This is a thread intended to criticize UPs that you find to somehow be wrong - too weak, too powerful, unhistorical, etc.
I have three to start with:
Germany's Blitzkrieg - reflects a very limited period in German history, makes Germany a prime candidate for military domination around the world from the moment they get Gunpowder, and doesn't reflect a far deeper more recurrent theme in German cultural history in the last few centuries, which is great academic achievement.
Rome's Infrastructure - doesn't quite do enough to enable Rome to create a sprawling empire. My suggestion is that all Roman non-military units and all Roman Praetorians travel at 4x on roads (in or out of roman territory), and Praetorians can construct roads (but nothing else). This will be about as strong (it gives the ability out of territory and gives Rome more roadbuilders, but limits what units get the bonus) and at the sime time better reflect history and better allow Rome to create a huge infrastructure of roads and use it to expand.
Persia's Satrapy - mainly benefits them later in the game and seemingly always allows them to create an enormous all-engulfing world empire. Simply unbalanced.

EDIT: Oh, there was a fourth:
England's Royal Navy - the Royal Navy was known for quality, not quantity. It should produce ships at normal speed but all of their military naval vessels should start with Drill I and Drill II, establishing naval supermacy for England.

I second slightly Blasph in "England" and "Rome". Why not give Persias less corruption to Rome? Wouldn't that fit well. It'd help creating the Roman empire but it still would be difficult for Rome as they are sourrounded by other civs (unlike Persia) and thus still would have to fight their way out. ;)
Egypts Power seems rather weak. Why not give them the ability to build temples without religion? (for balancing reasons perhaps only as long as there is no religion present in whole Egypt?). This would make the Pyramids again more useful for the Egyptians.
Persia could get - although not so historical - Rome's lesser power of keeping a large empire (the road bonus helps somehow in keeping it ;)).

mitsho

I don't think any early civ should receive the bonus Satrapy now gives. Its main benefit is later in the game when you can get much farther much quicker. Rome would have little use for no distance maintenance until the colonial age.
I like mitsho's idea for Egypt. Give them a special Egyptian Temple building that's just a regular temple only it can't be built in a city that has any religion in it. It's really a pretty nice, hefty bonus for them.

Hmm, lets see.

I like the current implementation of Rome's ability pretty much. I don't think that letting Praetorians build roads would really help that much. On an unrelated note, I think it would be amazing if Praetorians were renamed to Legionaries. It bugs me every single time I see Praetorians refered to like this.


I agree with Blas that England, Germany, and Persia all should be changed.

You've all heard my previous proposal that Persia be given Vassalage at the start of the game and be given the ability to draft Immortals from the start.

Giving Drill I and Drill II to England for all naval units sounds like a good idea to me.

I'm not sure exactly what bonus should be given to Germany, but a change from the current one would be in order. I'm not as conviced as Blas that it necessarily needs to be a scientific one though. I think that some type of bonus to Germany's gunpowder infantry would be good, as the country has been known for its elite forces since about that time. You could call it "Superior Training" or something like that. What type of academic bonus would you suggest for Germany Blas?

I conquer with my learned colleagues regarding England Germany and Persia (Rome as well)

What type of academic bonus would you suggest for Germany Blas? One option is simply cheaper universities (as there are some very, very old German universities), and it could go along with more :science: from the universities (say an extra 5%) or perhaps +10% :science: in cities with a university per 20% invested in :culture:. Another option is that universities give +1:gp: or even +2 (to great scientist of course).
There are all kinds of things that can be done, really.

I think that for the Germans you could easily go with either a military power or a scientific one. Since I don't know which would be better I'll just throw out what I currently think would be the best for each option.

For a military bonus I would give all German gunpowder infantry the Pinch promotion (+25% vs. guns) for free.

For scientific I would make German universities produce +50% :science: and +1:gp:.

In the end I think I would go with the military bonus I outlined. The reason for that is that in a few short weeks Warlords will come out, which will give each nation a unique building. We could then easily make Germany's unique building an improved university without using up its civ power.

I just feel even military supremacy that Germany is known for is the result of a cultural focus on education and academics.
Perhaps we can think of some kind of UP that gives Germany extra :gp: points, and even more in industrial-era wars.

I think 50% bonus to universities is too much. Perhaps cities with universities produce 20% more :gp:?

Okay, here's a solid suggestion:
German Barracks give +1:gp: (non-specific), German Universities give +2:gp: (scientist). And at the same time we tweak the Panzer to give Germany a bigger military advantage in the World Wars' era.

Good idea ! For Rome I want praetorians able to take enemies roads et move 2 per turn ...

Ainsi we can create Roman Empire !

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for Germany to have a military advantage: though it really only historically makes sense for the period from 1740-1940, they were a remarkably successful military power through most of that period.

I rather liked the idea that Praetorians could build roads (but not other improvements).

I'd think it goes back further than that even. Recall the Germanic tribes that brought down the Roman Empire. No offense to Germans on here, but I really do associate Germans with war more than anything else.

How is science more appropriate?

Rome's Infrastructure - doesn't quite do enough to enable Rome to create a sprawling empire. My suggestion is that all Roman non-military units and all Roman Praetorians travel at 4x on roads (in or out of roman territory), and Praetorians can construct roads (but nothing else). This will be about as strong (it gives the ability out of territory and gives Rome more roadbuilders, but limits what units get the bonus) and at the sime time better reflect history and better allow Rome to create a huge infrastructure of roads and use it to expand.

Better UP in my opinion.

I'd think it goes back further than that even. Recall the Germanic tribes that brought down the Roman Empire. No offense to Germans on here, but I really do associate Germans with war more than anything else.

How is science more appropriate?

I don't have a specific problem with the German UP being military, as they generally, with the exception of Napoleonic times, were a superior military force. However, I think the problem lies with the specificity of the UP, the Blitzkrieg. It's a model of a specific German tactic for basically a five-year period, from the Spanish Civil War until the snows of Russia. Meanwhile, the Germans are in the mod for 1200 years. That's a bit more than 5.

The power is also annoyingly overpowered - I end up with musketeers deep in my territory after just two turns.

I noticed that non-Romans get the Roman bonus when traveling on Roman roads with an open borders treaty.

I noticed that non-Romans get the Roman bonus when traveling on Roman roads with an open borders treaty.

One more reason to leave it for Praetorians only. ;)

Rome's Infrastructure - doesn't quite do enough to enable Rome to create a sprawling empire. My suggestion is that all Roman non-military units and all Roman Praetorians travel at 4x on roads (in or out of roman territory), and Praetorians can construct roads (but nothing else). This will be about as strong (it gives the ability out of territory and gives Rome more roadbuilders, but limits what units get the bonus) and at the sime time better reflect history and better allow Rome to create a huge infrastructure of roads and use it to expand.
Persia's Satrapy - mainly benefits them later in the game and seemingly always allows them to create an enormous all-engulfing world empire. Simply unbalanced.

EDIT: Oh, there was a fourth:
England's Royal Navy - the Royal Navy was known for quality, not quantity. It should produce ships at normal speed but all of their military naval vessels should start with Drill I and Drill II, establishing naval supermacy for England.
Agree with all of these. What should Persia's UP be? I like Germany having a militaristic UP, but it should be one that reflects the whole history of German warfare (from Roma invasion to modern wars).

SilverKnight

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for Germany to have a military advantage: though it really only historically makes sense for the period from 1740-1940, they were a remarkably successful military power through most of that period.
I'm led to believe Germany's military prowess (the barbarian invasion aside) was a side-effect of the great emphasis on education, including military education and prestigious military academies.
I'd think it goes back further than that even. Recall the Germanic tribes that brought down the Roman Empire. No offense to Germans on here, but I really do associate Germans with war more than anything else.

