Armies

[wobuffet]

Actually, Thal, you should probably forget about my concerns about ranged combat for the time being, since it looks like Gods & Kings will have a completely revamped combat system that, among other things, should balance (i.e., weaken) ranged units compared to others: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=455487, http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=455568 . For example, it looks like there'll be a new Machine Gunner ranged unit with a range of 1, and units will have 100 hp each.

(edit: If you're behind the curve on G&K, check out
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=454130
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=454256
http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_expansion.html .)

 

[Babri]

Minutemen are a Vanguard unit and therefore weak on the attack. None of their promotions improve attack strength, and they can't get the Siege promotion. This means they are weaker in combat than a Rifleman, but have superior movement and sight capabilities. The lower up-front cost of Minutemen cancels out with the much higher cost to upgrade to Light Infantry. I do not feel they are overpowered compared to other armies of their time.

Fine. That makes sense.

I do not feel France is underpowered. France has one of the most powerful traits in the game. The foreign lands bonus upgrades from musketeers to riflemen, foreign legion, and mech infantry. It is therefore more powerful than the vanilla version, which was on just 2 of those 4 units.

I am specifically talking about the UU, not France as an overall civ. I feel that UUs itself should be interesting, I earlier proposed to increase Maori Warrior (which was generously accepted). The reason behind that was the same. Currently I mostly build lots of musketeers not because they are awesome but because their promo is carried on to rifles.Janissaries & Terico seem to be an interesting as a unit because there is a point of building them beyond the reason that promos will be carried on as they have good flavour & are strong units on their own. I think it won't really disturb balance if u increase musketeer's slightly or maybe give them a slight bonus Vs melee or archers for some extra flavour.

 

[Thalassicus]

I am specifically talking about the UU, not France as an overall civ.

Currently I mostly build lots of musketeers not because they are awesome but because their promo is carried on to rifles.

I do try to make individual aspects of a civ interesting. I also base decisions on the strength of a civilization as a whole, and how they rank in the Favorite Leader polls. Napoleon has always ranked well, and since I have limited time to work on things, I focus on leaders most in need of improvement. If you have the time and would like to make the changes yourself, I'd be happy to include them in the project.

 

[albie_123]

May I ask why the Temple of Artemis was buffed? Not complaining, I love the extra XP for my archers, but it was already quite strong. The food and XP bonuses make it a versatile wonder.

 

[Thalassicus]

I reduced the experience for units built in a city with a barracks, but wanted ranged units to still start with 2 promotions with the Temple of Artemis. I therefore maintained it at the 30 level. If the wonder is too strong now I can increase its cost to compensate.

 

[albie_123]

No, I like it as a strong wonder - it makes the Archery tech have a bit more sway than just 'Oh I better get some archers now" - just wanted to know the rationale behind the XP raise.

 

[Babri]

I do try to make individual aspects of a civ interesting. I also base decisions on the strength of a civilization as a whole, and how they rank in the Favorite Leader polls. Napoleon has always ranked well, and since I have limited time to work on things, I focus on leaders most in need of improvement. If you have the time and would like to make the changes yourself, I'd be happy to include them in the project.

I'll have time once I am done with my A Level exams this summer. Then I will give it a try.
Since u priortize civs ranking bad on polls, what about changing India to a bit warring civ. They can get their Mughal Fort back with some XP benefit added to artillery or something, elephants could replace horses with buffed stats etc.

 

[Thalassicus]

I feel a peaceful empire fits Gandhi better thematically.

 

[Babri]

I feel a peaceful empire fits Gandhi better thematically.

I know but that is not really always the case. We have Napoleon with Ancient regime UA. The point is that India gets quite boring right now & most people would agree with that. After all India is a land where many conquerors came, many battles fought between the invaders & locals.

 

[Txurce]

If India is boring, then it could be improved within its current theme. More than many civs, it is associated with Gandhi, and viewed as a cultural/population-oriented civ. This is less a comment on India's historical reality than on the sheer number of warmongering civs that already exist.

 

[bwoww78]

I feel a peaceful empire fits Gandhi better thematically.

while it's been pointed out previously (by Thal, I believe) that India's trait is actually better suited for wide, warmongering games, perhaps it would be interesting to tweak this civ in a way that would promote India's tall, peaceful development (as I think was the developers' intention with the UA). this would certainly add to the versatility (and fun) of India as a civ.

unfortunately, i'm short on recommendations for that front...

 

[pthmix]

I feel a peaceful empire fits Gandhi better thematically.

Here is an idea again. Don't know if it is possible but might as well mention it:

Change the Sanitation System to a unique National Wonder. Requires aqueducts and gives some kind of empirewide food bonus.

It would have a nice synergy with the Tradition finisher and the Freedom policy and warmongers/wide empires could still choose to ignore it.

 

[Txurce]

Change the Sanitation System to a unique National Wonder. Requires aqueducts and gives some kind of empirewide food bonus.

This is the right direction, but if it requires aqueducts, why not give the bonus to the Sanitation System (aqueducts) instead? The only variance would be cities built subsequently, but I'm not sure this would be worth the precedent of a unique NW.

 

[wobuffet]

What was inelegant about Gandhi's vanilla UA (something like +2 per city, -50% from population)? That seems to be the easiest way to achieve the desired goal of having Gandhi go tall.

Alternatively, adding +1 to Aqueducts (perhaps raising the cost a bit) but not having that +1 on the Sanitation System could achieve a similar effect (that is, less per-city available for India relative to other Civs, leading to fewer but larger cities being better for Gandhi).

 

[pthmix]

This is the right direction, but if it requires aqueducts, why not give the bonus to the Sanitation System (aqueducts) instead? The only variance would be cities built subsequently, but I'm not sure this would be worth the precedent of a unique NW.

I think the +1 (from Tradition) and the boost from the Freedom policy are quite important here. And having an empirewide bonus would discourage a huge empire. If we give the bonus to the standard aqueduct you could still choose to build it in only a few cities (i.e. your capital). That would not push India much towards a tall empire.

 

[Txurce]

I think the +1 (from Tradition) and the boost from the Freedom policy are quite important here. And having an empirewide bonus would discourage a huge empire. If we give the bonus to the standard aqueduct you could still choose to build it in only a few cities (i.e. your capital). That would not push India much towards a tall empire.

I only have a huge empire when playing conquest. Otherwise I almost always stay in the 4-10 (leaning toward the 4) when playing for Science (less for Culture.) It would never occur to me to expand so much with India that I'd be looking for a way to limit my population. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Zaldron]

What was inelegant about Gandhi's vanilla UA (something like +2 per city, -50% from population)? That seems to be the easiest way to achieve the desired goal of having Gandhi go tall.

But when you do the math, you break even at something like 4 population, and even in wide empires I suspect most cities are larger than that.

 

[Thalassicus]

Zaldron has it right. The per-city anger might appear to be a wide empire penalty, but in practice it just penalizes early expansion. After the first few cities are up and running the vanilla trait also favors wide empires.

What if I change the Sanitation System to provide +0.5 per pop? It would be easy to do and clearly favor tall empires.

 

[albie_123]

That's a very interesting idea, and I like it. I'm guessing, however, an AI Gandhi will end up with runaway population.

 

[Thalassicus]

Yeah... and it's actually not very different from the current bonus, now that I think about it. If we have a 10 city working 5 river tiles, that's 0.5 per pop.

Another alternative is I could reverse the bonuses. Population Growth could provide say... +20% in all cities... while a Sanitation System makes people happy. Wide/conquest empires do not prioritize aqueducts so this would shift the effects more in favor of tall empires.