• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

[Vote] (1-37) Tweaks For Brazil Wide Gameplay

Approval Vote for Proposal #37


  • Total voters
    59
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Legen

Emperor
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
1,466
Proposal:

  • Reduce the UA's :c5goldenage: GAP conversion from 30% to 20%.
  • UA gains "+3 :c5goldenage: Golden Age Points from improved Luxury Resources" (a.k.a. +3 :c5goldenage: GAP on improved Luxury tiles, similar to Rationalism opener's "+3 :c5science: science and +2 :c5production: production from Strategic Resources").
  • Brazilwood Camp no longer has the "no fresh water" restriction.

Reasoning:

Brazil is a civ that has been on the discussion on wide tourism since its redesign at 2016, when it got its current UA. The original idea that shaped it intended to push Brazil towards wide gameplay, and this was also a major part of the discussions that led to the current proposals on Tradition and Artistry. Some of the posts related to wide tourism with Brazil can be seen in the spoiler below:

Spoiler Related old posts :

I just had a cool idea regarding the role of culture and population in the UA that to me, seals the deal.


Carnaval: When a Golden Age begins, stored :c5goldenage: Golden Age Points are converted into :tourism: Tourism, and all cities receive 10 turns of 'Carnaval.', during which, City :c5unhappy: Unhappiness is reduced by 50%, and gain 1 :c5gold: Gold and 1 :c5culture: Culture for every 1 :c5happy: Happiness, scaling with :c5citizen: National Population.​


Numbers can be tweaked obviously.

This creates even more synergy with the lack of unhappiness during it, encourages players to maximize their happiness input both to get GAs and to feed Carnaval input, and encourages Wide play (as it's easier to raise national pop with number of cities than with a few).

We could create even more synergy by perhaps tweaking Unique elements, perhaps even replacing Pracinhas with something else.
You're playing a civ with no :c5greatperson:Great Person bonuses and very high :c5culture:Culture on tiles as a small empire in order to milk this 25% :c5culture:culture modifier and maximize :c5goldenage:GAPs. This is making a strong case for why the 25%:c5culture:Culture should be removed; that bonus is forcing Brazil into a bog-standard tall GP-focused playstyle where you ignore all other parts of the kit just to go Tradition -> Artistry for every scrap of GAP in the policy trees.

Wider play with Brazil would make more use of the UI, because more land = more Brazilwood. It would also make better use of the :c5unhappy:Needs reduction, because more cities means more total :c5happy:happiness on empire, which can convert into more :c5goldenage:GAPs, since they aren't being sapped by :c5unhappy:Unhappiness. There is a chance to make Brazil a more interesting wide-CV civ, but the way the policies are designed, it's better to just ignore everything that is unique in the kit and focus all attention on a mundane % yield modifier, just because it's really big.

I think your comment also points to a failing of the policy trees as they currently exist: Why do Ancient and Medieval both have a tree that focuses tall, :c5greatperson:Great People, and :c5goldenage:Golden ages? That's 3 of the same focuses in sequential policy trees. The way that Tradition and Artistry stack up shackles a civ like Brazil -- with lots of GA bonuses, but no direct GP bonuses -- to a small, tall empire, because the civ's wide bonuses are swamped by the power of two full policy trees that push tall. As you say, that makes you play as if the :c5unhappy:needs reduction doesn't even exist, and you don't question that?

I guess this means I should do these polls more often? We haven't had almost any balance changes in almost a year.
Artistry and Tradition have too many of the same bonuses and focuses:
- both trees are the tallest option in their respective eras
- both trees specifically give bonuses to :c5greatperson:GP generation and to :c5goldenage:Golden ages

Tradition gives :c5goldenage:GAP on GP expend and Artistry gives :c5gold:gold on GP expend

Tradition gives +25%:c5greatperson:GP rate in the capital while Artistry’s opener gives +25%:c5greatperson:GP generation in All cities

Tradition’s finisher also has +25%:c5goldenage:GA length

so, there are a few points of glaring overlap, and in the case of Tradition it would take removing 2 weak bonuses to entirely remove the GA focus.

The triple overlap of tall GP and GA makes an overly-optimal path for certain civs which have any of those bonuses. The mutually reinforcing nature of these trees forces a civ like Brazil, who cares a lot about golden ages, but not so much about tall/GPs, to play as if he does, and ignore the parts of his kit that reward wide play. Likewise, a GP-focused civ like Arabia is induced to adopt Artistry to maximize their GP generation, even though they aren’t really geared towards caring about golden ages.

thoughts?


