Babylon

[ShadedSkies]

The investment bonus does everything. Find gold in a ruin? You now have a Monument/Shrine in your capital by turn 10. The damn thing even works on wonders, reducing the cost by 40%, and if you invest in a building done in 1 turn the production +15% overflow lets you build it much faster.

Aside from a slightly faster generation of GEs, Korea has 0 benefits to production meaning that they often fall behind on infrastructure while researching techs. As Korea I find myself investing in every single building after a certain point. I think Babylon's downfall as a civ comes from their UU, I've never found a good use for Indirect Fire. Even when I park my cities as to take advantage of it, who cares if they hit the enemy with those pea-shooters? Korea's UU rips entire armies to shreds and promote to Logistics Canons, now that's scary!

 

[tu_79]

So far, my problem with the UU is that it is great for taking cities with just melee (warriors and spearsmen) in the very early game. But after a while, if I don't get some navy, coastal cities become impossible to take and hold. That thing does not protect against dromons.

Gaining techs from conquests is an advantage vs Korea, but Babylon needs to be able to conquer non stop if she wants to stay competitive.

 

[ElliotS]

So far, my problem with the UU is that it is great for taking cities with just melee (warriors and spearsmen) in the very early game. But after a while, if I don't get some navy, coastal cities become impossible to take and hold. That thing does not protect against dromons.

Gaining techs from conquests is an advantage vs Korea, but Babylon needs to be able to conquer non stop if she wants to stay competitive.

You're thinking of Assyria lol

 

[CrazyG]

Actually with the recent changes to progress and the Forbidden Palace, I think progress might be the go to for Babylon. When you start stacking investment bonuses your city development becomes incredible.

The main issue for Babylon when trying to go tradition is that you have to work scientists to get benefit from the UA, while Korea gets its bonus on all specialists. This lets Korea get that extra science while working engineers or cultural specialists, who are generally the better option for a science civ early game. Babylon does have advantages though, the extra 15% invested on wonders is a big advantage, and you will end up needing gold to assist building some of the late infrastructure

 

[tu_79]

You're thinking of Assyria lol

Drugs for my back ache, dude. I can't think clearly...

 

[Txurce]

Actually with the recent changes to progress and the Forbidden Palace, I think progress might be the go to for Babylon. When you start stacking investment bonuses your city development becomes incredible.

The main issue for Babylon when trying to go tradition is that you have to work scientists to get benefit from the UA, while Korea gets its bonus on all specialists. This lets Korea get that extra science while working engineers or cultural specialists, who are generally the better option for a science civ early game. Babylon does have advantages though, the extra 15% invested on wonders is a big advantage, and you will end up needing gold to assist building some of the late infrastructure

I was thinking the same thing. They can then go God of Commerce, get even more gold, and get a religion as well.

 

[Lucas A.]

I think what bothers some people is that Babylon aren't really the best civ for GScientist or Tall&Science strategies (in VP).
Right now I supose Babylon is the best for infrastructure and has an amazing, probably the best, combo with Progress and Industrialization (Order-Communism also helps).

I have the feeling that you can only abuse/focus in one part of their UA. You go tall and focus on GS, investment bonus helps but is weak or you go wide have full infrastructure in all cities and have a small bonus to science from some GS.
Detail: when you go tall you don't grow and neither has gold because if you aren't working Scientists and Academies there's no point to play Tall-Babylon.

 

[randomnub]

I used to think Babylon was a nice flexible civ but lately the only games I am having success with it are Progress->Fealty->Industry ones. On the last 2-27 (deity/standard) game I was left alone in my pangea corner and could reach modern era by t160 (then patch hit, can't even show a screen ) before any other AI, so I can't say the civ is broken or whatever, the investment bonus is pretty nuts (works on wonders and a t20 SH is quite fun to get just because) but I feel that's all that matters when you play this civ. The 'not-so-early-anymore' GS and bonus to GS generation are there because they were in vanilla but you can't play this civ like the turtle they were in vanilla without starving.

