GEM: Leaders

[mitsho]

It's also funny since the time of French Domination didn't really stop with the French Revolution... I'd rather say it has another highlight in the century afterwards... I disagree on the Foreign Legion though, it's a very iconic symbol of the French and probably depends on where you are, over here in the neighbourhood of France and in the French speaking regions, it is very well known and many do have stories/families/etc. ... In the end, I would put it in the same category of "Hollywood/PopcultureHistory" as Elephants for Carthage, Theodora as the Byzantine leader, Boudiccea as the Celtic, the free spy for England (Bond), you get the idea...

I've nothing against a Salon UB for the French, though I personally would rather sea a Cannon UU and the French with Napoleon's heavy use of artillery (which he is famous for) seem to be the best candidate for that. In any case, I agree we can strike the culture-runs-out and look if it's really too strong.

I'm not sure the Great People for Influence in CS is too weak for Sweden. Especially not if we give them more ways to generate them with the Folkskola UB for Sweden. The whole UA however does make them play very "neutral" and "peaceful", whereas the Hakka is clearly not a defensive UU. I'd rather change the increased GPP rate with alliances (which is also the only Unique giving profit to other civs apart from the UI that do not vanish and the Egyptian UB). That way one can refocus Sweden to a civ that allies CS and attacks big civs. Can we redo the ability so that Great Persons gifted have two chances to so (for half the influence). Either you do it twice and lose the Great Person or you keep it for a normal use? Or what if we make them more immune to coups?

 

[Fusilliban]

So, the Celts are pretty weak.

What would happen if we took the faith-from-combat ability of their UU and made it into the Celtic UA?

 

[Ahriman]

t's also funny since the time of French Domination didn't really stop with the French Revolution... I'd rather say it has another highlight in the century afterwards...

I agree, but it's really done by the early 20th century, which is when the Foreign Legion unit comes out.

In the end, I would put it in the same category of "Hollywood/PopcultureHistory"

Precisely. And I *hate* that. I don't care about the leaders, but the extra spy is ahistoric. England was not particularly effective at espionage, other than WW2 codebreakers.

I think a cannon UU is probably unnecessary because France already gets UU offensive infantry that can roughly model Napoleonic superiority.

Especially not if we give them more ways to generate them with the Folkskola UB for Sweden.

So.... Nobel Prize means rushing around giving people Great Generals?

Can we redo the ability so that Great Persons gifted have two chances to so (for half the influence). Either you do it twice and lose the Great Person or you keep it for a normal use?

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying you could use a GP once for the influence and then still use its normal great person ability?
This would make it a no-brainer to use once and only once; given that it's barely worth giving them away now, why would you ever give them away for half the benefit rather than the full great person benefit?
Or are you saying that like a great prophet if you use it once for influence it then blocks the normal abilities, in which case what is the point of splitting the ability into two activations?

Or what if we make them more immune to coups?

Very weak.

I like dropping the alliance ability. But rather than gifting great people to city states, could we change it so that you get some advantage when you use a great person normally, like the religious policy that gives you faith upon consuming a great person?
Maybe you get science or culture from using a great person?

But then there's no city state link, so they're really just a pro-specialist civ.
But that seems ok.

 

[mystikx21]

I agree, but it's really done by the early 20th century, which is when the Foreign Legion unit comes out.

- I'd be fine with removing the infantry UU here too. The period of dominance is probably early rifles/late muskets. I'd also agree a cannon makes less sense (cannons are already rather powerful without needing a UU). They could get a musket unit (fusilier?) for Napoleon, or the Salon UB.

Precisely. And I *hate* that. I don't care about the leaders, but the extra spy is ahistoric. England was not particularly effective at espionage, other than WW2 codebreakers.

- And a solid chunk of those were Polish expats as it is (though the Elizabethan era is rather rich with British intrigue as well)...

I agree picking the leaders ahistorically isn't the biggest crime in the world; it's cosmetic rather than functional. Picking things to specialize the civilization's game play on is a little more important. We could improve on these where possible to at least be more accurate if the improvements aren't all that interesting or unique. Spies for England is pretty odd.

 

[Ahriman]

they could get a musket unit (fusilier?) for Napoleon

Fusilier as a musket UU would be fine, but then I'd have that instead of the Musketeer instead of as-well-as. 2 infantry UUs one that promotes into the other don't offer much variety.

Which reminds me: grenadiers as a German musket UU would probably be more interesting than Landsknecht.

(though the Elizabethan era is rather rich with British intrigue as well).

Domestic intrigue, in hunting down Catholics and putting down rebels, not foreign intrigue. And every country has had a history of internal security services. I think many residents of anglophone countries just happen to be more familiar with those in England.

