On the Agricultural trait.

[Dominae]

Hi all,

Other than the gpt and Corruption bugs, the major buzz right now about Conquests is the Agricultural trait. Some say it's too strong. Some like it that way. Here, I'm first going to first defend the Agricultural trait, claiming that it's not as strong as people think. Then I'm going to make the case that it's nonetheless too strong, and propose a way to balance it.

1. Agricultural is balanced by its map-dependency.

Ever play an game as an Agricultural civ with starting location that has no access to fresh water? I have. And let me tell you, until reach Monarchy or Republic, games like that make you wish you had picked another trait instead. Just like Seafaring on a Pangea map, or Expansionist on an Archipelago map, the Agricultural trait is a lot worse on Dry maps or even standard map with no Rivers or lakes close to the starting location.

How common is it for to get a "bad" Agricultural start? Well, I ran a little test (no, Catt, I unfortunately did not get drunk): I started 50 games as the Incans on all-default settings maps, and used the first few turns to scout around to get a good idea of the quality of the starting location. I came up with the following rating system for starts, relative to the Agricultural trait:

"Good": Immediate access to fresh water plus multiple lakes and/or rivers at least 5 tiles long. Basically what you want to get every time you play Agricultural.

"Average": Either immediate access to fresh water in the form of a single lake or a short river, or delayed access (not within the capital's radius) to fresh water in the form of maximum two medium-sized rivers. You still get good mileage out of Agricultural here.

"Bad": No access to fresh water within 6+ tiles of the starting location, and very little promise beyond that. Agricultural will do nothing for you here until you switch to Monarchy or Republic.

Note that this classification has nothing to do with the overall quality of the starting locations; it only deals with fresh water access. A 5-Cattle, no fresh water start is classified as "bad" for Agricultural purposes.

I've included screenshots below of exemplar starts in each class.

Here's what I found (out of 50 starting locations):

Good: 11
Average: 20
Bad: 19

What does this mean? Well, there are many ways of looking at it.

1. Only 78% of Agricultural starts are "balanced" in the sense that they do not utterly overshadow the rest of the traits.

2. In other words, in only 1 out of 5 games will the Agricultural trait be "overpowered" (i.e. the equivalent or worse of playing Expansionist on a Huge Pangea map).

3. In 38% (almost 2 out of 5 games) the Agricultural trait does sweet nothing until you get out of Despotism. This goes a long way toward balancing the trait on average.

2. By reloading, players do not allow Agricultural to be balanced.

Let's, for the moment, assume that my sample size is large enough to be representative of what the map generator comes up with across all map settings. Here comes the big question:

As a player, do you reload to avoid "Bad" Agricultural starts? Check out the third screenshot below: it's a pretty decent starting location, no? Yet an Agricultural civ can do no more with it than a Scientific civ can (until Monarchy or Republic). If you do reload such starts (and worse ones), you're un-balancing the Agricultural trait. If you also reload "Average" starts as I've classified them, there's no question that the Agricultural trait will be the best one hands down for you.

Note that this is not an argument against reloading bad starts. If you like to reload until you get a decent starting location, that's up to you. This behaviour will serve you well across all traits, except for Agricultural[/I] where it will serve you exceptionally well. In other words, reloading to get a good start as an Agricultural civ has a far more profound effect on the game as reloading to get a good start as any other civ. This is why I'm claiming that the Agricultural trait is unbalanced by reloads.

3. Agricultural is nonetheless one of the best traits.

Let's go back to my 50 test runs. Lumping the "Good" and "Average" starts together, we can see that, assuming no reloads, in 62% of games as an Agricultural civ you get a nice boost in REXing power. That's what the Agricultural trait is designed to do. As we all know, REX is a very important part of Civ3, so I can safely state that in 62% of games the Agricultural player will have a stronger early-game than his or her non-Agricultural opponents. Since in Civ3 early power typically translates into late-game power, what all this comes down to is that Agricultural games are hands-down stronger than other games 62% of the time.

Thankfully, 38% of the time Agricultural games do not provide any significant boost in REXing, and therefore are just average with respect to games with other traits. But is that true?

Although 38% of the time Agricultural is average at REXing, 100% of the time it's powerful in the mid-game once a switch to Monarchy or Republic is complete. Make no mistake, a +3 Food surplus in every city is quite strong when entering the Medieval era. Along with the ability to get 3 Food out of Grasslands (no more despotic tile penalty), almost any city in an Agricultural empire can transform into a semi-efficient Worker/Settler pump. And let's not forget the half-price Aqueducts, which mean that all those fast-growing cities will not slow down for long on the way to size 12.

