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

[Eagle Pursuit]

I would make some small changes to move Germany and Japan away from the "all warmonger, all the time!!!" design.

I would also do a subtle change to America. The spirit of the UA is fine, but in practice, it's not very potent. I would change the tile discount to a built-in settler production discount. The tile-buying sort of reflected the Louisiana Purchase, but I think Manifest Destiny is more about the Wilderness Road and the Oregon Trail than the Louisiana Purchase.

 

[jaldaen]

I'll be honest, at first I was going to say minor tweaks, but lets be honest. Each expansion is unique in its own right and probably should have that reflected in all the civs and not just the ones included in the expansion. So I think it makes sense for a beefy or complete redesign for some civs, minor for others, and none for those that feel most appropriate for the way BNW plays.

Anyway, I've always wanted each Civilization to have a UA, UB, UU, UI, and UGP. But I like it when civs have more flavor than less.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Let's remember that a change in a patch will apply to all versions of the game, so changes to civs has to be compatible with vanilla and G&K, not just BNW.

 

[mrwho]

Songhai, Russia, Assyria, and especially Poland are regarded as very strong UAs... Have you played with any of them in BNW?

Honestly I have no idea why I put three of the four on there. Russia though I've never seen the point in. For strategic resources I'm nearly always fine. Any larger than what the strategic resources usually provide and I wouldn't be able to fund the army or really do anything useful with the extra forces what with 1UPT and all.

 

[That Other Guy]

Let's remember that a change in a patch will apply to all versions of the game, so changes to civs has to be compatible with vanilla and G&K, not just BNW.

Arabia isn't.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Arabia isn't.

Arabia wasn't changed in a patch. These new changes will be done in a patch.

 

[Kwami]

I don't see why changes have to work with Vanilla or G&K. They could just make the changes in the BNW XML files.

 

[gberetfr]

I see this a lot, and I strongly disagree.
Historians, grognards, and computer gamers have fetishized German tanks over the years, but the truth is that they were totally outclassed by Allied—especially Soviet—tanks from the beginning of the war. Only one good German tank (the Tiger, on which Civ 5's Panzer UU is based) was introduced early enough to make a difference in the war, and it ended up being inefficient, high-maintenance, and too expensive to be mass-produced. The Panther was the only state-of-the-art German tank produced in significant numbers during the war, and it, too, was ultimately outclassed by its Soviet counterpart (the IS-2).

The success of German armor during the war was because of leadership and tactics, and there's an Autocracy tenet for that. If anybody gets a tank UU, it should be Russia.

Even if I agree with the fact that leadership and tactics played a strong part in German successes at the beginning of WWII. You cannot underestimate the role played by those tanks which allowed them to conquer half of europe in a few months. The Blitz Krieg concept which took them so far was heavily tank based. At least from the quantity point of view if not quality !

 

[Newfarian]

I voted for minor tweaks, but I would be okay if they didn't make any changes at all. I like that there are some civs which are just UP, while others are a tad OP. If I happen to get an UP civ, I consider it a challenge to (hopefully) win the game with a handicap. These are the most fun games, at least for me. For people who do not like to play certain civs, I would say that they are at liberty to re-roll to get another civ before they begin the game.

If Firaxis are going to devote their resources to civ development at all, my real preference, though, is for them to add new civs, e.g., Vietnam, which from my lurking, seems to be one of the most demanded civs on this forum from players all over the world.

Bottom line is, I like diversity of all kinds, e.g., civs that may not be perfectly balanced, and civs from interesting and underrepresented parts of the world like Vietnam, Kongo, Australia, Inuits.

Thanks for reading my first CivFanatics post!

 

[Heart Break Kid]

Civ doesn't need to be close to balanced, but you shouldn't feel stupid playing a Civ due to them being "obsolete" (use that word lightly, since very few Civs are truly redundant if any at all).