How is science more appropriate?
The barbarian invasion should be represented by Germany's starting units. Give them a very big bunch of warriors with a scattered few archers, axemen, and swordsmen, and that should do the trick. They'll overwhelm the Romans by sheer force of numbers (and remember they'll have the help of a few Praetorians), and later establish their own culture.
The biggest constant in German cultural history, as far as I can see (and I have definately been brainwashed by Goethe Institut), is a great emphasis on academics and culture. The German language has changed remarkably little in the last few centuries, unlike the English language (hardly anyone here could understand this paragraph if it were read out in the English of 1750 CE, Germans don't even need help understanding Gotthold E. Lessing's work, written in that same era), all this because there has been so much writing going on in Germany for so long (in England, until the industrial revolution, priests and monks were the only ones who could read and write, pretty much).
Science and military are just symptoms of a greater theme - german culture emphasizes academics. Just give them a UP that makes their Universities much more useful, maybe their Barracks too (to represent prestigious military academies), and that will be historically correct. My favorite option right now is to add the following:
Barracks: +1:culture:, +1:gp: (non-specific)
Universities: +1:culture:, +2:gp: (scientist), +5%:science:
and at the same time boost the Panzer to give that extra edge in the World Wars era.

If you want to represent academics making them better at war, then maybe Barracks should give extra XP, or some such? Not sure if that would be overpowered.
Of course, maybe Great Generals will open up some new ideas for a military UP, anyway.

DSCHapin, I think I've got an idea for that. Make all German cities get +1 XP for new units (very modest), and have it cancelled when Free Religion or Pacifism are the German religious civic. That way, until what would be reality's post-WW era, Germany will have a bit of an edge in wars, but once they become a peaceful modern Western power that goes away. Have this in addition to at least some of the stuff I proposed in my previous post here.

strange that rhye hasn't come to put our minds at rest...

Perhaps have a bonus to the Universities and Barracks as already discribed, and also make Universities give a bonus of +2 experience when not under Pacifism or Free Religion.

Also, if we're going to give Germany a big horde with which to beat the everloving snot out of Rome, I would suggest them getting mostly axemen, as historically the Germanic warriors mostly used axes, I think, and I would also suggest that Germany be returned to its original starting time at around 400 A.D., or at least some time before France and Spain, both so they don't target France or Spain with this horde, but also because I think that's more historically correct.

I would also suggest that Germany be returned to its original starting time at around 400 A.D., or at least some time before France and Spain, both so they don't target France or Spain with this horde, but also because I think that's more historically correct.
The German spawn should be the Barbarian invasion into rome. Perhaps it should happen in two parts, starting with just the Barbarian horde (which can be actually scripted Barbs or real German troops, Germany starting at war with any civ in their tight radius in this case) and then the whole cityflip and settler-spawning procedure.

I like the time the Germans come as it is. I advocated the earlier spawn position before, but now that I see this system in action I think it is much better.

By having actual barbarians spawn to represent the barbarian invasions it means that all of those units are guaranteed to attack Rome. If they were German units most of them would probably just sit in their cities, that is if the Germans even declared war on Rome. The system right now is very elegant and effective.

Here's an idea that could be a fantastic gameplay feature. Spawn tons of German Axemen and other millitary units in 400 or so, but no cities, settlers or workers. We would have to enable "Require Complete Kills" for the map to make sure they didn't spawn and then die because they don't have settlers, but I think it would be fun to play as a barbarian horde ripping its way accross Europe and then getting cities and settlers in 5 or six hundred maybe. This way if Germany started off at war with Rome, they would almost assuredly attack their cities with everything they had, since they would have nothing to defend, but we also won't have to worry about Germany Destroying the Roman cities like the Barbarians would, and always do. It would also make Germany a bit 'unique' in its play style.

Here's an idea that could be a fantastic gameplay feature. Spawn tons of German Axemen and other millitary units in 400 or so, but no cities, settlers or workers. We would have to enable "Require Complete Kills" for the map to make sure they didn't spawn and then die because they don't have settlers, but I think it would be fun to play as a barbarian horde ripping its way accross Europe and then getting cities and settlers in 5 or six hundred maybe. This way if Germany started off at war with Rome, they would almost assuredly attack their cities with everything they had, since they would have nothing to defend, but we also won't have to worry about Germany Destroying the Roman cities like the Barbarians would, and always do. It would also make Germany a bit 'unique' in its play style.

But then Germany would conquer Roman cities which is not historical accurate because as far as I know the barbarians just pillaged Rome and didn't stay there.

And besides, if Romans didn´t build cities in Germany, it would stand as an empty land. This would be nice if the player had the chance to build a proper Roman Empire, but most of the time, Rome consists only of the italian peninsula and north africa.

we also won't have to worry about Germany Destroying the Roman cities like the Barbarians would, and always do.

Barbarians ought to be modded so that they usually keep cities. Historically, very few cities have been actually destroyed.

I usually play with the no razing city option on. Actually what I would preffer is an option to raze your own cities, or an exodus system.

Just a nitpick. The British Navy was known for the excellence of its gunnery, not its sailing. British ships outfired their rivals at a rate of two to one, if not better.

Just a nitpick. The British Navy was known for the excellence of its gunnery, not its sailing. British ships outfired their rivals at a rate of two to one, if not better.
Hey look its Aeon! How've you been?

What was proposed earlier in this thread and pretty much reached consensus was to give all English ships Drill I and Drill II. This would perfectly represent their gunnery skills. Its the Spanish who receive extra movement.

Aussie_Lurker has an interesting thread about navies. The truth is, as important as it is for the British to have their superior navy in real life, it doesn't matter too much in Civilization 4. For this advantage to mean anything, navies out to be more powerful.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=177259

1) All vessels travelling along the coast should treat it as roads for movement purposes (whilst possibly, at the same time, making a larger number of land-based terrains either impassable or high MP cost-especially in the early game).

2) Give Galleons, Caravels and Frigates a +1 movement bonus when travelling on the ocean.

3) Introduce 1-2 earlier versions of the Dry dock for building.

4) Give naval units attacking ships in port a +100% strength bonus (the Pearl Harbour effect).

5) Have harbours and lighthouses lose their special effects if an enemy vessel is within the city's radius (health and food bonuses, bonus income from trade).

6) An enemy ship in a port city's radius might sever ALL overseas trade routes-both resource and monetary-though an overseas resource route can be re-established next turn if a suitable port city exists.

7) Have a range of 'navy-only' promotions to help ships to specialise-in terms of overall speed, speed on coasts vs open sea, pillaging abilities, ship to shore attacks and ship vs ship battles for example.

8) Allow certain naval units a chance to bombard units on a coastal tile-a la civ3 artillery.

9) Have a special terrain improvement called a 'Port', where fortified units get certain one-off benefits (see the various fort mods to see what I mean, but sentry and first-strike abilities come to mind).

10) Connected with 7, allow certain vessels to make 'pillaging strikes' against cities which might (a) steal away gold, (b) destroy a city improvement (c) remove a population point or (d) increase the city's unhappiness or unhealthiness.

It would be relatively easy to make naval units much more effective movers, as well as giving more benefits to having a naval unit stationed next to an enemy city (e.g.: a blockade affects the city's lighthouses/harbors, ocean tiles, and even generates wealth for the blocker.)

If navies could do this across the board... then Britain's naval dominance would be even more important.

About the "German Question": perhaps the most striking fact about the German civ in real life is, that it was for the longest part of its history NOT a unified nation, in other words not a unified nation, but rather a loose empire of statelets and cities in fact (not in iure) governed by themselves and NOT by a single Emperor, unlike England and France which were united by their kings. This kind of federalism is one the reasons for their academic/cultural prowess. Just think of Goethe's Weimar as an example: military weak, and so its governour invested in culture to set himself apart from the other German princes and lords. As a matter of fact, German knights and their orders were in fact military aggressive and also capable of ruling places (parts of what was to become Prussia and the Holy Land). In a way Prussia which united Germany by a brilliant mixture of military measures and diplomacy was a military re-import. Maybe the most historical solution would be to split the German civ in Austria and Prussia. Austria representing the Middle Ages and then Prussia taking over after the 18th century. (As a matter of fact I think that modern day Austria and Germany are in fact on civ, but two nations, a little while ago, we Germans were on civ but three nations...)
But I think to give Germany its historical federalism ("Kleinstaaterei" as we put it) would be more of a punishment gameplay-wise as it would make Germany hard to govern until about the 19th century, but boost its culture/science.
So I think Blasphemous ideas are perhaps the most enjoyable game-play wise.