Essentially my point here is that the advantage an Agricultural civ gets upon a government switch (namely, 3 Food in the city center tile in every) is quite strong, and almost trait-worthy all by itself. Attach that to super-fast REX capabilities 62% of the time, and you've got a trait that's on average a step above all the other traits.

4. Agricultural should only be powerful in the early-game.

Here's my proposal for balancing the Agricultural trait (beyond disallowing reloads!):

Only cities adjacent to fresh water get the +1 Food bonus to the city center tile. As usual, this bonus would not be subject to the despotic tile penalty.

As you can see, this means that Agricultural civs would get no particular bonus for switching out of Despotism, because cities not adjacent to fresh water would not get any Food bonus at all. Such cities would still, of course, benefit from half-price Aqueducts.

The idea here is to make the Agricultural trait good at REXing, and little else. The lead an Agricultural civ gets (62% of the time!) from this early boost should not be cemented by anything come the Medieval age.

Undoubtedly, even with this change Agricultural would still be a top trait. But at least it would not be so strong as to make all the others pale in comparison. Currently, I believe the Agricultural trait is stronger than Industrious was in Play the World, and that's bad.

5. It's good to balance things.

Many people will read this article and say: "But I like the Agricultural trait, leave it as it is!". Many people said this of the Industrious trait, and it's an indication of how much people liked it that it took so long to change when it was clearly head and shoulders above the rest. A lot of the appeal of Civ3 involves a sense of empowerment (many players play for "Ultimate Power"), and more powerful things empower better than less powerful things (duh).

But then there's a fine line between giving players things that make them feel powerful, and creating a replayable game. Replayability involves variety. And when all you do is play Industrious/Agricultural because it's the best trait (or, when you dislike not playing those because you feel less powerful!), variety goes down, and with it replayability. If you like to reload, Agricultural will still be the best for you, but hey, that's your own business. (There's also the issue of balancing the traits for an interesting MP and PBEM environment, but I'm not going to go into that here.)

So, my plea is to balance where necessary, to make this above all a game about choices. And Agricultural is in serious need of balancing.

Thanks for reading.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Good.

[Dominae]

Average.

[Dominae]

Bad.

[DrSpike]

A neat summary........I pretty much agree with all of it. I posted in the thread that lead me here "With great land the trait is amazing.........if you restart until you get good land it's probably the best trait. For me, if the trait is balanced its only because sometimes you only get the bonus for the capital initially."

The point about explosion in Republic needs to be underlined. For a builder that hits Republic between 500BC and 1AD with 20 cities or so, all of which are small, the explosion effect is very powerful.

I agree this is overpowered right now......whether it is as bad as industrious in earlier versions is tricky. After all, though some were arguing its overpoweredness for a while early on ( ) it took a while for that view to become the conventional wisdom.

We are only 3 weeks into C3C. However, I tentatively endorse the balance suggestion here.

[donZappo]

Heh... I must say it's rather strange to see that last start classified as "bad" but I understand your point completely. I've run two test games as an agricultural civ and have gotten a "good" and an "average" start in those games. It did seem rather unbalancing how I leveraged a very strong REX into a more powerful Middle Age and made the games both a little too easy. I played one of these games on Monarchy, and the other on Emperor, by the way. I haven't played an agricultural civ since then as removing the challenge removed the fun. It would have been a lot different if I had gotten "bad" starts but those two games did leave a bad taste in my mouth. Definitely a good trait to have in the game, but I agree that your proposed change would seem to remove a lot of the early/mid-game overpowering of the trait.

[Catt]

Great thread

I am not yet ready to agree or disagree on many specifics nor your conclusions (with very little gameplay experience under my belt), but you make a strong case just based on the analysis of relevant game factors.

Although I definitely agree that the REXing power of Ag is the most important of its features by far, I may revisit the relative importance of the extra food in all cities after depsotism. As you point out, it is nothing to sneeze at even though less powerful than the early advantage -- not only does it help with worker / settler pumps after despotism, it also allows each Ag city to work an extra citizen on a mined hill rather than a flatland -- on hilly / mountainous maps, that extra 3 shields per turn can be very important in the Middle Ages wonder races (now that MGLs don't help in that regard).