This proposal aims to push the civ further into wide tourism, after the patch 2.7 relaxed the restrictions on the Brazilwood Camp. The additional :c5goldenage: GAP on Luxury tiles is a way to incentivize expansion on a civ that wants as many sources of GAP as possible, and whose UI can create more luxury tiles as you expand your territory. My experience with other wide civs is that something as simple as some bonus yields on high priority tiles for your civ is an effective way to push the civ towards expansion. And, in Brazil's case, more :c5goldenage: GAP out of expanding means wide tourism should be possible, hopefully enough to counteract the usual benefits of going tall instead.

The removal of the "no fresh water" restriction is to make sure this civ is not punished for having a jungle bias. The issue is that this type of terrain tends to be placed on high humidity parts of the map, making fresh water relatively common around Brazil's starting position. This restricts the civ's wide gameplay, as one of the main incentives to go wide is exactly the desire to get as many Brazilwood Camps as possible.

Also, I don't think that the "no fresh water" restriction is necessary with the removal of the +25% :c5culture: culture on carnivals on patch 2.7. That part of the UA was removed in favor of a stronger UI. Given how big that modifier was, and how much the UI can incentivize wide gameplay, I think it is fair to allow for more frequent brazilwood camps.

Lastly, Brazil has been leaning towards Tall is because the civ itself doesn't have a comparable source of :c5goldenage: GAP to what is given by social policies. Focusing on Tradition and Artistry has been the optimal way to fuel Brazil's UA, outweighing what its uniques can provide through expansion. This proposal tries to give Brazil a proper source of wide :c5goldenage: GAP, so that it can function without depending on the design of the social policies. This becomes more important with the presence of two proposals that aim to overhaul Tradition and Artistry in terms of GAs; Tradition loses its source of GAP, while Artistry loses the GAP on building wonders and gets less GAP on universities. Neither proposals are giving extra :c5goldenage: GAP to fuel Brazil's UA, so the civ is looking to end with a weak :c5goldenage: GAP generation if those proposals pass; this proposal should be able to counteract that :c5goldenage: GAP loss.

Amendment:

Added the condition that the luxury must be improved in order to provide the :c5goldenage: GAP.
Changed title from "buffs" to "tweaks". The point of the proposal is to push for wide gameplay, and the discussion emphasized too much whether the civ should be buffed or nerfed. I'm not against a nerf to counterbalance this proposal, either now or after testing it; my focus is on adding incentives for wide gameplay for Brazil.
Added the "Reduce the UA's :c5goldenage: GAP conversion from 30% to 20%" part to the proposal.
 
Last edited:
A better comparison than Rationalism's opener would be to Ethiopia's UA: +1:c5faith: on all Strategic resources. In comparison, your proposal is more yields on a more common resource class that is visible immediately.

The previous Brazilwood camp build prerequisite was adjacent to luxuries. No Fresh Water should be a bit more common in comparison. The idea was NOT to let BW camps be too common. Each of them gives a luxury resource, after all, and it looks a bit silly to be swamped in them. Making the build prerequisite just NoTwoAdjacent in Forest/Jungle also overlaps with the Mayan Kuna.

Happiness bonuses have just been made relevant again, and it was generally agreed that Brazil was overpowered in previous versions. Nerfing Brazil was not just acceptable, it was intentional. Sure Brazil is weaker now, but are they Weak? I would like to wait for more feedback, rather than reactively buffing Brazil back up.

Edit: If we are looking for something else to add to Brazil's UA, I liked the idea of moving some of the yields on exploration from the UU onto the UA. The Bandeirantes present a weird incentive for delaying exploration right now, so moving some piece of the yields on exploration there would help smooth out the UU while also moving some power forward.
 
Last edited:
and it was generally agreed that Brazil was overpowered in previous versions.

Regarding that, Brazil already had taken a massive nerf before by having the UA generate yields based on GA cost, instead of the GAP accumulated. That alone was huge, since it meant Brazil's lategame tourism and gold were not able to build up beyond the GA cost, neither from great artists (human), nor from the AI's GAP from its bonus procs. One suggestion from Oct 2021 is what was implemented:

The AI is benefiting from this with their large amounts of bonus GAP lategame (permanent golden age). Humans are benefiting from this with their better usage of Great Artists (only use them for GAP one turn before golden age to maximize gains).

