Agriculture = Ultimate ICS trait = Too Powerful?

Saint Marcus · September 24, 2003, 06:19

IMHO, Civ3 was already quite a game of ICS-ing. But now with Agriculture, it gets even worse. Extra food means faster pop growth means more settlers can be build means even more expansion.

I know which civs I'll play as. ICS-ing all the way.

statusperfect · September 24, 2003, 08:06

And i know which civ i will play building mines with my industrial workers and rolling over your landfat country with my militaristic horsemen

I think the old traits are equal with the new ones.

This has been playtested by hundreds of people.

sabrewolf · September 24, 2003, 09:02

from another thread, but it fits here

Quote:

What will be the benefits for the Agriculture & Seafaring traits?

Agricultural recieves a bonus food in its City square.
and Agr gets extra food on irrigated desert
agricultural also gets cheaper aqueducts, recycling plants and solar plants.
And if the Agr city tile is next to water the despotism penalty doesn't apply to its food
(source: CFC - chat, edited version)

imho argicultural sounds like an extremely powerful trait, somewhere in the region of industrial.
- no despotism penalty if city is near water, makes cities destined for rexing. the only disadvantage is that OCP or similar concepts might be broken (until now the only disadvantage was that the aqueduct had to be built)
- a bad start on a dry map (desert) is like starting with loads of plains (2f, 1s)
- cheaper aqueducts

edit: forgot to close quote

statusperfect · September 24, 2003, 09:11

If it is next to a river the despotism restriction doesn't apply o the city tiles food production that is

Saint Marcus · September 24, 2003, 10:31

Quote:

I think the old traits are equal with the new ones.

This has been playtested by hundreds of people.

Hardly. and playtesting doesn't mean a thing (since they mostly test for technical flaws and not playability flaws).

And we all know that ICS is THE way to go in Civ, Civ2 and Civ3. With this trait, it suddenly becomes a whole lots easier since your civ is likely to produce food faster and is thus able to build more settlers, and thus expand faster.

I'll play an Agricultural-Industrious/Religious nation, for sure.

Arrian · September 24, 2003, 11:08

I wouldn't say that "we all know that ICS is the way to go" in CivIII. First off, I guess it depends on what you consider to be ICS. If you're talking about city-tile-city, then I really don't think ICS is the way to go in CivIII. City-tile-tile-city... well, that one could certainly argue.

Having said that, pop IS power. Extra food is nothing to sneeze at, and even if you don't plop cities down every other tile, the increased growth rate (and the added ease with which you can get cities up to the magical +5 food/turn) is going to be powerful.

Cheaper aqueducts (assuming the standard 50% discount) could also be big, since that will save you 50 shields per non-lake/river city. It's not quite the shield saver that religious or scientific are, but coupled with the food boost it's lookin' mighty juicy.

-Arrian

Louis XXIV · September 24, 2003, 11:14

One flaw with Agricultual civs that are overlooked.

The Despotism penalty removal only applies to the center-square when you have water nearby.

Do you know how much food you will get from the center square in Despotism without water nearby?
The answer is 2.
In Despotism, you loose 1 food if you are over 2 food. The default is 2, Agricultural gives you 3 (-1 for Despotism and you end up with 2).

You have to build on water to have any effect until Monarchy or Republic

Arrian · September 24, 2003, 11:17

True. That is a weakness. But I often manage to get a good number of cities built on fresh water (I assume ocean doesn't count), so I do expect I'd get quite a boost from this trait in many of my games.

-Arrian

asleepathewheel · September 24, 2003, 13:41

I think an ag/exp civ would be quite nice. quick graineries with that extra food. mmm.

The seafaring trait actually seems to be more powerful than the ag trait IMHO, with that extra movement and reduced sinking along with the other stuff (that I obviously can't remember

)

If that civ got the Lighthouse, you're looking at 5 move galleys. Early naval warfare is that much more accessible.

Dominae · September 24, 2003, 13:56

Agricultural does not make ICS more powerful in particular, because you only get extra Food in cities that are adjacent to fresh water. ICS is defined by placing as many cities anywhere; Agricultural only benefits those cities that are in specific locations (by fresh water). Agricultural makes growth in general powerful. Growth is not particular to ICS.

If you're the type to reload to find those perfect River-full starts (with a couple of Cattle, why not?), you're going to have an explosive start with Agricultural. Then again, you would have an explosive start with any other trait if you do this, so what's the difference? On average Agriculural should not be overly powerful.

Dominae

asleepathewheel · September 24, 2003, 14:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
Agricultural does not make ICS more powerful in particular, because you only get extra Food in cities that are adjacent to fresh water. ICS is defined by placing as many cities anywhere; Agricultural only benefits those cities that are in specific locations (by fresh water). Agricultural makes growth in general powerful. Growth is not particular to ICS.

If you're the type to reload to find those perfect River-full starts (with a couple of Cattle, why not?), you're going to have an explosive start with Agricultural. Then again, you would have an explosive start with any other trait if you do this, so what's the difference? On average Agriculural should not be overly powerful.

Dominae

I agree. To me it seems like the ag trait is best for players who don't reload, as it makes a desert start much more viable.For some reason, It seems i'm much more likely to start adjacent to jungle than desert, however. So instead of a killer, for me, its more of an equalizer.

Dominae · September 24, 2003, 14:16

If you're playing Agr. and your Jungle city is by a River, you're still guaranteed "normal" (10-turn) growth. Let's poprush some Temples!

