What balance changes are you hoping for?

Up above someone said Papal Primacy and Religious Unity are not worthwhile. I would disagree with that. They are situational for sure, but if you start with 4 or 5 city-states in your area they can be strong.
 
I'm really just hoping for more balances to social policies. For awhile now it's felt like a few of them have been kinda... well, gimpy, and practically useless when put up against other choices.
 
Geographic layout + City states + Papal Primacy = combo. I played a Polynesia game where after the first capital conquer, this was crucial to keep all the city states in mid map on my side, and keep everybody else out of my two subcontinents. Even A.I.s don't like fighting wars with the whole world.

The very same game showed me the other combo. Boudicca picked Peace Loving (lol) and Religious Unity. If she had the advantageous access to the actual city state territory that I did, I realized this effect starts as Ceremonial Burial and only gets better. She can stop caring about manual spread and enjoy influence persistence with CSs, but the crazy thing is? This works with the dirt-poor follower beliefs. You can adopt good religions around home, keep the holy city holy, and spam your liturgical drama or w/e to everyone else. In theory.

Religious Beliefs have an emergent balance and it's great. Just fix that glitch with Interfaith Dialogue. And look at faith pantheons again.
 
Swords: I totally agree with the resource reveal. Not sure about the combat strength change. When I play the Iroquois I find them more than appropriate in early pushes, the problem is the gamble of having to research an expensive tech that can literally give you nothing. By changing the first problem I know some players will start using them on a more regular basis.

Liberty... I have mixed feelings on what you propose. Liberty right now is still very strong, the caveat is you need the space to expand and a Civ that benefits from heavy ICS. Of which there are only about a handful, but one or two civs are almost god tier when played properly with Liberty that swapping it back would just make things broken IMO.

The problem to me is that Liberty isn't weak, it's just risky on high AI difficulties. You'll get a really good late game if you can get a good city count, but AIs get really really pissy if you city spam too hard.


Pikes: While I agree the upgrade path is a bit wonky, am I the only one that thinks you could go into a ridiculous/OP mid game if they could upgrade to muskets? Lancers are a bit wonky, but with the Pillage change they certainly became more usable. Not sure exactly what to do with them, but some of the suggestions in this thread are straight up scary. Germany would turn into ridiculous God tier with some of the suggestions.
 
You mean Citizenship. :) I definitely don't disregard it. On the contrary, I think all Liberty policies are good, while Oligarchy and Aristocracy is something I'd easily pass by.

Oh yeah fast typing :lol:

Well truth be told it all depends on how I play the game (policy saving on/off). If I cant save policies I choose liberty as a second tree provided things don't add up for a cultural vic to go piety.
 
Liberty... I have mixed feelings on what you propose. Liberty right now is still very strong, the caveat is you need the space to expand and a Civ that benefits from heavy ICS. Of which there are only about a handful, but one or two civs are almost god tier when played properly with Liberty that swapping it back would just make things broken IMO.

One of them been Rome I assume? I have yet to try an ICS strategy. I find the happiness problems to be too much to handle, plus I just dont seem to find the space in my build Que to build settlers :p More than four that is.
 
One of them been Rome I assume? I have yet to try an ICS strategy. I find the happiness problems to be too much to handle, plus I just dont seem to find the space in my build Que to build settlers :p More than four that is.

I don't really like Rome for ICS. Sure, their UA is made for ICSing, but it's still not very good. The Mayans are fantastic at ICS and I would imagine Arabia and Ethiopia are as well.
 
Also agree. Petra+DF combo will get nerfed, however if it's the only balance change to be applied to beliefs system, it's not enough.

I'm really not sure how to handle Petra + DF. I honestly thing Desert Folklore is fine; Stone Circles, Goddess of Festivals, etc. can provide faith generation on par with it, although to be fair Stone Circles takes a bit longer to get running. To me Petra is kind of "the thing that should not be"; it seems like it was meant to make pure desert starts usable, but it's just used to abuse Oasises/Desert Hills/etc and be broken as hell. I kind of think it needs an overhaul.