What if we change the UA to convert X% of the current golden age cost (instead of golden age points) to gold and tourism? That should remove exploits and also be a considerable nerf.

After that, complaints about Brazil being overpowered quickly disappeared. Brazil was not in need of another nerf.

it looks a bit silly to be swamped in them

How do you think Brazil got its name?

overlaps with the Mayan Kuna

The Kuna was originally a shrine replacement in BNW, turned into an UI in VP. Brazilwood Camp was already an UI back in BNW. Since Brazilwood Camp precedes the Kuna as an UI, I think it makes more sense to prioritize Brazil here over the Maya, given that Indonesia's culture on WLTKD was given priority over Brazil's for that same reason. And brazilwood camp had a big and clear influence on the nation's development, the colony's size and existence would not be justifiable without the intensive and lucrative brazilwood extraction that the land allowed. It is easier to justify large numbers of brazilwood camps than kunas.

your proposal is for comparatively more yields on a more common resource class that is visible immediately.

What if I amend the proposal to require the luxury to be improved in order to provide :c5goldenage: GAP? The point of the GAP is to ensure expansion is desirable, it doesn't need to be available from turn 1. Moreover, requiring improvement means Progress is favored, as this tree is able to do so faster than Tradition.
 
Last edited:
The no fresh water requirement does occasionally just screw you, so I'd support removing it. Maya and Brazil play very differently so I don't see it as an issue.

While I agree that wide Brazil isn't great compared to tall Brazil, I think that's more a result of tradition-artistry being so synergistic as discussed in other threads. Brazil is probably best or second best civ for wide culture play (with Polynesia possibly ahead). Wide culture with progress as a strategy just isn't very good in general.
 
After that, complaints about Brazil being overpowered quickly disappeared. Brazil was not in need of another nerf.
Complaints about Brazil being Broken disappeared. They went from being an automatic win if not killed off early to being merely top-tier.

As I said before. I would prefer to wait for actual feedback/game results
The Kuna was originally a shrine replacement in BNW, turned into an UI in VP. Brazilwood Camp was already an UI back in BNW. Since Brazilwood Camp precedes the Kuna as an UI, I think it makes more sense to prioritize Brazil here over the Maya, given that Indonesia's culture on WLTKD was given priority over Brazil's for that same reason. And brazilwood camp had a big and clear influence on the nation's development, the colony's size and existence would not be justifiable without the intensive and lucrative brazilwood extraction that the land allowed. It is easier to justify large numbers of brazilwood camps than kunas.
Precedence is not the reason we removed the % :c5culture: off Carnival, but kept it on the Candi, and it's no reason to change the Kuna. Brazil's %:c5culture: from WLTKD was removed because it was an excessively large bonus that was doubled-up on another WLTKD bonus in the kit, and it had overlap problems with both China and Indonesia. The overlap with China was far more serious, with both having unique global WLTKD triggers and % yield modifiers during WLTKDs. Furthermore, Indonesia has not been a balance concern, while Brazil has been a consistent game-winner. Yes, the overlap with Indonesia was a factor, but we didn't determine that Brazil should move because Indonesia's bonus had some sort of seniority.

The Brazilwood camp is substantially different in VP, to the extend that it can be considered a new component jus like the Kuna. In the original version, the build prerequisites and yields were radically different, and the Brazilwood luxury didn't exist.
In comparison, the Mayan Kuna only gives yields; there is not yet a good reason to make Brazil's stronger unique improvement as common as the Kuna.
While I agree that wide Brazil isn't great compared to tall Brazil, I think that's more a result of tradition-artistry being so synergistic as discussed in other threads. Brazil is probably best or second best civ for wide culture play (with Polynesia possibly ahead). Wide culture with progress as a strategy just isn't very good in general.
Hence my proposal to remove the GAPs from Tradition. The goal isn't to squash tall Brazil as an option, but the hope is that we can make choosing between Progress and Tradition more difficult for Brazil. There is a wide CV civ buried under there, if we can do more to make wide CV viable.
 
Last edited:
If being top tier was the reason to take away the culture on WLTKD, then why wasn't China's WLTED targeted? China was the second best civ in the 100-AI-only-games test, having not only the second best win rate, but also the second best average victory score and average score rank.