O, I forgot: to have Germany's military bonus vanish with free religion is maybe an odd move from the historical point of view: Prussia was very tolerant in regards to religion, that's why the Hugenots moved in. So you could say it HAD free religion. And Prussia WAS military powerful. I'd suggest to change the Free Religion condition to Universal Suffrage instead.

Well, Germany isn't the only nation that stood out in a time of statelets. Greece is of course the prime example, where the city-states were the units of government and alliance in the era Greece is most famous for. And like you said, Wilhelm, it's not a good idea to represent this in-game, as it will only weaken those civs.

Here's an idea that could be a fantastic gameplay feature. Spawn tons of German Axemen and other millitary units in 400 or so, but no cities, settlers or workers. We would have to enable "Require Complete Kills" for the map to make sure they didn't spawn and then die because they don't have settlers, but I think it would be fun to play as a barbarian horde ripping its way accross Europe and then getting cities and settlers in 5 or six hundred maybe. This way if Germany started off at war with Rome, they would almost assuredly attack their cities with everything they had, since they would have nothing to defend, but we also won't have to worry about Germany Destroying the Roman cities like the Barbarians would, and always do. It would also make Germany a bit 'unique' in its play style.

I will try to do this.

Please, please avoid "require complete kill" somehow. It's such a relief when a war ends that the enemy vessels at your shore just go away without you needing to keep hunting down stupid little units until the last one is gone.

When I play with "Require complete Kills" on, if I win a war the opposing civ generally 'falls' per the scripted fall system, and when a civ falls all of its units are destroyed. So I don't think you should have to worry about hunting down rogue dogs. Honestly though, I wish the 'fallen' civs millitary should become barbarian. It seems the most true historically to me, but I could be wrong. I like in the Total War series how if you kill a rival civ its units (and family members) become barbarians, but that's mostly because by the time I'm killing civs I can bribe all the barbs to my side and hugely boost my millitary. It might not be so nice in cIV...

To make a long story short, I don't think you'll have to worry about rogue units, but I could be wrong.

No need to do that. If there are no settlers yet, you can keep playing with just military units, I just checked!

Personally I would find better if lots of barbarian are spawned and then they are converted to german units...

What about giving the statelet/federal civs a special civic, that essentially does this:
- As a player, you can onlymicromanage your capital, all others run on autopilot (AI governour), maybe focused on culture/growth/trade depending on civ (but NOT military units)
- but to accomodate for this, these cities give you military units depending on their size:
--for size 1 a kind of unmovable city militia (like palace guards in RoX for Civ3)
--for size 3 or so an offensive military unit
after a certain threshold, you get a second (and eventually a third) defensive unit, and the bigger the city, the more units you get. So essentially for every two or three pop points you get a milatary unit, alternating with 1 defensive unit, 2 offensive units, 1 defensive...
This way you could simulate this civs without over- or underpowering them. And of course everything ends once you research or adopt nationalism.
I think this way you could simulate the historical differences between despotic civs like Persia (everything ruled by one leader) and statelet-civs like Greece better.
In other words you'd split all (pre-nationalism) civs in two factions: statelet civs and united civs.
So what do you guys think about it?

Persia was a "federal monarchy" actually. Satrapies.

Most civs were more or less governed ferderally throughout history, because you need a lot of technology and beraucracy to really unify an empire or a nation into a stratified central state. Nevertheless there were civs that were only united when attacked (like Greece) and the multi-ethnical empires like Persia and Rome that were kept together by "their" military. Well in the end civ only cares about the Empires...

A little side note: maybe it's just me, but whenever I play Germany, Guilds are discovered pretty late, so I never get to experience real Middle Ages, because Knights appear just about 10 turns before Gunpowder. And in most cases it's better to research Education before Guilds to keep up with the AI's technolohical development (they're just soo unwillinging to trade techs on Emperor difficulty). And Axemen in 840 are pretty useless against Rome's longbowmen and crossbowmen.

Well, Germany isn't the only nation that stood out in a time of statelets. Greece is of course the prime example, where the city-states were the units of government and alliance in the era Greece is most famous for. And like you said, Wilhelm, it's not a good idea to represent this in-game, as it will only weaken those civs.

The tragic point in German history is that it fell apart after the Reformation while its prime competitors stayed or were united (France, England).

I don't think we should try and represent the fact that civs aren't directly controlled by one person throughout their history. This is the basic fantastical element of Civ that everything else rests upon. We have to ignore the fact that it's pure fantasy.

A great game can be made on having lack of control over events the larger the empire becomes. Macromanaging is rarely used to good effect in strategy games, in those rare occasions where it's even tried.

That game isn't Civilization, though, without getting into the XML, Python, and SDK and totally revamping the sucker. Maybe it's not even possible. But I don't think it's within the scope of this mod to make a new game.

A great game can be made on having lack of control over events the larger the empire becomes. Macromanaging is rarely used to good effect in strategy games, in those rare occasions where it's even tried.

That game isn't Civilization, though, without getting into the XML, Python, and SDK and totally revamping the sucker. Maybe it's not even possible. But I don't think it's within the scope of this mod to make a new game.
Nor is it within the point of the mod.

Look, it seems like the issues being brought up about Germany are far wider reaching than simply their UP. Blas, would you like to add a historical challenge for Germany?

Better yet, why don't we start systematically playing each Civ to get them all playable. The goal is to make the mod fun, challenging, and (if possible) historically plausible, no matter what Civ you pick. So the participants will all play the same civ and report things like gameplay annoyances and impossible goals that were accomplished historically. If NO ONE can do it (found Panama by a certain date or control a certain land area, etc.) in multiple test games, then maybe something needs to be changed. The game is very well balanced for the AI, but does a human player have a remote chance of dominating where it should?

Food for thought.

SilverKnight

I was actually considering starting a thread for each Civ. Just to analyze both how humans are pushed to play, and how the AI plays. I think it would be useful to define what a Civ is, should be, and how it gets used in-game.

SK, I'd be glad to put on a historical challenge for Germany but for a challenge you need a feat. What feat would you like tested for Germany? WWII should be one of the later things the historical challenges test, and it should be tested extensively and from the angle of every civ participating in the war historically, to see if something like that can be recreated.
Anyhow, we have a few higher-priority challenges before we can get to Germany and/or WWII.

Arkaeyn, the idea of each civ receiving a thread for review isn't half bad. But don't just go opening 18 threads - people should open a thread whenever they start playing a civ that doesn't have a thread yet or whenever they want to discuss a civ that doesn't have a thread yet.

Keeping in mind that Germany lost WW2, you'd need a feat that tests something they actually succeeded at. I guess you could test some kind of halfway point for WW2, like acquiring Czechoslovakia and Poland, and pushing west through parts of France.

But aren't there other great achivements in German history? How about assembling the Holy Roman Empire (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/HRE_11Jh.PNG) (which wasn't actually Roman?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire

like acquiring Czechoslovakia and Poland

it was not any half way - once Poland was attacked (not acquired ;) ) WW2 started :p

I was thinking more like a test for each civ to determine quality of gameplay. But I am waiting to play again because of the congresses. :(

SilverKnight

I thought about it a little and I think that maybe the current Blitzkrieg ability (all gunpowder units have commando ability) should be given to France in order to enable them "enjoying" the Napoleonic Wars (conquering all of Europe in 10 to 20 years, that translate to about 10 (!) turns). Cavalry alone should not suffice (especially against foreign riflemen) to achieve this job.

I think there's another UP that needs tweaking - the Greek one: Power of Philosophy.