And Dom, if you planned these tests a little better, it would have been quite easy to get dead drunk in the process

Catt

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Catt
And Dom, if you planned these tests a little better, it would have been quite easy to get dead drunk in the process

You're right: a swig per reload would have been a lot of beer in a short amount of time. Ah well. There will surely be more tests to run.


Dominae

[ducki]

Extremely well written, Dominae.
I only have two "issues" with the post.
First, the rating of the starting position, as well as the effect of restarts, does not take into account the corresponding starting positions of the AIs and which AIs you are playing against. Within the testing parameters, I agree with your rating system, mostly, but I think starting position ratings are also extremely subject to difficulty level and relativity to AI starting positions. What looks like a good start might actually be bad if you are playing against 3 other Ag AIs and they all start in River-rich plains+hills.
I just don't agree that restarting has any affect on whether a trait or its impact on any given game is balanced.

Just like Seafaring on a Pangea map, or Expansionist on an Archipelago map

For true balance, I think you have to play Random Everything an never restart. Anything else you do to influence what the RNG throws at you is just as unbalancing as restarts, IMO. The game options are a way for the player to stack the deck, either in his favor or in favor of the AI - it's up to the player what sort of game he wants, true, but the fact that player chooses to stack the deck doesn't mean the deck is inherently stacked.

What a ramble. Basically, I don't really agree with the premise that Ag is overpowered just because the player is allowed to restart. In fact, I'd go so far as to say there should be a checkbox on the options page for what sort of start you want.
So you're playing Expansionist+Commercial - you'll naturally, most likely, choose a largish map and probably pangea.
Playing Seafaring+Military? Probably a smallish 'pelago.
Agri+Ind? Hot+Wet, sure, but give me a checkbox that says "River Start" and a listbox that says "Me only, All AIs only, Everyone".
Players that are going to restart for a River are going to do it. Why not at least allow them to stack the deck in the direction they want for the challenge they want?
It's no less unbalancing, IMO, than using the already existing options for the other traits you mentioned.

As far as balancing it to be an EarlyGame only benefit, I disagree there too. I don't really want another Expansionist-style trait. Blech.

Ag is a strong trait, no doubt about it, but I think that you can't call it unbalanced because _some_ players have a different playstyle than yourself. Maybe I just read it wrong, but despite the disclaimer, it read - to me - like the unbalance stems from restarts, not from any given iteration of the Map Generator and not from the inherent attributes of the trait. Plop Ag+Com down in a desert island and you've got SVC's cousin. Plop it down in the center of a lush, river-laden pangea and you have a GoUP.
That seems balanced to me. Unbalanced would be the ability to thrive - not just survive, but thrive - no matter what the circumstances, which makes me think that Egypt is more unbalanced than Ag.

All this just to say I disagree. Maybe we just define unbalancing differently.

[Dominae]

Thanks for your comments, all. ducki, since you're the first to disagree, you're also the first for me to target.

Originally posted by ducki
The effect of restarts, does not take into account the corresponding starting positions of the AIs and which AIs you are playing against.

In a random map, you typically do not have control over these factors. Therefore they do not have anything to do with restarting for the sole purpose of getting a better starting location. My point is that, all other things being equal, restarting favors the Agricultural trait far more than the other traits. So it's no suprise that many people love Agricultural, given the propensity for players to restart.

I just don't agree that restarting has any affect on whether a trait or its impact on any given game is balanced.

If you play the game enough, I think you'll find that all your best games involve an Agricultural civ and a river-heavy start. REX is that important, and extra Food in your first 5 cities just makes it so much easier.

For true balance, I think you have to play Random Everything an never restart. Anything else you do to influence what the RNG throws at you is just as unbalancing as restarts, IMO.

I agree.

The game options are a way for the player to stack the deck, either in his favor or in favor of the AI - it's up to the player what sort of game he wants, true, but the fact that player chooses to stack the deck doesn't mean the deck is inherently stacked.

Again, I agree. My point is not that it's unfair to stack the deck. Rather, it's that the Agricultural trait allows a player to stack the deck too much. A river-heavy Agricultural start is 1) more common with restarts and 2) more powerful than both Huge map Expansionist and Archipelago Seafaring maps. What you get is both the best REXing capabilities and a strong mid-game (with government switch) to follow through. That's just too much power.