The latest changes to GP food consumption means that I simply lack food to work those early scientist slots and the academies that at best provide 2 : the Walls provide only 1 over the base building and are a quite niche building in Ancient era. It's nice to gain a point of happiness here and there with better crime reduction but rushing/working them for earlier science makes expos starve; at that point of the game councils/barracks are better buildings if not expecting a siege, and even then it'd be just for one city. A Tradition capital has hard time working the scientist from the third policy as well, and then expos are in a worse spot anyway. The vanilla production discount is gone as well. So, uhm, I think the base building could use better yields.

I can't really comment on the bowman, if not to say that they are missing the cannot-melee-attack promotion, quite confusing. Massing archery units makes you bad at asking for early tributes, and they come at a time when I usually have to spam horses/catapults if I'm on the offensive. Defensively they're overkill with your walls but I felt I could safely ignore them.

In the end I played the civ starving for the whole ancient/classical, rushing to medieval with cooperation/transcendance and only then start growing up to get the best out of progress finisher as well. Once fealty bonus food kicked in working those scientists slots became easier but overall I don't think I got that much science out of my UB/UA to rate this as a science civ, it was just a (very entertaining) snowballing infrastructure monster.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Randomnub, if @Gazebo were to consider tweaking Babylon, what would you propose?

In general I agree with your assessment, it's been getting hard for me to play tradition due to specialist food changes, and that impacts Babylon due to an early extra scientist spot. Perhaps I'd propose something along the lines of eliminating the scientist from the UB and instead adding +3 GS points and slightly reducing the UA bonuses (perhaps the GS generation bonus from 50% to 40%).

 

[tu_79]

I used to think Babylon was a nice flexible civ but lately the only games I am having success with it are Progress->Fealty->Industry ones. On the last 2-27 (deity/standard) game I was left alone in my pangea corner and could reach modern era by t160 (then patch hit, can't even show a screen ) before any other AI, so I can't say the civ is broken or whatever, the investment bonus is pretty nuts (works on wonders and a t20 SH is quite fun to get just because) but I feel that's all that matters when you play this civ. The 'not-so-early-anymore' GS and bonus to GS generation are there because they were in vanilla but you can't play this civ like the turtle they were in vanilla without starving.

The latest changes to GP food consumption means that I simply lack food to work those early scientist slots and the academies that at best provide 2 : the Walls provide only 1 over the base building and are a quite niche building in Ancient era. It's nice to gain a point of happiness here and there with better crime reduction but rushing/working them for earlier science makes expos starve; at that point of the game councils/barracks are better buildings if not expecting a siege, and even then it'd be just for one city. A Tradition capital has hard time working the scientist from the third policy as well, and then expos are in a worse spot anyway. The vanilla production discount is gone as well. So, uhm, I think the base building could use better yields.

I can't really comment on the bowman, if not to say that they are missing the cannot-melee-attack promotion, quite confusing. Massing archery units makes you bad at asking for early tributes, and they come at a time when I usually have to spam horses/catapults if I'm on the offensive. Defensively they're overkill with your walls but I felt I could safely ignore them.

In the end I played the civ starving for the whole ancient/classical, rushing to medieval with cooperation/transcendance and only then start growing up to get the best out of progress finisher as well. Once fealty bonus food kicked in working those scientists slots became easier but overall I don't think I got that much science out of my UB/UA to rate this as a science civ, it was just a (very entertaining) snowballing infrastructure monster.

I see how it can be problematic with Tradition. But is it working with the other two?

 

[randomnub]

I totally forgot about this topic but yea Luka, I'd remove the scientist slot in favor of ''something else'', GSpts or better base yields.

The fact that (half of) the UA is damn strong makes it hard to touch other parts of the kit, on the other hand we're talking about a situational building on the opposite path of Writing, as a player it would be interesting to decide on early research weighting even more pros&cons. If I beeline Construction it's more because I have quarry luxuries (and then I would build stoneworks before walls anyway) or if I feel I could squeeze Hali in a tradition capital (not a great choice currently for Bab but w/e), while for expos my precious early hammers are better invested into horsemen/spearmen; +1 science over normal walls when population is too low to work the slot really doesn't cut in.

As I said, I made it work somehow going Progress and halting growth in my satellities until medieval, then stopped work the scientists slots to get many instant yields with the finisher+cooperation. I then needed many more sources of food to be able to work both the Walls and Library/University/etc scientist slots (if even one of those is not being worked, then the slot on the walls is pointless).