It basically triples your GPP. The bonus is OK but the problem is that it's cumulative with other bonuses. For example in a city with National Epic your GPP get multiplied by 6. And if you're using Pacifism civic and have Parthenon and National Epic, your GPP are multiplied by 10.5! I don't know if that's a bug or not but I think Greek UP is now unbalanced. It should be either +100% cumulative or +200% non-cumulative, I think. I noticed this bug when I was playing Greeks and generated over 200 GPP per turn in one city

Yes, Greece is awesome. I never had so many great people as last game :D

I noticed this bug when I was playing Greeks and generated over 200 GPP per turn in one city

That is quite easily possible in regular Civ as well, though usually only in the 17th, 18th century.

I don't think it's a problem; the Greek AI still gets trashed by barbs, Rome and Persia in some games (but not all), so has to spend a lot of time on defense. This allows them to still have a somewhat "philosophical" edge over the other civs. As the human player, to really take advantage of their UP, you have to make certain sacrifices (which buildings to have, gpt of military under Pacifism, etc.), which is an unstable way to play. Do-able, but unstable.

Hm. Greece is definitely one of the more fun civs to play, if done right. I gotta get around to writing that strategy guide. Stupid storms! :cry:

SilverKnight

I think I have an idea for Germany's UP.

Every unit they produce in a city with a University gets a "Superior Training" promotion, that gives a +5% combat bonus.
ALSO however, any unit with such a promotion will gain double experience from all combat.

Now how does that sound?

I think there's another UP that needs tweaking - the Greek one: Power of Philosophy.

It basically triples your GPP. The bonus is OK but the problem is that it's cumulative with other bonuses. For example in a city with National Epic your GPP get multiplied by 6. And if you're using Pacifism civic and have Parthenon and National Epic, your GPP are multiplied by 10.5! I don't know if that's a bug or not but I think Greek UP is now unbalanced. It should be either +100% cumulative or +200% non-cumulative, I think. I noticed this bug when I was playing Greeks and generated over 200 GPP per turn in one city

10.5?

200% (UP) + 100% (National Epic) + 100% (Pacifism) + 50% (Pantheon) = 450%

So the GPP should be multiplied by 5.5 at most, not 10.5.

I think I have an idea for Germany's UP.

Every unit they produce in a city with a University gets a "Superior Training" promotion, that gives a +5% combat bonus.
ALSO however, any unit with such a promotion will gain double experience from all combat.

Now how does that sound?
I like where the direction, but double experience is a huge bonus and perhaps an exaggeration. It would make more sense to simply have Universities give +4XP, and nothing more. That's a very large and flexible bonus and somewhat realistic. It will also have Germany build universities earlier and during wars, which will give Germany some very old univerisites like it has in reality.

so i fired up v096 as persia, decided to try out the new satrapy power. worked out great, conquered the middle east in 2-4 turns. decided to attack egypt, really shouldntve, and conquered per-atum. satrapy conquered me niwt-rst, which caused per-wadjet, selima, abdju, satrapy causing the last one to flip me imu, which caused egypt to be eliminated and me to be running -29 gpt at 0% sci! is there a way to keep this from snowballing, as persia could theoretically conquer each civ in one turn.

Maybe rather than flipping cities, it just needs to reduce the # of cities maintainance. Something that still aids expansion, but is more mild. Is it definitely too powerful? We'll need testing.

In my 0.96 game as America, it doesn't look like Persia got too much of an edge. They aren't even in the top five. In fact, all of the civs were in realistic locations, except for colonization of the New World (I'm alone in North America since the start, oddly enough).

Three small comments on the American UP:
1. Immigrants cause unhappiness with the "We yearn to join our motherland" excuse. This is a bit nonsensical. This malus should at least be smaller in American cities with an American majority, and should probably be relabeled to somehow reflect the fact that they choose to be in America but it's not easy.
2. Immigration sometimes goes into newly-conquered cities still in resistance. This both makes no sense whatsoever and seems to make resistance last longer (the number went up by 4 turns once!).
3. The text when you receive immigrants is a bit funny in two ways. First, it says "due to immigrants" which sounds a little quirky. Either "thanks to immigrants" or "due to immigration". Second of all, it claims they come from the Old World, when in fact many are Aztecs and Inca. Also, it would be nice to see in the little text message what city the immigrants came into. I would word the text as follows: "Immigration from lands less fortunate than ours is swelling the population of Baltimore!" or, lacking city-specific information, "Immigration from lands less fortunate than ours is swelling our population!"
Besides these small problems, this UP is excellent in every way.

Americans should not only get immigrants more quickly, but should assimilate them much faster, with less culture/happiness sideeffects. Only makes sense (and obviously, what we want from gameplay).

This is my own fault for not knowing, as I haven't had a chance to play a long game of Civ in quite some time, but does the influx of immigrants actually increase the population? As in, more workers? I would think so, but I just don't have the time to find out (I'm about to test Mongolia).

SilverKnight

Yes, the population grows. Pretty damn fast, too. For a large chunk of time, I had +1 pop every turn. It was a significant boost.

:eek: And there's the push I needed to try America! That sounds like fun!

SilverKnight

Oh, I had a little idea for tweaking the American UP to make it more realistic and slightly slightly more useful. Have when population emigrates to America, have it bring religion along with it sometimes. If there's a non-state religion in the source city, it should have a very high chance of going to America, if there's a state religion a smaller chance. This will have the effect of diversifying the religion in America and later on when America goes for Free Religion this will make it a happy place to be.

Three small comments on the American UP:
1. Immigrants cause unhappiness with the "We yearn to join our motherland" excuse. This is a bit nonsensical. This malus should at least be smaller in American cities with an American majority, and should probably be relabeled to somehow reflect the fact that they choose to be in America but it's not easy.
2. Immigration sometimes goes into newly-conquered cities still in resistance. This both makes no sense whatsoever and seems to make resistance last longer (the number went up by 4 turns once!).
3. The text when you receive immigrants is a bit funny in two ways. First, it says "due to immigrants" which sounds a little quirky. Either "thanks to immigrants" or "due to immigration". Second of all, it claims they come from the Old World, when in fact many are Aztecs and Inca. Also, it would be nice to see in the little text message what city the immigrants came into. I would word the text as follows: "Immigration from lands less fortunate than ours is swelling the population of Baltimore!" or, lacking city-specific information, "Immigration from lands less fortunate than ours is swelling our population!"
Besides these small problems, this UP is excellent in every way.

is there an actual in-game advantage to having immigrants though?

Well, your population grows amazingly fast, and that's very important for the latest-coming civ in the game. It means you can become a world leader within just a few hundred years of being in the game, while facing much older civs.

Well, your population grows amazingly fast, and that's very important for the latest-coming civ in the game. It means you can become a world leader within just a few hundred years of being in the game, while facing much older civs.

i see. i think immigration should be for all civs, not just america. but i do agree that america should encourage more immigrants to their country than any other civ.

I played an Arabia game a couple days ago, and although their UP is excellent, it bothered me that the cities I founded in the Arabian peninsula didn't receive the automatic buildings... This created the odd situation that my heartland was undeveloped by far in comparison with cities I conquered or cities that flipped to me.

i see. i think immigration should be for all civs, not just america. but i do agree that america should encourage more immigrants to their country than any other civ.

Perhaps civs with either certain civics (Emancipation, Free Speech, etc.) or ranked in the top x will have a certain amount of immigration. Or perhaps civs/cities with multiple religions (yet one state religion) or multiple ethnicities from conquered cities - will have immigrants seeking refuge away.

At the same time, since the founding of the American colonies, before it became a civ of its own, there was already a large number of people emigrating to "America," so either way I'd still like the Unique Ability to stay.

Giving immigration to other civs seriously downgrades America's power. And it's a power they need in order to catch up to the high populations of the old world civs.

I think this suggestion was lost in the 'German Unique Power' thread, so I'm reposting it here.

Any German unit trained in a city with a University, gains the Combat 1 promotion for free.

This way the power neads a university, and increases the power of their newly trained units, but also ensures that even once them and their opponents have gained some levels it wil still help. Essentially, giving them the promotion for free instead of simple experience wil ensure that a German unit will always be better trained than another civ's unit of the same level, which I personally think is rather accurate.

