There is enough of a gap I would say to add the Men-at-Arms, it's just on a weird tech that players don't always go for so sometimes the gap between Swords and Muskets feels really small.
What I do like about adding those two melee units does is that it will help a civ without Niter have some better fighting power as long as they have iron, and same for those without oil be able to make some corps that can stand toe to toe with Infantry (though I do hope that they remove the oil requirement for infantry, as it is still ridiculous and really the benefit of spending that oil per turn on a tank is usually more obvious to most players).
The Trebuchet is the most welcome since it will REALLY open up medieval siege warfare - before, a city with medieval walls was way too tough to crack, esp for AI, so this will be excellent to have finally.
Very true. Actually it would be nice if the Men-at-Arms didn’t need Iron because I find myself lacking it many games where I could use it and have to switch to horses and ranged only to cover the loss until I get Nitre. Wishful thinking though. I know the Khevsur requires Iron but it’s been a while since I’ve built Samurais or Beserkers so I don’t remember if they do as well. Based on that, I assume Iron will be needed for the new unit.
Very much agree about oil and infantry. It would be nice if that is removed someday.
I reckon the exact opposite, the emphasis on "season" and the commercial success of NFP mean I would be astonished if we don't get at least one more Season.
I think there's a good chance we'll get more, but I'll take Anton at his word when he says there's nothing planned. Using the word Season just leaves their options open.
I am wrapping up a game as Zulu with warrior monks (with the fix so great general applies), and while not a strategy, it was definitely a blast, and fun to play for that window where they go up 9 STR on unprompted swordsmen. Add crusades and Corp and I was able to conquer civs an era ahead on Diety. But men-at-arms really puts the last nail in the coffin for the monks.
That said, very excited to try the new units, as this game has been so fun largely because my melee units don’t get immediately outclassed in medieval. The real loser is probably anti-cav, which now become redundant at line-infantry. Admittedly accurate (?) but it seems to do to pike and shot what swordsmen do to spears, unless you get that fourth promotion that buffs surrounding units against cav.
I know, I was there. You'll see me making the exact same argument in that thread that you'll see me making here. It's not as impressive of an advantage as some want to make it out to be. *Maybe* she'll be able to suzerain more city states than another leader (though even on Deity I find it's not all that hard to be the suzerain of pretty much everybody even without any bonuses to envoys), and *maybe* she'll get 1 or 2 extra diplomatic favor per turn... but I really just don't see that doing all that much good.
The recent boost to Monarchy is more useful to her pursuit of extra favor, I'll grant that. You'll have to forgo switching to more useful governments as the game progresses though. You'd also get a heck of a lot more out of it if you played aggressively with her as well - any favor penalties you'll rack up for greivances will be canceled out by every new city you conquer and put her UB in, plus extra, and that synergizes with her new ability of getting faith from going on the offensive as well.
Looks like a great update and a reason to pause a few days before I start a new game... I also hope many of the existing bugs get fixed (M&C / luxuries bothers me very much), they don't mention it but obviously they wouldn't, bug-fixing is not as shiny as new features...
To throw my hat into the ring, I like the idea of Georgia's buff, but it shouldn't have replaced the Protectorate War ability. That was taking away their niche and removing a defensive element from a thematically defensive Civ.
So, what I would have done would be this:
"Gain Faith equal to 50% of the combat strength of a defeated unit during a Protectorate War. +100% Faith during the first 10 turns of a Protectorate War. During a Protectorate War, killing a unit heals vassal city-states walls within 5 tiles."
Still defensive and fits the role of protecting city-states, and now makes it so that if you attack a Georgian city-state, they gain a huge amount of faith in return, which can be used to purchase infrastructure or a larger army.
I think it safe to say that we WILL be getting more content. Most likely another expansion. Those empty leader slots would have bothered me to no end. So all is restored within the civ-world.
You keep talking like Georgia is geared towards a diplomatic victory despite the fact that they have literally no bonuses in that area. I could say the same thing about Genghis Kahn - "why would I want to use his mounted unit combat bonuses if I'm going for a diplomatic victory?" - and it would make just as much sense.
