Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/vs2015-differential/8318/display/redirect

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/macos-differential/7229/display/redirect

Maybe have the females unlocked with Town Phase or something, which essentially makes it free since Town Phase is a tech you will research as quickly as possible anyway.

The patch gives CCs and houses a +20% population bonus and can train women in houses without needing to research tech.

Can we add a pop bonus to other buildings too? Otherwise this patch just makes Roman houses/CC better and doesn't actually change how anyone plays--it just makes Rome an easier civ to play.

For example, if barracks got a pop bonus then I am more likely to build more barracks early because it gives me a pop bonus that I can use while rushing, etc.

In D5112#217189, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Maybe have the females unlocked with Town Phase or something, which essentially makes it free since Town Phase is a tech you will research as quickly as possible anyway.

Basically no one makes women once you get to town phase because their eco is already self-sustaining and women are less useful than men. And, researching town phase so early would basically negate any benefit of doing so because you won't have a strong enough eco/ enough houses to take advantage of the fertility fest.

Some questions, what do we consider military and economic? Corral is not considered economical in templates. Should CC and army camp be included? Will people understand?

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/vs2015-differential/8324/display/redirect

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/macos-differential/7235/display/redirect

In D5112#217237, @borg- wrote:

+2 bonus pop for military and economy buildings.

Sounds good

In D5112#217239, @borg- wrote:

Some questions, what do we consider military and economic? Corral is not considered economical in templates. Should CC and army camp be included? Will people understand?

I would do no to corral (also no to fields), yes to camp, and no to CC.

But I don’t think it ultimately matter and I think players will figure it out after a few games if playing with rome no matter how you decide each of those buildings. Their categories are also listed in the building descriptions

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4309

I think @ValihrAnt tried to do this a while ago. Maybe use the buildings he suggested? I will say I think sticking to the buildings under 'Military' and 'Economy' class would be wise.
But yeah, a corral i think is considered a 'resource' building.

Are equal to Valihrant was using in your patch. To make this easier for players to understand, we can add +1 pop to all buildings except walls.
This makes it easy to write and read in the civ bonus description. I also think that +1 is enough to make something different at the beginning. The construction of the farmstead and store + cc buildings would give a population addition of 3. I don't mind if it's +2.

In D5112#217295, @borg- wrote:

Are equal to Valihrant was using in your patch. To make this easier for players to understand, we can add +1 pop to all buildings except walls.
This makes it easy to write and read in the civ bonus description. I also think that +1 is enough to make something different at the beginning. The construction of the farmstead and store + cc buildings would give a population addition of 3. I don't mind if it's +2.

No, its fine. I think a flat +2 on the military and economic buildings like vali suggested is good.

Sure, should I add something like (does not apply to corral, civic center, towers and walls) in description?

In D5112#217305, @borg- wrote:

Sure, should I add something like (does not apply to corral, civic center, towers and walls) in description?

No, I think that's not necessary. If a player wants to check which buildings exactly are affected, they can just look at the tech tree or the description of the building they are placing.

Tnx @real_tabasco_sauce i will change description.

@Freagarach I need your opinion here pls. Do you think the current proposal is interesting from the perspective of new players? I mean, corral is not considered by templates as an economy building, but for me it is, as well as CC. Just like army camp, I consider it a military building, but the templates don't. As I see it may seem confusing for new players, I think this should be more specific, like for example, "structures (except walls, farm) + 2population bonus. No problem giving the bonus to some more structures, I think that it would be more interesting for the purpose we want.

In D5112#217309, @borg- wrote:

@Freagarach I need your opinion here pls. Do you think the current proposal is interesting from the perspective of new players? I mean, corral is not considered by templates as an economy building, but for me it is, as well as CC. Just like army camp, I consider it a military building, but the templates don't. As I see it may seem confusing for new players, I think this should be more specific, like for example, "structures (except walls, farm) + 2population bonus. No problem giving the bonus to some more structures, I think that it would be more interesting for the purpose we want.

I don't have any issue with the population bonus part.
But,
If you have reserves about confusing new players, maybe it would be better to make the bonus more about houses than the population bonus for other buildings. Firstly, romans have the largest house models by far, so it would seem visually logical that they should give more pop space. Also, being able to train women from houses right away is super strong and could honestly be a standalone civ bonus. If your very first house can start training units, you can get additional places to train units long before other civs get their first barracks up which is 2:30 to 3:00 typically.
It is cool and unique, so why not lean more strongly into the roman houses being unique, rather than the other buildings? Roman houses +2 population bonus to give them 12 pop each. To balance this if necessary, we could either lower it to +1 or increase the wood cost of houses.

In D5112#217311, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

It is cool and unique, so why not lean more strongly into the roman houses being unique, rather than the other buildings? Roman houses +2 population bonus to give them 12 pop each.