About Immigration, I think it should be an exclusively American thing, because right now thier only plusses are that power, and the fact that I think they are the only people with every strategic resource in relatively easy reach. Also I think its pretty accurate, because to my knowledge no nation in history has experienced Immigration to the point that America has.

Also, I think Persia needs to be able to refuse their Satrapy power's surrendering cities, also for the Capitol surrender thing. In my last game on 1.08, Monty declared war on me, and I decided to help out my American Friends while putting him in his place, so I planned to give America a few of the cities I conquered and burn the rest, unfortuantely the cities were close enough together that some of hte cities I wanted to burn surrendered.

Yes, that's what I was proposing in a different thread. The option to raze cities recieved through the Persian UP and Capitol conquering, or a (in my opinion) better solution, the ability to abandon cities.

I don't recall Germany or Germanic states being such a superior military power throughout its history. It became one only with the advent of Prussia and even then, it collected more failures than successes...

In the Holy Roman Empire the Emperor had to ask the other lords to join him at war or at least to finance his wars at later times. So they turned him down except for defensive campains or the crusades. That made the HRE a not too aggressive empire.
Prussia could only gain power and influence through military might and cunning diplomacy. That's the origin of Germany's fatal militarism. Mediocre politicians (and generals) tend to overestimate the military and its ability to "change the world for the better". Just look at the war on terror today...
As to why Germany lost so many times: just look at the map. As a central European nations you can hardly beat all your neighbours at the same time. Another thing is Germany's reliance on coscription. It would be unfair and ahistorical to give drafted troops the Combat I promotion.
Germany's troops usually were well trained and well equipped (at least after the Napoleonic era, when the military reforms kicked in).
If it has to be a military UP my favourite would be some discount on Great Generals (like the imperiaistic leader trait) or a bonus given to armored units. Why armored units? Good training and good engineering skills next to state-of-the-art technology could combine to give the panzers unique ability to all armored troops without overpowering Germany as Grmany's neighbours should still have superior numbers.
As a more peaceful UP I'd suggest giving engineers a small technology boost like 1 or 2 RPs. That could simulate Germany's focus on applied technologies and the swiftness with which it adopted or perfectionated industrial technologies like rocketry or flight.

Why not give Persia a 'no revolt and no motherland unhappiness for captured cities' power?

I also think the Mongols should have a 'surrender or extermination' power.

As to why Germany lost so many times: just look at the map. As a central European nations you can hardly beat all your neighbours at the same time.

I don't think that's the case. I just took a look at the map of the Mediterranean and noticed that Rome is in its center. Did this prevent it to conquer every shore on this sea ? Nope. They had superior tactics, military infrastructure, discipline and military tradition than their contemporary neighbours. Hence you can safely state that they were a military power. I can't think the same of Germany. Reasons can be many, can or can not be those you mentioned, but the fact stands, so I don't think that Germany should get a military unique power, and especially not the Blitzkrieg one. It should be something more representative of its whole long history than of just 5 years of military strategy...

Then propose something!:rolleyes:
Btw. when did Rome ever fight the whole Mediterranean at the same time?
In the world wars Germany fought against superior numbers at at least two fronts. :(
I also agree that Germany's army was rarely ever superior to Russia's or France's. XP is gained mainly in combat not by training. And like I said in wartime Germany relied on drafted units anyway.:mischief:

Honestly, I'm not too keen on a German military UP either. I never was actually. But the problem is the lack of ideas and constructive discussion on this subject. Just complaining about the old one will never give you a new German UP.:p

So what does anybody think about giving engineers some additional RP(1or 2:science:) (like Great Engineers already have)?
Germany doesn't need a boost in the Middle Ages or Renaissance era. Except maybe some happines resource. The industrial revoution shifted the balance of power in Europe dramatically in Germany's favour. Germany's unique building mirrors that nicely. And by boosting the engineer we can also make it easier to boost Germany's economic and scientific output at the same (historically appropriate) time.

Sounds like a good idea.

I like it too. +1:science: per engineer sounds right, so it has little effect when all you have is forges but a large effect when you start getting factories.

Best idea I've heard for a new German UP.

I really think it would be a good idea if we kept the discussion of the German UP in one place, namely, the German Special Power thread. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=181278&page=3
Its just way too confusing with two parallel conversations going on.

I stand by the opinion that Germany's UP should be militaristic. A military bonus is not at all relagated to representing Germany's involvement in WWII. Since the advent of Prussia the Germany has had the reputation of having a well trained and well organized army.

The fact that Germany was on the losing side of the two world wars doesn't mean that its troops were not better than its enemies'. Germany lost because it was greatly outproduced and outnumbered in them. You also need to broaden your view beyond the 20th century. There are many other examples of Germany having an elite yet generally rather small army during its period as Prussia. Look at the Seven Years War, the end of the Napoleonic Wars, and the Franco-Prussian War.

Mmm, The German UP is OFFICIALLY MOVED to the German UP thread, since that's what it's for.

I wrote this in another thread:

Egypt again insanely strong. I think the UP has to be changed. There cities can grow ridiculous big early in the game and Pyramides are not necessary.

Any comments on this? I think the UP gives Egypt a too big advantage. Maybe give them a wonder production bonus (like industrial trait) or somethink like this.
A strong Egypt makes a Roman Empire at least for the AI impossible and also hinders an Arabian expansion in this area.

again so strong? What's the problem? Too much food?

I don't think Egypt is too strong... They collapse from time to time, and by the time Arabia has spawned, they still have archers. In a case of Archers vs. Camel Archers, Camel Archers win. In fact, I rarely see a very strong Egypt in my games.

Because of Hereditary Rule and much food their cities can grow to 10 or even higher early in the game. In my games they were always tech leader and also had a big army (archers only, their workers fear to connect the horses because of barbarians --> this means they give away much potential (their UU) and I think a human player good make Egypt even stronger).
In combination with high culture their cities were nearly invincible and both Rome and Arabia didn't manage to conquer any cities at all. Egypt shouldn't have such a big military when you look at history and how often they got conquered. One solution to fix this could be replacing their UP. This would lead to smaller cities and less military potential. And of course they can build the Pyramides anyway to get the bonus back.

-edit-

Well maybe I had bad luck but in both games I played Egypt was very strong until the middle ages (Arabia did NOT manage to conquer one city and they had camel archers).

I've never seen an Arabia or Rome expand into Egypt, actually. But if they were to, Camel Archers and Praetorians destroy archers. Of course, I've invaded Egypt as both of the former nations several times.

Ok started another game as India and kept my eye on Egypt. It looks like the UP is not really the problem. Because when it begins to have an effect (when the cities are growing) they have Pyramides anyway. There was an early war between Egypt and Persia --> Persia managed to conquer a city. It seems to be much better this time. Dunno why they had so much archers last game. Although a Roman or Greece AI won't be able to conquer Egypt (it still has a greater military than both european nations).

I retract my earlier statement about never having seen Arabia AI take Egypt. Arabia has moved into a barbarian Egypt with their camel archers.

I'd like to kinda bring discussion back to this thread about a modified English UP. Blas put it very well in the first post.
England's Royal Navy - the Royal Navy was known for quality, not quantity. It should produce ships at normal speed but all of their military naval vessels should start with Drill I and Drill II, establishing naval supermacy for England.
This is a change which just seems obvious to me personally. Is there anyone who can offer a compelling reason for why a quantity bonus would be better and more accurate for the Royal Navy rather than a quality bonus? Is there anyone who would object to the change or who has reservations about it?

Drill I and II might be a lot. But I think it's a fundamentally good approach.

Drill I and II might be a lot. But I think it's a fundamentally good approach.
I think that the reasoning for giving Drill I & II would be that navies really aren't that important in Civ4, so if we are going to give a purely naval bonus then it should be rather significant. Plus Drill I by itself really isn't that good (just one extra chance at a first strike.)