Pikes: While I agree the upgrade path is a bit wonky, am I the only one that thinks you could go into a ridiculous/OP mid game if they could upgrade to muskets? Lancers are a bit wonky, but with the Pillage change they certainly became more usable. Not sure exactly what to do with them, but some of the suggestions in this thread are straight up scary. Germany would turn into ridiculous God tier with some of the suggestions.

Well there's a couple things to consider here. In Vanilla, Pikes/Crossbows/Longswords all went to Rifles(Muskets/Lancers had to be hard-built from scratch) and Rifling was also easier to access, like 2 techs from Gunpowder. I know it's almost a different game, but it's something to think about.

With Germany, there's a big penalty for upgrading. Spears->Landsknects are only 10 gold, but Landsknects->Lancers are 290g gold instead of 200. That really gives the finger to the "carpet of doom". I would imagine Landsknects->Muskets would have a similar price, except this one would actually be worth paying for.

And for the same reason switching Republic and CR again will take us back to vanilla days and Liberty OP'ness. It's not only one free settler, it's the free one plus half of all subsequent settlers. Do you really think that having 4 cities at t35 without selling any resources (means bought workers/granaries/libraries) will help to even things out?

Part of the problem is that the AI can and will have 4 cities out by turn 35, which makes me wonder how we're supposed to go wide when all the land is gone before we possibly get out first Settler out :p

The more I think about it, the more I think my problem is less with Liberty and more with going wide being both a pain and of questionable utility in G&K except with certain civs. I also find ICSing has degenerated into nothing more than a buzzword that has very little practical application. It was kind of ridiculous in early vanilla when you only needed 2 tiles between cities and Libaries had a specialist slot(have I mentioned early Civ V was broken? Oh, yeah, I have) but now it's just...I'll always point to MadDjinn's Maya LP, which was hard in large part *because* he was ICSing(and that wasn't even what I would truly call ICS) and he should have lost by his own admission in the final video.


I'm really just hoping for more balances to social policies. For awhile now it's felt like a few of them have been kinda... well, gimpy, and practically useless when put up against other choices.

This is where I agree one thousand percent. You get so few policies in a game because of how much culture costs spike and a lot of them just aren't worth the time because of that. Like Commerce would be a pretty cool tree except for the opportunity cost of taking it :(
 
What I'd like to see changed/balanced:

Iron Working

I agree with those who have said that Swordsmen are too much of a gamble. They are superior units in their age, but going for them means going down the military tech line and out of the center tech line...which isn't viable for most civs. And Iron Working is expensive. I agree with Light Cleric that the simple solution is move the Iron reveal to Bronze Working, so you can hook up Iron early if you have it or not bother with Iron Working if you don't have it.

Iron should also be better distributed. I often see whole continents in game without iron. That's insane.

Air Power

Fighters are useless to most players (except in defensive multiplayer), and air units are annoying as they can't be directly attacked and are rarely ever killed. I have long advocated that Fighters should able to directly attack air units within their range, which would solve both these problems.

India

India's UA should get a rework. If only slightly. Most players seem to agree they are the worst Civ in the game (though the Civs are remarkably well balanced).

Nukes

Nukes should be kings when they first appear, for sure. But Nukes haven't been used often in world history because we value human lives. Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't work in Civ, and there needs to be viable deterrants against Nukes by the Modern Age. And it's completely unrealistic to not have Nuke deterrants by the Information Age (the future). Israel's Iron Dome - while not a nuclear missile shield, per se - seems to work well and shows that such technology is probable and within our reach today.

Other

I also agree that Lancers need an update (though their upgrade path makes perfect sense in my mind), and Siege would be well served by a free Cover promotion. Mounted Units should have the option of a promotion gaining additional movement, making them more viable in rough terrain.

Honor was nerfed by Barbarian spawns being reduced, but got a slight buff in that Great Generals are better. And it IS getting a buff by unlocking Statue of Zeus (which a random AI always steals from me) and being able to pop Great Generals for faith. Really, the whole reason you go for Honor is to finish it for the rediculous wartime bonuses. I'm not sure Honor needs further improvement...but if it does, that improvement is slight.
 
