Page MenuHomeWildfire Games

[gameplay] Briton bonus - faster wood gather rate
Needs ReviewPublic

Authored by ValihrAnt on Wed, Sep 15, 6:16 PM.

Details

Reviewers
chrstgtr
wraitii
Group Reviewers
Balancing
Summary

This is an economic bonus for the Britons. A 10% increase might not seem like a lot but it really adds up over time and unlike other eco bonuses is effective throughout the whole match.

Test Plan

Agree.

Diff Detail

Repository
rP 0 A.D. Public Repository
Lint
Lint Skipped
Unit
Unit Tests Skipped

Event Timeline

ValihrAnt requested review of this revision.Wed, Sep 15, 6:16 PM
ValihrAnt created this revision.

Is there a reason why we are applying this to Gauls instead of Brits? I only ask because Gauls already has some nice bonuses while Brits doesn’t.

Also, this wood tech paired with Gauls’ food tech makes Gauls the best wood/food civ on the game by quite a bit.

Is there a reason why we are applying this to Gauls instead of Brits? I only ask because Gauls already has some nice bonuses while Brits doesn’t.

It's such a generic bonus that it can be justified for basically any civ, Gauls were just the first ones I thought of.

Also, this wood tech paired with Gauls’ food tech makes Gauls the best wood/food civ on the game by quite a bit.

I suppose the bigger problem is that there isn't really a design plan/idea for how the civs should play and how many bonuses, unique techs a civ should have. So I'd imagine the celts having an eco advantage which transfers to a numbers advantage to make up for inferior unit quality, but obviously, that's not the case currently so it would make sense then to switch this over to the Britons. Then they'll have an eco bonus and their unique tech, unlike the Gauls, could be military focused and the Gauls can just receive a different eco bonus later.

ValihrAnt updated this revision to Diff 18681.Thu, Sep 16, 3:21 PM
ValihrAnt retitled this revision from [gameplay] Gaul bonus - faster wood gather rate to [gameplay] Briton bonus - faster wood gather rate.
ValihrAnt edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)

Switched the bonus from the Gauls to the Britons

borg- added a subscriber: borg-.Thu, Sep 16, 3:39 PM

To be honest I don't think every civilization needs to have a generic economics bonus.

Britons/gauls must be a rush civ, so there may be a bonus for that, like, brit can build fortress and barracks on neutral territory for example.

Britons/gauls must be a rush civ, so there may be a bonus for that, like, brit can build fortress and barracks on neutral territory for example.

For a rush civ, an early economy bonus is the most important thing. I don't see any value that being able to build a barrack in neutral gives early on. It's why the Mauryas and Ptolemies like to play extended early aggression much more than other civs.

Adding @genava55 as he might have some input.

borg- added a comment.Fri, Sep 17, 2:05 PM

Britons/gauls must be a rush civ, so there may be a bonus for that, like, brit can build fortress and barracks on neutral territory for example.

For a rush civ, an early economy bonus is the most important thing. I don't see any value that being able to build a barrack in neutral gives early on. It's why the Mauryas and Ptolemies like to play extended early aggression much more than other civs.

Economy bonus not only affects the early game but the late game, which is not the intention in a good rush civilization and weak late game.
I really don't find it fun for all civilizations to have basically the same economic bonuses. Macedonia may have bonus expansion/capture rate, roman siege units, brit/gaul in rush, athenas could create a new slave for each house built.

Are more creative bonuses that help to highlight the characteristics of each civilization.

In D4273#182025, @borg- wrote:

Britons/gauls must be a rush civ, so there may be a bonus for that, like, brit can build fortress and barracks on neutral territory for example.

For a rush civ, an early economy bonus is the most important thing. I don't see any value that being able to build a barrack in neutral gives early on. It's why the Mauryas and Ptolemies like to play extended early aggression much more than other civs.

Economy bonus not only affects the early game but the late game, which is not the intention in a good rush civilization and weak late game.
I really don't find it fun for all civilizations to have basically the same economic bonuses. Macedonia may have bonus expansion/capture rate, roman siege units, brit/gaul in rush, athenas could create a new slave for each house built.

Are more creative bonuses that help to highlight the characteristics of each civilization.

I don't care if the eco bonus applies both early and late--if a civ chopped a lot of wood then they did that at all stages of their existence.

To address your concerns @borg-, I think we could create a seperate bonus that is the same as the old celts building pop bonus. It was helpful to rush, unique, and fun to play with.

Economy bonus not only affects the early game but the late game, which is not the intention in a good rush civilization and weak late game.

I think we're also looking at this very differently. A ''rush'' civilization for me is one that has wide-open options and opportunities for early and sustained aggression. The weak late game part doesn't refer to them being directly inferior to other civs but just simply lacking as many late game options. Otherwise, we create civilizations that are only seen in 1v1s and vice versa for only strong late game civs.
So in this case a wood bonus allows the Britons to more quickly get a stable and fields for war dogs/cavalry, or a stronger slinger rush as they can afford to have more on stone from the get go. And then the Britons can have an 'inferior' late game by missing cavalry upgrades, having weaker siege, and being reliant on infantry (Probably missing an inf armor upgrade too as they'd have better wood eco and thus would be able to field a bigger army). So in a 1v1s late game, the opponent can counterplay their strength and force them into playing suboptimal units but in team games their infantry is already accompanied by supporting units. This way they're still focused on the early game but aren't a crutch in late game.

sera added a subscriber: sera.Sat, Sep 18, 10:26 AM

I suppose the bigger problem is that there isn't really a design plan/idea for how the civs should play and how many bonuses, unique techs a civ should have

Therefore this should be fixed first. Unless there is a real need don't change things until this is sorted out.

And I agree that boni like additional pop for storehouses etc as we had in the past are preferable as they are also apparent to non (semi-) pro players and as such make more sense to use for the "differentiate civs" purpose.

brit can build fortress and barracks on neutral territory for example.

Further reducing the need for expansion which you already see as an issue? Also Roman and Kush already have this build outside of borders feature, so not unique in any way, just reducing the uniqueness of those already having such.

I suppose the bigger problem is that there isn't really a design plan/idea for how the civs should play and how many bonuses, unique techs a civ should have

Therefore this should be fixed first. Unless there is a real need don't change things until this is sorted out.

It'd be great but who knows how long it will take for someone to go out and make it. There is this https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Design_Document#PlayableCivilizations, but it doesn't detail anything for gameplay in generic.
Until then, I think it's fine to start adding a base of bonuses/techs just to differentiate civs more than by only their architecture.

And I agree that boni like additional pop for storehouses etc as we had in the past are preferable as they are also apparent to non (semi-) pro players and as such make more sense to use for the "differentiate civs" purpose.

The Britons can be given the structure population bonus and this woodcutting bonus moved over to the Mauryas maybe or just gotten rid of.