Also, I don't think overlap in WLTKD is an issue when only 3 civs have any WLTKD bonuses in the first place. For reference, there are 5 GA civs, including Brazil. And China's lower percentage values were mentioned to be due to the much higher frequency in how often that civ gains WLTED procs, putting it at permanent WLTED relatively easy and much earlier. Doubling up WLTKD bonuses isn't an issue either when China and Indonesia also have two WLTKD bonuses each as well. The only point I agree is that there were two civs giving the same yield.

Of the "no fresh water" restriction, the most common suggestion I find about the UI is to make it simply be a non-adjacency in the archived Brazil thread. I know your suggestion for no fresh water was meant to be less restrictive than non-coastal (as the tree doesn't tolerate maritime exposure), but the plant itself actually prefers moist climate, as usual in a tropical environment. I was thinking if a more fitting alternative wouldn't be "non-coastal, but allows adjacency", as that condition would have exactly as many brazilwood camps in my current game as the current "no fresh water", and reflect the tree's biology more properly. For now, I think I'll leave the UI part of the proposal for another day, as I'll think more thoroughly about it.

Ultimately, though, too much of the discussion is on the "no fresh water" restriction, which is the least important part of the proposal. The important part is the GAP on luxury tiles, the extra brazilwood camps from dropping that restriction was meant to support it. Do you think that :c5goldenage: GAP on (improved) luxury tiles addresses wide tourism for Brazil or no?

I would prefer to wait for actual feedback/game results
I can give feedback on my current game (finishing Renaissance Era at the moment), in which I was testing how the patch 2.7 affects Brazil. Trying the usual Tradition-Artistry as reference, my 5 cities managed to get a total of 14 brazilwood camps, which would only be 7 with the old luxury adjacency restriction. Without the fresh water restriction, it would have been 17 camps.

Overall culture output has been about 10% more :c5culture: culture from having those extra 7 camps, instead of the former 25% more :c5culture: culture from WLTKD. With the 3 extra camps that I could have without the "no fresh water" restriction, that percentage would be between 13% and 14%.

Maybe this higher base culture ends getting a somewhat higher value out of the other culture modifiers, such as Theocratic Rule (+15% culture/faith/gold on WLTKD) and Sistine Chapel. But the fact is that the brazilwood camps end producing about the same base culture as cultural specialists, of which I'm still finishing the musician guilds in my satellite cities. The culture from the extra camps tend to be a small addition to the base culture of all but one city, so I doubt the scaling changes by much.

Getting a WLTKD feels underwhelming, as you don't really get any real yield from that. The extra happiness isn't translating into significantly more :c5goldenage: GAP, maybe 10 to 15 more compared to the over 100 :c5goldenage: GAP I'm generating from other sources (Artistry, Mastery, works of literature, etc). The -50% :c5unhappy: Unhappiness from Needs helps handling more cities in this patch, but it isn't going to be a proper source of GAP for the UA. Brazil remains reliant on external sources of GAP, as its uniques don't provide it in significant amounts. And while still useful, it is arguably the weakest and least exciting of the unique WLTKD among the three civs.

City development starts slower, since the extra brazilwood camps require you to expand your borders first. Until then, chances are that your cities will have a Carnival or two before you can afford those tiles, and won't have that +25% :c5culture: culture to speed up tile acquisition. Once your cities start reaching 3 tiles away, city development starts to take off from the extra gold of those camps, plus the amphitheater's +1 :c5gold: gold on brazilwood. So, there's an argument to be made that this patch traded culture for gold, but the extra +28 :c5gold: gold from brazilwood camps isn't really comparable to the lost culture.
 
China was the second best civ in the 100-AI-only-games test, having not only the second best win rate, but also the second best average victory score and average score rank.
This is not a statement to draw any meaningful conclusions from:

1) That version had serious AI issues
2) The amount of data is not enough when you are considering individual civs. Most civs in that run only had a handful of games in representation, that means the variance is extremely high. You could easily have a civ loss or win +1/-1 game and suddenly their ranking jumps. We would need more games to really see those numbers carry through.
 
I have spent plenty of time and effort trying to reimagine China; that civ has a lot of other things wrong with it. This discussion isn’t about them. China and Brazil are both very powerful civs, both things can be true.