 

[mystikx21]

It is foreign if we consider Spain, but I agree it's hardly the intelligence coups on the level of the atomic bomb/enigma/magic. Maybe on the level of Antietam. In either case, I don't think it rises to the level of "extra spy" either.

I would be fine with removing the Musketeer for a fusilier, but I imagine most people wouldn't. I think we're better off with a unique cultural building (and possibly improving the musketeer).

I do think a grenadier would be an improvement for Germans over the landsknecht (though we lose some HRE connections).

 

[Ahriman]

I think we're better off with a unique cultural building (and possibly improving the musketeer).

Agreed. Salon as Opera House UB with some happiness and more culture?

I do think a grenadier would be an improvement for Germans over the landsknecht (though we lose some HRE connections).

The problem is that the pikeman unit we have comes so early that it doesn't have much HRE flavor. Historic Landsknechts don't show up until the late 15th century; they were Renaissance pikemen and then pike-and-shot, not early medieval spearmen.

I'm not sure what we could do to give more actual HRE flavor to Germany. Teutonic Knights? Maybe as Longswords?

 

[mystikx21]

I'd go happiness and regular culture (preferred, like celts opera) or extra culture and phase out the UA (which is dumb that it expires).

 

[Dunkah]

Is it possible to give a Civ a different ability for each era? Would be really cool to be able to change the flavor of a civ based on differing parts of history. COuld even be for civs like the US there aren't any ancient abilities and other civs don't have modern abilities etc.

May be a lot of work, but as a concept could it be done?

 

[Stalker0]

A few thoughts I have:

1) I think Persia is too strong as written. The 50% bonus to culture is imo stronger than the other cultural based civs, because its very easy for persia to have a nonstop GA with the game as is. Also there UB providing long term and immediate GA benefits is a bit strong.

2) With the current honor tree, I actually like playing Monte now. Seems like a solid overall civ.

3) Spain plays really boring to me. I hate their UA, and their UA doesn't really do anything for me either.

4) Arabia also feels on the high side of strength for me. The bazaar is amazing, and their UA seems good (though I heard there may be bugs with it). They definiately crank out the money.

5) I think Askia's UA is broken. 300 gold for a barb camp is simply too much, each camp killed = a settler right now. I think a bonus is good, but maybe 1.5 or 2, 3x the base bonus is too much imo.

6) India's elephant seems pretty crappy as a UU, but frankly India's UA is awesome so I don't mind.

7) Carthage has one of my favorite UAs, it definately makes them feel like a maritime power.

 

[Ahriman]

I agree that Spain needs work. With the overall gold increases, a bit more gold in the early game isn't nearly as powerful as it used to be.

I like the idea in theory of an exploration orientation, but I don't like the practical effect of being natural wonder oriented. I think Spain could use a total overhaul.

I also find the Conquistador to be dull. I'm not founding many cities by the time I have knights, and by that time settlers are pretty cheap anyway.

I agree that Askia needs to be tweaked given the higher barbarian camp gold. I think the ability could be changed to double, but then it probably needs to give something else too.

 

[mitsho]

The proposal for Spain atm is the following (see above posts):

UA: combat and conquest bonus against city states (= more rewards for conquest). Natural Wonders provide double yield.
UU: Tercio stays
UU: Conquistador combat values stays, but instead of being able to found cities, it spreads the religion on city conquest.

That makes the Spanish a conquest based empire which spans the globe in a sense that it picks off city states. Also, Natural Wonders are often found with city states, so there's lots of combination power.

I could see a total overhaul of Askia. I could see a ranged-units based UA for him based on the skirmisher that was the UU for the Mali in Civ4. And also quick wiki reads support that. Give them + 1 for ranged units and find something else for the Germans (I do like a science/military hybrid theme for them).

@Dunkah, that wouldn't be a good idea. If you take a look at Civ:Revolutions you will see that it makes the boni fo the civs generic strength or yield buffs instead of the unique ideas that they have now. It's also a big departure from vanilla civ and lots of work.

As for France, I'm not sure a generic happiness or culture buff suits them well, where's the synchro with the other uniques? I do like two infantry unique units that upgrade into each other as it is a special gameplay (you will focus much more on infantry). So I much rather just make the UA non-expire and have the Fusilier (=which in modern military talk just means cannon fodder, at least to me ) replace the direct upgrade of the musketeer. One can adapt the bonus so that they work well together, they can practically be anything

 

[Ahriman]

Spreading religion on city conquest doesn't really work for me for a knight unit.

It also clashes with Mandelaku cavalry, which are already a knight-for-conquering-cities-with.
And it's useless if Spain doesn't found a religion.
And it's useless to an AI that doesn't know that you need to use the conquistador unit to do the last point of damage to cities.