India

India's UA should get a rework. If only slightly. Most players seem to agree they are the worst Civ in the game (though the Civs are remarkably well balanced).

Bolded that part because I agree wholeheartedly. I've never had any problems with any of the civs in the game other than India. They have done a great job with that aspect. Even the 'weaker' civs are fun from a strategic standpoint
 
I'm really not sure how to handle Petra + DF. I honestly thing Desert Folklore is fine; Stone Circles, Goddess of Festivals, etc. can provide faith generation on par with it, although to be fair Stone Circles takes a bit longer to get running. To me Petra is kind of "the thing that should not be"; it seems like it was meant to make pure desert starts usable, but it's just used to abuse Oasises/Desert Hills/etc and be broken as hell. I kind of think it needs an overhaul.
How are SC/GoF on par? You can have dozens of desert tiles, with half of them being floodplains, oasis and resources. How many stone/marble you can have? And wine/incense are just bad tiles you don't necessarily want to work. The problem with DF it gives faith for free, i.e. for working tiles you'd work regardless. Take away floodplains etc faith and it gets on par with the rest.
Petra... I'm not bothered with it as much as others do, I seldom build it due to difficulty constrains, but it's guaranteed to be nerfed in BNW. Don't know how, though.

Part of the problem is that the AI can and will have 4 cities out by turn 35, which makes me wonder how we're supposed to go wide when all the land is gone before we possibly get out first Settler out :p

The more I think about it, the more I think my problem is less with Liberty and more with going wide being both a pain and of questionable utility in G&K except with certain civs. I also find ICSing has degenerated into nothing more than a buzzword that has very little practical application. It was kind of ridiculous in early vanilla when you only needed 2 tiles between cities and Libaries had a specialist slot(have I mentioned early Civ V was broken? Oh, yeah, I have) but now it's just...I'll always point to MadDjinn's Maya LP, which was hard in large part *because* he was ICSing(and that wasn't even what I would truly call ICS) and he should have lost by his own admission in the final video.
I have one word for you: deity. :)
 
Bolded that part because I agree wholeheartedly. I've never had any problems with any of the civs in the game other than India. They have done a great job with that aspect. Even the 'weaker' civs are fun from a strategic standpoint

India's UA was a nice idea in theory, since Firaxis seemed so sure that by Civ5, they'd hit a point where a small civ (as in one with fewer cities) could perform just as well as a large civ, and if they'd been right, India's UA would be fine. ...but they were wrong, as most of the inconveniences of having a large civ can be fixed by all of the bonuses of having a large civ.

I'm also not personally to fond of Germany's and Turkey's UAs, but they don't bug me as much as India's. Beyond that, I think UAs are pretty nicely balanced thus far.
 
How are SC/GoF on par? You can have dozens of desert tiles, with half of them being floodplains, oasis and resources. How many stone/marble you can have? And wine/incense are just bad tiles you don't necessarily want to work. The problem with DF it gives faith for free, i.e. for working tiles you'd work regardless. Take away floodplains etc faith and it gets on par with the rest.
Petra... I'm not bothered with it as much as others do, I seldom build it due to difficulty constrains, but it's guaranteed to be nerfed in BNW. Don't know how, though.

Stone Circles gives +2 faith instead of 1 to already excellent tiles. You have to have 2 workable desert tiles for every Quarry, and given how many bad ones there are + how costly it is to work Hills early on, it's not easy. GoF also gives +1 :c5culture: and they're actually decent tiles especially in the early game. It does apply to floodplains, yes, but I honestly have a lot of trouble finding these long stretches of usable Floodplains that aren't just entirely flat with 0 production and surrounded by worthless Desert. I see it as a way to compensate for what should be bad start, but Petra then turns into a god-tier start, hence why I see Petra as the problem child.

