Agriculture less powerfull, by giving Agriculture a(n additional) drawback, or by increasing its price.

Since there are civilizations who needs Agriculture (which ones by the way?), reducing the price is not a good option, because these civilizations must be able to acquire Agriculture early in the game.

A stated option to reduce the power of Agriculture is that whenever someone reduces a city, the city will be replaced by no more tokens than its population limit, even when the holder of the city have Agriculture. This takes away some benefit from reducing cities, but civilizations having many city sites on population 1 areas are hit the most by this change: After the pop-ex phase on such areas are two less tokens.
I think of another option: Only population 0 areas and popluation 1 areas are affected by Agriculture. Nearly all civilization have such areas associated, but civilizations needing Agriculture have nearly all associated areas (or at least these with city sites) limited to at most one population. Gaining benefit from reducing cities is avoided by this, and the same for unnecessarity of conflicts, while civilizations needing Agriculture 'nearly' gets the full old profit.

A good option to give an additional drawback from Agriculture is that five more tokens are removed during Famine. So for civilizations having both Pottery and Agriculture there is no modifier on Famine. This is a realistic choise because in history Famine became a disaster since people developed and used agriculture, so too many people lived on the place. But Pottery and Agriculture are on the same (credit-)line, and it looks strange that a advance reducing the effect of some calamity gives specific credits to an advance who aggravates the effect of the same calamity.
An additional (realistic?) option is to let Agriculture aggravates the effect of a Slave Revolt. That is realistic, since the most people working on the lands are slaves (same as for Mining.)

But it also is historically right that all civilizations takes Agriculture, since it is one of the most important advances in human history (like fire and the wheel.) So maybe there must be made no change at all. What do you think?

Hi Johannes,

it's a good thing tho create a seperate topic for this discussion. The other one was starting to get chaotic.

At first glance it's nice to have the option for a poll, but later on you discover, that after some good motivation you might change your mind and there is no option to change you poll entry.

Since we have only a reasonable maximum of 10 votes in these polls, I believe the result of the poll is worth nothing in a longer range.

This has been the result of earlier polls.

I think you'd better remove it, or have Velusion remove the initial option for polls, if this is possible.


Secondly I would miss the options to select more that one options like you described. In the end we all might select the last (other) and thus the poll would be worth a thing.


Agree?

Then my opinion on the things you described rather than placing a vote in the poll:

Famine:
I believe the current Famine drawback is a very good one. All areas having more than the poplimit loose a token, in other words, during a famine, you don't get the benefit from it, for all food is eaten or can't be harvested.
In the end, it might result in the same as 'an additonal five' cause you have to remove tokens for the calamity. The larger civs (not the ones that NEED the advance) get hit more than the smaller, so the current drawback seems more fair to me.

Price:
As you mentioned, some Civs NEED this card. therefore I wouldn't rasie its price. Maximum raise would be 10, but I'd rather give an additional drawback. Especially on a tradable calamity. Keeping the card affordable and giving this drawback on slave revolt makes the civs that really NEED this card, able to trade away Slave Revolt.

Slave Revolt:
Like mentioned, I think this drawback is a good and fair addition to the card. Players can trade it away it really would hurt.

City Reduction:
I don't think it's unfair to have players only get their poplimits for their reduced cities. Some civs have a downside on lack of space, but have some other upsides.
Besides, I think your option makes the card very complex. Cities on 0-limits are impossible anyway.

If we would choose for an option like that, I'd rather change it to:
'When reducing a city, any player holding Agriculture replaces his city by three tokens, regardless of the population limit. A city is still worth five unit points, but a player holding Agriculture cannot choose to replace his city by another amount of tokens than three.'.
And on the card:
"In case of city reduction a city is replaced by three tokens."

1. Three doesn't give you six (but five) for a city next turn (so no direct benefit)
2. Creates the same result as you would prefer (helping the lower poplimit areas).
3. Still it doesn't give the higher poplimits six+2 tokens next turn.
4. It's a simple line.

I think that would be a very interesting approach. This would still support
the civs in need, others could choose to skip the card.

I guess I misunderstood your proposal.

I thought you meant, that agriculture would only help during city reduction for the 0 and 1 areas, but you mean in any case of agriculture. (that's why I mentioned cities on 0-areas are impossible.)

Now I reread your post after Merlok's reply.

I think you are right that THIS would be a nice option.

Sorry for not reading well.

I will read it carefully again.

If I understand you right, this is what you mean:



Am I right?

At least that is what I mean, hopefully also what Johannes means.

Agriculture would be used to make infertile "0,1-areas" to fertile ones.
But it can't be used to make a very fertile area (3-5 population max)
to an even more fertile one.

Maybe we have to discuss the "2-areas" again.
Droping the agriculture support for these could heavily disturb the game
balance. Still having the support for these wouldn't change too much for
the game, as there are only a few 3,4,5-areas on the map. It's a bit tricky
and should be playtested.

Johannes, thanks for setting out the issue(s) clearly. I am of the opinion that agriculture is slightly overpowered at present even after the very good rule stating agriculture does not count for the primary victim of famine.

