 |
| |
|
|
lockstep
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Current stats per happy face:
Colosseum: 60 shields, 1 maint, 1 culture
Temple: 60 shields, 1 maint, 2 culture
Cathedral: 53.3 shields, 0.67 maint, 1 culture
Temple+Cathedral: 55 shields, 0.75 maint, 1.25 culture
You can see that building a Colosseum when you can build a Temple and/or Cathedral is usually a silly decision. |
However, building a Colosseum under stock rules may be a good decision if a) cathedrals aren't available and b) you already have a temple, given the fact that you can't build a second temple.
I'm voting for YES regarding a maintenance cost reduction to 1, but like to have another vote on shield costs (reduction to 100 or 110).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pvzh
|
 |
Canada
Aug 2002
time: 01:32
|
|
Since, alexman okayed the idea about coloseums, I am putting it here.
Edit: alexman okayed the fact that we can consider such an idea, which does not imply that he agrees with me
I think we need to do something to militaristic trait, since we mangled armies, military great leaders cannot rush great wonders, and leaders/armies were the main advantage of being militaristic.
Current AU Coloseum is 110 shields, 1gtp, 2 content, 2 culture
Some thing to consider:
* add millitaristic flag, so Coloseum could be 120 shields, 1gtp, 2 content, 2 culture and militaridtic. Thus, militaristic civs will have them for 60 shield. Roman republic with coloseums everywhere 
* same as above, and add flag reduce war weariness (maybe with +1 gtp upkeep, but I think it is not good because it will not justify building it for non-militaristic civ).
Last edited by pvzh on 30-11-2004 at 00:24
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
pvzh
|
|
Canada
Aug 2002
time: 01:32
|
|
Well, it will improve Feudalism compare to Monarchy obviously, especially for militaristic civs: easier to control war weariness, which kind of out of place for "war" goverment. I think this is for the good because Feudalism is still sub-par goverment considering that you need to wait for it much longer: whole ancient era, unlike republic or monarchy, which have neat bee-lines. And waiting usually means despotism with standart tile penalty: and that is a BIG opportunity cost for using feudalism.
However, it will definitely help Republic, but republic still needs a nerf IMHO, late republic with markets or even banks (I do not mention stock exchanges), can easily pay 2 gtp, without need to consider switch to monarchy or feudalism: you have even better corruption than monarchy and trade bonus! Plus, nuisance corruption (current republic) is very close to minimal, so there is no push for feudalism either.
I would lower Repblic corruption down to rampant (as Despotism), with a trade bonus it will not be a big deal commerce wise. Implying that Republic is for relatively small and peaceful states (if you want be big go for Monarchy with problematic corruption, or wait longer and go for Feudalism with minimal corruption). Such republic can handle war-weariness Coloseum quite well
The war weariness flag can really make coloseum to shine: as it now it is "dead-end" happieness structure, but with this flag it has a niche and unique role. Plus, 2gpt kind of expensive for just 2 content faces, but with warweariness flag it is ok.
Last edited by pvzh on 30-11-2004 at 01:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
The idea that with armies weakened, the Militaristic trait has virtually nothing left going for it is off target. Cheap barracks can be immensely valuable if a player wants to engage in very early warfare. For the cost savings on six barracks, a player could build up to twelve extra veteran warriors for upgrade to swordsmen. Under the right circumstances, the value of that advantage can be completely out of proportion to the humber of shields saved. In addition, the Militaristic trait provides half-cost harbors and airports, with harbors being especially valuable for connecting islands to trade networks and for making coastal cities more useful more quickly. And promotions to elite enhance the combat capabilities of units independent of the potential for generating leaders. That's not to say that Militaristic is one of my favorite traits; it's not. But the trait does have other things going for it besides just an improved ability to generate leaders for armies. And the Militaristic trait would provide greater advantages for players whose preferred playing style meshes better with the trait's advantages than mine does.
Also, what we've done to weaken armies is certainly not disastrous from the Militaristic trait's perspective. Yes, we've made armies less powerful. But on the other hand, in the stock rules, every hit point in an army comes from units added to it, while in the current AU Mod, armies provide an extra unit's worth of hit points for free. That extra "free unit" worth of hit points offsets at least some of the decrease in the power of armies. And also remember how much more powerful stock C3C armies are compared with the old PtW armies, so our weakening effect is relative to a very strong starting point.
I'm not necessarily opposed to pvzh's proposal. But if we adopt it, I want us to do so for the right reasons and not because we view the Militaristic trait as weaker than it really is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pvzh
|
|
Canada
Aug 2002
time: 01:32
|
|
punkbass2000, all improvements are available to everyone.
Last edited by pvzh on 01-12-2004 at 22:10
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-2003 21:19
thats how RAR and other mods handle it
|