Georgia's no less geared towards a domination victory than a diplomatic one. Hell, they're probably *more* geared towards domination now. You say that Georgia has no real reason to be aggressive - well now they do, with no actual incentive to play peacefully (which they never really had to begin with, either). They have no real reason to chase a diplomatic victory over any other, though. If you want to go for a diplomatic victory with them you certainly can, but that's your choice and pretty clearly not what they're designed to do.
I mean they certainly have the ability to play for a diplomatic victory easier than other civs considering their dependence on city-states. That being said I don't mind the changes that they gave them and to me it does make them more flexible considering I've usually seen them as a hybrid religious/diplomatic civ to begin with.
To throw my hat into the ring, I like the idea of Georgia's buff, but it shouldn't have replaced the Protectorate War ability. That was taking away their niche and removing a defensive element from a thematically defensive Civ.
So, what I would have done would be this:
"Gain Faith equal to 50% of the combat strength of a defeated unit during a Protectorate War. +100% Faith during the first 10 turns of a Protectorate War. During a Protectorate War, killing a unit heals vassal city-states walls within 5 tiles."
Still defensive and fits the role of protecting city-states, and now makes it so that if you attack a Georgian city-state, they gain a huge amount of faith in return, which can be used to purchase infrastructure or a larger army.
I would have been fine with "Gain Faith equal to to 50% of the combat strength of a defeated unit when you are the defender", in addition to the rest of the abilities without needing to keep the Protectorate War.
I'm hoping that this means that European civs will be spread out enough to not have loyalty issues from the get-go. I'm tired of mandating which civs get to play if I ever want to play TSL Earth with a European civ - 4 of us ended up in Europe last time, meaning we caused each other to go into rebellion in 20 turns or something. I'm guessing the other 4 had entire continents ti themselves. Maybe with a larger map, the Europeans will have more space. Alternatively, they may ramp up how many start there...
To throw my hat into the ring, I like the idea of Georgia's buff, but it shouldn't have replaced the Protectorate War ability. That was taking away their niche and removing a defensive element from a thematically defensive Civ.
So, what I would have done would be this:
"Gain Faith equal to 50% of the combat strength of a defeated unit during a Protectorate War. +100% Faith during the first 10 turns of a Protectorate War. During a Protectorate War, killing a unit heals vassal city-states walls within 5 tiles."
Still defensive and fits the role of protecting city-states, and now makes it so that if you attack a Georgian city-state, they gain a huge amount of faith in return, which can be used to purchase infrastructure or a larger army.
Personally, I'd remove the caveat that you need to be in a protectorate war to get faith on kill. I rarely, if ever, even get the chance to be in one, so it would suck if such a large part of her abilities were to be locked behind such a strict condition.
Personally, I'd remove the caveat that you need to be in a protectorate war to get faith on kill. I rarely, if ever, even get the chance to be in one, so it would suck if such a large part of her abilities were to be locked behind such a strict condition.
I agree which is also why I hope they change Robert's ability because what are the chances that you will be to liberate another civilization's cities, let alone want to do it without an incentive?
Cyrus' Surprise War, though not really makes sense from a historical standpoint, and Chandragupta's War of Territorial Expansion is at least easier to trigger and wouldn't mind keeping them though they can change it up.
Thinking about it, hopefully they change it so you can use leader pools on TSL maps. That way, I can say that I want x amount of European civs, and then everyone else non European.
I agree which is also why I hope they change Robert's ability because what are the chances that you will be to liberate another civilization's cities, let alone want to do it without an incentive?
Cyrus' Surprise War, though not really makes sense from a historical standpoint, and Chandragupta's War of Territorial Expansion is at least easier to trigger and wouldn't mind keeping them though they can change it up.
I don't mind most abilities, so long as they're applicable for the majority of games. I'm happy with Australia's (not technically a CB, but it's in that mental grouping) because it is either useful for when you're attacked, or it acts as a deterrent. I don't ever play as Scotland because they basically don't have a leader ability. I don't even understand the historical motivation behind it either. Nor their agenda, for that matter. They weren't exactly buddy buddy with the English.
Back on track though, they really need to rethink the CB related bonuses. Or just make CBs more applicable. I wouldn't mind a Protectorate War bonus, if they tweaked the game so that they were actually common enough to be expected.
