Now that the Lucy OpenDev is over, I feel like April 22nd can’t come soon enough. I had such a blast with it, and every time I finished a playthrough and told myself that it’d be the last of the OpenDev I went back to starting another. That said, the goal of my post is to talk about things that I think can be improved upon to take this game from mere excellence to masterpiece.

I started writing a few thoughts halfway through the OpenDev, and then the length of it just got away from me. This was a 7 page nearly 3800 words Word Document, so if you don't want to read it, I don't blame you, but I at least wanted to post my feedback in the best place I know of for Amplitude to see it. If you do take upon the heraklean task of reading it, thanks! Would be glad to hear if you think I'm full of shit or make some good points. That said, I decided this was better than spamming the board with a bunch of mini-posts on each of my topics.

Also, I stole some points from a few other posters here, and credited them where applicable, but just wanted to echo them because I loved their suggestions and feel the more Amplitude sees the same suggestion, the more likely they might say, “Hey, we should really take that idea seriously!”

Era Advancement.

I feel like we earn era stars far too quickly right now, and it makes each Era go by far too quickly. While I never advance immediately, and as many have pointed out, it may not be advantageous to do so in the first place, I still feel like the pace could be slowed down considerably. As It stands, I don’t feel like I get to “savor” each Era. In the Ancient Era, by the time I’ve got a few maker’s quarters, harbors and basic quarters up to get my city functional, I’m ready to move onto the next era without ever having built an EQ (depending on the EQ, some you build right away!) or gotten into enough political turmoil with my neighbors to use my EU’s against them. To be fair, this I think is exacerbated by how advantageous it is to stay in the Neolithic Era looking for food and getting units that can be disbanded into population and the fact that neither the AI Nations nor Independent Peoples are nearly aggressive enough.

Science & Technology.

My major complaint is I feel that each Era’s portion of the tech tree goes by far too quickly, even without a hard focus on science. I feel this exacerbates some of the problems with blasting through eras, and EUs becoming outdated before you get the chance to really enjoy them. I feel like unlocking a technology every 5 to 8 turns is pretty satisfying, maybe every 4-6 turns if you’re really focusing on it, but to keep that relatively consistent it seems that the cost in science and ability to produce it will need to be tweaked a bit.

In addition to those tweaks, I personally feel another tier or two of tech in each era would go a long way to stretching out the era in a satisfying way, especially towards the end, that way you get to use your EUs a bit longer without just making the tech to unlock them take forever to unlock.

Battle.

1. So far, my experience in this game has been that the AI rarely puts up a good fight, not necessarily due to how they perform in battle (though they could be stronger here too, I’ve seen them do some pretty smart things, but I’ve also seen Swordsmen attack a War Elephant uphill when there was available level ground to attack from), but in that they are always behind in tech and rarely field full stacks of units. To be fair, this may also have a lot to do with the available difficulties and settings of the OpenDev.

2. I do feel that the impact that the difference in strength between units has could be tweaked a little, but not necessarily a lot, to be less punishing for weaker units, because as it stands, if someone is even a bit behind in unit tech it seems to leave them at a major disadvantage. It also makes battles really quick (unresponsiveness of the units aside), which makes rushing your enemy almost always the best tactical decision.

3. It currently feels as though there is little reason to not just select the highest CS unit available for any given Era in most cases. I feel like ancient/classical/medieval melee units should have more pronounced differences in their roles. The “Melee” trait on infantry could be replaced by the“Axe/Sword Infantry” trait,  while the “Spear Infantry” trait grants bonuses against cavalry as normal. This of course culminates in the Halberdier being stronger than the “Axe/Sword Infantry” of previous eras (beside Varangian Guard oif course), while retaining their anti-cav focus. It would also be important to add in a spear icon at the least to differentiate each at a glance.

3a) Furthermore, all elephants, chariots and horse/camel units should get “Melee Cavalry” and “Ranged Cavalry” designations so that anti-cavalry bonuses remain consistent. Right now, the only elephant that counts as cavalry are War Elephants, while the Markabata and the Hunnic/Mongol Horde are not cavalry at all!?

3b) To further extend on Melee Cavalry, I saw another suggestion that I liked that perhaps a further distinction between “Light Cavalry” and “Heavy Cavalry” could be made, with the former gaining bonuses to flanking, and the latter retaining their charge bonus. [Gan1997]

3c) It feels like Amplitude really wants to avoid having more than two traits per unit, and the above change could allow them to keep to that while alleviating another complaint that I have, which is that EUs that replace a standard unit lose out on that unit’s ability, such as Sabu Sa Qasti or Naginata Samurai losing Anti-Cav, Runners losing Pathfinder (making them slower in many instances), and Teutonic Knights losing Charge. That said, I think we can all handle the occasional unit getting three traits, especially on an EU, and especially if the purpose of one trait is to just designate their combat role.