Players that are going to restart for a River are going to do it. Why not at least allow them to stack the deck in the direction they want for the challenge they want?
It's no less unbalancing, IMO, than using the already existing options for the other traits you mentioned.

That's where you're wrong! It is more unbalancing.

Note that I'm not calling to disallow restarts. You seem to think that I am. All I'm saying is that if you're the restart type, you're going to love the Agricultural trait. So there's no use in complaining that the trait is too strong when the cause is restarts, not the trait.

Unbalanced would be the ability to thrive - not just survive, but thrive - no matter what the circumstances, which makes me think that Egypt is more unbalanced than Ag.

There are many civs that are strong across map types. That does not make them "unbalanced", that just makes them "good". The problem with Agricultural is that it's so powerful that all the Agr. civs become "good", and all others become "average" in comparison. Yes, even Egypt.

---

Notice that all my comments about restarts are just that: comments. I'm not calling for everyone to stop restarting lest the game blow up. What I am calling for is a reduction in power of the Agr. trait because (as you've just said yourself) it's the best trait whether you reload or not (on average).


Dominae

[Aeson]

Don't forget about the extra food from irrigated deserts. That in and of itself can be a lifesaver nonpareil. It takes many of the truely horrid starts and makes them at least average.

Taken as a whole, Agricultural is about 3 traits rolled into one. If you're on rivers, you have the food bonus from the start. If not, you get half priced Aquaducts and the food bonus a little later. As a failsafe, if all you have is a dinky little pond in the middle of the desert, you're better off (if Industrious too) or even with (if not Industrious) a purely grassland start (Industrious) with any other trait. It covers just about everything except for tundra/mountain/hill starts with no rivers and nowhere to expand to. Even then it's better than anything else because eventually you'll squeeze a bit more food out of the land.

I think Agricultural is gamebreaking when combined with a beeline for Republic or Monarchy (available every game) and/or a river start. Given both it's just silly. Expand like normal or better until around 1000BC, and then explode. I've seen a couple of very scary (relatively speaking, they all are scary early on ) AI on Sid that work the same way. 2x the population of a non-Agricultural AI early on. No other trait in the hands of the AI can even come close.

[ducki]

Good stuff, Dom.

So there's no use in complaining that the trait is too strong when the cause is restarts, not the trait.

Either I misread that, or you agreed with me in that it's the restarts that cause the imbalance, not the trait.

There are many civs that are strong across map types. That does not make them "unbalanced", that just makes them "good". The problem with Agricultural is that it's so powerful that all the Agr. civs become "good", and all others become "average" in comparison. Yes, even Egypt.

This is where we are probably up against the 'agree to disagree' wall. Ag is stronger than other civs in a particular situation whereas Egypt is strong in nearly every situation.
The fact that the player will seek out the situation that is advantageous to their civ, including Ag+Rivers, doesn't mean Ag is overpowered, just popular.
People prefer to play GoUP over SVC, for the most part. Granted, here in the Strat forum, we've got more than our fair share of masochists/underdogs, but the mass of the players want to win and to get loads of wonders and to see just how big of an evil overlord or benevolent dictator they can become.
So I think you'll see a lot of folks playing primarily Egypt and Maya, neither of which I think are inherently overpowered.

If you said to me let's play a comparison epic game at Monarch(or even my first Emperor game) and we'll make everything except for the Civ random...
...I'd pick Egypt because I think they are stronger in all but the most advantageous-to-agriculture start.
That tells me that Rel+Ind is more generically powerful than Agr+Ind.
Yes, Agr+Ind is a recipe for dominance...
if and ONLY if you start with enough river to make it so.

The IFF part of that says to me that it's a balanced trait.

Agr. trait because (as you've just said yourself) it's the best trait whether you reload or not (on average).

Noooo, I didn't say that. If it seemed that way, hopefully the above will clear that up.
Personally, the "best" trait whether you reload or not is Industrious followed closely or tied with Religious, and in combination they form what I think is the strongest - generically, map-independently speaking - civ.
There is (as I said) one situation in which Agr trumps Rel OR Ind(but not both) and only one - a river start. Industrious gives you the same benefit from 4000BC to the end, and Religious is strong from almost 4000BC until your last Government change at the very least.
And neither of those is map dependent.
They are always as good on one map as another.

Just to repeat, I do not feel that Ag is the strongest trait, generically, empirically.
Ag is, however, stronger than other traits IFF you have plenty of fresh water.