Thinking about it, hopefully they change it so you can use leader pools on TSL maps. That way, I can say that I want x amount of European civs, and then everyone else non European.
Ed Beech tweeted out that he likes to play the TSL map with putting all the eurasian civs in one pool and everyone else in another, so you can guarantee a form of regional balance. So in theory that should be possible.
Wisselbanken needs a huge buff before I would consider using it, domestic trade routes are just so important for getting your new cities up and running (yes I know I lost that argument in the elimination thread lol)
I agree which is also why I hope they change Robert's ability because what are the chances that you will be to liberate another civilization's cities, let alone want to do it without an incentive?
Cyrus' Surprise War, though not really makes sense from a historical standpoint, and Chandragupta's War of Territorial Expansion is at least easier to trigger and wouldn't mind keeping them though they can change it up.
I don't mind most abilities, so long as they're applicable for the majority of games. I'm happy with Australia's (not technically a CB, but it's in that mental grouping) because it is either useful for when you're attacked, or it acts as a deterrent. I don't ever play as Scotland because they basically don't have a leader ability. I don't even understand the historical motivation behind it either. Nor their agenda, for that matter. They weren't exactly buddy buddy with the English.
Back on track though, they really need to rethink the CB related bonuses. Or just make CBs more applicable. I wouldn't mind a Protectorate War bonus, if they tweaked the game so that they were actually common enough to be expected.
As I've said, I would be completely fine with every civ keeping their casus belli abilities, as long as they got a proper, less situational ability on top of that. I think casus belli abilities add some additional flavor to civs which otherwise would struggle to find a niche (i.e. Canada, Georgia, Mapuche). I can even accept Persia if I squint.
But Scotland is the one exception, because I just don't understand why it has it in the first place. It doesn't feel Scottish at all. I don't recall Scotland ever liberating anyone, no matter how enlightened it was. I think it's one of the worst-designed civs in the game.
I don't mind most abilities, so long as they're applicable for the majority of games. I'm happy with Australia's (not technically a CB, but it's in that mental grouping) because it is either useful for when you're attacked, or it acts as a deterrent. I don't ever play as Scotland because they basically don't have a leader ability. I don't even understand the historical motivation behind it either. Nor their agenda, for that matter. They weren't exactly buddy buddy with the English.
I also like Australia's bonus, though I didn't mention them because it's not entirely a CB bonus like you mentioned.
My guess on why Robert got the bonuses he did is "War of Liberation" sounded very Scottish (or Braveheart) so they went with it?
As for his agenda, he was allied with King Edward I of England in the beginning of the wars of independence, as his family was fighting against other Scottish noble families.
I also like Australia's bonus, though I didn't mention them because it's not entirely a CB bonus like you mentioned.
My guess on why Robert got the bonuses he did is "War of Liberation" sounded very Scottish (or Braveheart) so they went with it?
As for his agenda, he was allied with King Edward I of England in the beginning of the wars of independence, as his family was fighting against other Scottish noble families.
I feel like you might be right that it was a semantics issue. If anything I would have expected Robert to have a Reconquest War bonus, based on how the two casus belli actually play.
I agree which is also why I hope they change Robert's ability because what are the chances that you will be to liberate another civilization's cities, let alone want to do it without an incentive?
Robert the Bruce's ability is guaranteed to have a rework, Scotland is largely a terribly designed civ with 1 strong ability (Civ ability) and everything else just revolves around it, kinda like Korea. Korea will get reworked as well, the current civ ability will get transferred to Seowon, maybe the initial Science from Seowon will get nerfed a bit and the Science from Mines will be included into the adjacency bonus, so that they can use Rationalism, and Korea will have another civ ability.
I feel like you might be right that it was a semantics issue. If anything I would have expected Robert to have a Reconquest War bonus, based on how the two casus belli actually play.
Which is why if that were the case then the "War of Liberation" bonuses is what Simon Bolivar could have gotten instead, with him literally being called the "El Libertador".
Which is why if that were the case then the "War of Liberation" bonuses is what Simon Bolivar could have gotten instead, with him literally being called the "El Libertador".
Which is also something I have observed and find endlessly frustrating. It would have made Colombia actually have an identity, as opposed to being just a generic blitzkrieg civ.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