If there's an issue it's that generating faith is just a huge pain in the ass unless you're a religious civ or got a faith pantheon, the AI just spreads their religion insanely hard and fast and can get theirs faster, especially pantheons(every difficulty from King - Deity gives the AI free Pottery for Shrines), and Missionaries suck huge balls at flipping cities even with Missionary Zeal.

I have one word for you: deity. :)

Okay, change it to immortal and it's 3 cities instead of 4. Not that much better :p
 
India's UA was a nice idea in theory, since Firaxis seemed so sure that by Civ5, they'd hit a point where a small civ (as in one with fewer cities) could perform just as well as a large civ, and if they'd been right, India's UA would be fine. ...but they were wrong, as most of the inconveniences of having a large civ can be fixed by all of the bonuses of having a large civ.

I'm also not personally to fond of Germany's and Turkey's UAs, but they don't bug me as much as India's. Beyond that, I think UAs are pretty nicely balanced thus far.

Turkey I don't mind.

Germany however is not my cup of tea at all. I enjoy the UUs and the concept, but I just don't find it to be very fun managing barbarian units early on. I like to build my units or buy them
 
One of them been Rome I assume? I have yet to try an ICS strategy. I find the happiness problems to be too much to handle, plus I just dont seem to find the space in my build Que to build settlers :p More than four that is.

Rome, The Mayans, China, Arabia... Probably a few more. Usually civs that have a good obvious bonus for a network of small cities. Mayans you can find threads describing the build and it's pretty broken if you get it off the ground/god tier.

Maddjinn has an LP series of Rome and the Mayans which can give you a decent idea to how to look at your city setups. Some of it is not quite patch relevant, but the basic principles are good. 70% sure Rome was after the policy switch, 100% sure the Mayans was after.

@ Lightcleric

On pikes, while I sorta agree the Germany is kinda a non-issue because most hammers saved you'd have to pay a little later, the concern is still there. Pikes are meant to be a reactive/defensive/utility unit. All the units on it's current upgrade line have that role. In Vanilla, the Longsword was a very commonly bulbed tech so we never saw the flip side problem of people ignoring swords. When they nerfed it, they knew players would just build up pike armies and then use the extra science saved to slingshot into Muskets later so they nerfed that. Bringing that back is bringing back a problem they preemptively fixed.

On Liberty/ICS... I know that Liberty on Deity is tricky and my win% is much lower when trying liberty strategies than tradition ones. I also know that when Liberty stuff works I either got a lucky start or the AI did some stupid moves. However let's be real, when I get a winning run on Deity, the AI always did dumb . The old liberty was kinda broken on pretty much all lower AI difficulties, and could be a little silly in multiplayer. I'm kinda of the opinion that if they keep improving the AI, eventually the bonuses they get will just overwhelm us. Heck it's already getting a little crazier seeing the last patch has made it more difficult to get gold for our early useless luxuries.
 
Stone Circles gives +2 faith instead of 1 to already excellent tiles. You have to have 2 workable desert tiles for every Quarry, and given how many bad ones there are + how costly it is to work Hills early on, it's not easy.
Working floodplains is very easy and on typical pure desert start you have zillions of them. Plus oasis, sheep and luxes.

GoF also gives +1 :c5culture: and they're actually decent tiles especially in the early game.
Only if they happen to be on grass/floodplains. Most chances it's 1:c5food: 1:c5production: and with incense you're lucky if it's not a desert tile which means zero food, zero hammers.

It does apply to floodplains, yes, but I honestly have a lot of trouble finding these long stretches of usable Floodplains that aren't just entirely flat with 0 production and surrounded by worthless Desert. I see it as a way to compensate for what should be bad start, but Petra then turns into a god-tier start, hence why I see Petra as the problem child.
It's definitely problematic. If city location is all flat desert, it's unlikely you'd be able to build wonders (or even settle that spot to begin with). If there is some decent production, it's a good spot by definition and Petra will turn it into god-tier spot. When you add a guaranteed religion without investing any hammers/money, it's a double god-tier spot.