America could use a tweak, maybe a bonus ability, but I'd hate it if they just redid them totally. Some Civs should be "plain", you need Civs that aren't wildly abstract or else it will belittle the more zaney Civs. Not every Civ can be a Venice. The purchasing ability with America is great, the vision is great, their UUs are pretty cool (I personally think there is nothing wrong with Modern UUs in practice, they just need to be buffed statistically). Like someone said, maybe they can generate Settlers cheaper/faster/no food debuff or maybe something to do with Scouts. In other words, I'd see nothing wrong with them adding on to America on top of what they have.


A lot of people hate on the Vanilla Civ, but I'd hate to agree with someone that Russia somehow never gets pointed out. I'd much rather change Russia than America and what not. For one, I don't think Russia's UA really represents them THAT well (they are big on resources and production, so it's not entirely wrong, but it isn't focused enough imo). The thing with Russia is I want to like their UA, hording strategic units just sounds beastly. But in practice, it's not that game changing of an ability. Sure you can sell the extra strategic units and what not, but they're still not worth much. Their UU/UBs are not strong either (not saying their bad, but no one looks at them as top tier or second tier which in conjunction with a bad UA makes them a really Civ). Russia doesn't really have anything gimmicky for someone to look past their short comings like Indonesia might be considered a weaker Civ by some, but they have an interesting gimmick that can pay off big in certain ways, they have more merit.


I'm of the opinion that Russia needs two civs to represent their region, an older one and a more modern one. But aside from that, there is one suggestion I've always wanted to make, though it is kinda ed up to stereotype their people with this ability, I'd really like for them to be able to create Nukes at a fast rate (they already have Uranium and production bonuses, but in practical terms, they can't really get them out any faster). I still haven't unleashed a nuke in any games of Civ, it just takes so damn long for something that isn't really worth the production, I'd like a Civ that could really shake things up and put fear into the Modern era - cold war style. Maybe even make Russia have the ability to annex cities and not take as bad of an unhappiness punishment. I don't know, I just know Russia needs more stuff. The double strategic thing they can keep, but they need to add more.

 

[Petiscator]

Hmm...

Japan: Could use a Zero replacement and a buff to the UA. They could keep Bushido and add something else too (like Seabastian's suggestion) and I'd be fine. But seriously, either do a major buff to the Zero or replace it at all.

Germany: Seabastian did some great suggestions. I wish they kept the Landsknecht, though, they're so cheap!

Ottomans: You know, I actually like the way they are. Quite versatile for land-sea combat. I don't care much for the randomness in the Prize Ships promotion, because paying only 33% of the usual maintenance costs for ships is very nice. Sipahis are also quite good, IMO, they might be a Lancer, but +1 movement, +2?1? sight and free pillaging makes it up for them. I completely changed my opinion on Lancers after the W. Hussars.

Denmark: Fine for me.

Russia: Also like them a lot! The +1 production on strats is awesome for building stuff quickly. They already got a buff with Iron at Bronze working: now they get +1 production faster and might sell the excess earlier. If you've got some friends, early game Russia might sell their ridiculous amounts of Horses and Iron for some settler buying. I agree that the Krepost could perhaps use a small buff, but it is also nice, as it makes buying those recently discovered strats cheaper. Double Uranium is awesome for obvious reasons. Also, remind that the +1 production affects all the strats, not only the doubled trio of Iron-Horses-Uranium, so, even if it is late gamey, Aluminium, Oil and Coal also get +1 production. It is best early game, though, when St. Petersburg has to build a quick library... And the Cossacks are one of my favourite UUs! +33% vs. wounded is not the same promo as Charge, so you could get a Cossack with up to +100% vs. wounded units! Also synergyzed by the doubled Horses and the Krepost being a barracks replacement. Russia's cool

America: Yeah... +1 sight is nice, but the tile discount? Cof cof Shoshones... yeah, Manifest Destiny is half ok half pff. Minutemen are good. B17 seems good too. They could replace the tile discount and put something more useful in the UA, I guess. There's a reason Angkor Wat is one of the most useless wonders to most people. I know it sounds weird because I just said the Krepost it good, but it could also get a small buff like +2 :strenght: for their cities or something like that. At least it isn't their UA... and Russia kind of has a reason to get that, as it gives them earlier/cheaper access to strats tiles.