Dominae

Merepatra · September 24, 2003, 16:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

Hardly. and playtesting doesn't mean a thing (since they mostly test for technical flaws and not playability flaws).

This certainly wasn't true with Conquests testing. While technical testing is really important, playability was a major focus of most of the beta testing.

Our beta testers included a lot of rabid Civers debating every tiny playability point

OPD · September 24, 2003, 16:48

Is the extra food from the city square present at the start?

If so then a city next to a river with a single grassland cow will start with 5 food per turn........ without even irrigating anything......

size 6 after 20 turns?

Perhaps, if adjacent to water, the penalty is imposed at 3 food rather than at 2 food.

Dominae · September 24, 2003, 17:02

Actually an unimproved Grassland with Cattle tile produces +3 Food per turn, meaning that on turn 1 an Agr. civ's capital has +4 Food per turn when working such a tile. You would need to start next to a Flood Plains with Wheat to get +5 Food per turn on turn 1.

Dominae

OPD · September 24, 2003, 17:18

Not if the extra food from the city square present at the start.

4 food from the cow plus 3 in the city square

I think I'm going to assume that the extra food in the city square doesn't kick in untill size 7

Dominae · September 24, 2003, 17:24

You only get 4 Food from the Cattle once it gets Irrigation. It's only the city centre tile that does not suffer from the despotic tile penalty.

2 (Grassland) + 2 (Cattle) - 1 (Despotism) = 3
3 (Cattle) + 3 (Centre) - 2 (Pop) = 4

Dominae

OPD · September 24, 2003, 17:37

ah I see :bonk:

A bit confused perhpas, I understood it to mean all tiles do not suffer teh -1 penalty if next to water.

That would have been cool.

So they only get desert as plains, cheaper aquaducts etc and +1 food?

In this case it's kinda cancelled out should you get a relatively poor start location. A grassland cow is better than +1 in the city square.

Dominae · September 24, 2003, 17:44

Every start without a Grassland Cattle is "poor"?!

Dominae

OPD · September 24, 2003, 17:54

Yeah but perhaps your neighbour with 2 cows will be laughing at your agricultural trait if you only have 1 cow. Especially when he has them both irrigated before you with his industrial worker.

-1 food at 3 rather than 2 under Despo would have been cool for agricultural, irrigating bonus GL

Perhaps agricultural will have more chance of a better start, I guess it's possible if sea-faring is more likely to start on coast. That would make it powerful.

Saint Marcus · September 25, 2003, 07:20

Quote:

This certainly wasn't true with Conquests testing. While technical testing is really important, playability was a major focus of most of the beta testing.

Our beta testers included a lot of rabid Civers debating every tiny playability point

I stand corrected. Conquests seem to be a rare exeption. In my experience as a professional playtester, and judging by most games (Including Civ3 vanilla & PTW by the looks of it), playability playtesting is hardly ever a priority. But I'm glad Conquests is different, I guess they did learn something from PTW.

Quote:

So they only get desert as plains, cheaper aquaducts etc and +1 food?

As said, perfect for ICS (c, t, t, c), or at least extremely rapid expansion. Unballancing, it seems.

KenderBane · September 25, 2003, 08:56

Everything else aside, I'm hoping that none of the new 'standard' civs are both agricultural AND industrial.

Fast pop growth + Fast production = OUCH!

That combo will be tough to stop even if its UU sucks.

Tiberius · September 25, 2003, 10:35

One of the old civs could be agr-ind, too. They are reshuffling all the civs based on the new traits (maybe not all of them, but certainly some).

OPD · September 25, 2003, 11:07

+1 food isn't really unbalancing, no equalization of start locations is. As initail food has such an impact on the game.

I'd still rather have a cow than be agricultural.
Too much is dependant, if you have alot of fresh water it could be potent, but I guarentee anytime I play as Agri there won't be too much water around.
Cheap aquaducts? If you have to build an aqua then you didn't even get your +1 at the start. I suppose cheap granaries was too unbalancing?

Agricultural doesn't look too hot imo,
With Industrial declining perhaps the Babylonians are the way of the future, if they keep the same traits that is.

OPD · September 25, 2003, 11:21

Cheap aqua is a nice touch though

I suppose all citys with +1 was perhaps too powerful so cities w/o the +1 get this as compensation.

WarpStorm · September 25, 2003, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by KenderBane
Everything else aside, I'm hoping that none of the new 'standard' civs are both agricultural AND industrial.

At least one of the Civs has each combination of traits.

Kuciwalker · September 26, 2003, 00:21

Quote:

Everything else aside, I'm hoping that none of the new 'standard' civs are both agricultural AND industrial.

I'd bet Americans are.

player1 · September 26, 2003, 03:29

Quote:

Originally posted by KenderBane
Everything else aside, I'm hoping that none of the new 'standard' civs are both agricultural AND industrial.

Well, Industrial trait did get toned down (50% instead 100% worker bonus).

Myrddin · September 26, 2003, 16:24

Quote:

I'd bet Americans are.

I would assume that the Americans will remain Expansionist, as will the Russsians. After that it is quite difficult to identify who will be expnsionist

joncnunn · September 26, 2003, 16:52

Well, Russia isn't known for Farming or Seafaring, so Russia's traights likely to remain as they currently are.

Well, a real world America would have Industrial, Farming, Expansionist, Seafaring, Commerical, and Scientific. But that would make them no fun to play. (Too easy)

Most likely, America will be Industrial & Farming.