AU mod: The Agricultural trait

[alexman]

The Problem:

The Agricultural trait provides one extra food in the center tile of each city, which is not subject to the Despotism penalty for cities adjacent to rivers. The trait also provides cheaper Aqueducts, Solar Plants, and Recycling Centers, and gives an extra food from irrigated desert.

With early growth being so important in Civ3, the above advantages result in Agricultural being the most powerful trait in the game, and often results in a game one difficulty level lower (or even more).

Since the AU mod is intended primarily for single player mode, unbalanced traits are not an urgent issue. However, balanced traits do encourage variety in play style and civ selection.

Possible Solution:

The real power of the Agricultural trait comes not directly from population growth, but more specifically from the ability to set up more powerful Settler and Worker pumps.

The extra food from the center tile means that you need a food surplus of just 4 per turn from the rest of the tiles to set up a 4-turn Settler pump, which frees your Agricultural citizens to work some high production/low food tiles to get the necessary production for 30 shields in time. If we increase the shield cost of the Settler for Agricultural civs, then it might sometimes become necessary to sacrifice even more food to get more shields in order to get the required production for a Settler pump. You might have to mine a plains tile instead of irrigating it, or use a forest tile instead of a grassland tile, for example. That would push the food surplus back to the levels of non-Agricultural civs.

Therefore, the proposed solution is:

Increase Settler cost to 35 shields for Agricultural civilizations.

I think this change would be enough to reduce the early-game advantage of Agricultural civilizations just enough for the trait to come back in line with the other traits in Civ3 (except Seafaring, of course, but that’s for another thread )

By the way, the AI would benefit from a Settler shield cost increase, as it often waits on towns to grow to sufficient size with a Settler already completed.

So do you agree that the Agricultural trait is the most powerful trait in the game? Do we need to balance it in this mod? Do you have any ideas to balance it? Do you think the above solution is too drastic, or not drastic enough? Please comment!


Background reading: On the Agricultural trait, by Dominae.

[ZargonX]

Regardless of the drastic-ness of the proposed solution, my question is this: is it possible to create a "common" unit with a different cost for specific civilizations? Wouldn't we end up having to create a special "Ag Settler" unit for just those civs?

[alexman]

Yes, of course.

Probably a "Settler " (with a space at the end of the name), with the same animation as Settlers, but unbuildable by everyone except Agricultural civs.

[ducki]

Why 35? Would this still allow an Agr. civ to have a 4-turn pump on identical terrain to a non-Agr. civ that could get a 4-turn pump?

So do you agree that the Agricultural trait is the most powerful trait in the game? Do we need to balance it in this mod? Do you have any ideas to balance it? Do you think the above solution is too drastic, or not drastic enough? Please comment!

AU 502 is likely to elicit a lot of responses and opinions on these matters, with so many "good" players all working from an identical Argicultural start, good timing.

[Krill]

There seems to be a problem that you missed: If there is no water nearby, then that civ is going to have a disadvantage instead of being in line with the other civs. A change in cost is never going to be fare all of the time.
Is it possible to get rid of the extra food from the city tile? I doubt it, but if possible...

EDIT 1)Cross post(ish)
2) Agricultural is powerful, but it's the combination with Industrius that makes the strongest REX in the game (with the a 4-turn settler pump)

[alexman]

Originally posted by ducki
Why 35? Would this still allow an Agr. civ to have a 4-turn pump on identical terrain to a non-Agr. civ that could get a 4-turn pump?

Only if the city in question is on the limit in terms of getting enough shields for the pump. And strictly speaking, it would be identical for a 5-turn pump in this case.

AU 502 is likely to elicit a lot of responses and opinions on these matters

Yes, I know, hence the timing of this thread.
No time to make a change before 502 anyway.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Krill
A change in cost is never going to be fare all of the time.

I agree. But the agricultural trait is so powerful now that on average it's still going to be a great trait, even after the proposed change. See Dominae's thread linked from the first post for examples of how often to expect a bad start as an Agricultural civ.

Is it possible to get rid of the extra food from the city tile? I doubt it, but if possible...

If only it were...

[Ision]

Whether or not '35 shields' is the correct magic number - I do not know, but the fundemental idea is very sound.

Ision

[alexman]

One other thing:

Originally posted by Krill
If there is no water nearby, then that civ is going to have a disadvantage instead of being in line with the other civs.