4. Archers drop off in effectiveness too quickly. Though changing the difference in power calculations could help that, maybe Ancient Era could have slingers, and the Classical Era could get archers?

5. The Gunner trait feels like it comes into play too early. Crossbowmen and Arquebusiers could be classified as “Ranged Infantry” but also have “Direct Fire” as a trait (a few EUs this could apply to as well). Historically both weapons are notoriously slow to reload, but moreso from a gameplay perspective, it still gives you more of a reason to field Pikemen and Halberdiers alongside their counterparts (of course each unit could also be more worthwhile against humans or against the AI if they used cav more effectively). Gunner finally coming online with Musketeers makes sense to represent the evolution of the handgun to the point that melee infantry finally become obsolete (perhaps Janissaries and Conquistadores as well to make them even more special).

6. Naval units that don’t have the Boarding Vessel trait should be able to attack units that are within range on land, especially if they have a range of two or greater. Could also help to add some distinction that boarding vessels take damage from each other like melee units do on land.

7. LoS for ranged units feels unintuitive to the point where I feel certain that it is not currently implemented correctly in this build. It felt like my gunner units especially could only shoot in straight lines away from any side of their hex, and if a unit was between those lines, then no can do. As others have mentioned, it would be great to see tiles within their range as highlighted when they are selected and before you confirm a move.

8. Sieges feel like they're in a weird place right now. I like suggestions that you shouldn't be able to cross walls while within the zone of control for anyone on the inside. Furthermore, cav probably shouldn't be able to cross at all (unless the wall is broken), while infantry can do so the way they currently do. Othewise, fortifications feel like they should get a bit of a buff, or home huard units should, or both. Perhaps defenders next to a wall get high ground advantage after you build palisades, while a tech/infrastructure in each era converts some of your home guard units into the basic ranged unit of that era to make the battle more dynamic?

9. Retreating is annoying as hell atm. When an enemy retreats it shouldn't deplete the attacking army's movement. I mean, all my soldiers did was glare at the enemy menacingly and then they ran away. There are probably some other things that could change too, but this would be the big one.

10. On Winged Hussars, Charge Master, it says when charging that the target cannot retaliate. Is their charge activated the same way any other charge is? Do they get bonuses to damage the same way? I would assume so, but it should probably be spelled out. Also, I'm pretty sure Charge was broken in this OpenDev, because I never once saw the bonuses granted when I felt I should have.

Units (Non-Combat Related Remarks).

1. Naval units feel way too slow, especially embarked units. It feels strange that naval units don't move about as fast as cavalry until later eras, and I would hope that the Pentekonter starts with a speed of at least 5 in the full release, and the Transport Galley with a speed of 3 or 4 to better incentivize naval play and exploration, because right now their speed makes them not fun as you babysit them for a dozen turns to get anywhere. Then again, perhaps these units have been slowed down for this OpenDev scenario to make it harder to discover that uncolonized continent?

1a) I was also disappointed that the Lighthouse of Alexandria and Norsemen speed boosts didn't apply to embarked units.

2. Saboteurs feel like they're in a weird place right now, they're not a great combat unit and seem to have limited use on the campaign map. It would be pretty cool if they and other stealth units were able to cross borders without starting wars, but generate trespassinging grievances if discovered. Perhaps they could also ransack anyone that you don't have an alliance with (generating even more grievances if discovered shortly after doing so), but even then their positions are only revealed with the highest military alliance treaty. I feel like the more shenanigans such a unit can get up to, the better.

2a) I found the Privateer ship, and it should have a similar treatment with some variations. If it appears as an independent pirate ship, it should act like one and be able to cross borders to ransack harbors and trade routes without starting a war (though if it's destroyed shortly after it attacked an opponent in any way, the captain reveals who they are working for and it generates a grievance).

3. Unless there are more strategic resources in the game, or the AI becomes better at exploiting their own, the resource requirements for some units feel a little steep. For instance, getting the two copper for the chariot can be easy if you have two copper deposits, but if you don't, then you're probably already well on your way through the Classical Era before the AI figures out how to exploit their copper and trade it to you (assuming that's not the AI you were planning on using said chariots against).

4. When cycling through idle units I would like it to go through units that have pending move orders as well, so that I can see where they're going, if anything new has popped up in their way, and if I need to change plans, and then there should be a separate button that tells any units with queued up movement to continue on their way.