I agree that increasing the price of the advance is not the answer. In a way it is a card that should be accessible to civilizations fairly early on and also countries like Hellas, Nubia, Parthia and Saba require the card in order to compete.

I think that to just make the card apply to 0 and 1 pop limit areas weakens the card too much. Possibly, I would support it only working on 0,1,2 or 3 areas but, as it would make the game a bit more complicated to play, I would rather not make agriculture conditional.

I see your point about city sites on low pop limits being much less viable if we make agriculture have no effect during city reduction. In my mission to make countries like Egypt with multiple 3, 4 and 5 pop limit city sites less able to profit from city reduction calamities I have forgotten that countries like Saba with mulitiple 1 pop limit city sites will be very disadvantaged if we change this rule. Therefore I would be happy to withdraw my proposal to make agriculture ineffective during city reduction.

I quite like the additonal effect of Slave revolt and would quite like to see this playtested. If five additional tokens proves too many, maye 3 additional tokens?

DG.

In fact, we tried changes on Advanced military, military and naval warfare, where we stepped of from the 'additional five' (or 'five less' in reducing or agravating a calamity. (but an additonal '2' or '1'.)
Some complaints came later, that it would be very strange to have just one card that doesn't use this system. (I actually agreed on that).
Finally we changed these cards to another option.

For this card, I think about the same subject.

Maybe the slave revolt will be too much. But if that doesn't work. I'd rather look for another option than changing it from 5 to 3.

Just to keep some symmetry in the game.



Johannes' option:

I do like Johannes' idea (after reading it the right way) at first glance, (when looking at it intention) but I do agree on both Merlok and David that it creates some complexity in the game.

In theory it might work, (regardless of which of the 0,1,2,3 areas are counted in), but in practice, it becomes very difficult to both keep track of, and you might accidentily agriculture the other areas as well, and it's hard for new player to understand and it's hard to refrain players from cheating.
In addition, it might take a lot of extra time each turn.

There's nothing wrong with complex cards, but maybe this complexity for such a 'basic' card is to be avoided.

I'd rather look for a simple solution.

If the problem is the '5'-areas: When I take a closer look, there are only two '5'-areas on the board. (one in Egypt, one in Indus). Is that such a big problem? If so, why not change these to 4 areas on the map.

This takes away 1 token for each of these civs, and takes away a problem.


Johannes was talking about 0,1-areas
Merlok was talking about 0,1,2-areas
David was talking about 0,1,2,3-areas

If would consider David's option and change the two '5's to '4's, we are only talking about removing agriculture for the '4'-areas.

I wonder if that would be the right option, it's kinda complex and strange.

There is a basic rule with the same complexity, namely the rule of how many tokens may be added on an area during the population expansion phase: Either the number of tokens, or 2. The option of Agriculture has also two possibilities for an area: Either a bones or not a bonus, depending on something as simply as the prerequisite for applying the pop-ex rule.
And in the poll I stated "low population limit" because I already expected someone who would propose to change the contition to "a higher number than 1 or lower". But since there are only a few pop-limit 3+ areas I am questioning whether this rule change is a real change when we allow 2+ areas to have a bonus too. But a playtest can give the answer.

Speaking about polls, when people vote after reading some discussion or when they have a mind about it what doesn't change anyway, I think a poll can be a good addition to this topic. And I didn't add the option "more changes" because the number of options are so large that I expect to learn nothing from votes for that option.

About the Slave Revolt drawback: I think 5 is a good number (it was 5 with Mining in Advanced Civilization) because most nations haven't 20 or more tokens on the board anyway. So in practice the addition often is only around 3.

And both descriptions of a proposed version of Agriculture, written in a quote box, are the descriptions I meant, or I think the one who had made the option meant with stating that option.

Indeed this is a complex rule for newcomers. Most of the time misinterpreted as either double the tokens or adding 2 tokens in all cases.



I don't understand what you mean here.

Could you please explain, maybe including a quote.

I was speaking about the following descriptions:


The first option was your own counter-proposal what was speaking about city reduction. When I understand it right, does that mean that a reduced city on a population limit 1 area will be replaced by three tokens? If so, then there are two tokens more on the area than the population limit of that area. Shouldn't one token be removed as in the "remove excess tokens phase" or does only a player holding Agriculture have to do this when being the primary victim of Famine?
The second option is what I mean with the option that Agriculture only works for population limit 0 and 1 areas, combined with the option of the Slave Revolt drawback.

Catching up now....

Having it only work on 0,1 spots and removing the penalty for slave revolt is attractive. The card would be still be very attractive for some civs and only moderately attractive for others....

Another idea that will help in limited ways: Agriculture will not work on flood plains.

Hey, that a nice one too!

I think this is the simple solution I was thinking about that still takes away the excess tokens for the larger popareas, where it benefits the lower ones.

In fact, areas on a flood plain already have this 'agricultural' benefit.

Do you mean:



or





I'd go for one of these two options.

So we have four basic options right now:

0,1 drawback:


slave revolt drawback


no flood plain drawback:


city reduction drawback:


I would love to see a combination of 1, 2 and 4.