In that case, your early Settler pumps will likely be limited by the available food, not shields, so the 30 to 35 shield difference will not matter for a pump. The Agricultural trait will not really be worse off by the change, and not only that, but the extra food once you exit Despotism will give you a population boom that will make it very much worthwhile to have to pay an extra 5 shields per settler in the beginning.

[Arrian]

Any way to have that extra food from the city square ALWAYS get eaten by despotism, instead of the current situation, where you get the bonus food if you're on fresh water?

Also, I think if you really want to discuss the balance (or lack thereof) of the trait, maybe AU should do a course with an Agricultural civ that has a non-river/lake start. Not a hellhole, mind you, just a start where your first city or two will not have fresh water.

-Arrian

[ducki]

I could always modify AU502's capitol area a bit.

[nbarclay]

Personally, I don't think modifying civ traits fits well with the purposes of the AU Mod. The selection of what civ to play is not a strategic choice within the game, but rather is part of the choice of what flavor of game a player wants, just as the selections of map size and type and barbarian settings are. Players who don't like the power of the Agricultural triat can easily deal with the issue either by not playing Agricultural civs or by restarting until they find a starting position that won't make the Agricultural trait more powerful than they want it to be. Similarly, AU game designers can factor the trait's power into their design decisions when they set up AU games using Agricultural civs.

But if we sabotage the trait with something like more-expensive settlers, the only way players could deal with the sabotage would be either to modify the Mod themselves for their own use (if they have the skills and willingness to tinker) or to play standard rules instead of using the Mod. That would raise some interesting issues even if we could find an elegant solution that makes the Agricultural trait less powerful without ever making it (at least in the early game) a liability. If we can't find anything more elegant than making settlers more expensive for all of an Agricultural civ's cities - including cities without fresh water - the situation is even more problematical.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by alexman

In that case, your early Settler pumps will likely be limited by the available food, not shields, so the 30 to 35 shield difference will not matter for a pump.

Unless, of course, the city is one that could be a nice settler pump whether the civ was Agricultural or not. Four-turn settler pumps did not originate with the introduction of the Agricultural trait. Six-turn pumps can also be constrained by shields under some circumstances, especially if corruption eats a couple shields and the player doesn't want to bump up the luxury slider just for a single city.

Granted, a civ could usually (but not always) find it practical to use such cities as worker pumps and get its settlers elsewhere. But if I had to do that because of a special change in the Mod, I would be annoyed to an extent totally out of proportion to the actual impact on my gameplay.

[ducki]

I agree that - since the Settler is not a UU - changing its cost is inelegant at best. There's no way we could balance the cost so as not to disadvantage Agricultural in certain situations during the phase of the game that - IMO - it is most suited to have the advantage.

Color me stodgy.

I'll withhold further comment, though, until after AU502.

[Krill]

Ducki seams 100% right...leave the conversation until after 502. Therefore, Ducki, why not release the game right about, oh, I don't know, now?

[alexman]

Originally posted by ducki
I agree that - since the Settler is not a UU - changing its cost is inelegant at best.

So Firaxis' decision to give Expansionists a non-UU not only a different cost, but to actually prevent all other traits from building it, must be the clumsiest ever, right?

[ducki]

I didn't really follow that. It doesn't have a different cost from non-Exp civs. It's a trait-unique unit, so to speak. If everyone could build scouts from the get-go, but because Exp civs were immune to barbs, theirs cost 5 shields more, then yes, that would be rather clumsy.

If Agricultural settlers.... see, you drew me out. Grr.

Sometimes I just can't resist, but I'm seriously going to hold off on any more balance discussion until 502 is over. So, no hard feelings, I just want to excuse myself from this one for a while.

[Dominae]

The problem with Agricultural is that people restart to find a starting location that suits them (i.e. that's above-average, often far above-average). Thus the trait's balancing factor, namely it's map-dependency, completely goes out the window. Seafaring is surely as powerful on Archipelago maps (at least a difficultly level easier), which people also seek out when they want to play a Seafaring civ.

I argued this at great length when Conquests first came out.

Ultimately it's up to each individual player to decide whether Agricultural is too powerful or not, because it's up to each individual player to restart or not. You could say that Cattle (the resource) is too powerful because it allows 4-turn Settler-pumps, but that seems silly. It's the same situation with Agricultural.

And no, this is not similar to pre-C3C Industrious. That trait was bar none the best across all maps and opponents. In this way it restricted your choice if you wanted to play a more competitive-type game. Agricultural is only good on a certain subset of starting locations, and is therefore more balanced than what Industrious used to be. Again, it's up the players to keep it balanced.

