AU mod: The Javelin Thrower

[alexman]

The Mayan UU is the only land unit in C3C with the new enslavement ability: it has a 33% chance of capturing units defeated in combat, turning them into Workers.

Enslavement works even against barbarians, so players often keep a few barbarian camps around as "Slave Farms", which provide a steady flow of workers to the Mayan empire.

Given the importance of workers in the early-game, and the fact that the Industrious and Agricultural traits are arguably the two best traits for the early-game, is the early advantage of the Maya too poweful? And since the AI does not take advantage of barbarian enslavement to the same extent as the human, is this a reason to make Javelin Throwers less powerful?

Any suggestions?

[ducki]

I suggest giving Enslave to all the Meso-American UUs(at least) since they are all ancient and it is in-character. (Maybe expand this to all ancient, first-rank-tech "attack" UUs. if in-character)
I suggest a "House Rule" for all courses disallowing explicit barb "farming" as an exploit - we're all here to learn, not dictate non-course gameplay choices, so this is a good candidate for an exploit House Rule.

I'm of the opinion that giving these new features to more units would expand gameplay choices and that we can all be trusted not to "cheat" - besides, if you cheat, you only hurt yourself .

[nbarclay]

My initial impression is that a house rule against leaving camps around for barb farming is a sufficient solution. The Javelin Thrower is so expensive that it's hard to build many of them early without giving up granaries - and hence giving up the ability to build as many native workers or as many settlers (whose cities can then build native workers if so desired). That, in my view and experience, keeps the ability from causing a significant balance problem in normal use.

Interestingly, the time when building significant numbers of JTs for legitimate barb hunting makes the most sense is when the Mayas can make the least use fo their Agricultural trait. As long as plenty of rivers are around, it's hard for the JT's enslavement ability to outperform granaries, so JTs tend to come both later and in smaller numbers than they might otherwise. But with fewer rivers, pop points are more precious and building JTs to enslave barbs becomes more attractive. Since the JT and the Agricultural trait tend to be at their most useful in different games, they don't combine into something a whole lot more powerful than either one by itself. (Of course on the right map, Agricultural/Industrious is an absolute monster of a trait combination all by itself.)

Nathan

[Risa]

Enslave to warrior, and the problem is solved.

I've test it for months, it works good to me. Not overpowered, not underpowered either.

[pauli]

do enslaved warriors count as real warriors (ie, requiring support), or are they tagged as captured units?

[Risa]

Enslaved warriors don't require support.

[nbarclay]

How many hit points do the enslaved warriors end up with?

I'm skeptical that the Javelin Thrower's high cost would be justified if the enslave ability were changed from workers to warriors. As it is, I tend to view the UU as not particularly impressive compared with other UUs (at least for those of us who don't leave barb camps around to farm them).

[Risa]

All enslaved units are regular. Of course, they can be promoted by usual means later.

[nbarclay]

Which means the enslaved warriors have very limited value other than as MPs unless a player is willing to pay the high upgrade cost for regulars. (I suppose trying to get the enslaved units promoted to vet fighting other barbs would be another option, but that would limit how much barb fighting the Javelin Throwers do and hence their ability to enslave additional units.)

[MrWhereItsAt]

Enslave to Warriors would certainly ensure that JTs are only of any real use in the early Ancient Age, but maybe cripples them too much. Personally I would prefer to leave JTs as they are. If there is the occasion (and you can both spare the unused land AND prevent the AI from settling it) that you can keep barbs around long enough to keep taking workers I think this is your success and you should reap the benefits of such a fiddly little task.

[alexman]

Under consideration:

Yes/No: Change enslaved unit to Warrior

Voting on Friday

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alexman
Yes/No: Change enslaved unit to Warrior

No.