If there's an issue it's that generating faith is just a huge pain in the ass unless you're a religious civ or got a faith pantheon, the AI just spreads their religion insanely hard and fast and can get theirs faster, especially pantheons(every difficulty from King - Deity gives the AI free Pottery for Shrines), and Missionaries suck huge balls at flipping cities even with Missionary Zeal.
True, but I prefer it this way rather than being generated naturally without any dedicated effort like culture or science. I see it as a bonus and I'm perfectly fine with not founding my own religion half of the time. But it just me.

Okay, change it to immortal and it's 3 cities instead of 4. Not that much better :p
Immortal is not a good example either, however on immortal you can play as wide as you want, ICS till your fingers and brain bleed from MM'ing 2078787 cities and still win very comfortably.
 
Piety is Ancient era now. New ways to get that pantheon.

Also apparently Professional Army got the 1/2 cost exp buildings (and lost the :) walls )

Still hoping for some nice boost in the Warrior Caste (although given the reduced culture output, 2 culture per city May be enough)
 
Here are some of my thoughts on balancing going into BNW and beyond to patches/ future expansions. Some of it is addendum to what was already discussed in the thread so far.

Era Science Balance: I am one of those people who favors a little more hang time to enjoy the tactics of each era. I still like for the balance between victory conditions obviously, I just favor a more fleshed out standard speed experience. My suggestion is for the progression into new eras to be slightly slower by halting vertical progress through this system: Offering the advantage that the tech leader may enter the next era by researching the first tech whereas the other civs (who have all met eachother) must tech "flat" to achieve the next era. Each subsequent era can allow for more leaders or more techs to be plucked from the following era. The tech leader or leaders in later eras are able to enjoy their lead by back-tracking to balance out their tech paths and prepare to achieve the lead again next era. They may potentially, if on a roll, be allowed to go in 2 techs deep or even 3 or more in the late game if they are first to the next era again and again. You would not be allowed to be two eras ahead of civs who are getting the "known civ" bonus from your discoveries, so, for example - your continent could still be way ahead in tech versus the other undiscovered continent but it will eventually balance out. This pause for science also allows the weak links of the game to get caught up or killed off naturally to get the game rolling again. Great scientists bulbing could be "buffed" to allow you to grab techs that are locked to you in the next era but that you would otherwise be able to research via the normal tech path, though you could still not get into into the industrial if everyone else was is in medieval.

If the tech leader was a civ like France they could grab early musketeers or a tech leader Korea might be able to get H'watchas while everyone else is still in the classical. Scientists might need to start showing up a little faster to make this re-balancing more interesting. Don't know where to start for keeping it balanced in the current math of the game but I believe it is very doable by the devs and will not make the game a slave to realism. And I hold no attachment to the "exactitude" of my idea so it could easily be tweaked around.

AI Surrender Balance I mentioned some of my thoughts about the AI offering the player unacceptable peace treaties in the "nitpick" thread, but I wanted to share about AI vs AI surrenders. These can introduce game-breaking imbalance at higher difficulties. When the AI accepts another AI's godawful peace conditions it can be far too absurd for the victor who can easily handle 2-4 high pop puppets no problem and thus instantly start down the path to being a runaway.

Anecdote re: Surrender Balance...
Spoiler :
I was playing for a tech victory as Japan on Immortal these past few days and got to watch first hand as Persia first went to war with Russia and then took multiple cities as a peace offering. All the Russians were left with was a single, bad, tundra city. Persia then proceeded to declare war about 20 turns later and capture the final city with no sweat off their back. All of those peace treaty cities they got were at no loss for infrastructure and they annexed most of them. Then they did the SAME THING to the Mayans and the Ethiopians. I was caught between enemies on my side of the map and trailed Persia with a meager +1000bpt where they were getting 3500 based on the charts at the end. If the AI actually had to go to the trouble of expending units, time, and turns to capture cities there would be balance, but so much of the time the spineless AI just gives away everything only to get swallowed shortly thereafter. Peace treaties (and the oft blamed AI happiness) is the biggest factor in runaway civs in my opinion and needs some serious balance tweaks. I won by nuking their last spaceship part over and over. I got away with it 3 times because it just happened to be one full turn for them to get it in their capital. I only barely managed affording the nukes by selling off all of my gpt and making a daisy chain of two nuclear submarines to get the nukes to fall on Persepolis. :nuke: :goodjob:


Unit Upgrade Paths + New Unit and Promotion Ideas:

First thing: remove insta-heal. Second thing: Units that change in nature from ranged to melee or from melee to ranged get to re-pick all promotions upon upgrade.