P.S. I don't think we'll see Ag-addicts in the same way we see Ind-addicts like myself. (Hi, I'm ducki and I've been addicted to speed for 2 years now.)

[Dominae]

I've seen a couple of very scary (relatively speaking, they all are scary early on) AI on Sid that work the same way. 2x the population of a non-Agricultural AI early on. No other trait in the hands of the AI can even come close.

Yes, the AI uses Agricultural rather well. About the only silly thing that it does with it is assign it's first Laborer to a Forest tile in a new city, in order to balance Food and Shield production. Given all the MPs it keeps in its cities by default, this is surely a mistake because it can definitely deal with the fast growth early on. Nonetheless, it has also been my experience the strongest AIs are Agricultural.

It's a shame, too. Finally a game mechanic that the AI uses well, and it's too powerful! I'm not sure which is worse: Agricultural, which is too good, or Seafaring, which is only good in the hands of the human player.

Oh, and the Desert Irrigation ability is definitely non-trivial.


Dominae

[pvzh]

I would suggest the simple balancing solution which would tone down restart problem as well.

+1 food in city square ALWAYS subject to tile penalty. Thus, on river/lake or not will make no difference, so no point for restarting.

Trait start working at full after switch to more advanced form of government.

In general, I do not think it is good to give any traits such crucial advantage as REXing power. 1/2 priced granaries were dropped for a good reason.

[ducki]

I'd forgotten about the desert thing. Yes, that is non-trivial, but still dependent on nearby freshwater.

pvzh - I think that's going too far and against the spirit of agricultural. I'd rather see it be a trade-off - +1 food, -1 shield or something similar.

[OPD]

Originally posted by Dominae
Notice that all my comments about restarts are just that: comments. I'm not calling for everyone to stop restarting lest the game blow up. What I am calling for is a reduction in power of the Agr. trait because (as you've just said yourself) it's the best trait whether you reload or not (on average).

Sometimes I wonder whether I've actually got any better at civ or whether I'm just more picky about start locations.

Agr is damn good, kinda like each city starting with half a granary. But you can't really expect people to not reload just like you can't expect them to not reload if they are Seafaring and start far from the coast.

The thing is it could seriously unbalance Pbem play. The odds are already, typically, slightly unbalanced due to start locations. But this could go too far. In a game against someone with agr and an excellent river start it wouldn't matter how good you were or how much better you played. The good thing about Ind when it was so strong was that everyone could be Ind and things be equal. With agr even if everyone picks it some will be much more powerful than others.

[Dominae]

Double-post.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by ducki
Either I misread that, or you agreed with me in that it's the restarts that cause the imbalance, not the trait.

We're starting to go around in circles, ducki. Here are my opinions:

1. Agricultural is not as strong as people think. There's a lot of buzz around it right now because when people restart to get a "good" Agr. start (which they often do), the trait is extremely powerful. The trait is balanced by the fact that it's map-dependent. If you do not let this map-dependency take effect (i.e. you restart), the trait is too strong in comparison to the other traits.

2. Even if you do let the map-depency factor take effect (i.e. you do not restart often or at all), on average the trait is more powerful than any other. This "on average" qualification defauts your "Industrious is always good" clause. It's an interesting question to ask which is better: pre-C3C Industrious, or the current Agricultural. I'm inclined to say it's Agr.

3. It's not healthy for one trait to be better than the others, even if it is a map-dependent trait. In fact, Agr. is powerful enough that it encourages players to reload more often, which cannot be right.

Which of these three do you disagree with?

If you said to me let's play a comparison epic game at Monarch(or even my first Emperor game) and we'll make everything except for the Civ random...
...I'd pick Egypt because I think they are stronger in all but the most advantageous-to-agriculture start.
That tells me that Rel+Ind is more generically powerful than Agr+Ind.
Yes, Agr+Ind is a recipe for dominance...
if and ONLY if you start with enough river to make it so.

You're overestimating the new Industrious. Agricultural beats it hands down, on average. Even without a River start, I bet once I switched out of Despotism I would put your Industrious Workers to shame.

The IFF part of that says to me that it's a balanced trait.

Yes, this is my point about restarts. Unfortunately, it's not balanced enough.

I don't think we'll see Ag-addicts in the same way we see Ind-addicts like myself. (Hi, I'm ducki and I've been addicted to speed for 2 years now.)

Take a look at any PBEM game that is starting these days. Chances are almost every player will be playing Agricultural. That's not a fluke, IMO.