I would sooner give them Drill I for their ships plus something else. Like an additional movement point, or an additional cargo capacity, or even just a discount for colonization of some kind.

I would sooner give them Drill I for their ships plus something else. Like an additional movement point, or an additional cargo capacity, or even just a discount for colonization of some kind.
Well you could do the movement point, but thats already Spain's UP. I actually see Spain's UP (Navigation I & II) as evidence that Drill I & II wouldn't be unbalanced for England.

I think the 50% bonus to ship building would allow the English to have a powerful navy quickly. I think that is the idea. If they loose the ability to make ships faster, then they will end up with a smaller navy (or one similar in size) and one which is harder to replace. Also, with the way navy battle is (I haven't played the mod yet, so I am assuming it is the same as vanilla/warlords), naval units die more easily because of the 50% odds of success ratios. I don't know how much Drill I & II would improve the odds, but unless they are a significant difference, then the ability to replace them quickly might give the English a more powerful navy. My argument is based on gameplay mechanics reflecting a dominant navy moreso than it being historically correct: I think that maybe a historically accurate dominant navy might be better achieved with the ship building bonus rather than the free promotions. That's what I meant to say.

... just thought I would defend the English's current power to make for a good quality discussion on the matter. Personally, I don't really care about what power they get, so long as it is the 'right' one. The Drill I and II idea looks good, providing it delivers the appropriate results. If its quality allows it to dominate as well as the ship building bonus, then I think it would be preferable for historical reasons. But in naval war, I think the ability to build an early navy and also replace destroyed ships quickly would make the ship building bonus result in a more dominant navy.

... maybe a free Combat I promotion (or Combat I and II)? It would represent 'stronger' ships rather nicely and be much more reliable than Drill I and II.

Question(s): How were the English navy more dominant? Volume? Ability to repair, fix or rebuild their navy (ship building bonus)? Better skilled (Drill I and II)? Physically better put together ships (Combat I or Combat I and II)? Or other? How?

Then propose something!:rolleyes:
Btw. when did Rome ever fight the whole Mediterranean at the same time?
In the world wars Germany fought against superior numbers at at least two fronts. :(


Rome often did have more than one front at the same time. Consider though that while Europe kept its dimensions (more or less) for 2k years, romans didn't have Tanks and railroads to move their armies. Anyways, none ever forced Germany to fight on all fronts possible (don't just stick to WW2 please), my answer referred to your statement that said that being in a central position in Europe was a reason why a conquest campaign for Germany would be very hard or likely a failure.

Btw I'm not just complaining, but I haven't come up with a final idea yet, so in the meantime I'm criticizing others.
All that I can say of constructive is that when I think of Germany -as a civilization and not just nation- what comes to my mind are all sorts of "Great People" that were born in these lands. Musicists, artists, philosophers, scientists, etc. So the german UP IMO should be the greek's one, which contextually I don't think very appropriate, either.

Drill I plus a discount might be the best of both worlds.

My argument is based on gameplay mechanics reflecting a dominant navy moreso than it being historically correct

Though I originally protested the current Royal Navy power for Brtain, mention of historical accuracy reminded me of something. Until the last century (at which point government switches, switching from privatisation and nationalising, union disputes and so forth which all damaged efficiency), I think, Britain apparently had a very strong shipbuilding industry (on the Clyde for instance). So, though it doesn't fit the idea of the Royal Navy concept (quality above quantity), it does fit the Shipbuilding Industry. Perhaps, to simulate it, instead of Drill I and II or ship's being built in half the time, cities build ships 50% quicker (instead of 100% quicker) and the ships start with Combat I.

Question(s): How were the English navy more dominant? Volume? Ability to repair, fix or rebuild their navy (ship building bonus)? Better skilled (Drill I and II)? Physically better put together ships (Combat I or Combat I and II)? Or other? How? The answer to that for most of the Royal Navy's time is that they were better skilled, hence the Drill I and Drill II.

Its actually interesting to note that First Strikes are more desirable then plain combat increases when the two units fighting are of very close strength (which pretty much describes naval warfare in Civ4.) There was a long post by Arathorn (spelling?) which described the Civ4 combat system and came to this conclusion a while ago.

Now the main reason that I would contend that England is more deserving of a quality bonus than a quantity bonus is related to how it allocated its funds for the military. From the 17th century on, England was unique among European powers for giving a very high percentage of its military spending to the Navy and for shipbuilding (I could get some figures on this, but for now I won't.) I would contend that the reason they had a larger Navy was that they had it on a much higher priority than others. France, for example, could have rather easily built a navy the size of England's if the navy had been given the same priority and if it hadn't had so many constant things requiring its attention on the Continent. In fact this even happened to an extent during the war between those two powers which was started by the American War for Independance. France was able to concentrate all of its efforts on fighting England and subsequently built a large navy in a relatively short time.

The thing that has differentiated the Royal Navy has been its very important naval tradition and emphasis placed on training and gunnery. So even though England had the largest navy for quite a while, it was also generally superior ship for ship. This is the thing which France (and others) never could recreate, and why it would always lag behind England in naval dominance even if it made a push towards quantitative parity with England's navy. I don't see the building of a larger navy as a special ability, just a decision which was made in history which could be replicated almost exactly by a player just telling more of his cities to build ships.

The thing about England's cheap ships is that they're cheap, not free. In my England game I remember it was still an effort to create a navy big enough for my needs and it was pretty infuriating that my ships kept sinking and requiring replacement. I'd have preferred to invest more time in them if they were more reliable.

Was there a discussion about Malinese power? Considering their starting location it might not be overpowered but inaccurate. Power of Wealth is fine because Mali was famous of its gold. But the UP in current shape does not provide gold itself but commerce which is readily convertible into science. Mali was not famous of science. Maybe UP could be restricted to giving gold only not commerce?

Mali was actually quite scientific. Timbuktu was considered a center of scholarship, and had the famed University of Sankore. The commerce, trade, and gold makes tons of sense.

Was University of Sankore better than European universities? Was it a center of scholarship better than China?

Its not like Mali becomes the tech leader in games. Don't worry about it.

I actually have seen Mali quickly becoming a player in the tech game, and sometimes tech leader. But I haven't played in quite a while now.

University of Sankore was one of the world's first universities. It's technically older than Oxford, except that it's more of a 'learning center' than a university. Scholars from all over the world, especially the Islamic world, would make a journey over.

Timbuktu took on a legendary status with numerous traders and philosophers going there. The commerce bonus leading to some increase in science is not unrealistic in the least.

Mali usually does tend to become a tech leader, or at least not extremely far behind in the tech race. They need to be able to though, since they kind of start out behind techonlogically and dont have many resources in their starting land.

The Persians are much too powerful. The automatic city-flipping "satrapy" UP is ridiculous. The Persians should just have sheer numbers. Perhaps reduced maintenance costs due to distance from the capital. Or maybe they can produce military units very cheaply. As it is now, they completely overrun the middle-east, Asia Minor, destroy Greece, and Arabia. No one has a chance against them if they can take three cities when they actually only conquer one. A satrapy is a province. A Civ 4 city easily already covers the size of a province in this scenario.

I know that Persia was able to rapidly expand its empire. But once that task is accomplished automatically without effort, there's no balance. There's nothing that will counteract this unreasonably powerful UP.

In my games Persia gets always destroyed by barbarians. :eek:

Yeah... At least half the time they get destroyed by barbs. Of course, I did once see Persia control the Mid-East, Mongola and China. But that's one of those things that you hardly ever see happen.

I think it was suggested already that Persia could get 0 unrest and lowered chances of revolt/flip in conquered cities as their UP. That sounds pretty good to me right now, even though the current UP was a pretty cool idea.

Perhaps, to help them expand quickly, one could lower the maintanence cost of millitary untis? If I remember correctly, the Satrapies were provinces loaned to units for millitary service, similar to feudalism, perhaps that would be more applicable. Another version of this is to give them free units per city owned, similar to the feudalism civic.