Scouting Line, (exploration tree idea, first 4 scout units cost no maintenance/ or maybe they cost nothing to upgrade..):

Scout Unit Line
Scout
NEW: Medieval Scout?
NEW: Dragoon/Light Dragoon? (Ranged attack 1)
NEW: Halftrack? (Ranged attack 1)
Mechanized Infantry (Ranged attack 1)

Spearmen Unit Line, (Cannot get cover promotions, instead get engagement promotion line which commits enemies through zone of control)

Engagement I: Enemies cannot melee attack against this unit and then move away. Fortification bonus increased by 10%
Engagement II: Enemies who move adjacent to this unit lose all but 1 movement point unless they enter the tile with 0 moves left. (They are engaged and must either fight or end turn) Fortification bonus increased to 20% total
Note: This idea makes for a very interesting twist when the Lightening Warfare Autocracy tenet gets adopted. Really nice imho.

Spearmen
Pikemen
Lancer (If it cannot fortify, at least give it this: Gets/gives neighboring units an additional flanking bonus. Goes away on upgrade)
Anti-Tank Gun (Ranged attack 1 or 2)
Helicopter (Ranged attack 2, can fly over coastal tiles without embarking but loses hp per turn)

Melee Line:

Swordsman and above starts with Cover 1 or perhaps Siege?

Siege Line:

Promotion that setting up costs 0 moves (perhaps this instead of cover?)

City Defense Changes:

Ranged attacks used against a city (by archers for example) are first absorbed by and kill the GARRISONED UNIT. The garrisoned unit heals approximately 5 or 10hp(?) each turn when it moves/attacks but it counts as fortified either way if there are walls present (50% fortification bonus to unit?). Any unit may receive the fortification bonus regardless of unit line. Tradition improves these bonuses. Units that perform no action while stationed in a city heal as normal.

Siege and melee attacks against a city damage the CITY, ignoring the garrisoned unit.

Guided Missile Change:

Guided missiles do a large amount of bonus damage to garrisoned and fortified units. Automatically kills civilian units who are not covered by a military unit. Firing a guided missile at an unoccupied tile pillages ALL improvements (no gold received). - The reason for this harkens to the game I mentioned earlier. Had I been able to fire a guided missile at the enemy railroad network between the two cities I was spying on (one of which was building the last spaceship part), I could have really improved my chances of victory due to tactical superiority. I hope the AI could be programmed to do the same.

Thanks for reading my suggestions! :)
 
One thing i really hope for is buffing Honor some way. One thing what i hope for is to some how generate culture like in tradition and liberty. Because now u never should open that tree. Of course after tra/lib it is viable some times. Maybe buff the culture from barbarian kills? So u could focus on military and start killing barbs and get about same amount of culture like tra/lib.

Other thing in Honor tree which is horrible that with faith u can buy GGs. I think they should change the holy warriors to Honor tree. So u could buy military with faith. Or build some militarybuildings with faith.
 
Era Science Balance: My suggestion is for the progression into new eras to be slightly slower by halting vertical progress through this system: Offering the advantage that the tech leader may enter the next era by researching the first tech whereas the other civs (who have all met eachother) must tech "flat" to achieve the next era.

NO no no no no. Absolutely NOT. :mad:

By doing that, you ensure that the tech leader of the Ancient Era gets an insurmountable advantage for the rest of the game. The first person to reach the Ancient Era WILL be the first one to reach the Medieval era, and so on so forth. He will also effectively deny any other civ the ability to progress at a reasonable pace, thus locking everyone else out of all victory conditions, except possibly domination. And gods help the world if the tech leader beelines military technologies...
 
Top Bottom