Another set of balance changes

[KrikkitTwo]

almost none of these are original, but


1. Puppet States... change to allow full control, but
They still can't build Wonders or units
They produce no Science, Gold, Happiness, or GPP
They produce no Trade route gold
They only produce Local culture (for claiming tiles)

They have 0 Population Unhappiness, and 0 Building Maintenance
(They still have City Unhappiness)
They give no increase in Social Policy Cost

2. Resisting/Razing Cities
Control over the Territory of those cities is given to the original controller of the city

3. "Very Unhappy"... cities cannot leave resitance while the civ is very unhappy. However, Production and Combat is normal.

4. Maritime States... each give
+(8-# of cities) food to the Capital
and
+1 food to the biggest 8 cities

Different Maritimes would stack ( so 2 would be)
+(16-2*# of cities) food in capital
+2 food in the biggest 8 cities

Era increases would increase the "8"

5. GP Improvements+Specialists
Increase general output of the Specialists
and increase GP improvements, Mines and Pasture/Plantations with techs.


6. Near Useless buildings
Military Base: with Flight should alow Airlift of an infinite # of units from tiles adjacent to it to tiles adjacent to a friendly Military Base (or a friendly city for more power)
it should give +1 Range to Cities

Stables should give +2 Happy with Combustion

7. Mounted Units
Should get a penalty for attacking cities (Mandelaku cavalry would be exception)
Should upgrade either to Tanks or Infantry

8. Large Empires... Tech Costs should increase by ~15% per city (not counting Puppets/Cities in resistance)

 

[Ahriman]

1. Puppet States... change to allow full control, but
They still can't build Wonders or units
They produce no Science, Gold, Happiness, or GPP
They produce no Trade route gold
They only produce Local culture (for claiming tiles)

This is just totally illogical.

Why do they produce no wealth? What is the point of them if they give you nothing, and can't even cover their own unhappiness?
Why would you want to have the confusion of a separation between local culture and global culture?

2. Resisting/Razing Cities
Control over the Territory of those cities is given to the original controller of the city

Why?
Are razed cities too powerful?
What is your design goal here?
Would also seem weird codewise - why should a player get access to tiles that belong to a city that they don't own?

3. "Very Unhappy"... cities cannot leave resitance while the civ is very unhappy

I think just increasing the production penalties (or science/culture penalty) while very unhappy would be easier.

4. Maritime States... each give
+(8-# of cities) food to the Capital
and
+1 food to the biggest 8 cities

Different Maritimes would stack ( so 2 would be)
+(16-2*# of cities) food in capital
+2 food in the biggest 8 cities

Era increases would increase the "8"

So if I have 2 cities, they give 7 food to the capital, 1 food to the other?
Too capital-centric.

5. GP Improvements+Specialists
Increase general output of the Specialists
and increase GP improvements, Mines and Pasture/Plantations with techs.

Increasing yield output of the specialists makes them too strong when combined with the right SPs, and the statue of liberty. Much better to boost great people IMO than to boost specialists. Specialists are not underpowered.

6. Near Useless buildings
Military Base: with Flight should alow Airlift of an infinite # of units from tiles adjacent to it to tiles adjacent to a friendly Military Base (or a friendly city for more power)
it should give +1 Range to Cities

There is no airlife mechanic in the game, it would be hard to write AI code that used it effectively.
+1 range for cities is a good idea, but otherwise I think its easier to just tweak strength.

Stables should give +2 Happy with Combustion

Why happy?
Just make it lose its maintenance cost.

Should get a penalty for attacking cities

Doesn't solve the horseman problem, which is about being too effective at taking out enemy armies.
City attack penalties don't help much, because the enemy is pretty much helpless once their field army is destroyed.

8. Large Empires... Tech Costs should increase by ~15% per city (not counting Puppets/Cities in resistance)

Why? This just feels arbitrary.

In general these don't feel like good fixes to me.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

This is just totally illogical.

Why do they produce no wealth? What is the point of them if they give you nothing, and can't even cover their own unhappiness?
Why would you want to have the confusion of a separation between local culture and global culture?

They give you the Territory
Well they would produce culture to get the territory, but because they don't increase SP costs, they wouldn't contribute to getting SPs

Why?
Are razed cities too powerful?
What is your design goal here?
Would also seem weird codewise - why should a player get access to tiles that belong to a city that they don't own?

As a barrier to the benefits of conquest... effectively the city in resistance is still "owned" by the original owner.

A city has 2 benefits, the territory (combat, movement bonuses, resources)
and the output of the cit itself
Resistance=> no benefit (you are just denying it to the enemy)
Puppet=> territory benefit
Annex=>full benefit

I think just increasing the production penalties (or science/culture penalty) while very unhappy would be easier.