I don’t like the idea of adding :c5goldenage:GAPs onto luxury resources. I think it’s uninteresting, offers no real choices or changed incentives, and it could get very excessive, considering Brazil is also 1 of 2 civs that can simply place new luxuries on the map. Brazil’s kit converts:c5goldenage: into:c5gold::tourism:, and you’re proposing handing them an easy source of:c5goldenage:. If the kit is weak (I’m unconvinced of that) I think it’s a far more interesting design if we simply strengthen the converter, rather than add an entire new bonus for the input yield. I have also suggested moving their existing yields on exploration forward.
 
If the kit is weak (I’m unconvinced of that) I think it’s a far more interesting design if we simply strengthen the converter, rather than add an entire new bonus for the input yield.

It isn't about whether the kit is weak, it is about the GAP conversion favoring tall. Even if you take away Tradition's GAP, it stands that the UA works best if you play tall.

That gives me an idea: what if the converter scaled with empire size?

For instance, instead of converting a flat 30% (current value), it converts "6% for each city you control". This should remove the last and most important incentive of Brazil's kit to play tall, and change it into a major incentive towards wide instead.

The exact number can be tweaked as we test how it performs, of course, and probably wouldn't need an addition of more GAP yields.

I have also suggested moving their existing yields on exploration forward.

The point isn't whether Brazil is strong or weak, but about pushing Brazil towards wide. I don't think yields on early exploration would play a role on whether you go tall or wide.
 
Last edited:
The point isn't whether Brazil is strong or weak, but about pushing Brazil towards wide. I don't think yields on early exploration would play a role on whether you go tall or wide.
Exploration yields favor tall, no? Regardless of how many cities you won you get the same yields per tile, same number of tiles on the map (and its worth sending a bandeirantes to explore every tile of empty oceans).
 
Proposal amended:

Added the condition that the luxury must be improved in order to provide the :c5goldenage: GAP.
Changed title from "buffs" to "tweaks". The point of the proposal is to push for wide gameplay, and the discussion emphasized too much whether the civ should be buffed or nerfed. I'm not against a nerf to counterbalance this proposal, either now or after testing it; my focus is on adding incentives for wide gameplay for Brazil.

Exploration yields favor tall, no? Regardless of how many cities you won you get the same yields per tile, same number of tiles on the map (and its worth sending a bandeirantes to explore every tile of empty oceans).
In later stages of the game, yes. In the early turns, when the empire is yet to settle its fifth or sixth city, there's no distinction. Since his proposal was to allow for yields earlier, the impact would be when the empire isn't yet defined between tall and wide.
 
I'm thinking of adding a nerf to the UA yield conversion, in light of the test done in https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...update-now-with-summary-list-of-games.679819/ . Brazil benefitted a lot from the overall changes in patch 2.7, probably in the happiness department, compared to other civs. This yield conversion is also the main part that most promotes tall gameplay in Brazil's kit, so it may be necessary to tone it down in order to let the wide parts of Brazil's kit to outweigh it.

For now, I'm considering adding a reduction from 30% to 20% yield conversion. Any opinions?
 
Nerf the base, and if they fall too far we can amend it in the next month by adding the city-based scaling you suggested. E.g. 20% base, +2%/city.
 
Brazil has tools that can greatly improve empire :c5happy: happiness management, and they have a way to put :c5culture:culture on the map. Theyalready have what they need to make a wide CV playstyle happen. The problem is that wide CV isn't a good strategy right now.

Current wide Artistry has 18:c5goldenage: per city; at least once that is adopted there is already a strong incentive to go wide with Brazil. excess :c5happy:Happiness from a small, tall empire can't gain GAPs as fast as raw :c5goldenage:GAP through cities. Strictly speaking, the GA part of Artistry's focus already favours wide.

As for what Brazil Should be. I don't profess to know what the community wants from Brazil. I think they should have potential to be a wide CV civ, like Polynesia, but I don't want them to just become another polynesia either. I think they are fine being more wide/tall agnostic, being able to do both. I disagree that that the onus lies entirely on Brazil's kit to make wide CV viable.

There is not enough stuff in the game to support wide CV. Artistry generally favours tall and emphasizes GPs too much, it doesn't have enough :c5happy:happiness for most civs to use it wide.

There is no support at all from policies, and the buildings that enable wide :c5culture:culture to translate into :tourism:tourism for a CV unlock very late. Much later than ones that boost :greatwork:GWs, which have been generating tourism for many eras.

TL;DR - Brazil doesn't need to change to make wide empires doable. The game needs to change.
 