Dominae

[pvzh]

I do not feel that imposing tile penalty always (on +1 agr. bonus) would be over nerf. Many other traits works only after time: commercial, scientific, religious. +1 Food in city center even after switch is much better than commercial, religious or scientific boni (not at once, obviously).

[vmxa1]

Very interesting and thanks for the effort. I only have one point to bring up and that is that to me most of the attractiveness of the trait is lost by the civs that have it.
Most have an extremely early UU and that is a big problem to me. About the only one that does not is the Dutch and they have seafaring. I do not find this a very attractive trait, even on maps with lots of water.
The civ I would be most interested in Mayans, but they have JT, now that is early and replaces a unit you now want to use badly, the archer.

So all in all you have to give up something to get ag as a trait, so I am not so sure it is in need of a fix. I just don't use it any more as I was sick of getting those quick GA's.

Now if say China switched Mil for Ag, that would be another story.
Even the Arabs switching Exp for Ag, would make me join your cause.

[ducki]

Originally posted by Dominae


We're starting to go around in circles, ducki. Here are my opinions:

1. Agricultural is not as strong as people think. There's a lot of buzz around it right now because when people restart to get a "good" Agr. start (which they often do), the trait is extremely powerful. The trait is balanced by the fact that it's map-dependent. If you do not let this map-dependency take effect (i.e. you restart), the trait is too strong in comparison to the other traits.

If you change your last phrase to be "the trait is stronger in comparison to the other traits," I'd agree. I disagree that it's "too strong".

2. Even if you do let the map-depency factor take effect (i.e. you do not restart often or at all), on average the trait is more powerful than any other. This "on average" qualification defauts your "Industrious is always good" clause. It's an interesting question to ask which is better: pre-C3C Industrious, or the current Agricultural. I'm inclined to say it's Agr.

If there was a way to test this that would be significant, I'd love to participate; however, MP wouldn't work because player skill differs. Good for an AU course, maybe. I still think, though need to test more, that Industrious is still generically stronger and Agriculture is situationally stronger.

3. It's not healthy for one trait to be better than the others, even if it is a map-dependent trait. In fact, Agr. is powerful enough that it encourages players to reload more often, which cannot be right.

I agree that one trait shouldn't be always better than all the others in every situation. I disagree that restarting is bad. I think we're just seeing a magnification of the importance of a good start. Some folks won't play anything with less than a cow, some require fresh water, some demand luxuries, some want all those. Agriculture, as a trait, has simply put the spotlight on the importance of a good start and the practice of restarts.

Which of these three do you disagree with?

I had to break your 3 down further, and 2 contradicted 1, but overall, we agree on a lot of details and disagree on the big picture.

You're overestimating the new Industrious. Agricultural beats it hands down, on average. Even without a River start, I bet once I switched out of Despotism I would put your Industrious Workers to shame.

I'm nowhere near your skill level, Dom, but we could try a PBEM; although...

Take a look at any PBEM game that is starting these days. Chances are almost every player will be playing Agricultural. That's not a fluke, IMO.

This is a big problem with SP games that add MP. It's near impossible to balance a SP game to be balanced MP. Individual player skill is too big a factor that the only way to balance would be to let the AIs play each other and see what happens, but we all know the AI isn't that bright.
It might not be a fluke. Then again, it might just be a MP anomoly - if you don't get the early game advantage, or at least enough growth to crank out units, your enemy will. How many MP games make it to the Modern Era? How many are over before Industrialization? Is (competitive) MP inherently early-game-centric or am I imagining that?


I'm willing to be proven wrong, I just don't see Agr as inherently overpowered the way you guys do. (Insert generic personal opinion disclaimer here)

[Dominae]

Originally posted by ducki
If you change your last phrase to be "the trait is stronger in comparison to the other traits," I'd agree. I disagree that it's "too strong".

It's strong enough that everyone is playing it, including everyone who is starting a PBEM. People want to play it as an AU course. All you hear is Maya this and Dutch that. I would love to think that it's because Agr. is an interesting trait, but what's probably going on is that it's a powerful trait. Too powerful. Remember that Civ3 players love things that empower them. Why is the Immortal a favorite UU? Because it kicks butt. Yet the Impi is a far more interesting unit.

Agriculture, as a trait, has simply put the spotlight on the importance of a good start and the practice of restarts.

