Poll: how much would you change old civs in the next patch?

[leadtothehead]

On the contrary, armor was not crucial to the conquest of Poland, and, though it was decisive in the Battle of France, German tanks were not only inferior to Allied (particularly French) armor, they were outnumbered nearly two to one. The invasion of the Soviet Union failed (in part) because German strategy was insufficiently tank-based: armor and mechanized infantry pushed deep into Russia but could not be quickly reinforced and resupplied and so could not consolidate their gains or deliver a fatal blow to the Soviets. The Germans did not have nearly enough tanks, halftracks, or even trucks for the war they launched; their supply lines relied largely on horse- and mule-drawn wagons.

(for those of you joining in the middle of our program: Landsknecht > Panzer)

This issue of who is the king of the armor is a difficult one because really one could argue that both the German and Soviet legacies of the golden age of armor are represented in the autocracy and order ideologies Germany with the lightning warfare tenet and the Soviets with the Kremlin wonder, personally I like the Panzer UU because no matter what side you come down in on the argument of WWII armor you cant deny that the German Tiger was the most feared the recognized unit of WWII and frankly in Civ its about recognition and fame not actual Xs and Os. In other words when you think of the WWII German military you think of the Panzers and when you think of Panzers the Tiger is most famous.

And not to nit pick but the Panther wasn't designed to take on KV2s, KV2s were heavy tanks that are arguably more then a match for the heavy German Tiger, the Panther was a medium tank designed to utilize sloped armor that the T-34 pioneered to outclass the Soviet mainstay but like you said it come too late, cost too much and suffered from the allied bombing of key resources and supply lines.

The Soviet vs. German thing is basically the quantity of the Soviets vs. the quality of the Germans, personally I would have no issue with replacing one of the Russian bonus with a + whatever % production bonus when building armor and replacing the Kremlin wonder bonus with something else.

 

[DerCivMeister]

Germany, Japan, and probably Denmark all need significant changes and should be the top priority. Other than that, it would be hard for me to say because although there are some other civs that I feel are a bit weak, I can't say it's not just the fact that I don't know how to play them well. Those 3 though I feel very strongly about being absolutely useless.

 

[Babri]

The main problem, I think, with the Netherlands UA is that the AI doesn't make use of it. At all. William is still as reluctant to trade away his last remaining luxuries even though HE would be the one benefiting from the deal. I don't know if this is because they have been too lazy to code him properly, but if they can't code him to make use of his UA, they they should change the UA to something that the AI can make use of.

Actually Dutch AI understands this. If it is their last luxury copy then they would accept deal for your 2 luxuries instead of demanding 3 of your luxuries in exchange like other civs do.
And I voted for Arabia styled changes. I really liked the idea of Dutch having lump sum trades without requiring DoFs.

 

[wigwam]

And not to nit pick but the Panther wasn't designed to take on KV2s, KV2s were heavy tanks that are arguably more then a match for the heavy German Tiger, the Panther was a medium tank designed to utilize sloped armor that the T-34 pioneered to outclass the Soviet mainstay but like you said it come too late, cost too much and suffered from the allied bombing of key resources and supply lines.

I didn't say the Panther was designed to fight the KV-2 (the KV-2 wasn't a battle tank; it was armed with a howitzer). Rather, I said that the IS-2 was designed to fight to the Panther, and it was effective in doing so. Incidentally, the Panther was a "medium tank" in name only. It was 50% heavier than the Sherman or the T-34—the same weight as the IS-2, and not much lighter than the KV or Tiger.

The Soviet vs. German thing is basically the quantity of the Soviets vs. the quality of the Germans

This is an historical misconception, which is what I've been trying to say this whole time. At the start of the war, the Soviets had the T-34, which was in every way superior to the Panzer III and Panzer IV. The Germans introduced the Tiger; the Soviets upgraded to the T-34-85, capable of defeating the Tiger. The Germans introduced the Panther, which had a better gun and better armor than the T-34-85 (though it had other faults); the Soviets introduced the IS-2, capable of defeating the Panther. Neither the Tiger II nor the IS-3 had any real impact on the war (although to be fair, the Tiger II did see some combat in Europe, which the IS-3 did not).