I'll admit that Agricultural is still a very good trait, even you do not reload (although far cry from what it is when you do). This is mainly due to the fact that Agricultural has abilities in addition to the "next to fresh water" one. But this is something I do not think we can satisfactorily patch with the editor.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Just from the opening screenshot, I can say that AU 502's starting position will be at least fairly good for getting use out of the Agricultural trait. Even if the river that can be seen in the opening screenshot is all we get, I could get four river cities (including the capital) out of it easily, and at least one additional temporary city to help with REXing would also be possible. How much more river will be available beyond that remains to be seen, but this will certianly not be a bad game in terms of being able to get advantage out of the Agricultural trait.

[Dominae]

I've not seen a sample game as an Agricultural civ that did not have a river start. Kind of telling.


Dominae

[vulture]

I have to agree with those arguing for no change. The change proposed is designed not to affect the AI (which it won't early in the REX when the Ai is food-limited, but will hurt them slightly later on when cities are growing and producing occasional settlers), but to weaken the trait for human players. What that means in practise is that players reload a few more times to find a start with a few extra shields. As others have said, the strength of the trait depends on how much reloading you do to find a good start (to some extent). Weakening it doesn't change that.

I suppose the other question is how it affects MP, but as said before, the AU is primarily a SP job, designed to help the AI and add depth to the game - this isn't a depth issue, it's a balance vs the AI issue.

[Fosse]

By the way, the AI would benefit from a Settler shield cost increase, as it often waits on towns to grow to sufficient size with a Settler already completed.

Won't this just give the appearance of the AI getting smarter? It seems like the AI starts building settlers without caring about food production, and the fact that the two are slightly more in-line for a 35 shield settler will just look better, but in fact the AI will probably spend the same number of turns working on the settler (either waiting for growth or the extra five shields).

I'm not a fan of this tweak though... since AI agricultural civs tend to be powerhouses in my games, which I like.

[nbarclay]

When humans play non-Agricultural civs, the only civs affected by a higher cost of settlers would be Agricultural AIs, and they would clearly be hurt to whatever extent they build settelers in cities that can outgrow their production. Also note that AI cities with the Agricultural food bonus would be less likely than other AI cities to be stuck with enough shields for a settler but not enough food. So whether the change would help or hurt AIs on the whole would depend entirely on whether or not the human player is playing an Agricultural civ. That's another good reason not to increase the cost of settlers for Agricultural civs.

[pvzh]

I think fixing agricultural trait properly is beyond editor abilities. Agricultural trait should not have +1 food exempt from Despotic penalty (maybe just for capital only).

Soultion for AU mod would be restore aqueduct to full price.

Besides I HATE costs ending with 5. It puts more pressure to micromanage.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by pvzh
I think fixing agricultural trait properly is beyond editor abilities.

Agreed. And I'm especially sceptical about the concept of a 'handicapped' trait.

[Nor Me]

I support this change, although it looks like I'm in the minority. Of the changes possible in the editor, this is most likely to balance this trait. Settler pumps are the issue which can make Agricultural much more powerful than it appears.

Originally posted by nbarclay
Personally, I don't think modifying civ traits fits well with the purposes of the AU Mod.

While I'd disagree, it's more important to note that we're already doing this a lot indirectly. The changes to curraghs and galleys have a big impact on seafaring. The campaign to make multiple goverment switches more useful would make religious a much better trait although the beta patch has now affected this more radically than any changes we're likely to support. The balance of the traits is different in the AU Mod and we don't want to make avoiding this more important than our other goals.

It's only a small step from this to trying to balance the traits directly. I don't think that this change will alter the agricultural trait that much anyway. It will still be good for the things it is now.

Originally posted by Arrian
Any way to have that extra food from the city square ALWAYS get eaten by despotism, instead of the current situation, where you get the bonus food if you're on fresh water?

That would be far more radical if it were possible and I probably wouldn't support it. This way, we'd be reducing the early benefit of Agricultural but probably not by much.

Originally posted by ducki
Why 35? Would this still allow an Agr. civ to have a 4-turn pump on identical terrain to a non-Agr. civ that could get a 4-turn pump?

I'd have thought 34 would be better for this. That would mean that a site that was a 4-turn settler pump for a non-Agricultural civ with irrigated plains or mined non-bonus grassland and spare forest would always be a 4-turn pump for an Agricultural civ.

But I know Dominae wouldn't support 34 as it's an even number.