That's exactly it. Players want to do well. So they restart until they get a good Agricultural trait starting location. It just so happens that a River start and the Agr. trait is the best thing you can do for yourself in terms of game setup. So in that sense Agr. is too strong. What about those who do not reload? Well, in part 4 of my first post I've made the case that even then the trait is too powerful (i.e. clearly better than the rest). So, any way that you look at it, Agr. is too strong.

I had to break your 3 down further, and 2 contradicted 1, but overall, we agree on a lot of details and disagree on the big picture.

2 does not contradict 1. Go back and read my original post and you'll see why.

What we disagree on is this: you think that Agr. is only situationally strong, whereas I think that Agr., despite it's map-dependency, is hands down the best trait. Perhaps a little more experience with C3C will settle the issue. However, with the experience I do have I'm reasonably confident in my assertion.

It might not be a fluke. Then again, it might just be a MP anomoly - if you don't get the early game advantage, or at least enough growth to crank out units, your enemy will. How many MP games make it to the Modern Era? How many are over before Industrialization? Is (competitive) MP inherently early-game-centric or am I imagining that?

Civ3 is early-game-centric. That's why the AI is given so many bonuses at the start at the higher difficulty levels. The reason it's possible to win at those levels is that the AI is just not really good at keeping its lead. Pit humans against humans, and any early lead by one player is hugely magnified down the road. This more than anything is indicative of the true power Agricultural trait. Would you feel comfortable playing in a PBEM (against equally-skilled opponents) where you were the only non-Agricultural civ? So what if one of them gets a "bad" Agr. start, one of them will get a good one, and will dominate the game.


Dominae

[steven8r]

I would have to say that after my first two experiences playing an Ag civ, that it's not an overbalanced trait. Or, perhaps I just haven't figured-out how to take advantage of it.

First Ag civ: Sumer (Mesopetamia Conquest) I had lots of rivers to start, but the Babs kept me out of the fertile North, I had to settle for Arabian Desert--which became just OK AFTER irrigation. Second game, Maya epic game, there were no rivers on the map. I couldn't exploit the trait.

Ag trait seems good, but not overpowering (at least in the hands of a novice).

BTW: What's been changed w/ Industrial in C3C?
I haven't seen anything posted yet on that, and in my game the Maya seemed just as Industrial as PTW civs.

[steven8r]

One other negative thought about Agricultural civs, or a possible balancing for Ag civs:

Especially after you get out of Despotism and by the time you get everything railroaded, your cities can grow extremely fast. This massive increase in citizens can cause Unhappines even faster.

With the more limited Luxury Resources, you will have to use the Luxury slider more and more to keep your citizens happy. That's less money that you'd have for military or research. Having super-fast pop explosions could be a bad thing--espessially at higher levels where fewer citizens are 'born happy'.

[Aeson]

Normally, a laborer can produce 2-3 commerce. It only takes 1 commerce to make a laborer content to offset the added unhappiness. So as long as population growth is somewhat uniform across your cities, and you are dealing with corruption effectively, a laborer should always be able to pay for it's own unhappiness. The extra commerce, and all the production produced by that laborer is all profit.

In cases where population growth is too fast to keep up with unhappiness (should only be very corrupt areas), just assign specialists to keep growth slower/stationary. You'll get extra gold or beakers from the population increases even then.

[ducki]

Originally posted by Dominae
It's strong enough that everyone is playing it, including everyone who is starting a PBEM. People want to play it as an AU course. All you hear is Maya this and Dutch that. I would love to think that it's because Agr. is an interesting trait, but what's probably going on is that it's a powerful trait.

Another possibility is that it's one of two new traits, so naturally everyone wants to play it.

...a River start and the Agr. trait is the best thing you can do for yourself in terms of game setup.

I agree wholeheartedly, but maybe I didn't make it clear that I think Agr+River is the best possible situation.

...What about those who do not reload? Well, in part 4 of my first post I've made the case that even then the trait is too powerful (i.e. clearly better than the rest). So, any way that you look at it, Agr. is too strong.

My first thought was to argue against this, but I think instead I'll try some Agricultural civs that are not Industrious and intentionally restart to get a decidedly less than optimal start. I'm not going to do anything on the level of SVC without dropping to Regent, but I can try something matching your "bad" screenshot at Monarch, I think.

2 does not contradict 1. Go back and read my original post and you'll see why.

I started quoting the original, but I'd rather not get bogged down with pedantics, so let's just say I misunderstood what you posted.