OR

Perhaps whenever they conquer a city they get some millitary units as a cause of them loaning the newly conquered land to people for millitary service, thus giving them even mroe troops with which to conquer a whole 'nother mess of territory. I don't think the units 'drafted' should be immortals, but Perhaps some powerful defensive unit to defend the newly conquered cities while the Immortals go on to the next.

OR

when a city is conquered the units in a 1 tile radius around the city get half of their max hitpoints back, thus letting the advance continue despite casualties recevied.

Unfortunately I know precious little about Persian History, so I don't know if these are historically accurate.

I think it was suggested already that Persia could get 0 unrest and lowered chances of revolt/flip in conquered cities as their UP. That sounds pretty good to me right now, even though the current UP was a pretty cool idea.
Thats what had been suggested for the new Babylonian UP :)

I suggested no revolt period and no motherland unhappiness.

I think Vishaing had something there though. Having some sort of ability to draft mounted units (in particularly, Immortals) from newly conquered cities (whereas normally you draft defensive units in cities where you have - I think - the majority of culture). That would make conquest faster.

Personally though (and with regards to being historically correct), I think the Mongols should have some sort of 'rapid conqueror' UP (or 'massive empire' UP) long before the Persians do. It is an absolute joke that the Mongols have that UP while the Persians have their current UP - especially since historically speaking, the Mongols conquered a much bigger empire with less resources than the Persians. Good treatment of conquered people and the numberous numbers of Immortals (which I think is how they got their name) are what I know them (Cyrus) for. The Mongols were about conquest, tribute, submission, huge empire, a mobile nomadic army (settler camp style), ruthless (but effective) civil disorder solutions, etc.

If the Persians had an ability that allowed them to draft mounted units without an unhappiness penalty from newly conquered cities (normally you have to wait), that then could both symbolise his good treatment over his conquered lands (no unhappiness for drafting) while also reflecting the numberless Immortals (by allowing them to be drafted from a newly conquered city). Based on what I understand on the Persians, that would be both appropriate and would reflect them (Cyrus) well. It would also allow them to still conquer quickly.

The thing about the Mongol empire is that while it gets very large, very quickly (~60-100 years) it collapses over a timespan that is probably only twice as long.

Most preferably Russia would start after the Mongols, as the rise of Muscovite Russia and that would hopefully lead to a collapse of the Mongol empire and a resurrection of China. The current setup results in the Mongols existing as a Civ much longer (usually) than they really should. Unfortunately, that could result in a German dominated Europe ; not a problem if Russia can expand east without keshik spam and it would also reduce the chance of France wiping out Germany (although in the games I've played, France has always had at least Rome so that might make them stronger than normal). If any Civ should have a UP that helps in maintaining a large number of cities and land mass it should be Russia [IMHO].

I suggested no revolt period and no motherland unhappiness.

I think Vishaing had something there though. Having some sort of ability to draft mounted units (in particularly, Immortals) from newly conquered cities (whereas normally you draft defensive units in cities where you have - I think - the majority of culture). That would make conquest faster.

Personally though (and with regards to being historically correct), I think the Mongols should have some sort of 'rapid conqueror' UP (or 'massive empire' UP) long before the Persians do. It is an absolute joke that the Mongols have that UP while the Persians have their current UP - especially since historically speaking, the Mongols conquered a much bigger empire with less resources than the Persians. Good treatment of conquered people and the numberous numbers of Immortals (which I think is how they got their name) are what I know them (Cyrus) for. The Mongols were about conquest, tribute, submission, huge empire, a mobile nomadic army (settler camp style), ruthless (but effective) civil disorder solutions, etc.

If the Persians had an ability that allowed them to draft mounted units without an unhappiness penalty from newly conquered cities (normally you have to wait), that then could both symbolise his good treatment over his conquered lands (no unhappiness for drafting) while also reflecting the numberless Immortals (by allowing them to be drafted from a newly conquered city). Based on what I understand on the Persians, that would be both appropriate and would reflect them (Cyrus) well. It would also allow them to still conquer quickly.
I really like this idea. I think this idea should be seriously considered.

There has got to be a better idea than automatic flipping because of nearby conquered cities.

The thing about the Mongol empire is that while it gets very large, very quickly (~60-100 years) it collapses over a timespan that is probably only twice as long.

Most preferably Russia would start after the Mongols, as the rise of Muscovite Russia and that would hopefully lead to a collapse of the Mongol empire and a resurrection of China. The current setup results in the Mongols existing as a Civ much longer (usually) than they really should. Unfortunately, that could result in a German dominated Europe ; not a problem if Russia can expand east without keshik spam and it would also reduce the chance of France wiping out Germany (although in the games I've played, France has always had at least Rome so that might make them stronger than normal). If any Civ should have a UP that helps in maintaining a large number of cities and land mass it should be Russia [IMHO].You make a fair point. I guess the problem I really have with the Mongols is that their UP doesn't reflect nor give them an ability to allow them to do what they did and do it well. Ultimately I would prefer the Mongols to be able to expand rather fast and maybe have an ability to allow them to 'manage' the cities in a way that prevents them from being able to be built (like a pop rush that 'fixes' city management issues like city maintanence, unhappiness, etc - there's some good discussion on it in the 'Mongolian Empire' thread). That would both allow the Mongols to grow to a large empire fast but also allow other empires to assimilate their undeveloped cities later on.

Also note though that the Mongols still exist. Although obviously not the size they were in their prime, but they still exist. The 'empire' never truely collapsed completely. The Mongolians have however been pushed around a lot with the old USSR and now with China, but the Mongolians still like to align themselves with Genghis.

What if UP was an option that you could turn off before the beginning of the game?

But then the Civs lose a lot of their uniqueness. It would be like in Civ 2, the only differences are cosmetic ones, basically. Of course, there's still the UU and the starting location and everything.

Hmm. I just gave the Mongols a whirl with their new UP. It's a thousand times better than their old UP, but it doesn't capture the fear aspect of it as I thought it would. The game instead becomes a game of scouting for the biggest and/or best city to raze, setup all the units on each city and then attack and raze the selected city. It feels like chess rather than the 'surrender of be exterminated' attitude that would be appropriate. Although aggressive expansive in operation, it isn't what I thought it would be.

Were you unable to create - not a tally - but a system where it could create a chance of surrender based on the number of razings? Because that would (should!) capture it just right. It would allow them to rock up to a city and (effectively) demand surrender. The player would then be able to raze it full knowing that it will help with getting a future surrender regardless of distance. IMO - assuming it can be efficiently done - it would make it feel just right.

I still have problems with Spain's UP. Spain's discovery of America was done by Italians. Christobal Colombo (New World) and Amerigo Vespuci (S-America) were Italian. The Spainish discoverers were conquerers, not explores.

I think Spain should have the Power of Conquest. For every city they conquer, they shlould get a free conquestador untill industrial age could be a UP to repesent this.

Also the Iron in Spain is allways in France hands. This prevent the building of conquestadors and the Aztecs and Inca's are saved form conquest. Perhaps bringing that Iron more to the south might be nice.

Sado, I agree with you about Spain needing some tweaking. I think something has to be done there. I have NEVER had a game where Spain wiped out, or even went to war with, the Aztecs and Incas. They found Havana in every game though... (Good job, Rhye.) There's got to be a way to make Spain more agressive towards the native people's of America, whether is be a new UP or something else entirely...

Sado, I agree with you about Spain needing some tweaking. I think something has to be done there. I have NEVER had a game where Spain wiped out, or even went to war with, the Aztecs and Incas. They found Havana in every game though... (Good job, Rhye.) There's got to be a way to make Spain more agressive towards the native people's of America, whether is be a new UP or something else entirely...

something else interely then.
This fact has nothing to do with the UP. I tried with AI wars, I tried to turn Aztecs minor civ....no result. I'm hearing suggestions

Increase Isabellas aggression on America and make a bigger cost to Aztecs for researching Feudalism, which makes conquering them a pain in the a**.

Perhaps lowering a lot their disposition towards Aztecs and Incans?

Don't know whether it can be done but it's just hit me. How about a penalty for all technologically backwards civ. Something like:

-2 We laugh at how primitive you are.