If you did want to go this way, then I would think that religion spread on city-conquest would work better as a UA, and an anti-city state bonus could go on the Conquistador unit. But while it makes thematic sense for the Conquistadors and only conquisdators to be doing empire building through city-state conquering, I don't think that would really work from a gameplay perspective.

Another possibility: could we make Faith from combat kills into a Spanish UA, and rework Celts?
I do think Spain needs to be about some mix of Reconquista and colonial empire building.

As above, superior archers, bowmen, crossbows and gatling guns would feel bizarre for Germans, but also I think for Songhai.
I agree that Songhai could use a rethink. If we have huns with the barbarians-surrender, and if barbarian camps already give everyone lots of gold, then we don't really need another anti-camp civ.
Is there something we could do that would make them river oriented? Maybe extra gold on river-adjacent tiles?
Or would that overlap too much with India (whose food bonus on rivers from sanitation system is huge).

As for France, I'm not sure a generic happiness or culture buff suits them well, where's the synchro with the other uniques?

France's UA supports a wide playstyle with lots of cities, and its UU supports offensive infantry massing and conquest; both of these need happiness to support the conquest machine.

 

[Thalassicus]

I want to emphasize the importance of active bonuses. Think of talent trees in roleplaying games. One talent might give us a new ability to use, while the other gives +5% strength. Even if the second bonus is more powerful, it's more boring than a cool new ability.

The same applies to civ. Something like "Barb camps give double gold" lets us take action to spend gold each time it happens. Every burst of gold reminds us how awesome the ability is. Compare this to a passive bonus like "This leader gets 20 free gold per turn." Even if it's better in some games, it's boring, and we probably forget the bonus exists.

UBs with extra culture-per-turn or happiness might make the building better, but it's passive. How can we turn passives like that into more exciting active bonuses?

================

I'd be okay with moving England's espionage bonus to another leader, replacing the Foreign Legion with a different unit or building, and replacing Musketeers with Fusiliers.

My idea for Conquistadors is to replace the settler ability with the missionary ability (not religion-on-conquest). The AI knows how to use missionaries.

@Fusilliban
The Celts are guaranteed the first Pantheon for free. I think that is a rather strong advantage. I agree the opera house is weird, and I'm willing to change it. I think the UU also needs a buff.

 

[mitsho]

UBs with extra culture-per-turn or happiness might make the building better, but it's passive. How can we turn passives like that into more exciting active bonuses?

1 per ? However, that doesn't really fit with France's wide playstyle. An option better adapted to wide would be + 1 and + 1 on artists. I rather prolong the UA for France though, seems much more straightforwad.

Such an effect could also be applied to the Ceilidh Hall, but with ? (btw. the celtic UA is another one that runs out) I like the name since it's something more modern, but the effect (happiness) doesn't really seem adapted to the Celts. What if we give them the only late-game generator which at that point just allows you to spam Great Persons more easily? 0.5 per ?

I'd be okay with moving England's espionage bonus to another leader, replacing the Foreign Legion with a different unit or building, and replacing Musketeers with Fusiliers.

Though to whom? Byzantium may seem somehow logical, but it really doesn't fit with the civs playstyle. America and Russia are always options, and it may fit best with Americas supposed peaceful wide playstyle. The last option I'd see are the Chinese, the best fit of course would be the Israeli (Mossad).

The Musketeers btw. are another good example of the "Popular History" used, though they are a French staple in civ games, so I'm not sure to remove them. A Salon buffing artists seems the most straightforward and offers the option for a wide cultural victory (if you spam the artists and build the Statue of Liberty). Does seem like a unique playstyle.

My idea for Conquistadors is to replace the settler ability with the missionary ability (not religion-on-conquest). The AI knows how to use missionaries.

So, the unit vanishes if you use it twice? Or does it have infinite charges?

 

[Ahriman]

My idea for Conquistadors is to replace the settler ability with the missionary ability (not religion-on-conquest). The AI knows how to use missionaries.

Does the AI know how to switch between missionary AI and military unit AI on the same unit?

Even if so, to make things work you'd probably need to have it so the Conquistador got one or two missionary actions, but was not consumed by using them, so you still got left with the knight. That way the AI could maybe know to use the missionary abilities and then have the military unit as normal without trying to use both roles at once.

I rather prolong the UA for France though, seems much more straightforwad.

Agreed, I think this is a no-brainer, but it can accompany other changes. Happiness on a salon may be technically passive, but it has an active affect because it *does* affect playstyle by supporting a wide/culture style. Happiness is less passive than extra culture would be.

The Musketeers btw. are another good example of the "Popular History" used, though they are a French staple in civ games, so I'm not sure to remove them

But France really did have one of the largest and most effective land armies in the 16th and 17th century, and they really did use large numbers of high quality firearm infantry to support invasions, so I think an improved arquebus or musket unit that works well in enemy territory is fine for them.