I think this is really boring to be honest. It doesn't do anything to change strategy--it just makes Roman houses better. It also isn't particularly unique.

Maybe +4 pop bonus per house but remove pop techs?

In D5112#217313, @borg- wrote:

Maybe +4 pop bonus per house but remove pop techs?

Honestly, the only part I find interesting about that is the techs.

Maybe +2 to all buildings (including camps/corrals/houses/CCs if you're worried about confusion) and free house techs?

In D5112#217313, @borg- wrote:

Maybe +4 pop bonus per house but remove pop techs?

In D5112#217314, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D5112#217313, @borg- wrote:

Maybe +4 pop bonus per house but remove pop techs?

Honestly, the only part I find interesting about that is the techs.

Maybe +2 to all buildings (including camps/corrals/houses/CCs if you're worried about confusion) and free house techs?

Seems like the three of us all have slightly different ideas.
Between the population bonus and free/removed techs, I think the techs are the more interesting to make into a bonus. So, we should first agree on what the tech change should be. I prefer removing the fertility festival requirement (as it is currently) over free house techs.
Now on top of this, we could add a population bonus for some buildings. @chrstgtr says it should be all buildings, but I say only houses. I think this decision should come down to balance, especially since the romans are getting some pretty strong content with these differentiation patches.
Personally, adding a pop bonus to all buildings feels a bit generic and doesn't capitalize on how chunky the roman houses are. I can also see realism people being confused that their storehouse gives population space. It also seems more streamlined/elegant for the bonus to be centered around houses. So thats my reasoning for the no fertility fest + 2 pop space for houses.

In D5112#217312, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D5112#217311, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

It is cool and unique, so why not lean more strongly into the roman houses being unique, rather than the other buildings? Roman houses +2 population bonus to give them 12 pop each.

I think this is really boring to be honest. It doesn't do anything to change strategy--it just makes Roman houses better. It also isn't particularly unique.

I guess it isn't all that interesting, so I feel like going more into the techs would be cooler.
But tbh, if the bonus is for all buildings, what interesting builds are u gonna do? 20 storehouses to get 40 extra pop? Giving the pop bonus to all buildings doesn't really change strategy either.

I'm going to come up with a slightly different idea.
Bonus civ: houses train women without technology (seems everyone agrees). Seems to be a pretty strong bonus on its own. We can include a bonus of +10% pop for each age up, which represents the gradual population increase of rome.
New building "insulae". Built in village phase. They are roman buildings.
We already have the models in dalenda est. This would represent the use of Roman cement. It should only cost stone, so it would give rise to some diversification in the initial gameplay, being able to use the initial wood of a house for another construction.

In D5112#217321, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5112#217312, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D5112#217311, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

It is cool and unique, so why not lean more strongly into the roman houses being unique, rather than the other buildings? Roman houses +2 population bonus to give them 12 pop each.

I think this is really boring to be honest. It doesn't do anything to change strategy--it just makes Roman houses better. It also isn't particularly unique.

I guess it isn't all that interesting, so I feel like going more into the techs would be cooler.
But tbh, if the bonus is for all buildings, what interesting builds are u gonna do? 20 storehouses to get 40 extra pop? Giving the pop bonus to all buildings doesn't really change strategy either.

It changes build orders. See a23 Brit’s/Gauls. Make a ton of barracks and makes rush available much quicker. Also makes you much more likely to invest in other eco buildings, which makes the eco quicker/easier to restart eco, happens with rushes

In D5112#217323, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D5112#217321, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5112#217312, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D5112#217311, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

It is cool and unique, so why not lean more strongly into the roman houses being unique, rather than the other buildings? Roman houses +2 population bonus to give them 12 pop each.

I think this is really boring to be honest. It doesn't do anything to change strategy--it just makes Roman houses better. It also isn't particularly unique.

I guess it isn't all that interesting, so I feel like going more into the techs would be cooler.
But tbh, if the bonus is for all buildings, what interesting builds are u gonna do? 20 storehouses to get 40 extra pop? Giving the pop bonus to all buildings doesn't really change strategy either.

It changes build orders. See a23 Brit’s/Gauls. Make a ton of barracks and makes rush available much quicker. Also makes you much more likely to invest in other eco buildings, which makes the eco quicker/easier to restart eco, happens with rushes

No it just made brits and gauls way stronger in general. Like just OP. And thats also because it was 4 pop. not 2. https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2841
There is no way that as romans u are going to build a barracks much sooner than normal for 2 pop. Also no way they you will get 3 barracks to make a rush more available. Far more influential here would be training women without FF. Imagine u can keep training eco from houses while getting spear cav from the CC early on this could begin at like 1 and a half or 2 minutes.

I'm going to come up with a slightly different idea.
Bonus civ: houses train women without technology (seems everyone agrees). Seems to be a pretty strong bonus on its own. We can include a bonus of +10% pop for each age up, which represents the gradual population increase of rome.

Oh ok, I like this. So like houses +10% pop for each age? Btw the way to do this is to create a unique phase up tech and apply it for the romans. See the persian and athenian phase up techs.

New building "insulae". Built in village phase. They are roman buildings.
We already have the models in dalenda est. This would represent the use of Roman cement. It should only cost stone, so it would give rise to some diversification in the initial gameplay, being able to use the initial wood of a house for another construction.

I am not a fan of this for a few reasons. This seems like a far better version of the carthage apartment. I think it would probably just be used as a 'free' house to make use of the starting stone, and not used much after this. It seems kinda cheesy to just instantly make use of the starting stone. Also, the roman tech tree will be the largest and most diverse after these patches. The differentiation must end somewhere or else Rome will have double the content of the other civs. Just the first idea alone seems perfectly fine as a civ bonus.

We can work with some unique technologies to change gameplay, rome is lacking in unique technologies.

In D5112#217328, @borg- wrote:

We can work with some unique technologies to change gameplay, rome is lacking in unique technologies.

perhaps one other in addition to the marian reforms tech.

In D5112#217324, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5112#217323, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D5112#217321, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5112#217312, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D5112#217311, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

It is cool and unique, so why not lean more strongly into the roman houses being unique, rather than the other buildings? Roman houses +2 population bonus to give them 12 pop each.

I think this is really boring to be honest. It doesn't do anything to change strategy--it just makes Roman houses better. It also isn't particularly unique.

I guess it isn't all that interesting, so I feel like going more into the techs would be cooler.
But tbh, if the bonus is for all buildings, what interesting builds are u gonna do? 20 storehouses to get 40 extra pop? Giving the pop bonus to all buildings doesn't really change strategy either.

It changes build orders. See a23 Brit’s/Gauls. Make a ton of barracks and makes rush available much quicker. Also makes you much more likely to invest in other eco buildings, which makes the eco quicker/easier to restart eco, happens with rushes

No it just made brits and gauls way stronger in general. Like just OP. And thats also because it was 4 pop. not 2. https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2841
There is no way that as romans u are going to build a barracks much sooner than normal for 2 pop. Also no way they you will get 3 barracks to make a rush more available. Far more influential here would be training women without FF. Imagine u can keep training eco from houses while getting spear cav from the CC early on this could begin at like 1 and a half or 2 minutes.

Disagree--I definitely had different build orders for brits/gauls that took advantage of to pop bonus associated with other buildings. It changed the way I did eco and the way I would prep rushes.

Disagree--I definitely had different build orders for brits/gauls that took advantage of to pop bonus associated with other buildings. It changed the way I did eco and the way I would prep rushes.

I could see the barracks giving 4 pop making a difference, but +2 pop for all buildings is just a general buff and wouldn't make for any different strategies. Yeah it would change the way you do eco but the change would just be better eco (delayed need for houses and fewer houses needed). I would hardly call that a different strategy.
No FF for training women is way more interesting and is guaranteed to affect eco for the romans.

In D5112#217331, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

Disagree--I definitely had different build orders for brits/gauls that took advantage of to pop bonus associated with other buildings. It changed the way I did eco and the way I would prep rushes.

I could see the barracks giving 4 pop making a difference, but +2 pop for all buildings is just a general buff and wouldn't make for any different strategies. Yeah it would change the way you do eco but the change would just be better eco (delayed need for houses and fewer houses needed). I would hardly call that a different strategy.

That's not true. A Brits/Gauls build literally looked different than other civs and Brits/Gauls would play differently than other civs. You would make more storehouses because it gave you extra pop, which changed your eco efficiency (walking distance) and make you research techs at different times (carry tech became less important and wood chopping tech might become affordable sooner or later depending on how many storehouses you build). You would make extra farmhouses to get faraway hunt/berries because it would give you an extra 2 pop, which makes a big difference when rushing with 10 vs 12 cav at min 5. You would purposely build less houses in mid game because you knew that doing so would be a waste of wood since you'd know that barracks/storehouses in late game would get you to pop cap anyways. Losing border skirmishes/rushes would become more painful because losing storehouses would mean you both lose your way to drop off res and some of you pop cap.

In D5112#217331, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

No FF for training women is way more interesting and is guaranteed to affect eco for the romans.

I'm fine with eliminating the FF tech, and agree it could be an interesting change. But it's speculative. In general, it's hard to use FF tech early because you lack extra food.