It could even get worse as the technology gap increases or just be controlled by era, -1 per era behind for example.

Making Spain hate the Aztec and Incas sounds like a good idea. Although I think the "we laugh at how primitive you are" would make it REALLY hard on the Aztecs and Incas (and anyone else that falls behind in tech), but maybe that's the way it should be... The more technologically backward a civilization is, the worse it seems to be treated in the history books...

That might make it a problem for any nation to catch up though - if being behind in tech means negative points, it'll prevent any tech trading from occuring, exacerbating the tech gap.

Also, the Aztecs and the Incans initially let the Spanish come in, thinking it was in peace. The conquest came from more of a "sneak attack" by the Spanish forces.

this is not the point.
Spain doesn't attack even if at war, through AIWars or setting them Minor.
It seems that AI isn't good enough in doing the invasion

Then this is a much bigger problem than I was taking it for. I'll have a think and see if I can come up with anything.

try playing as the aztecs, declaring war on spain and wait. Try to understand why Spain doesn't invade.

I'll give that a go a little later.

I have one idea though. In driving Spain to colonise South America does this bias them towards founding cities and drive them away from capturing? I think this could be the cause that the AI is too preoccupied with founding cities to care about the Inca and Aztecs. If so then this is probably the same for all other civs who like to colonise.

I also plan on giving the Aztecs a try later, but as for the colonizing civs not capturing cities; when playing as America, England always declares war on me when I spawn, and they have no problems bringing units over from who-knows-where to fight in the revolution... They've captured a city or two from me in the past...

I have seen that America often captures English cities, on the British Ilands. I have never seen a british invasion of India, but they colonize S-africa and Australia. So for England and spain, founding is important, but the USA conquer. Why is that?

Alright, I just played a quick game with the Aztecs... I declared war on Spain right away... Spain harrassed me with their navy, but they never landed troops. After a while of this, Spain got America to declare war on me and I began losing cities to them. Still trying to provoke Spain, I captured Havana. This was the first time I started to see Spanish troops, they tried to retake Havana, but failed. Congress came up, I wasn't invited, and Spain got Havana back. A few turns later, America razed my capital and I was exiled to Russia! I figure the experiment had run it's course and I quit the game... But I did come up with another question while playing: since America RAZED my captial, how can I retake it to come back to power? Would I have to build another city in it's place? Just curious. I have some saved games if they would be helpful on the Spain question, let me know.

I have never seen a british invasion of India

I've never seen it either, but playing as India, England always ask for (and gets) Mandalay through the congress...

A few turns later, America razed my capital and I was exiled to Russia! I figure the experiment had run it's course and I quit the game... But I did come up with another question while playing: since America RAZED my captial, how can I retake it to come back to power? Would I have to build another city in it's place?

cool, finally a report about exile! :cool:
If the capital is razed, you can only escape if you capture a city built in that location.

I'm hearing suggestions
I understand that getting Spain to hate the Aztecs is not the problem, but this just reminds me of the "We find your lack of faith disturbing" diplo hit idea for civs with no state religion. It would put a very realistic spin on relations with the civs that emphasize religion (like Spain).

As to exile, it doesn't sound extremely realistic that you can only make a comeback by conquering a city on that specific tile. Perhaps we should work out a slightly more complicated system of comebacks to make it more realistic and feasible.

On a different subject, I'd like to bring up the Russian UP again. I'm playing an excellent UHV game as Germany, and in the one war I had with Russia so far I got the feeling that their UP works a bit too fast and furiously. It should mainly be a blow upon entering Russian land. It should still gradually eat away at units afterwards, but the real problem should be on the first turn when a unit enters the hostile climate. After a year or two whoever survives will be able to last it out, more or less. The way I propose doing this is to split the way the UP works into two things:
1. When a hostile unit crosses the land border into Russian lands, it immediately loses 10HP.
2. Every turn a hostile unit spends in Russian lands, it loses 2HP. If it is fortified, it only loses 1HP.
This will encourage a few bits of realistic behvior (at least in human players):
First of all, it will make sense to prepare logistically for the invasion. The only way we can do this right now is by encouraging landing units using naval transports instead of using simple land invasions. If the main blow landed by the Russian winter is only relevant when crossing the land border, it would make sense to plan ahead and land units using boats. The other thing it would encourage is being very careful with invasions and keeping most of your forces fortified while besieging the Russian cities. The game should reflect the fact that the Russian winter put a stop to generally effective Blitzkrieg techniques, which are actually encourage by the way the UP works right now.
I'm actually not completely clear on how it should all work out, and it's been a few days since my invasion of Sankt-Peterburg, but my impression was that the UP clearly worked too rapidly.

I've never seen it either, but playing as India, England always ask for (and gets) Mandalay through the congress...

I was playing a game as Persia, and had conquered all of India, Arabia, Greece, and Egypt. England asked for, and was given Delhi, which, as usual, was the Holy City for both Buddhism and Hinduism! At the time, it was probably my 4th or 5th most powerful city. Needless to say, I did not agree to such an outrageous demand!

(Not long afterward, all of India revolted right on the eve of my invasion of China. The latter collapsed, as transit of new troops through newly independent India took too long, and the Chinese seem to be able to manufacture units out of thin air!)

An idea for the Egyptians would be to give them a religion at the start of the game. This religion could only expand on it's cultural borders. Monasteries or Holy Shrine not available for this Egyptian Polytheism. Also, the religion should dissapear if conquered by any civilization. This would give a chance to take advantage of building the pyramids and also would reflect the non-egyptian polytheism today.

Mind my crappy english.

Well if we do that then Rome, Greece etc. also need a religion. I would prefer changing the Pyramid effect to "free Obelisk in every city", lower cost for Pyramids and remove Stonehenge from the game.

Well if we do that then Rome, Greece etc. also need a religion. I would prefer changing the Pyramid effect to "free Obelisk in every city", lower cost for Pyramids and remove Stonehenge from the game.


it's already that way. Pyramids and Stonehenge effects are swapped

Hmm. I just gave the Mongols a whirl with their new UP. It's a thousand times better than their old UP, but it doesn't capture the fear aspect of it as I thought it would. The game instead becomes a game of scouting for the biggest and/or best city to raze, setup all the units on each city and then attack and raze the selected city. It feels like chess rather than the 'surrender of be exterminated' attitude that would be appropriate. Although aggressive expansive in operation, it isn't what I thought it would be.

Were you unable to create - not a tally - but a system where it could create a chance of surrender based on the number of razings? Because that would (should!) capture it just right. It would allow them to rock up to a city and (effectively) demand surrender. The player would then be able to raze it full knowing that it will help with getting a future surrender regardless of distance. IMO - assuming it can be efficiently done - it would make it feel just right.

Yea I played the Mongols for the first time (in warlords) and it was a joke.

The Chinese had elephants - and lots of them - so I couldn't even hope to attack them (and when I tried I got ripped to shreds). So I reloaded and sent my units south and attacked and razed a barbarian city - Chengdu. Then I put my units by two Chinese cities. They didn't surrender, they just killed my units with their elephants.

What is the surrender area that razing a city will affect? Does it have to be a city from that civ? How does it work?


I'm also annoyed that almost no units flipped to me when I spawned, and no cities. Whereas when the Turks spawned when I was playing Babylon they took like 30 units from me. It was absolutely hopeless. Then I jumped ship when the Mongols spawned, but that was just as hopeless... :(

You can take out Japan in one hit (although I didn't bother to try it): Just go for the middle city, put a unit adjacent to each of the other cities nearby and attack the middle one, raze it and at the end of the next turn you should get all the other of Japans cities.

I would just love to see the 'keep a tally as you go' system - even at the expense of complicated processing time, just to see how it feels. Just need a way of keeping track of the cities surrendered vs cities razed and then use that as a way of modifying the chance of a city surrendering. Make it so that the city with a decent number of mixed seige and mounted units near it do the surrender or not thing - not just a single unit. Would be cool I think.