That violates the nature of the Happiness mechanism
Happiness acts as a population cap (this is why growth+Settlers stop at -10 unhappiness, and pop slows in -1 to -9 happiness, and why unhappiness comes from population primarily)

So if I have 2 cities, they give 7 food to the capital, 1 food to the other?
Too capital-centric.

Only if you have 2 cities
if you have 8... they all get +1, even the capital.

There is no airlife mechanic in the game, it would be hard to write AI code that used it effectively.
+1 range for cities is a good idea, but otherwise I think its easier to just tweak strength.

The airlift would be a benefit for a Military Base that Wasn't on the Front lines.

Why happy?
Just make it lose its maintenance cost.

Well I was thinking about the primary Modern uses of horses (luxury goods, Races like Stadiums, etc.)
Losing the Maintenance cost would be good too.
But the building should be Usable

Doesn't solve the horseman problem, which is about being too effective at taking out enemy armies.
City attack penalties don't help much, because the enemy is pretty much helpless once their field army is destroyed.

Which is another balance issue, general strength of Cities

Why? This just feels arbitrary.

Because Large empires get an outsized benefit. An additional city yields far too many benefits (after the Ancient Age)

With this effect, a Large empire would still be at tech parity with a Medium sized empire (but would have vastly more military units and gold). Both would still be better than a small empire.

 

[Jabba]

Only if you have 2 cities
if you have 8... they all get +1, even the capital.

Actually, according to your formula the capital would get zero and the other cities would get +1.

I suppose you mean that there should be a minimum +1 bonus in the capital.

Edit: Rereading your post, I suppose that the capital is included in the eight biggest cities.

 

[WaKKO151]

all your ideas are terribad

I want change as much anyone but these ideas aren't going to work. I suggest everyone leaves this post alone and let it die.

 

[RicKhan5]

Thanks for the suggestions Krikkitone. I may not agree with many of them, the following i do agree with.

Mounted Units penalty for attacking cities is a good idea.

Upgrade to Mech Infantry seems to be a match imho. If they last that long.

Stables adding happiness when mounted units are obsolete is not a bad thing. Horses make people happy.

 

[MAntoninus]

Just simply capping the # of City States you can derive alliance bonuses from, outside of diplomatic votes, would be a huge step forward.

Like one of each type or something or three max or...better competition from the AI in competing for City State love or something.

 

[Ahriman]

They give you the Territory

I'm going to conquer just for territory?
Laaame.
At this rate you are just going to encourage raze and resettle.

That violates the nature of the Happiness mechanism
Happiness acts as a population cap (

Disagree. The happiness mechanism is about limiting expansion. It doesn't have to just be only about population, its fine if its about the value of that population.
Very unhappy already gives a non-population effect, a alrge military penalty.

Only if you have 2 cities
if you have 8... they all get +1, even the capital.

So? If you only have 2-3 cities, its too capital centric.
The existence of situations where a problem does not exist does not mean that there is not a problem.

Still, I appreciate the general thrust of the idea, which is to make it scale less, much like the other city state bonuses. Its definitely worth considering.

The airlift would be a benefit for a Military Base that Wasn't on the Front lines.

...which the AI couldn't use.

Which is another balance issue, general strength of Cities

Which still doesn't affect the real problem with cavalry, which is their ability to wipe out enemy field armies. You don't fix a problem with a unit being too good vs field armies by making having your field army wiped out slightly less painful.

Because Large empires get an outsized benefit.

So? Why fix this in such an arbitrary, unrealistic way?
Punish puppets. If you can get a large empire of annexed cities, it *should* have more science output.

Just simply capping the # of City States you can derive alliance bonuses from, outside of diplomatic votes, would be a huge step forward. Like one of each type or something.

Not sure why you should be forced into using different city state types rather than a single type. I think its perfectly ok to for eg just focus on cultural city states if you're pursuing a cultural strat. Limiting you to one would be very harsh, particularly on large maps.

The problem is Maritime city states, and the ease with which you can overcome AI's city state alliances (and which they won't respond to).

You don't fix this by tinkering with cultural and military city states, which are generally balanced.

 

[Zhahz]

all your ideas are terribad

Kinda harsh but I have to say that I find most of the OP's ideas to be way off. But then, I find most of the balance/rebalance stuff to be off and seemingly coming from people who spend less time learning to play Civ 5 and more time trying to make Civ 5 like Civ IV.

The biggest problems with pretty much every balance mod I've read about are that they ignore the fact that Civ 5 is trying to force players to make decisions and focus rather than just handing them easy routes to massive production, and that any change to balance has to take into account the big picture.