That's not true. A Brits/Gauls build literally looked different than other civs and Brits/Gauls would play differently than other civs. You would make more storehouses because it gave you extra pop, which changed your eco efficiency (walking distance) and make you research techs at different times (carry tech became less important and wood chopping tech might become affordable sooner or later depending on how many storehouses you build). You would make extra farmhouses to get faraway hunt/berries because it would give you an extra 2 pop, which makes a big difference when rushing with 10 vs 12 cav at min 5. You would purposely build less houses in mid game because you knew that doing so would be a waste of wood since you'd know that barracks/storehouses in late game would get you to pop cap anyways. Losing border skirmishes/rushes would become more painful because losing storehouses would mean you both lose your way to drop off res and some of you pop cap.

Right, and what you are describing could be described as a percent modifier on existing gameplay.
These are all build orders and strategies players already do, its just that they are easier if other buildings give you pop. Like for example since you get 2 pop to build a farmstead, players feel that it is more worthwhile to place them for distant hunt. However, every point you mentioned there can be said for something like buildings -20% cost, which a blanket buff. So, something like +2 pop space for all buildings is a blanket buff and is not super interesting. At best it will lead to slight variations to existing strategies. The main thing is that its really strong.

Also, it would be OP to now do this for all buildings like you suggested on top of all the other content rome will be getting. We have to keep things balanced or else it will be quite a chore to rebalance the release candidate.

But it's speculative. In general, it's hard to use FF tech early because you lack extra food.

Call it speculation if you want but think about it: FF costs 250 food 100 wood and 100 metal. It also takes 40 seconds to research. Players currently use FF for a greedy boom straight to consular bodyguards.
eliminating the tech means you get 5 women for free, and an extra eco upgrade if you are doing this strategy, which is huge. Now for some real speculation: If you are training up some spearcav for a rush, which takes a lot of time to train from CC, you may still grow your eco a little which could put you in front in a 1v1 wouldn't it?
I don't think they need another really strong civ bonus on top of this more exciting bonus. If anything, it should be more populous houses since the name is 'urbs roma' and that can be balanced as needed by extra wood cost.

In D5112#217334, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

That's not true. A Brits/Gauls build literally looked different than other civs and Brits/Gauls would play differently than other civs. You would make more storehouses because it gave you extra pop, which changed your eco efficiency (walking distance) and make you research techs at different times (carry tech became less important and wood chopping tech might become affordable sooner or later depending on how many storehouses you build). You would make extra farmhouses to get faraway hunt/berries because it would give you an extra 2 pop, which makes a big difference when rushing with 10 vs 12 cav at min 5. You would purposely build less houses in mid game because you knew that doing so would be a waste of wood since you'd know that barracks/storehouses in late game would get you to pop cap anyways. Losing border skirmishes/rushes would become more painful because losing storehouses would mean you both lose your way to drop off res and some of you pop cap.

Right, and what you are describing could be described as a percent modifier on existing gameplay.
These are all build orders and strategies players already do, its just that they are easier if other buildings give you pop. Like for example since you get 2 pop to build a farmstead, players feel that it is more worthwhile to place them for distant hunt. However, every point you mentioned there can be said for something like buildings -20% cost, which a blanket buff. So, something like +2 pop space for all buildings is a blanket buff and is not super interesting. At best it will lead to slight variations to existing strategies. The main thing is that its really strong.

Also, it would be OP to now do this for all buildings like you suggested on top of all the other content rome will be getting. We have to keep things balanced or else it will be quite a chore to rebalance the release candidate.

It is a different build order and strategy--and one that we lost when brits/gauls lost this bonus. Right now, basically all civs look the same when building to a boom or a rush, which is a sad state. This would change that.

I don't care if this bonus goes to Rome or another civ. But I find it really boring how every single boom for every single civ looks exactly the same. Same for rushes. And all bases look more or less the same. Right now, the main difference between civs is just unit composition. That doesn't really change how a civ fundamentally plays because it's just boom to phase X to use the OP unit in that phase. I would really like something that changes that meta

It is a different build order and strategy--and one that we lost when brits/gauls lost this bonus.

No it simply wasn't that big a difference. It was just a stronger version of:

it's just boom to phase X to use the OP unit in that phase.

Remember that the meta for most players was: insane boom into slinger ball.

In general think you are very much overselling the +2 pop per house bonus because you remember how different brits and gauls were earlier. Remember that they had +4 pop per barracks and +5 for the market as well as the current -20% build time for structures as well as the barracks only costing wood, so there are confounding variables here. I suggest this not go to rome, and instead bring it back for another civ. Could be a future civ or honestly, perhaps just give it back to brits.

Removing the need for fertility festival is easily good as a civ bonus and we shouldn't add any other economic civ bonus, else rome will be mega OP.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/macos-differential/7238/display/redirect

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/vs2015-differential/8327/display/redirect