Austria. Broken on higher difficulties? Or just plain broken?

[Hammer Rabbi]

A fair amount of us like to play with random civs so this realy is not an option.

sounds like something perfect for an update or the modding community to handle: a sortable checklist of civs you can exclude while still leaving the remaining ones random. but that'll probably happen as soon as a mod/patch lets you save pre-game settings, lol.

 

[MashedPotatoe]

I don't think the UA is the real problem. Yes, it is very strong. Yes, it can be game changing. But it shouldn't be game breaking. As a player you can marry into a CS until you run out of happiness or gold. The AI doesn't have that problem. And there lies the flaw in the AI difficulty levels. It's the same with spamming new cities only that it is much, much faster.

The difficulty only raises the cheats and not the rationale of the ai. So basically you are playing against a dumb person who cheated itself into nirvana. Over 100 happiness with 20 cities? Apparently no problem for the AI. And when the cheating plays hand in hand with a UA like Austria's then it becomes game breaking.

I feel they chose the easy way out, when programming the AI. That's like in a FPS on higher difficulty you just allow the AI to see and shoot through walls because it is easier to implement than making the AI act smarter.

 

[HelloGoodbye123]

I agree that we need to fix the Austrian bonus by balancing it with "increase cost" and/or a "cooldown" BUT I dont agree this should be applied to a human player, just the AI.

As a human player it does have its advantages as getting a lux/strategic resource, getting a small science boost, and obtaining that presence of territorial dominance, but it could have a lot of negative effects, such as creating massive unhappiness(The AI gets a happiness boost, meaning that for a human it isnt as easy to make that transition), Also the maintenance cost of your empire increases, the city state does make money, but not enough. Also, you lose the bonus of the city state such as extra food, extra culture, faith, and free military units. Also, city states bought loses their walls, and sometimes they might be far away from your empire and closer to another, meaning they could be easy targets to other players. and lastly from what I have experienced, sometimes another civ might have heavy influence on a city state, sometimes 200+, and it literally costs 3000g-4000g gold to buy the city state, that in itself is already balanced.

Also, if you war AI Austria early on, they tend to buy less city states because most of their efforts are going towards the war. So, maybe not war yourself with Austria, but pay someone to, or ask Austria to war someone else.

 

[Dragonmaster83]

Granted there should be some changes (like the cost increases by 100 each time) but I really haven't had much issue with them on Difficulty 6 and 7 (Diety still kicks my rear). Generally you might have to change your plan if you notice she's in the game. Mainly as others have said, either DoW her or pay someone to DoW her and keep her bankrupt via trading.

Also watching Maddjinn's Babylon Game had Austria on Diety and she doesn't seem to be having a runaway there. (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL79F6A173AED57CF4&feature=plcp).

To the OP though, your science is extremely low for being at turn 270 (unless you playing at a slower speed). For standard speed, generally your science should be around double the turn number.

 

[Monthar]

The only problem I have with Austria's UA is that we can't liberate the CS once she's married it.

 

[HelloGoodbye123]

Well should it be liberated? they married in peace, and joined on the austrian empire in peace, there isnt really a reason to liberate it. but I could see your point not having a city state anymore

 

[thadian]

I do not care if a city joins you in peace or by war - if i send troops into Venice to conquer it, i should have the option of raising the Venice flag and telling the people to rule themselves.

 

[Beld]

I think the cost to marry should be raised for sure, but as others have said that's more of a player thing, AI has plenty of cash and wouldn't solve your problem.

I think, however, that a good balancing mechanic would be that Austria loses all married CS's if it loses it's capital. That way you (or anyone else) can remedy the situation, and it gives even a real player who is running Austria something to worry about.

All the CS's would revert to independent (since realistically the loss of the capital would cause a lack of confidence and rebellion in any empire) but be at war or angry with you or something.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

so far, a few of the suggestions have been really good. im certainly for being able to liberate the married CSs. i also like the idea that it has a turn limitation, like 30 turns or something. or, similar to France bonuses ending in with Steam Power, you cant marry upon getting into the Industrial or Modern Era. it would help stem late game abuse in both multi and single player.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

Well should it be liberated? they married in peace, and joined on the austrian empire in peace, there isnt really a reason to liberate it. but I could see your point not having a city state anymore

logically it makes sense but diplo vics hinge on having 10 votes and in standard (8 civs 16 CSs) some of them have to come from CSs. maybe just add a new mechanic for spies like 'create scandal' that will annul the union and set them back to being very negative with Austria and returning them to CS status. They would have to then become allies again before re-marrying. I would also stipulate that they couldn't re-marry for 10 turns to prevent runaway gold purchases by the AI.

