Sorry, but I'm adjusting the way the cards are written.

You summed up:

1. Only 0,1 poplimit benefit:


2. Slave revolt drawback


3. Flood plain drawback:


4. city reduction drawback:


After all discussion: We have to get some result someday
If we all agree these are the four options left:

Merlok proposed for a combination of option 1, 2, and 4.
Right now I am proposing either option 2 or 3.

If we take the City Reduction drawback, I prefer the following (option 5):

Then I like options 1, 2, 3 and 5. When options will be combined, I prefer to combine one of the options 1 and 3 with option 2 and maybe with option 5 too.

Ok, let's sum up after Johannes:
1. Only 0,1 poplimit benefit:


2. Slave revolt drawback


3. Flood plain drawback:


4. city reduction drawback:


5. City reduction adjustment


(sorry Johannes, I changed your last line a bit: 'where' into 'in which')

After all discussion: We have to get some result someday
If we all agree these are the five options left:

- Merlok proposed for a combination of option 1, 2, and 4.
- Flo is proposing either option 2 or 3.
- Johannes likes 1, 2, 3 and 5. When options will be combined, he prefers to combine one of the options 1 and 3 with option 2 and maybe with option 5 too.

When we take option 3, what will we do with areas partially on a flood plain?
Is such an area considered "on a flood plain" for agriculture if there is a black city site on it? And what if there is no city site on it?

This is defined in the rulebook. Currently I'm rewriting the rulebook and I'm rewriting this part as well (Only clearifying thing, not changing rules)

This is the line for v2.11:
- A 'flood plain' is a dark green spot in an area or strechting over several areas. All areas fully or partly covered by this flood plain are considered to be on the flood plain.
- A 'city site' is a black or white square in an area. A white city site is considered to be on a flood plain, a black city site is considered to be not on a flood plain.


used to be:
2.3.2 Flood plains are represented by dark green coloring. Any area that contains such dark green coloring is considered to be on a flood plain.
2.3.3 City sites are represented by small squares. Most city sites are black. White city sites are on flood plains and are vulnerable to floods.


So choosing for option 3, the areas on the flood plain will not be affected by agriculture.

If we would combine it with any other option, a black city site in an area on a flood plain would be the exception and is not considered on the flood plain. Just like the resolution of 'Flood'.
Whenever you reduce a city, the tokens that replace the city ARE on a flood plain and thus will not benefit from Agriculture.

So when a city from a black city site on a flood plain would be reduced, that city will be replaced by the number of tokens equal to the written population limit on the map, so without the Agriculture bonus.
Am I right now?

yes.

I don't like this 5th option, as a city on a '0'-area is reduced to 3 and a city
on a '5'-area also reduced to 3 tokens. Without agriculture you have
reduction to 0 or 5 and with agriculture everything is reduced to three?

I could life with Minimum of ( 3 or Population Limit) or with
Maximum of (3 or Population Limit), but always 3 doesn't make sense for me.

A city on a '0' area is impossible, As you are not allowed to build a wilderness city on such area.

What we all want for all of these options is the following:

1. DO give benefit for the lower areas (we all agree)
2. Don't give benefit for the higher areas (we all agree)

To keep things simple:
- I'm stepping off of my idea of removing the '5's from the map.
This is because in my opinion, this is better reflected by Velusion's Flood plain option.

- I'm stepping off of my initial idea of replacing by 'three tokens in any case'
It might be better to change it to a maximum of three. Still I do like the flood plain option better, which in fact results in 'a maximum of 4'.
(this is because it's simple rule)



- The MAIN problem we all have, is that the card is overpowered because the higher areas benefit too much. (We're talking both '4's and '5's). All of those 4's and 5's are on flood plains and none off a flood plain.

- We all agree on the fact that agriculture SHOULD work for the 0, 1 and 2 areas, don't we?

so we are only discussing what to do on the 3 areas

right?


SO:

All we have to agree on is:

What is the maximum number of tokens allowed to replace a city by?


it's either 3 or 4.

If we agree on this, we can see if we can get a the attributes together that reflects this rule.

The flood plain idea is a clever idea. However it adds complexity to the population growth phase and to the calamity phase (city reduction).

It is the conditionality of the 0,1 proposal and the flood plain proposal that cause me slight concern about adding too much complexity to the game for the sake of fixing agriculture. If a player mistakenly populates an area with agriculture that he/she shouldn't the the effects could be far reaching and irritating for other players. Maybe some playtesting will prove that my concern is unfounded though?

The slave revolt option seems the easiest to administer during the game. However I think we would need to check that we aren't making slave revolt into a monster by making too many advances affect it. slave revolt can be quite nasty in conjuction with a preceeding famine or civil war!

DG.

Well this is exactly what I meant before. In theory it might be reasonable, but in practice it might cause the problems as mentioned.

I was talking about the 0,1,2 proposal, but maybe this is true for the flood plain proposal as well.

However, the difference between these two, is that a flood plain is a clear marked area, where checking each seperate poplimit for the rules is a little more complex, and surely will make errors occur.

We could also say:

add to agriculture:
"-FLOOD: Five additional unit point are destroyed"

or even:
"-Does not work during the resolution of FLOOD"

In fact, it's about the same subject, but simple and hurting the tokens on flood plains, And it's a historically realistic drawback: A flood does not only kill people and destroy cities, it also destroys the agricultural lands.

Why should it add complexity to the population growth???
Indepently of Agriculture you add for each single token one,
and on all other areas two. So all our proposals do not
influence population growth.

Interesting idea. But the problem with a Flood drawback instead of a Slave Revolt drawback is that Flood is non-tradable. I like the "+5 tokens removed" option more. The other option marks me with a question: Should Agriculture does not work for the whole civilization, or just for the affected or vulnerable areas?
And in general, if there is no flood plain, what of the "five additional tokens" must be removed after reducing a coastal city? And what if the player is a secondary victim (and thus have units on a flood plain)?

Anyway, though I don't dislike a Flood drawback on Agriculture, I think a Slave Revolt drawback is better than a Flood drawback (or maybe both, but a drawback on three calamities can be too much.) The two other advances which already aggravates Slave Revolt is Theocracy and Mining. Maybe the Slave Revolt drawback on Theocracy can be removed (also nice for a civic strategy) and instead Theocracy can be made a little weaker: The two commodity cards which are discarded to protect against Iconoclasm&Heresy each must have a face value of at least two. (This is also symmetric to Provincal Empire.) Then a Slave Revolt doesn't become a monster in the eyes of DGatheral.

I proposed this to be added INSTEAD of another option. Never both.

Agriculture shouldn't be THAT BAD.

To me it's either this flood drawback or another drawback. Also I was looking for simple solution, to NOT throw around the system.

What I meant was:

"-FLOOD: Five additional unit point are destroyed"

Five unit points. Just count it up. When I read you previous questions in this topic and other topics, I think you keep mistaking 'unit points' for 'tokens'. Five unit points is either five tokens or one city.

My proposal was menat for both primary and secondary victim. (This stating goes for all cards: Unless it is clearly mentioned for either primary or secondary victim, it's always applied to BOTH primary and secondary victim).

Since it's written on the card it is meant for any single holder of this card that is the victim of Flood. This can be any victim, since FLOOD affects all player that are on the flood plain.


I was not talking about the unit to be ON the flood plain, but just five additional units. This is because most of the time you might not even HAVE five additional units on a flood plain. This way we ensure this 5 extra damage.

Whenever the primary victim has no units on a floo dplain there is no secondary vicitm (as always). My proposal means you should remove your coastal city AND five additional unit points.

"-Does not work during the resolution of FLOOD"

What I meant was actualy the same as during Famine. Whenever you are hit by Flood (both primary and secondary), you don't have the benefit for Agriculture. Just like Famine, you have to remove units. This time, during FLOOD, you first have to remove the normal amount units from the flood plain, then a check for surplus is made without regarding Agriculture, so you are loosing these one extra tokens per area that was taking benefit from agriculture.


SO:

option 1:


option 2:




I prefer option 1.


Why?

We keep suggesting different options.

'adding slave revolt is not enough drawback'
'adding 0,1 subject is complex'
'adding both is too much drawback.


If adding a tradable calamity drawback by itself seems not a strong enough drawback, then why not change it like this to a NON-tradable drawback.

It's simple, strong and deals with the civs that keep taking the benefit from city reduction for the higher poplimit areas which all are on a flood plain.

Some good ideas - how about this rather simple fix:

Instead of having the agriculture check/drop down after the calamity drop - why not have the player drop everything down to the printed number and THEN resolve the the calamity?

Do the same thing with flood plains... all flood plains drop to their printed level and THEN the flood effect happens.