 

[chicorbeef]

One awkward thing about Babylon is it's weird investment rules. You can't easily visually see when production is going to be 35% complete the same way you can with 50%, so you often end up denying yourself investments. It's also hard to be able to invest in everything so quickly.

I was wondering if Babylon could follow the same rules as everyone else. Yes this might lead to little gimmicks where 15% of the necessary prod. cost can overflow but honestly they're limited scenarios and I don't see them breaking the game.

 

[chicorbeef]

One awkward thing about Babylon is it's weird investment rules. You can't easily visually see when production is going to be 35% complete the same way you can with 50%, so you often end up denying yourself investments. It's also hard to be able to invest in everything so quickly.

I was wondering if Babylon could follow the same rules as everyone else. Yes this might lead to little gimmicks where 15% of the necessary prod. cost can overflow but honestly they're limited scenarios and I don't see them breaking the game.

Is it possible to resolve this? I believe this also exists with that Industry policy that makes investements go from 50 to 60%.

 

[randomnub]

Bump to the above suggestion

I also don't get Babylon investment bonus rules into wonders. I was expecting a 40% (25% base plus 15% from the UA, similar to how the same 15% is added to the normal 50% for buildings for a 65% total) discount but it looks like the production cost goes down by about 32%: investing into a 150 Stonehenge drops the cost to 102 , and the proportion is kept for future wonders with the associated penalities, like a 231 Artemis going down to only 157 . Bad math, bug or feature?

That being said, Babylon feels a bit underwhelming especially after the recent patches, their UA (for normal buildings) being the only saving grace. The 50% bonus to scientists means nothing until you can actually work those specialists, and pretty underwhelming until you build multiple gpp sources. Going for Construction first delays the UA free scientist, and the Walls are probably the worst UB around: situational base building, providing a specialist when you lack the food/happiness to work it, only 1 base science but then I'd build barracks or libraries over it anytime, in a no-border city. Rushing Writing for the free scientist doesn't look that hot either, you give up on most military and production infrastructure and can't devote population to work library scientists that early, especially if you plant the academy and must work that tile (aka what should be done 100% of time with an early scientist). Bowmen? A weak replacement to the least impactful classical units (did they also get rcs nerfed in the 6-12 patch? didn't check), and to add insult to the injury their indirect fire promotion sports a 10% RCS penality that makes them comparable to the standard composites in open terrain, and weakening future upgrades.

Playing Babylon feels like playing a "vanilla" civ where I can shove some turns with investments and by Industrial I probably have 2 or 3 more academies than usual, making the last ~10 scientists quite powerful, but I can't come with an unique way to leverage their scientists bonus in the early eras, it simply isn't worth it.

 

[pineappledan]

I want to try a wide CV game with Babylon... Really leverage the bonuses on city construction and how the civ can rush wonders. The scientist bonus is way weaker than it sounds, but the investment bonus is where the power is at.
Prioritize religion in early game: council of elders —> 2 building beliefs —> policy reduction enhancer —> Sacred Sites
Progress —> Artistry —> Industry
Wonder whore in capital, maximize on-construction bonus in secondary cities. Fill guilds and scientist slots. Once you are into industry, switch to internal trade routes. The civ is getting 75% construction for 25% less gold, if you managed to get forbidden city, gold generation is efficient enough that you can focus on production for the necessary units and the remaining 25% on buildings.

It feels like Babylon’s core strength is its ability to build wonders and infrastructure faster, and the boost to Gscientists is only strong enough to ensure a slight science edge with slightly less effort. Just enough to get you to wonder unlock techs in time to use your real advantage in gold efficiency. This lends the civ more to a CV than a SV I think.