 

[nefloyd]

Austria is the only civ who can completely eliminate a victory condition from possibility. That shouldn't remain as is.

 

[HelloGoodbye123]

I do not care if a city joins you in peace or by war - if i send troops into Venice to conquer it, i should have the option of raising the Venice flag and telling the people to rule themselves.

If it was the real world, they would just go back to Austria, they were happy that way. In this game, it just wouldnt make any sense to "liberate" a city state because they happily complied to uniting their nations together, there isnt really anything to liberate.

I think the cost to marry should be raised for sure, but as others have said that's more of a player thing, AI has plenty of cash and wouldn't solve your problem.

I think, however, that a good balancing mechanic would be that Austria loses all married CS's if it loses it's capital. That way you (or anyone else) can remedy the situation, and it gives even a real player who is running Austria something to worry about.

All the CS's would revert to independent (since realistically the loss of the capital would cause a lack of confidence and rebellion in any empire) but be at war or angry with you or something.

I think the problem lies in SP(Since they have a gold boost as AI), with the AI, not human players, I have been playing Austria for a couple weeks, it is not strategically sound to buy all the city states, some are next to other powerful civs, which you dont want to mess with, some have repeating lux that I already have, adding significant unhappiness to my empire. Some just appear by tundra/snow and they arent worth buying, Just because you are Austria doesnt mean you HAVE to buy every city state, of course thats not that case with the AI Austrian. And as I mentioned earlier, the gold cost might remain the same, but other civs could have already established a heavy influence over a city state costing up to 3000g if there influence is above 200+ and this 3000g is to be a ally first

Losing your capital, and losing all the city states would really be the worst idea I have ever heard. In that case, is it really a bonus? or a disadvantage? If all they got to do to strip the entire Austrian empire is attack one city, rather than the individual cities, then it is too underpowering, and Austris would just be the worst civ in the game. because there other bonuses arent up to par

so far, a few of the suggestions have been really good. im certainly for being able to liberate the married CSs. i also like the idea that it has a turn limitation, like 30 turns or something. or, similar to France bonuses ending in with Steam Power, you cant marry upon getting into the Industrial or Modern Era. it would help stem late game abuse in both multi and single player.

I dont agree with them, you are limiting a bonus a individual civ has. Its like saying Egypt can only build a wonder every 30 turns because they build them so fast. That is how I am getting at this. A civ gains a city state, big woop, I dont see the Major Advantage here. I just dont see the Austrian bonus as a threat.

logically it makes sense but diplo vics hinge on having 10 votes and in standard (8 civs 16 CSs) some of them have to come from CSs. maybe just add a new mechanic for spies like 'create scandal' that will annul the union and set them back to being very negative with Austria and returning them to CS status. They would have to then become allies again before re-marrying. I would also stipulate that they couldn't re-marry for 10 turns to prevent runaway gold purchases by the AI.

I have always seen diplo as an economic victory, it seems rather cheap, the tech comes way earlier than tech victory, amount some gold and open patronage and you are set. In a way im glad it disrupts that victory because it was way too easy to win.

Austria is the only civ who can completely eliminate a victory condition from possibility. That shouldn't remain as is.

What about the korean science?
the huns military?
Each civ has its bonuses that help them, Austria has no real victory path, it even destroys diplo, and with so many cities cultural should be out of the picture. rather than an advantage it could even be seen as a disadvantage of a bonus..

 

[PhilBowles]

Actually they do have a unique effect - they are usually in danger of taking so many city states that diplo victory becomes impossible for the player. It puts a twist on diplo games for sure. I like it though.

With the G&K victory condition, you're back to the old system of multiple civs having to vote for one of two contenders rather than voting for themselves. So if you're one of the contenders, presumably it's still possible to win by getting enough of your friendly civs onside even if all city-states have been eliminated?

 

[hbar]

Well should it be liberated? they married in peace, and joined on the austrian empire in peace, there isnt really a reason to liberate it. but I could see your point not having a city state anymore

Once the head of state is killed in a coup, the marriage doesn't mean a whole lot (See Maximillian I). Once that link is severed, there's no reason for the City State to remain allies.

 

[thadian]

If it was the real world, they would just go back to Austria, they were happy that way. In this game, it just wouldnt make any sense to "liberate" a city state because they happily complied to uniting their nations together, there isnt really anything to liberate.

im not talking real world, im talking about the game.

Why can i liberate monty after he has been dead for 600 years then? All of a sudden, here is the second coming, and despite being killed 600 years ago and losing all his cities to other nations, his nation can exist again. the only difference of course, is Monty is not a city state. For that matter, i can liberate a city state under any other condition at all, except this one.

 

[thadian]

let me state my problem with this:

Austria UA creates a situation where there is no response. I hate not having a response. There is no going back from it, either.

So not only is there no possibility to respond or interrupt this, but once it happens there is NOTHING you can do to go back. In the first example with liberating monty, when a civ is killed, you can go back - when a deal ends, you can renew and go back.

You should never be positioned into an unrecoverable situation - you can scrub fallout from nukes, and rebuild a nuked city - you can come back from this, but you can NOT come back from austria using its ability.

 

[HelloGoodbye123]

let me state my problem with this:

Austria UA creates a situation where there is no response. I hate not having a response. There is no going back from it, either.

So not only is there no possibility to respond or interrupt this, but once it happens there is NOTHING you can do to go back. In the first example with liberating monty, when a civ is killed, you can go back - when a deal ends, you can renew and go back.

You should never be positioned into an unrecoverable situation - you can scrub fallout from nukes, and rebuild a nuked city - you can come back from this, but you can NOT come back from austria using its ability.

I dont see the Major Advantage this creates though, and even if there is a major advantage its the Austrians unique bonus that allows it to have an advantage over others, I dont think its flawed or broken.

I can see how it can annoy you, and it can be annoying, but just because its annoying doesnt mean its overpowering, and just because you cant liberate a city state doesnt mean its this GODLY POWER that is sooooo OVERPOWERING.. its not even that powerful, it might just destroy the diplo victory

I remember back when everyone thought the egyptians needed to be nerfed or fixed because they built too many wonders, some suggested give them 10 turn cool down, some said make them only build 2 wonders per city, some suggested give them a limit like 10 wonders per game, now we look back at it.. and it wasnt necessary, we were just being unaware that its egypts unique bonus.. it might be annoying to keep losing every wonder to the egyptians by one turn.. but doesnt mean its overpowering....

I have been playing the Austrians for a couple weeks, and I asure you that you arent buying city states left and right, if you want to limit it, just do it to the AI on SP.. I can see it working for the better, but not on humam/MP players.. thats just foolish..

please dont disrupt my fun.. because you cant handle losing a city state...

 

[thadian]

i liken this to how my fun was disrupted with forced "choose policy" and having to enter a different screen before i could start my game - so maybe they can have an option in advanced start or something.

Im not saying its "overpowered" or even annoying. Im just saying this "action" creates a unique situation where there is no going back whatsoever to the older game-state. For example, if i was at peace but you declare on me - i can try to get peace and return myself to the game-state i was in to some degree, even if i lose a city or 2.

My one complaint is this creates a circumstance where:

A. Nobody can try to interrupt this action.
B. Nobody can respond to it.
C. There is nothing that can be done afterward to restore the prior condition.

This is not fixable by making them more expensive, limiting the number we can purchase or creating a prerequisite.

However it could be fixed by allowing a City State to be liberated. So im with you don't take away my fun and ruin how the ability works - just allow the city state to be liberated. Besides, when you buy a city state you can get so many troops there is no excuse to lose the city.

Now, if the city state which you purchased is conquered by another: It does not "ruin the fun" for anybody to have it become a city state again. In fact, you get the fun of re-purchasing it!

 

[Furycrab]

Runaways happen at all difficulties, either it be Immortal or Deity.

So I'm going to clean up some of the stuff.

Turn 277 (assuming standard) for getting Rocketry is not even implausible for a player (MadDjinn last LP had a Tech victory in that time, which is 10-15 more techs than that), much less a runaway.

As an AI, does she runaway more often than most? To be honest, I'm not sure on that. She will Definitively kill the possibilities of Diplo wins really quickly if left unchecked, and can survive surrounded by complete s. However I've also seen her play passive, or just get kicked by early wars, never able to properly recover.


As a player playing Austria, there might be some tuning required. The scaling is perhaps a bit too good, or at least it gets too good as the ages go by and you end up with... The city, half a dozen age relevant units, bunch of buildings and a sizable population for less than 1k gold.

It's the subject of a few threads already. She has that frustrating aspect Mongolia has when he starts smash CS you might want, but you can't liberate them back.

As for all the "You have no answer to Austria replies". There is always an answer to a game where you got into a serious runaway, go hit them on the head and spending money on stuff other than CS allies.

 

[thadian]

its not about having an answer to a runaway - its about the situation where this city state is removed from the game.

Unless im wrong, you CAN liberate khan's new cities once he rolls them over. One fix would be that city states start independent but no liberation EVER. I don't care about runaway civ's - i care about a situation that can not be addressed, reversed or interrupted.