Last edited:
TL;DR - Brazil doesn't need to change to make wide empires doable. The game needs to change.
I think you underestimate wide CV. Every since the big tourism change you are a lot less penalized on tourism for going wider, and while yes you don't get to optimize tourism like you do when your Tall, you make up for that in robust flexbility. Tall CV is brittle, sure if you make it you blitz and your a god, but if it goes south you have very few recourses. Your a little civ in the big late game pond against armies 10x your size, you have no hammers, you have nothing that can project force on the board.

Meanwhile if your wide, and your CV isn't working out....you can pivot. Go DV, go SV...hell go domV if you really want. You have a lot more options to you, and so you should pay for that by not being as strong in direct CV.
 
Tourism from historic events is apparently still using the old formula that lowers the amount by 5% times the number of cities you have, on top of the new tourism modifiers, so wide CV takes a double hit on historic events. Could be why wide CV is non-viable right now.
 
Tourism from historic events is apparently still using the old formula that lowers the amount by 5% times the number of cities you have, on top of the new tourism modifiers, so wide CV takes a double hit on historic events. Could be why wide CV is non-viable right now.
I don't get where this whole wide CV is not viable thing started popping up. I ran one that long ago just fine. Now maybe if we keep nerfing culture it could get to that point, but if tall CV is "crazy fast" wide CV is just "very quick"
 
I don't get where this whole wide CV is not viable thing started popping up. I ran one that long ago just fine. Now maybe if we keep nerfing culture it could get to that point, but if tall CV is "crazy fast" wide CV is just "very quick"
Viable as in possible to win? Sure. You can also win a game with just 1 city.

There's two separate things here. First is the idea of progress + golden ages as a strategy. It's weak in my opinion, because you get very little from the extra culture (look at the contrast journal right now, Sti on turn 136 with progress would only get 12 culture per turn for a golden age, for 10 turns that's 120 culture total. I'm not claiming his culture is poor, its probably fine but its all bonus yields.

The second is wide tourism (could be progress, authority, or even tradition). In terms of tourism output, someone would need to crunch the numbers but anecdotally I think the punishment for more cities are harsh.
 
As for what Brazil Should be. I don't profess to know what the community wants from Brazil. I think they should have potential to be a wide CV civ, like Polynesia, but I don't want them to just become another polynesia either. I think they are fine being more wide/tall agnostic, being able to do both. I disagree that that the onus lies entirely on Brazil's kit to make wide CV viable.
One intent of Brazil's UA rework was about enabling wide. This is seen in the first line in one of Gazebo's responses in the archived Brazil balance thread:

Not necessarily. It becomes a very strong 'wide' expansion UA by allowing you to use Carnaval to ignore unhappiness in your infrastructure-limited cities. By the later game, the cost of empire upkeep can be ameliorated by stacking Carnavals, which allows for more frequent Golden Age boosts and thus more Carnavals.

More GPs during a GA, as a UA-concept, is pretty solid, however it didn't really synergize all that well with Brazil as a whole (and doesn't really make all that much sense in terms of Brazilian history). Oversimplified statement incoming: Brazil is a large country known more for its vibrant culture and beautiful environs than for specific Brazilian people (except maybe Pelé :) ). I'd rather see those GA bonuses go to other civs that need a bit more specialization, such as Babylon.


My vote is for this:

Carnaval: When a :c5goldenage: Golden Age begins, stored :c5goldenage: Golden Age Points are converted into :c5gold: Gold and :tourism: Tourism, and all cities receive 10 turns of 'Carnaval.' During 'Carnaval,' City :c5unhappy: Unhappiness Needs are reduced by 50%, and :c5culture: Culture is increased by 20%.​
The discussion about wide tourism Brazil has been going since then because, despite that intent, Brazil would still favor Tall. My experience with the civ is that, while you have more room with happiness to expand, you wouldn't really benefit more from the UA's yield conversion when you expand. Even Artistry didn't help overcome that, since the :c5goldenage: GAP from the scaler + university wouldn't neither outweigh the GAP you get from other sources, nor the penalties to tourism from controlling more cities. An extra city simply doesn't give enough GAP to justify the tourism penalties it comes with. The intent of my proposal is to hopefully add enough :c5goldenage: GAP per city to make those extra cities justifiable.

Personally, my preference is towards wide/Progress, and it always stood as weird that this civ has an expansionist history, but favors staying small in the game.
 
Proposal amended: added "Reduce the UA's :c5goldenage: GAP conversion from 30% to 20%".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom