I have to agree with Sulomon here that in most games except maybe quick speed, and even then if you can conquer quick enough, the first part of Hammurabi's UA is very, very powerful. Especially when coupled with all the extra buffs towards social policies from the UA, UB *and* UU. That said, I like the overall idea and it really does a good job of symoblising something that is pretty tough to represent using the ingame mechanics, ie, good lawmaking. The only other thing I can say to criticise it is that it could be really frustrating attempting to make use of the UU's secondary effect given how irritating and fast trade routes are, we all know how annoying it is attempting to patrol your trade routes even with a pretty quick unit! It does work well with the UA though; a really cyclical civ.
Yeah, nothing to add here. Your arguments are all valid and I have no objections.
In contrast I'd say Nebuchadnezzar I is slightly underpowered, but that might just be my playstyle. Its not a huge bonus being able to found your religion upon capturing an enemy captial, but I usually get a religion up early and only conquer in the mid-late game so thats maybe just me. Other than that, its a really great design, particularly the second half of the UA. Cyclical as all hell too.
I think the latter part of the design is powerful enough to make up for the perhaps underpowered first part, but it's just different opinions, I guess.
Nabonassar I think seems like the weakest of the five, though its still not bad. I don't think the second half of the UA is useful at all, since generally losing a war so badly you have to give up cities is something people tend to avoid. That said the extra GS generation is so powerful I'd probably end up just making a load of crappy cities, declaring war on an AI and then giving them all those cities. So either way I don't think it makes for a good playstyle. The Chaldean too is strange, I don't understand what 'build a star catalogue' is; is it a building? In which case you have 4 uniques, and either way why wouldn't you just build an academy, unless the building yields more than 8 science, in which case it becomes OP. Is it a science boost? In which case, isn't it just the regular science boost? Or is it a UI, in which case, why not built an academy? I dun gettit. Aaand the UB is really really weak at the start of the game and absurdly overpowered at the end; very unbabylonish.
Yeah, in hindsight the bonus for losing cities may be historically accurate, but weird from a gameplay standpoint. As for the Star Catalogues, they are buildings that yield Science, and may be built once in cities, but the Chaldean is not consumed upon doing so. I think it adds a nifty little bonus to the Great Scientist. For the UB I disagree... kinda. Maybe making it yield base Science instead would be a good idea.
While I'm being a dick, I also don't really care too much for Merodach-Baladan. Nearly all of the bonuses are set up so that they only have any real effect after having pretty much lost the game, so unlike every other civ in the series, it receives no actual boost towards a victory condition save a potential +30% combat boost if you've lost and recaptured 6 cities, at which point you'd be so far behind that victory becomes impossible. I like the Sealander though, I'm surprised a river bonus didn't come up more often but the sealander makes perfect use of it. Furthermore, how would the UA actually work ingame? It would result in a lot of the player just sitting around doing nothing waiting for units to spawn and I dun think many players would have the patience for that and just ragequit after being eliminated.
I knew Merodach-Baladan had to be an oddball from the start (he was one himself), but I think you misunderstood the first part of the UA: it's talking about
any city liberated, which makes it significantly better. But I agree about the latter part of the UA, it is quite pointless.
Back to being nice, I really like Nebuchadnezzar II. I would say that the UA is odd for Babylon in that it works better the later the game gets, but mechanically its very interesting, especially paired with the unique siege unit. Maybe a teeny little bonus could be put on the end to keep her relevant in the early game? I feel like it really represents a sort of plunder and conquest society incredibly well, exporting bonuses from the peripheral cities you've conquered back to a lavish and fancy heartland. The catapult UU is really great even if it steps a teeny tiny bit on Assyrias big hairy toes, but ah well. The UB is a little odd though, its a cool effect but given how the UA and UU work, it essentially just equates to a huge food buff in the capital and nothing else. I'd probably also stick the effects of the original walls of Babylon on there, if perhaps a little toned down to compensate for the new bonus food buff. Either way, great ideas there.
Sure, I can change Nebby. And you definitely have the right idea when you talk about moving bonuses from remote cities to the centre of the empire, because that was, in fact, the intention. Once again, in hindsight, I see that the UB is weaker than it was supposed to be.
On the whole regarding the split more generally I have a couple things to say:
- The cylicalism is always amazing, they all line up perfectly with an obvious playstyle and present new ways to play; all look very satisfying to play as for that reason.
- They all do a good job of representing things that are very difficult to portray in civ. Lawmaking, plundering, stability, stuff like that is way outside of the base mechanics but you still represent them well; so great stuff there.
Cyclicism and representation are my two most important focuses when designing civs, then comes balance. I am
very happy this shines through.
- None of the original firaxis uniques used. I try to find a place for them usually and its often quite good fun to try divvy them up between the civs. Its also something people recognise as being characteristic of a civ split; see India and Polynesia. I think it also just works - some of my favourite splits are the ones that use the original uniques to their full effect. They don't actually need to have the exact same abilities as vanilla (see India and Polynesia, again.) but its nice to try use them anyway.
Well... Nabonassar has the essence of the old UA, the Nas Qasti is supposed to be the Bowman, and Amuhhu the Walls of Babylon, so I disagree on this.
- A lot of situational abilities. Sometimes its nice to have some passive bonuses which will nudge you along even if you don't stick to a perfectly straight path. For example Merodach-Baladan is useless if you don't lose all your cities
Yeah, situational abilities are sometimes unavoidable if you strive for historical accuracy, sadly. And I find accuracy and proper representation to be highly important.
Hope some of this is useful and I don't come across like a complete knobend for criticising too much!
All criticism welcomed warmly, and all praise thanked for (seriously, thank you.
).
And while we're doing the whole discussion thing, mind if I ask about my Rome split? You said the designs don't focus on the personalities, but I didn't think that'd matter for the republic and the Constantine civ is really, really focussed on his personality. It has bonuses for conversion, something he was famous for, and a secondary bonus for your capital, which I also thought was fairly emblematic of a guy who founded a new capital and named it after himself. I changed the Middle-Imperial civ to Trajan since I think he better represents the wide, conquest focussed empire.
I complained about the lack of focus on personalities too quickly, the only one I think is a bit too general now is Trajan. Constantine's is actually very fitting for him and his rule.
Regardless I try and follow firaxis precedent and so I don't think the uniques should be tied to the leader in their entirety. Pedro II was long dead by the time of the Pracinhas and Gustav Adolf would look at you pretty funny if you mentioned a nobel prize or even Caroleans. I mean I agree that its nice to have a link, I do think its weird that Gustav got the Nobel Prize UA, for example, but I don't think they have to be completely tied to one another. Its more about the civ than the leader here.
I tend to focus more on the leader than the civ, especially in cases where the leaders stand out, like in the case of most emperors. But, yeah, for the Republic you're right, and maybe so for Trajan as well, who wasn't really a very unique person to be honest.
Now for your designs:
The Republic
I don't really understand the focus on Occupied cities, and it isn't
really that helpful, as you want to avoid having too many occupied cities. It sounds a bit weak, to be honest. Also, the Forum negates the helpfulness of the UA, so...
But I do like the concept of Food and Production bonuses from adopting Social Policies, and the Triarii in general.
Trajan
I find this civ to be
very interesting as a concept, but I feel it's a tad too militaristic for Trajan, who according to Wikipedia is:
Wikipedia said:
also known for his philanthropic rule, overseeing extensive public building programs and implementing social welfare policies, which earned him his enduring reputation as the second of the Five Good Emperors who presided over an era of peace and prosperity in the Mediterranean world.
The Greatest Arse in History Constantine
I don't really think the second part of the UA fits Constantine that well. Aside from that, it's pretty good.
My largest problem is that some of these come across as slightly blobbed civs, especially the Republic (but that was unavoidable). When I say slightly, I mean very slightly. Like how Constantine is focused on Barbarians, and instantly converts Pantheon believers, when that better fits Theodosius (I actually finished my Theodosius design yesterday, and it focuses on Barbarians and religious persecution). But that is a
very weak complaint, and I realise I may be the only one who wants a Theodosius civ, anyway. As for Trajan... well, it fits him, because it is
very generically Roman, like Trajan himself was.
Now I have to mention the obvious omissions from the split:
But I realise it isn't very user friendly to have more than three civs in one post.
Now I'll just have to redesign the Babylon split and finish my own Rome...