You can't discount the quantity angle for being a matter of industrial capacity, either—design quality matters there, too. The Soviets built tanks that were just as good or better than their German counterparts, and which were cheaper, more fuel efficient, and easier to maintain on top of that. The Tiger and Tiger II were fearsome in combat, but they weren't effective in a broader sense; they were slow and inefficient, with dismally small operational ranges. Even the Panther didn't have nearly the range or flexibility of the T-34 (although it could generally outfight the T-34 and was certainly the best German tank of the war).

 

[Gyra Solune]

I personally am a bit OCD and would like to see each civ get one UU and one UB/I. And honestly, most civs have effective periods of warmongering, that's why many UUs exist. If you looked solely at the UA, the Huns are practically a production/trade oriented civ, but since they have the Battering Ram and Horse Archer that are so devastating at conquest, they are especially good at domination. Granted they're a little wonky since the best part of their UA is knowing where Horses are immediately and then they get their Horse Archer that bafflingly doesn't need horses.

But yes, as I was saying, Civilization is not wholly about war, it it about, well, civilization, and all the things these nations build. I don't like civs that are all war war war because that defies them of the actual civilized things they accomplished. The Ottomans represent a rich later Islamic culture and wealthy palaces and incense in the streets, but here we just get war all the things. Plus BNW has the asset picture for a Turkish Bath in the Africa scenario, so hey, why not? Of course, I'd be sad to see either the Janissary or Sipahi go, both of them are fantastic units, but I want a culture that's esoteric and fun to play and makes me feel like I'm actually in charge of the lavish and rich empire of the Ottomans, not a bunch of dressed-up barbarians. If I want those, I'll play the Huns. Hell even the Huns could do nicely with a Treasury UB of some kind that represents where they stored their hoards of war, and could give them +1 GPT for each city conquered, allowing them to ravage across the lands without remorse for their economy.

In any case, there's plenty of warring civs that I'd feel fine making the majority of them not war-based, since everyone getting a UU means that, during the period it is available, they can be warmongerey if they so desire. The primary thing is making a civ fun or interesting to play, and a lot of vanilla civs just...aren't, they feel samey and boring and generic. China is a big offender of this. The Chu-Ko-Nu is fun, yes, but the Paper Maker is just sorta okay, and their UA, oh wow, more Great Generals because I didn't already get enough of those, whoo, a greater combat bonus from GGs which functionally means a flat combat bonus for anything, how...yeah, I can barely care. This doesn't do China service AT ALL, they're a long-standing center of civilization that evolved in unique ways from the cultures of the East, long known for their technological innovations and esoteric culture. And we get none of that, we get a UA about one of their generals or something. Blah. How about something simple and punchy - Innovations of the Orient or something: Technologies only require one pre-requisite. That way you have a civ extremely effective at bee-lining and adopting certain advanced technologies before others, though taking this path will come at the expense of basic things. Sure, hypothetically you could charge straight to Giant Death Robots, but what good will this do when you don't have the production to even make a Knight or the tech to get there in any less than five thousand turns? It would be an ability that offers distinct advantages and allows you to charge towards what is needed right there and then without having to be sidetracked by simple prerequisite techs. And the Paper Maker? How about something with the new mechanics instead of "oh it has more gold"? Simple change - the Paper Maker increases science gains from trade routes to and from this city. There we go, a simple effect that works fantastically with that UA and simulates the wealth of knowledge that the rest of the world obtained by establishing contact with this far-off land and all the innovations they allowed even from a distance?

Stuff like this is what I want, bonuses that enact all the things that make those cultures unique and are fun to play without necessarily being weird or revolutionary.