Originally posted by nbarclay
Also note that AI cities with the Agricultural food bonus would be less likely than other AI cities to be stuck with enough shields for a settler but not enough food.

In my experience, it's the other way around. Cities with the Agricultural bonus are likely to work high-shield, low-food terrain as the AI likes to keep 2 excess food. So these cities are more likely to have enough shields but not food.

[Ision]

the question of 'handicapping' the trait really boils down to one thing;

Will the proposed change slow down any overly pro-human advantages of agri, while still keeping AI CIVs with this trait in line with the typical AI performance.

I believe that Alexmans proposal should not be so quickly dismissed out of hand. If the change (or any varient of the proposed change) were to slightly reduce the extreme human advantage while not nerfing AIs - then the rationale is perfectly in keeping with the goals of the AU Mod.

Perhaps it is not a good idea, and the Agri AIs will not cope well - if however, that is not the case, then the idea should be given some serious consideration.

The argument that a trait specific 35 shield settler is some how too extreme of a departure is simply not valid. A trait specific settler is no more a departure than the expansionist scout - the free tech of sci - or the trait specific workers of Industrious.

Ision

[ducki]

Originally posted by pvzh
Soultion for AU mod would be restore aqueduct to full price.

I don't get how this helps...
the biggest reason that Agriculture is overpowered is that in the situations where you don't need the aqueduct, you get extra food.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Nor Me
In my experience, it's the other way around. Cities with the Agricultural bonus are likely to work high-shield, low-food terrain as the AI likes to keep 2 excess food. So these cities are more likely to have enough shields but not food.

I missed that point, but assuming AIs behave the same way my governors like to (which they almost certainly do), you're right. Thus, Agricultural AIs would indeed tend to get one more shield per turn than other AIs under many circumstances. I guess I'm too used to thinking like a human.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Nor Me

While I'd disagree, it's more important to note that we're already doing this a lot indirectly. The changes to curraghs and galleys have a big impact on seafaring. The campaign to make multiple goverment switches more useful would make religious a much better trait although the beta patch has now affected this more radically than any changes we're likely to support. The balance of the traits is different in the AU Mod and we don't want to make avoiding this more important than our other goals.

It's only a small step from this to trying to balance the traits directly. I don't think that this change will alter the agricultural trait that much anyway. It will still be good for the things it is now.

In the case of Seafaring curraughs and galleys, the main issue is that human players can use them very, very effectively in a way in which AIs are programmed not to use them at all. If Seafaring AIs used suicide curraughs and galleys effectively to make contact with distant civs, a Seafaring human could have a monopoly on overseas contact and tech trading only in games where no Seafaring AIs are present. But because AIs do not use suicide ships, the advantage of being less likely to sink is applicable only to human players, not to AIs. Thus, toning down the power of that ability is directly a matter of eliminating an advantage that human players have over AIs that have the same trait, and the fact that the trait itself is weakened is (at least in my view) mostly incidental.

As further evidence that the effect on the Seafaring trait was largely incidental, consider the fact that we'd already weakened galleys in the PtW version of the AU Mod to undercut the advantage that suicide ships gave human players. The facts that Seafaring civs can use that advantage even more effectively and that curraughs let them use it earlier in C3C gave us some extra incentive to make similar changes in the C3C version of the Mod, but the fundamental problem and our efforts to deal with it actually predates the introduction of the Seafaring trait.

Similarly, the shift in balance in favor of Religious civs if changing governments twice instead of once becomes more attractive is (as best I can tell) purely incidental to our reasons for liking the idea of making a second government change more attractive. I do not recall hearing anyone even hint that a desire to make the Religous trait stronger is a significant motivating factor in that regard. Personally, I view the impact on the Religious trait as a disadvantage to making a second government change more useful, not as an advantage (although I don't view the disadvantage as great enough that it should stop us).

In contrast, the sole and exclusive purpose of the proposal to increase the cost of settlers for Agricultural civs is to weaken a particular trait. Further, while AIs use the Agricultural trait's food bonus differently from how humans tend to use it in that they focus more on production and less on food, it is nonetheless something that AIs get a clear benefit from (except when settlers or workers are delayed enough waiting for cities to grow to offset not just the production advantage building the settlers or workers but also the production advantage building other things in between). And where our changes to curraughs and galleys had no side effects that could possibly create situations in which the Seafaring trait would be a disadvantage to a civ at particular times and places in the course of the game, increasing the cost of settlers for Agricultural civs does. Thus, I see far more differences than similarities between the two situations. In my view, it's a leap, not just a small step.

Nathan