Warfare & Grievances.

1. I really enjoy the way War Desire and grievances work, as it makes going to war feel organic and builds up pressure where I feel I have to convince my populace of the casus belli for war (even if it’s one I deliberately manufactured). Due to above issues with the AI’s combat ability, War Desire feels one-sided, but might be less so if the AI puts up a better fight.

2. Crisis Defusal is really opaque at the moment though, as I have no idea what I am accepting or refusing when the AI offers it.

3. I would also like the ability when negotiating the opposing sides unconditional surrender to say, “I’ll let you keep that territory I demanded initially if you become my vassal.” This may at least be partially because I hate inheriting the AI's poorly managed cities and would rather just get their gold.

Territories & Expansion.

1. Expansion feels too fast and cheap. If the pace of the eras is slowed down, then this would also have to be slowed down to make sure you still have plenty to do in the later eras. I've seen several suggestions to help with this, of course making it cumulatively more expensive to build outposts and attach territories would help, but one other one I like most is reducing the size of the territories, which I think will also have the additional effect of making the choice of starting territories an even more crucial one. A limit to the number of outposts that can be settled in the Neolithic would probably also help.

1a) A more aggressive, militarily competent, and less easily assimilated Independent Peoples that pop up earlier could also help curb rampant expansion earlier in the game.

2. In contrast to all the other costs for expansion, the cost of absorbing a neighboring city feels way too high, especially if said “city” is a single territory with no districts that I acquired by assimilating/conquering an independent people.

3. I feel that City Creation upgrades like the Colony Model and Plan could have quite a few more infrastructures built in, as rebuilding the same infrastructure in every new city over and over again gets pretty tedious.

4. Territories with an incomplete Outpost should still be considered neutral for the purposes of fighting over it without declaring war.

Population & Stability.

1. Population accrual is slow at the beginning of the game, but once it takes off it is way too easy to get to  one pop per turn, and then you can barely keep up until the city becomes overpopulated, so I feel a better pacing for population growth would be necessary. Along with that, the number of population you can acquire per turn should be tied in some way to territories, because as many have pointed out, the current system really only incentivizes and awards lots of small cities.

2. Something else that I feel would be helpful is representing migration in some way. Perhaps if a city becomes overcrowded, the population starts to migrate to neighboring territories (possibly even another player’s!). This could be influenced by stability too, with citizens more likely to migrate to neighboring cities with high stability (“You don't want to move to Rome! The streets are covered in filth, there are no acqueducts, and not even a proper army to protect us from the Poles!”). Perhaps a tech sometime around the medieval or colonial period would allow you to designate Land Grants in certain territories, incentivizing population to migrate specifically there, possibly ignoring adjacency?

3. Stability is too easy to manage right now. All you have to do is build a wonder, pop a Procession or plop down a Commons Quarter, and bam, taken care of! Overpopulation also doesn't impose enough of an onus to really care either, and since I can sacrifice pop to mortar the foundations of my next wonder with no consequences there isn't even really a reason to care either.

Districts & Emblematic Quarters.

1. Certain districts definitely feel more worthwhile than others. Makers Quarters are very spammable, while Farmers Quarters and Market Quarters rarely feel worthwhile, and not just because producing a lot of food often feels useless and Market Quarters don't give you back a lot of money, but because in almost all cases both are far outstripped by Harbors, which provide more food, more money, and can often exploit science tiles as well.

2. All districts and EQs need to have more clearly displayed adjaceny requirements in their tooltips. Especially EQs, as I often have no idea which EQs do not need to be adjactent to an existing district before I attempt to see where I can plop one down. EQs should also display which resources they exploit before you pick your culture.

3. Adjacency with cities is counterintuitive right now. The game seems to pointing me to expand out from my city (which makes the most sense thematically, but it's almost always better to build out from a resource deposit or harbor because of the way a city exploits all surrounding resources. Not sure what the solution for this is (other than aggressive barbarian hordes to ransack unwalled districts), but it doesn't feel like it's working as intended.

4. Putting aside the wide gulf in effectiveness of many EQs aside, there is some thematic strangeness with how many of them work. For instance, plopping down a bunch of Kaiserdoms or Jama Masjids next to one another is very effective and has increasing benefits, but it makes little thematic sense to build that many grand churches or tombs in a single place. Instead of nerfing the actual effects of such EQs, it could make more sense to impose some simple limits on them, such as one per territory, or one per “X” number of other districts in the city.  Such restrictions would be unique for each EQ and some, such as Canal Networks, Havens, and Nausts, already have diminishing returns to spam next to each other, and each makes more sense to have multiple of in a single territory compared to the above examples. Even the notoriously OP Hippodromos might not need its effects overly nerfed if it could only be built over a Horse Resource for instance.

5. Wonders are really mismatched atm. Some have really interesting and gamechanging effects, such as the Temple of Artemis, Statue of Zeus, and Lighthouse of Alexandria, while others such as the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and Saint Basil's Cathedral feel pretty lackluster. As a sidenote, if all of them exploit resources, it would be nice to get a preview of what you're gaining when you place one.

4&5a) It would be nice to be able to rotate EQs, Wonders, and Holy Sites when placing them, sometimes I really want them to face a certain way in relation to a natural feature or my existing city.

Diplomacy & Trade.

1. My major complaint right now is that the effects of diplomacy and trade feel far too opaque in many cases. For trade, I would at least like to be able to see how much each trade route is benefitting me and what resource is being bought by whom and for how much at a glance when I get the new trade deal notification. It would also be handy to see my exact trade income when I hover over my total income in the upper right-hand corner.

2. I’m not entirely satisfied with how vassalage works. Once you vassalize another faction, it feels like you can just ignore them while getting their income. I think it would be great to have more options to influence them, and how you treat them could inform how loyal they are or whether they decide to rebel against you or undermine you in other ways. It was also annoying to declare war on a faction but be at peace with their vassal and be unable to declare war on them (though I believe that wasn't working as intended).

Independent Peoples.

1. The system for patronage feels undercooked right now. Just spamming influence and coin until they like you next turn isn't exactly an engaging mechanic. Even then, there are plenty of things that are in the system that don't feel like they are being utilized, such as levels of ideological proximity.

2. If we are supposed to be interested in recruiting them as mercenaries and/or fighting them, they should recruit units other than levies/militia/etc. At the very least, whatever the basic fighting units of their era are. To that extent, there should also just be more of them, and they shouldn't get their armies killed attacking you in a hopeless fight, so that even a peaceful IP  represents a significant hurdle to unbounded expansion in the early game, while a hostile IP represents, if not an existential threat to your empire, at least a major risk to stability as they attempt to ransack unwalled extensions and the like.

3. I feel like if you have sufficient patronage over an independent people there should be some counterplay options if another culture attempts to assimilate them. Perhaps it takes a few turns, and during that time you can spend influence to support that people's independence, which also makes it impossible for anyone to assimilate them for 5-10 turns or so. This would be especially handy for that one legacy trait that grants bonuses for each independent people under your patronage. Could also be cool to have the option to “vassalize” them, and gain different benefits from them depending on the type of IP they are.

4. I really liked one suggestion I saw that rather than just Hostile or Peaceful, they should spawn as Warriors, Pastoralists, Merchants, or Worshippers (or something to that effect). [oggysu]

4a) Warriors could recruit basic soldiers as above, and could represent several archetypes depending on where they spawn, such as Barbarians, Sea Peoples, Pirates, etc. Classical Era barbarians with a horse deposit could prioritize exploiting it and then send horsemen to ravage the countryside, while Ancient Sea Peoples or Early Modern Pirates would only spawn on coasts and prioritize building a harbor and then sending sea vessels out to ransack trade routes and harbors. They obviously also make the best mercenaries if patronized.

4b) I don't want to reiterate oggysu's great suggestions too much, but the other more peaceful IPs would have their place in providing more food, access to resources, and faith, respectively.

Affinities.

1. Expansionist. Their ability feels a little counterintuitive to use, where it can only be used against nations that you aren’t at war against, but requires you to negotiate a better standing with that faction to then cross their borders and steal their territories, but they can also just cancel that treaty at any time. Just feels strange. Perhaps this could be addressed by allowing Expansionists to cross the borders of territories adjacent to yours without declaring war regardless of treaties?

2. Builder. While the ability can sometimes be great, it rarely feels good to use in the ancient era, where you can lose all your progress in money and science for potentially minimal returns. Granted, this problem could be solved if each era didn't fly by so quickly but, I wonder if a secondary ability such as sacrificing all of one city's production to value to apply 50% of that to a city of your choice could add more options to use it during all ages?

3. Scientist. I have a similar problem with scientist as with builder, but not sure how it could be improved.

4. Militarist. Currently, the militarist ability allows you to summon an army of Home Guard units that's next to worthless, unless you're ahead in eras, but due to the imbalance in combat strength effectiveness, they'd end up just being fodder with little impact. The best use I found for this ability is to summon a bunch of peasants in a city with high pop and send them to a city with low pop to disband them.