Re celts UU, another possiblity would be a chariot UU.
Or Highlanders, or Kerns. Something with a bit more flavor.
[Highlanders could be a longsword that doesn't require iron?]

and it may fit best with Americas supposed peaceful wide playstyle

Extra spy for America would be ok. They certainly did a lot of coup supporting and city state meddling, and I find them a bit weak at the moment. It would also be a late-game advantage, which the US should have.

 

[Thalassicus]

I find it interesting to discover new things about humanity in Civilization. This game series introduced me to the Incans, the most amazing civilization I'd never learned about in school. I suspect other people feel this way too about Civ, so I like to get things as close to real history as possible, instead of familiar history. I search for the biggest things no one's ever heard of.

Carvel hull technology is a good example - it was a revolutionary change in ship design which directly led to the Age of Exploration, but now we take it for granted as simply "the way we build ships," so few people know what it is anymore.

I like to do this for leader bonuses too.

 

[Ahriman]

From the stuff above, along the lines of "actual history that lots of people don't know about", I'd suggest:
"Lingua Franca" as the name of the culture benefit for France, and one that doesn't run out with Steam Power. I think it is important for people to know that French really was the default language in Europe for centuries, and France was the dominant power in terms of culture and military.

The Swedish Empire period, and Sweden as a military expansionist. I think too many people just think of Sweden as that nice socialist country that does the Nobel Prize. This is why I *hate* the Nobel Prize as a UA, it is so unrelated to most of Swedish history.

Carthage as a maritime/trade power. If you looked at the Mediterranean at the time of the first punic war, it's highly unlikely that you would pick Rome over Carthage as the likely winner in the imperial power race.

Germany as an engineering/scientific leader. So many of the great thinkers and industrial advances were from German speakers and German civilization. I think many people from anglo countries and educational systems don't know enough about how much of the enlightenment and the industrial revolution came from Germans, not just English and Scots.
This is why I dislike the design of Germany as a barbarian-power-plus-Hitler.

Spain as an empire builder. I think lots of people are used to the Spanish explorers and voyages of exploration, but don't know enough about the huge Spanish empires - and about the wealth that came from an exploit-people-in-place model rather than the genocide-the-locals-and-bring-in-colonists-and-slaves model so common elsewhere.

The US as a late-game power. I think too much of the flavor of the American civ is of its early colonial/settlement/revolutionary period. But I think people forget that the United States really weren't that big a deal back then. They were sparsely populated compared to Europe until the 19th century. I'd like to see an American design that acknowledges the late-game-superpower as part of its nature, rather than one that focuses mostly on the 18th and early century, before America really mattered much.

I'm sure we can do more for a bunch of civs to break out of the hollywood-history mold.

 

[mitsho]

So you want us to suggest special themes for some of the civs that we're debating changing the uniques?

For Germany I would mention the special place the "Kurfürsten" (Prince-Electors in English) hold, though I'm not sure that translates well into any kind of UA. Else, there's the Religious Peace of Augsburg 1555 (before the 30-years-War) which established the principle of "cuius regio, eius religio" (=the religion of a holding is decided by the religion of the prince ruling there), maybe allowing you to chose between religious effects? Another theme that repeats itself alot in German history is the fight between Emperor and Pope over power/who can chose bishops, f.e. in the Investiture Controversy, though that also translates badly into an active and interesting UA ...

I'm out of ideas for the moment, but I will add any new ideas about other civs as well

EDIT: So, crosspost again

Je suis d'accord avec Ahriman que 'lingua franca' est mieux comme nom pour le pouvoir unique de Français. (I agree with Ahriman that "lingua franca" is a better name for the French UA).

Sweden could really be modelled more after a religious war power if we think back at the Thirty Years War and Swedish involvment. A civ that specializes in religious warfare could really be interesting to play as (that could also be Spain or someone else, btw..). Though I disagree, the Welfare State of Sweden is something they're known for as well and we can do with more late game UA's Too bad, the two sides mix really badly for civ gameplay.

I agree for Carthage as peaceful traders (maybe they can get a unique luxury, Tyrian Purple?) and Germany preferably as scientific leaders which can translate into industrial or military advantage. And America as well can gain a late-game advantage, yes.

 

[Lazaroth]

I just had a thought in regard to Sweden. There are many instances where Sweden has risked alot to gain something. Sometimes it worked, such as the March across the Belts, and sometimes it didn't, such as the Invasion of Russia.

Perhaps this could be a direction to construct something from?

Sweden is a militaristic country if you look at it over its history, definitely not religious (compared to other countries) and science is only something they've been good at in the last 100 or so years. For the longest time they were a starved militaristic country who at one point even had to import a king from France (that helped pay off some of their debts and reform the country).