Although Worker-farming is surely expoitative in the hands of the human player, the AI suffers if enslaved units become Warriors; it sorely needs the extra labor, and wastes the potential of Warriors by not upgrading them.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Although I don't have a vote, I strongly oppose the change because the dramatic devaluation in the enslaved unit takes away most of the justification for making the Javelin Thrower so expensive (one and a half times the cost of a Bowman for the same straight-up combat stats). Even on paper, veteran javelin throwers would have to average obtaining one and a third slaves to repay their extra cost. But that "on paper" figure doesn't capture the fact that it also costs a third more to upgrade the same hit points' worth of regular warriors to swordsmen or MedInfs compared with veterans.

Granted, under governments and in situations where unit support costs are an issue, warriors (and units upgraded from them) that don't require maintenance would present a long-term cost advantage. But that creates the oddity that the only way to use that advantage is to avoid using the resulting slaves enough that they end up dying before their higher upgrade cost is repaid through reduced maintenance. That's not good, in my opinion.

Barb farming aside, I think the Javelin Thrower is balanced pretty well under the standard rules. It also seems a lot more realistic that slaves be used as workers than that they be used as warriors. And as discussed earlier, if we ever play an AU game as the Mayas, we could deal with the barb farming issue by ncluding a house rule against leaving barbarian camps around for the specific purpose of farming them for slaves.

[donZappo]

I agree with nbarclay completely on this issue. A house rule would adress this issue just fine, and it just makes more sense to have workers instead of warriors.

-donZappo

[alexman]

I don't like house rules of that sort. Just because the AI doesn't do something, it doesn't mean that it's automatically an exploit if the player does. If we ban barb farming, then we should also ban suicide galleys, palace jumping, offensive ground unit bombardment, building scouts and explorers, the use of the luxury slider, leaving a city without garrison, et cetera.

[Kuciwalker]

I think in this case the problem isn't really that the AI doesn't do it. Rather, IMHO it is that the strategy is simply much more powerful than intended. Of course, the best solution would be for Firaxis to make enslave not work on barbs.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by alexman
I don't like house rules of that sort. Just because the AI doesn't do something, it doesn't mean that it's automatically an exploit if the player does.

To me, an "exploit" has to be something not deliberately factored into the design that creates significant balance problems when players take advantage of rules in unexpected ways. Two classic exploits from the early days of Civ 3 were selling an AI a city and then taking it right back, and extorting small towns from AIs in peace treaty renegotiations without even having to fight. In contrast, the ability to take a chance sending galleys into sea and ocean in the hope that they can find something useful was deliberately incorporated into the rules, and thus is impossible to label an "exploit" no matter how much advantage it gives humans. (Whether it is a balance issue that needs to be addressed is, of course, another matter.) As for the free palace jump, it should probably be technically considered an exploit, but I view it as a benign one that ultimately helps the game by providing a way to deal with badly placed initial starting positions. (Of course if Firaxis hadn't made normal palace moves so insanely expensive, it wouldn't be needed!)

I'm not sure exactly how using the Javelin Thrower for barb farming fits into that picture. I suspect that it's not something the designers had in mind when they decided how to balance the unit, but I'm not sure of that. I'm also not sure how unbalancing it is in practice since (1) building early Javelin Throwers tends to cost REXing potential and (2) if you leave a camp around, AIs will swarm toward it sooner or later (even if they have to move through your territory to do it, if I recall correctly).

Probably, before we make any kind of a decision regarding a possible house rule, we need for people who have tried the trick and regard it as too powerful to make their case that it is in fact too powerful. Then we can listen and see whether they get an unacceptably large net advantage or whether it just feels like an exploit to them because they aren't noticing the price they pay in missed opportunities (for example, the fact that building their Javelin Throwers cost them granaries, settlers, and native workers in their REX).

On the other hand, if the use of Javelin Throwers for barb farming is not a good enough reason to adopt a house rule, I certainly don't view it as a good enough reason to justify changing the unit! A house rule seems like a much smaller change to me; indeed, players who don't regard barb farming as an unacceptable exploit would be free to ignore the house rule entirely in non-AU games played with the Mod.

Nathan

[Risa]

Well, if we don't regard enslaving to workers as overpowered, the change will definitely not be needed. That is to say, my suggestion is totally based on the assumption that it is overpowered. And I believe so. Not only by barb-farming, but also in conventional wars, gaining pop-points by combat in ancient times is too much.

As regards to helping AI to gain enough workers, we should try the "build often" list first, not here. And AI do upgrade their warriors..

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Risa
Well, if we don't regard enslaving to workers as overpowered, the change will definitely not be needed. That is to say, my suggestion is totally based on the assumption that it is overpowered. And I believe so. Not only by barb-farming, but also in conventional wars, gaining pop-points by combat in ancient times is too much.

The one other time besides barb farming where I'd be concerned would be the use of big stacks of catapults and javelin throwers. In normal combat with AIs, the ability to get free workers is balanced by the fact that when a javelin thrower dies, it costs 30 shields instead of 20. But if cats can reduce the defenders to a single hit point, the cost in terms of dead javelin throwers is a lot lower.

[ducki]

Well, if we don't regard enslaving to workers as overpowered, the change will definitely not be needed. That is to say, my suggestion is totally based on the assumption that it is overpowered. And I believe so. Not only by barb-farming, but also in conventional wars, gaining pop-points by combat in ancient times is too much.

I don't regard enslaving workers in the "normal" course of play as overpowered. I do regard barb "farming" for slaves as overpowered, just as I view using barb camps as Elite training grounds for more than 2 or 3 units as semi-exploitative. Personally I'd rather have the 25 gold and be done with it. If I get promoted or get a slave in the course of clearing out the camp, woohoo! If not, no worries. I'm 25 gold richer.

It's personal playstyle choices that make things like this either balanced or overpowered. As such, an AU Mod change is out of line, IMO. The mod isn't supposed to balance out individual gameplay decisions and strategies short of those that are the de facto standard - ToE-Hoover is one, and below Emperor, Philosophy beeline is another.

If we ban barb farming, then we should also ban ...
suicide galleys

This is a moddable feature that doesn't hamper those that don't exploit it along with those that do. I don't think it should be fixed as I don't see throwing shields to the bottom of the ocean as an exploit.

, palace jumping,

If you want to do the micromanagement required to put your palace where you want it, be my guest. I've got wonders and units to build and my individual gameplay decision is that it's not worth it. If enough people don't think we should do it, though, we could try to mod it so that the jump is less effective than a straight build or just do a house rule.

offensive ground unit bombardment,

Even in Nathan's extreme example, I don't see that as an exploit so much as the player a)playing smart in one sense and b)giving up an awful lot of offensive power for a dice roll. I wouldn't do it, but it's a valid strategy, just as Artillery+Infantry is a valid strat opposed to hordes of MechInf. That's strategy, IMO.

building scouts and explorers,

Now you're just being silly. Besides, I doubt banning explorers would change anyone's game.

the use of the luxury slider,

Didn't we do or propose this for an AU game once upon a time?

leaving a city without garrison, et cetera.

I've seen the AI do this very early on, but aside from that, it's a personal playstyle choice again. There's plenty of players not comfortable without 2 of the latest defenders in every town - at the least. Then there's those of us that figure we can defend 6 towns with 3 central defenders if need be. It's risky, but often effective. Strategy.

The more of those I reread, the more I think you were kidding. I really don't think this needs changing, and as I've said before, I think there should be more civs with ancient enslavement. Even better, if we could expire enslavement with the discovery of Democracy, but I think that's not doable.

There's one specific strategic decision where I think Enslavement can be exploited, and unless we're playing AS the Maya in an AU course, it doesn't need addressing. If we do play as the Maya, I see no point in messing with a balanced UU just to ensure everyone is playing from the same deck. A house rule would suffice, but even then, it would be interesting to see the difference in outcome and level of success between the farmers and the non-farmers.

[alexman]

Time to vote.

Mine:
No change.

[lockstep]

NO: Change enslaved unit to Warrior

I like barb workers.

[ZargonX]

Change enslaved unit to warrior: No

[Theseus]

N

[Stuie]

I'm voting YES even though it seals the No vote. Oh well.