 

[Brickbuster27]

Undo the redesign of France please! France was my favorite civ before BNW; the culture bonus per city, in addition to the Musketeer and the Foreign Legion made domination as France really fun. Now, France is reduced to a meek little country that expands tall instead of wide, goes for a cultural victory instead of domination, and now builds houses instead of powerful late-game infantry that gained a bonus from fighting in enemy territory. Why?????? France was amazing the way it was, now it's like they took the Napoleonic-era warmongering superpower and replaced it with the weak, tiny, and comical modern France, which seems to be good for nothing other than making art and living in fancy houses. /rant

 

[Princeofnigeria]

Undo the redesign of France please! France was my favorite civ before BNW; the culture bonus per city, in addition to the Musketeer and the Foreign Legion made domination as France really fun. Now, France is reduced to a meek little country that expands tall instead of wide, goes for a cultural victory instead of domination, and now builds houses instead of powerful late-game infantry that gained a bonus from fighting in enemy territory. Why?????? France was amazing the way it was, now it's like they took the Napoleonic-era warmongering superpower and replaced it with the weak, tiny, and comical modern France, which seems to be good for nothing other than making art and living in fancy houses. /rant

I AGREE WITH THIS PERSON!!!
They've changed a side that well represented true warring and powerful France into the classic steriotype of france (paris is the only city. Also they are pansies who don't know the word "attack".)

 

[leadtothehead]

I didn't say the Panther was designed to fight the KV-2 (the KV-2 wasn't a battle tank; it was armed with a howitzer). Rather, I said that the IS-2 was designed to fight to the Panther, and it was effective in doing so. Incidentally, the Panther was a "medium tank" in name only. It was 50% heavier than the Sherman or the T-34—the same weight as the IS-2, and not much lighter than the KV or Tiger.

I stand corrected, I forgot the heavy tank role jumped to IS series after the KV-1, in any case I thought the IS-2 was designed to counter the Tiger tank, and the Panther which came after the Tigers development was the German counter to the T-34. As for a head to head Tiger vs. IS-2, the Tiger IMO still had a slight edge in the tank vs. tank with the IS-2 but the IS-2 was more effective vs. other targets like bunkers or other defenses, but that's splitting hairs they were equals from a practical stand point.

This is an historical misconception, which is what I've been trying to say this whole time. At the start of the war, the Soviets had the T-34, which was in every way superior to the Panzer III and Panzer IV. The Germans introduced the Tiger; the Soviets upgraded to the T-34-85, capable of defeating the Tiger. The Germans introduced the Panther, which had a better gun and better armor than the T-34-85 (though it had other faults); the Soviets introduced the IS-2, capable of defeating the Panther. Neither the Tiger II nor the IS-3 had any real impact on the war (although to be fair, the Tiger II did see some combat in Europe, which the IS-3 did not).

You can't discount the quantity angle for being a matter of industrial capacity, either—design quality matters there, too. The Soviets built tanks that were just as good or better than their German counterparts, and which were cheaper, more fuel efficient, and easier to maintain on top of that. The Tiger and Tiger II were fearsome in combat, but they weren't effective in a broader sense; they were slow and inefficient, with dismally small operational ranges. Even the Panther didn't have nearly the range or flexibility of the T-34 (although it could generally outfight the T-34 and was certainly the best German tank of the war).

I agree its a misconception, but it is a popular belief in the casual historical sphere, and I agree that if you wanted to vote on the tank of the second world war the T-34 should win, its armor was innovative, design simple yet effective, and its impact on the war was greatest of all the tanks.

As for your design analysis I agree with you for the most part, Soviet designs were cheaper, had better operational ranges, and were simpler to operate and maintain. You could say the same for a lot of the Soviet designs which is a big reason why we saw those weapons and vehicles have a amazingly long service life in Soviet aligned states. The Germans were victims of their own design and technical abilities they built complicated designs because they had the engineering ability to do so and the technical expertise to service them, like you said a Panther or Tiger were fearsome in combat but the problem was getting them to the battle and supplied.

We could go on forever about WWII weapons design but at the end of the day while more historically effective as a design the T-34 just lacks the flavor of the Tiger, and at the end of the day the Civ games aim for flavor more then per historical data. Personally I would have no issue with the Russians having a T-series tank UU as I think more later era UU are in order.

 

[wigwam]

Ha, well, I guess we're almost entirely in agreement then. I would say, though, that the T-34 is actually flavorful enough—it's Civ 5's basic Tank unit model, after all!