Should an 'Agricultural' CSA be added in an expansion pack?

[lockstep]

In the last weeks, a lot of suggestions for additional civ-specific abilities (CSA´s) were made (see http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=25616). IMO, the most promising CSA would be 'agricultural'. I hope that Civ3´s powerful editor will allow to add this ability, but decided nevertheless to post a poll if it should be included in an expansion pack. I suggest the following:

'Agricultural': Free tech - pottery; Effect 1 - irrigated plains yield more food; Effect 2 - enlarged city size without aqueducts/hospitals

My original suggestion for effect 1 was 'extra food in city center', but this was criticized as a possible encouragement for ICS and therefore scrapped. For the same reason, the 'extra-bonus' for irrigated plains should not apply to grassland or grassland with shields. I´d be interested in further suggestions how to encourage the growth of big cities for an 'agricultural' civ without bringing back ICS (e.g., 'let´s change the size of the food box from 40 to 32').

Effect 2 was already present in SMAC, where the peacekeeper faction could grow their bases to size 9 (instead 7) without hab complexes and to size 16 (instead 14) without hab domes.

Regarding the civilizations that are already included in Civ3, I think that the Chinese could be termed an agricultural and industrious civ rather than militaristic/industrious as they are considered now by Firaxis. Anyhow, the addition of an 'agricultural' CSA would not require the change of some of the present civ´s abilities, but could be applied for additional expansion pack civs (and many people, including myself, are longing for them ).

[Oerdin]

That's a little over powered don't you think? Personally, I hope the expansion pack doesn't contain any new CSAs. There already are enough and adding more only opens the door to greater abuse.

[lockstep]

We don´t know how strong the effects of other CSA´s are. 'Extra commerce in city centre' (commercial) could be very unbalancing if that would mean 10 additional trade 'arrows'. 'Workers work faster' could break the game if that means a threefolds increase in speed. I don´t think that Firaxis has done so, but I also don´t think that it is impossible as a matter of principle to create a balanced CSA that deals with city growth.

OTOH, you could well be right that my specific suggestion (irrigated plains yield more food) is over-powered. Do you think that it still encourages ICS or do you regard a possible 'only a few big cities'-strategy as dangerous?

[jdd2007]

i think we need this csa, but the effects should be less powerful...

[Pembleton]

This would be quite difficult to balance. Anything that promotes growth is overpowered IMO. Pop growth is essential to civ success.

[d_dudy]

Originally posted by Oerdin
That's a little over powered don't you think? Personally, I hope the expansion pack doesn't contain any new CSAs. There already are enough and adding more only opens the door to greater abuse.

i agree, and would like to point out that all real civilizations farm at one point and how well they farm is a result of the land they live on more than anything. that and techniques. if everybody had tractors you'd be amazed how much food underdeveloped countries could make

[Alexander I]

I agree. The more the better.

Expansion comes with two new attributes: Agricultural and Maritime.

Maritime good for Phoenicians, Dutch, Portuguese
Agricultural great for New Zealand!

[Sarxis]

No. Extra food means faster growth, which is just too big of an advantage.

Besides, who would want to play THAT civ anyhow?

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Pembleton
This would be quite difficult to balance. Anything that promotes growth is overpowered IMO. Pop growth is essential to civ success.

Maybe SMAC is a bad example (because ICS was as present there as in Civ2), but the Alpha Centauri (not the SMACX) factions seem to be regarded as reasonably balanced, although two of them had some kind of 'growth advantage':

- The Gainans received one additional nutrient in fungus; this complies with my suggestion of 'irrigated plains yield more food' for 'agricultural' civs.

- The Hive had an SE factor of 'Growth +1'; this would correspond approximately to a food box with 10% smaller size in Civ3 (e.g. 36 instead of 40).

While the Gaian advantage would result in faster growth and bigger cities in theory (because of the larger overall food supply), the Hive advantage would only cause faster growth. I think both approaches would result in an interesting 'agricultural' Civ3 CSA.

Originally posted by Anunikoba
No. Extra food means faster growth, which is just too big of an advantage.

Besides, who would want to play THAT civ anyhow?

So you think no one would play civs with an 'overpowered' CSA?

I would choose an agricultural and industrial civ because large cities with lots of improvements would suit my playstile.

[Arator]

I voted yes. An "agricultural" Confederate States of America should be added to the mix of playable civs! ;^)

[lockstep]

From the updated IGN preview, we know now that workers can´t irrigate land without a fresh supply of water. IMO, that ensures that my proposal of 'irrigated plains yield more food' does not unbalance the game in favour of an 'agricultural' civ. Effect 2 (enlarged city size without aqueducts/hospitals) seems to be more crucial now, as the city size limit without aqueducts (and access to fresh water) is only 6 in Civ3 (it was 8 in Civ2 and, IIRC, 10 in the original game version). I suggest a maximum city size of 8/14 for 'agricultural' civs.

As the poll shows that a CSA tinkering with the population growth rate is a rather controversial issue (at the moment, 15 users voted 'yes' and 11 users 'no' for 'agricultural'), i´d be interested in some more comments from the opposers. Do you think that a CSA number of 6 is enough, do you fear the return of ICS even though irrigation won´t be prevalent in the early and middle game or do you raise other objections?

[orange]

Agriculture societies aren't necessarily big. Letting them grow without aqueducts et al. is unrealistic. But I like farms yeilding more food

[aaglo]

Originally posted by orange
Agriculture societies aren't necessarily big. Letting them grow without aqueducts et al. is unrealistic. But I like farms yeilding more food

Not to grow forever. If the standard city size without aqueduct is 6, maybe the agricultural would be 7 or 8. That is the way SMAC handles this... thingie.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by aaglo
If the standard city size without aqueduct is 6, maybe the agricultural would be 7 or 8. That is the way SMAC handles this... thingie.

I´d rather say 8 than 7, and I also suggest that cities of an 'agricultural' civ can grow to size 14 (instead of 12) without hospitals. I don´t think this is too unbalancing because hospitals will be available early in the industrial age (and therefore probably in the middle of a typical Civ3 game), while the SMAC equivalent of hab-domes could only be built when the typical SMAC game was pretty much over.

BTW, it´s nice to watch the number of pro´s rising steadily.

[zeh]

Will be a good start for a civ be agricultural.
But I think in the later game it won't have a lot of advantages (like militaristic have), since others can build improvements that gives to them almost the same bonus of the agricultural ones.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by zeh
Will be a good start for a civ be agricultural.
But I think in the later game it won't have a lot of advantages (like militaristic have), since others can build improvements that gives to them almost the same bonus of the agricultural ones.

You´re right, the advantages of an 'agricultural' civ will be small when everyone can build hospitals. But the advantages of being 'expansionist' will probably be gone altogether in the middle game.

[splangy]

Ok, here are my ideas

Agricultural-
for every 2 irrigated tiles you get+1 food
Aquaducts needed at 8, hospitals at 14

Maritime-
+1 ship movement
+1 ship los OR 1 trade for every 3 water tiles in a radius

Diplomatic-
Other countries are more likely to accept proposals
Any country that declares war on you gets a BIG rep hit

Patriotic-
Lowered war exhaustion
you cause only five turns of unhapiness if you draft someone

[splangy]

Note- At the time I postd this its

Pro=33
against=11...

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by lockstep
'Agricultural': Free tech - pottery; Effect 1 - irrigated plains yield more food; Effect 2 - enlarged city size without aqueducts/hospitals

Expansionist already has Pottery as a free tech. For some reason, Firaxis insist on Pottery being on the path to Map Making.

There are 7 potential first techs, so there is room for 7 attributes - only, Miltaristic has a choice of two.

They could have given The Wheel to Expansionist, leaving Pottery for Agricultural, but since they used up all 7 first techs by giving militaristic two, I doubt that we'll get another one.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Expansionist already has Pottery as a free tech. For some reason, Firaxis insist on Pottery being on the path to Map Making.

There are 7 potential first techs, so there is room for 7 attributes - only, Miltaristic has a choice of two.

If one really wants additional CSA´s (like me), there are at least two solutions to the free tech issue:

- Attach a free tech to the new CSA that isn´t a 'first tech' in the tech tree.

- Tolerate that two CSA´s have the same free tech.

At the moment, I vote for no. 2, but are amenable to suggestions . BTW, I don´t think that the free tech of a specific CSA is as important as its two gameplay effects.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by splangy
Ok, here are my ideas

Agricultural-
for every 2 irrigated tiles you get+1 food

Interesting suggestion. I like the fact that it would provide a more uniform food bonus than my idea of 'irrigated plains yield more food'. OTOH, it wouldn´t be easy to display this effect in the city screen.

Aquaducts needed at 8, hospitals at 14

Exactly my suggestion . Note that the possibility to reach size 14 (and therefore metropolis status) before the industrial age would provide a very powerful temporary benefit for 'agricultural' civs because of the metropolis´ high defensive bonus and (under some government types) unit support.

Maritime-
+1 ship movement
+1 ship los OR 1 trade for every 3 water tiles in a radius

I decided to slightly modify your suggestion and post a poll about it.

Diplomatic-
Other countries are more likely to accept proposals
Any country that declares war on you gets a BIG rep hit

This idea has also been discussed before. IMO, it would provide interesting gameplay effects, but I can´t really think of a civ that I would wholeheartedly term as 'diplomatic'.

Patriotic-
Lowered war exhaustion
you cause only five turns of unhapiness if you draft someone

This sounds like a fundamentalist government masked as an CSA.

[lockstep]

It´s so easy to ignore the most elegant and simple solutions ...

Effect 1 of an 'agricultural' CSA could be: 'The center city squares of all cities and metros produce extra food' - comparable to the effects of 'commercial' and 'industrious' now revealed by a Civilopedia screenshot.

No food bonus up to size 6. That should definitely hinder using an 'agricultural' civ for ICS.

[Mars]

sure it sounds like a good idea

[Sandman]

How about irrigation spreading like the forests in SMAC?

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Sandman
How about irrigation spreading like the forests in SMAC?

I don´t think that´s a good idea. In contrast to forest, irrigiation is man-made and should only spread via a lot of workers.

[lockstep]

Reading the first comments about Civ3´s actual gameplay (as a European, I don´t have the game yet), I think we can drop the most serious concern regarding an 'Agricultural' CSA: If it encourages ICS or at least fast expansion, the AI opponents will know how to use this feature, too.

[Martinus]

I have the following suggestions for Agricultural Civs:

- Japanese should be Militaristic and Agricultural IMHO (rather than Militaristic and Religious - a "duo" of CSAs they share with Aztecs) - they did wonders with their islands as far as agriculture is concerned.

- Chinese should be Agricultural and Industrious (rather than Militaristic perhaps). In particular if Mongols make it to the expansion pack, they should take the "Chinese" special unit (which is, for all the purposes, the Mongol rider) and Chinese should have some sort of crossbowmen.

- Poles (if they make it to the EXP ) should be Agricultural and (perhaps) Religious - throughout the whole middle ages and most of the industrial era Poland has served as the "granary/breadbasket of Europe". Even today big part of the Polish populace consists of farmers.

[lockstep]

Many thanks for your input, Martinus! Great ideas!

Regarding the Japanese, I also thought that the Militaristic/Religious combo of CSA´s shouldn´t be attached to two civs anymore after an expansion pack has been released. I wasn´t sure which civ should be changed, but your reasoning for the Japanese being Agricultural/Militaristic seems to be funded.

I can´t really comment on the Chinese/Mongol rider, but I definitely think that the Chinese should be Agricultural/Industrious. In fact, this was one of the very reasons that I started this poll.

About the Poles ... yes, if they make it, they could also be an agricultural civ.

After the attendant poll about a 'Seafaring' (or 'Maritime') CSA has been closed (so far, the supporters have a solid majority) and Locutus has updated his 'Expansion pack' thread, I intend to start a thread about the assignment of civs to CSA combinations. I suggest that every combination should be used exactly once; with 8 CSA´s, this would result in 28 civs in total or 12 civs in the expansion pack. However, I don´t think it would be a good idea to choose exactly the top 12 of Locutus´ list (and BTW, this would not include the Poles ), but rather to take only civs with at least 5% of the votes for granted and to choose the rest according to CSA necessities and world map balance out of Locutus´ top 24.