What we disagree on is this: you think that Agr. is only situationally strong...

No, maybe that's where I've gone amiss... I think Agr is "strong" on just about every map, especially since being reminded about irrigated deserts - I just disagree with...

whereas I think that Agr., despite it's map-dependency, is hands down the best trait.

That said, I do agree with the next bit. I am not nearly as experienced as you are, nor as most of the regulars here, so my opinion may be a bit newbie-tinted.

I hate to abandon my current game, but I think I'll go experiment with some bad Agr starts. Maybe I'll prove myself wrong. Maybe I should try moving up a level, though I haven't really mastered Monarch, but if the trait is that strong, maybe it wouldn't matter.

As always, utmost respect for your opinion and analysis, Dom. Maybe you're right - maybe I don't want to think it unbalanced because I want to be powerful. I'm off to experiment.
/sigh I'll probably never get back to Carthage, though. Pity, that.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by steven8r
First Ag civ: Sumer (Mesopetamia Conquest) I had lots of rivers to start, but the Babs kept me out of the fertile North, I had to settle for Arabian Desert--which became just OK AFTER irrigation.

The Conquests were thoroughly tested to ensure no position was too easy, so they're not really indicative of the power of the Agricultural trait. Play a few epic games as an Agricultural civ, then try to go back to "normal" (non-Agricultural) play. I think you'll find an appreciable difference in power level between the two.


Dominae

[The Slayer]

This is perhaps the best thread I have read in this forum. Very instructive, even for a person that the english is not his/her natural language.

But, now, I'll ask and/or think in an issue I didn't know people do it so much.

The reload of a game.

I mean, ok, surely I'll love an start with 1 iron, some luxuries and a bonues resorse.. next to a coast or a river.. without the trait you play with.

But, if I reload and reload a game.... where do you leave the "challenge" thing in the game??. When your start doesn't have any "good things" around ... ok, let's try it. Perhaps I can do it!. If I get my @** kicked, ok, I lost. I know no one wants to lost, but.. thats the challenge!!!.

If you win in this situations... god!, you're best than Sid then!

It's MHO that restarting is bad for players thamselves, cause they'll never have the "challenge" I'm talking about.

Anyway, perhaps each civ player have hisher way to became a master.

The Slayer.

(I hope you can understand me - sorry for the grammar mistakes and the like. )

[MrWhereItsAt]

Very thought-provoking first post, Dom, and some great points form others in later posts.

Admittedly, the extra food from irrigated deserts was something I didn't think of after reading post #1. However, if you remove the extra food bonus for non-fresh water cities from Monarchy onwards, you effectively consign Agricultural to having no greater effect in any government than it does in Despotism, since those cities next to fresh water get the bonus then anyway. This sounds bad to me, who thinks there should be incentives to get Ag civs to head towards more advanced government forms and building, rather than Despotic warmongering, however this may further lead towards your aim of depowering Ag.

But I would like the idea of removing the bonus food for non-freshwater cities if Ag civs started with a greater chance of being near freshwater to begin with. As ducki has made clear here, Ag is a very terrain-specific trait: if you get the good terrain you will rule, if not all you get are the half price Aqueducts (something that distinctly underwhelms me). Compare this to the bonus commerce from already commerce-rich sea cities and reduced sinking chances of Seafaring - very terrain specific. But even on Pangaea maps Seafaring has been helped along by being given that extra chance for it to be somewhat useful (if not as useful as it would be, say, on Archipelagoes) by starting where the terrain-sepcific can be used. I think the same should be for Ag - if you get a dry start you are stuffed, so to further balance Ag civs, give them a greater chance to start where their attribute can help. Then removing that food bonus for no-freshwater cities makes great sense, and IMO puts Ag back in the land of the more balanced attributes.

Additionally, this should help curb restarts too.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Aeson
Don't forget about the extra food from irrigated deserts. That in and of itself can be a lifesaver nonpareil. It takes many of the truely horrid starts and makes them at least average.

Yup - forgot about that after reading Dominae's first post. This too is of course map situational, but it is a huge safety net against the case of having lots of desert tiles nearby. You need workers to keep up with tile improvements of course, but so long as you have sufficient workers, desert tiles effectively become plains tiles for an Ag civ. Without an Ag civ, desert tiles are not worth a whole lot until RR unless all desert tiles are also nearby flood plains, allowing food from floodplains and shields from mined desert.

Catt