 

[culdesaclamort]

USA UA: +1 sight for military units, +1 tourism from stock exchanges, stadiums, and broadcast towers
Lets America get the tourism boost it deserves, but will require highly developed cities (to avoid ICS spam)

This American UA change is pretty amazing. They still keep the amazing +1 sight and it plays up their current world-power status by taking advantage of a new game mechanic. Bravo!

 

[SureYouCan]

Leave America's +1 Sight alone!!! Buying tiles can be changed.

 

[wigwam]

Even if I agree with the fact that leadership and tactics played a strong part in German successes at the beginning of WWII. You cannot underestimate the role played by those tanks which allowed them to conquer half of europe in a few months. The Blitz Krieg concept which took them so far was heavily tank based. At least from the quantity point of view if not quality !

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)

 

[seancolorado]

USA UA: +1 sight for military units, +1 tourism from stock exchanges, stadiums, and broadcast towers
Lets America get the tourism boost it deserves, but will require highly developed cities (to avoid ICS spam)

I don't know about the tourism idea for stock exchanges, etc, because it kind of infringes on UB status. If we want to give America extra late game tourism then make it something that is more of a UA.

Examples (and these are just rough examples):

• "+10% tourism from each city with a population of at least 10 after discovering Radio"
• "Great Musicians exert more tourism influence after performing Concert Tour starting in Modern Era"
• "Gain +15 gpt for each country your tourism is 'Popular' in [Popular = 60%]"

You know what I mean?

 

[ImperialChaos]

America really needs a cultural/tourism overhaul for BNW more than anything IMO. America is a cultural powerhouse and this is something the expansion promotes. I think they would keep plus one sight (like Arabia kept double oil) for Manifest Destiny or military purposes but the tile buying can go. Not that it's bad (esp. since you make less money in BNW and cheap tiles are good) but BNW can provide a really good change for it.

 

[Heart Break Kid]

I don't know about the tourism idea for stock exchanges, etc, because it kind of infringes on UB status. If we want to give America extra late game tourism then make it something that is more of a UA.

Examples (and these are just rough examples):

• "+10% tourism from each city with a population of at least 10 after discovering Radio"
• "Great Musicians exert more tourism influence after performing Concert Tour starting in Modern Era"
• "Gain +15 gpt for each country your tourism is 'Popular' in [Popular = 60%]"

You know what I mean?

These make more sense.

 

[JokerJace]

Japan should get the Zero to change.

B17 is great. Panzer as well. But I think Zero needs a minor alteration

There have been so many sophisticated arguments over the time why these 3 units are the worst of the worst. Can't see why someone would still defend them.

 

[Montezumas Hat]

I've been defending America's UA for a while now, but some of these suggestions actually sound great. The +1 sight I massively underrated and should stay, but replacing the tile buying effect with tourism or something else would be great.

One idea I had was to take advantage of the Melting Pot/American Dream idea. Something like 'Each trade route to a different civ/cs increases great person production by 5%'. Or replace GPP with settler/worker production.

Germany deserves a reasonable change. I've mentioned in a few threads now that a flat reduction on all maintenance costs would fit pretty well.

I'm really interested in what they come up with for Japan though. I liked the cultural isolationism idea from the Polycast, but it sounds like they hit a wall with that one. I don't know enough about Japan's history to make any suggestions myself, but I'm interested to see what other people come up with.

 

[seancolorado]

There have been so many sophisticated arguments over the time why these 3 units are the worst of the worst. Can't see why someone would still defend them

I'm sure there have been many sophisticated arguments. This isn't one of them.