 

[phantomaxl1207]

I want to quantify the Great Scientist bonus that Babylon has (+50% Great Scientist Rate). I question how powerful this effect really is, as Great People have a whopping 250 point Increase with new Great Person of that type born. At 1 Scientist, the 1st natural Great Scientist for Babylon will be born in 34 Turns,either working the Scientist from the Walls or Library. 2 Scientists will make the 2nd Great Scientist in 45 Turns, working both Scientist slots so far; the 3rd Great Scientist in 73 Turns after that. A normal Civ will have the first Great Scientist in 50 Turns, the 2nd in 134 Turns, though by then they should be picking up Universities and Gardens to lower this. Having access to an additional Scientist is making more of a difference, though 2 bonuses stack.

By Medieval, your Cities should be going for Walls of Babylon, Library, University, and Garden for optimal and ideal Scientist production, at 15.75 GS points per turn, working 3 Scientists. The Capital, for all intents and purposes, will include the School of Philosophy and National Monument, in addition to the above, giving 22 GS points per turn. A normal Civ would have 7.5 GS points per Turn; their Capital at 12 GS points per turn.

 

[Legen]

Something I noticed on the UI, the Walls of Babylon now have the same bonus city health (+125) than the normal Wall (also +125), instead of having 50% more. Latest version (3-1b) installed.

 

[Gidoza]

Playing a Babylon game right now. Suppose I can make some comments to add on to what others are saying.

1. I went Tradition - only room for 4 cities in my little cubicle of the continent so I decided to make the best of it by making my Capital as powerful as possible.

2. Bowmen - they're useful for defence in some manner by being able to shoot where they normally couldn't, but they aren't that special overall. I find they shine if I add +1 Range to them - this means their damage is great, but with a LOT of them I can just mass-target one unit and I can always reach it no matter where it is.

3. A problem with Tradition Babylon is that there seems to be no good 2nd Policy choice: Fealty doesn't benefit anything I'm doing; Statecraft is helpful but doesn't give me what I really need; the irony of Artistry is that while it's true that I'm pumping GP, my focus is scientists, and so I have less GW than I might normally. I took Artistry anyways because of the bonus to GP Creation.

4. Yeah, I'd expecta 40% decrease on Wonders to be the case with the UA, but it doesn't seem so. This has caused me to miss Wonders if have expected to get.

5. Walls - are weak and in the wrong place.



Here's some of my thoughts based on observations from myself and others...


A - Why not move the Walls of Babylon to Writing? Then the UA and UB will come together.

B - I like the idea of changing the Walls effect to +3 GS points and dropping the Scientist. It also needs more HP - OR you could add HP to the city for each Scientist present.

C - Give the Bowman a 90% experience requirement for levelling up, or +1 experience for all combats, and the promotion stays. The weakness of Indirect Fire carrying on will regulate itself by enabling these units to level up higher in time.

 

[CrazyG]

I think Babylon is an extremely good civ, but he really prefers progress to tradition. Ideally you go wide and get a lot of scientists. Bowmen are a great, free indirect fire is very valuable and allows you to view the map totally differently. Maybe indirect fire could lose the -10% combat malus but I don't think they need more change than that.

I think fealty is great for a civ who wants to be working tons of specialists in the early and mid game. The food enables you to grow while working 3 scientists in your cities.

4. Yeah, I'd expecta 40% decrease on Wonders to be the case with the UA, but it doesn't seem so. This has caused me to miss Wonders if have expected to get.

I would double check this and report it as a bug. On previous versions Babylon did get a 40% reduction towards wonders via investment.

5. Walls - are weak and in the wrong place.

The city defense could be buffed since regular walls got buffed, but economically this UB is amazing. It gives 2 gold to all scientists, which gives Babylon a clear strategy of working all scientists all the time, while still having great infrastructure by super investing gold. With public schools and rationalism you can have 6 scientists per city, that's 12 gold from the unique building.

I don't think construction is a bad tech either. Its very central to the tech tree and on the way towards mathematics where the bowman is.

 

[randomnub]

Recent changes to tech tree helped both UB (better position) and UU (comes earlier), and the new wisdom pantheon is a fitting pick as well, the civ looks solid to me now.

The wonder investment issue comes by the wording of the UA. I fully expected a 40% discount in past, but that never was the case: the 15% is actually halved for WWs, same as how the standard 50% for buildings is halved. Hence when you invest into a wonder you save (50+15)/2, or 32.5%, compared to the 65% you save with buildings. The UA text could use some friendly disclaimer though.