Balance issues in Civ4

[TheSunIsDark]

There are probably loads of threads like this, but I'd probably have to bump a 6-month-old thread to comment about this, so I'm posting this thread.

The Protective trait is the worst trait in the game. No economic advantage, and sitting back inside your cities is not the right way to defend. It's wasted on everyone, except China, and possibly Tokugawa and Native America.

The Incan civilization is way too overpowered. Both the UU and the UB are near-broken. The best trait and another brilliant one... there's a reason Inca's banned in Gauntlets.

China is overpowered. Cho-ko-Nus keep increasing the odds, 70%, 80%, 87% etc, and they're alright already. The UB makes Culture easy.

Some civics are OP/UP. Slavery is still the best labor civic by far, Environmentalism is terrible (and why did they nerf something that was already useless?), as is Serfdom, and some have ridiculous synergy, like State Property+Caste+Representation+Statue of Liberty wonder, where every city on your home continent can pay for itself in maintenance. And 3 research.

The Apostolic Palace. Need I say more?

Vassal states and colonial maintenance. When your enemy peace-vassals to your friend during a war... you're often screwed. Especially with unit-spammers. Colonial maintenance is stupid.

Corporations. Sid's Sushi is overpowered, Ethanol and Aluminium Co. can come to your rescue in super-overcrowded maps but are near-useless otherwise, and spreading them to your rivals...

Culture slider. Cultural victory is extremely easy with that.

Espionage-assisted cultural victory - win by culture with three Great Artists, 3 Great Spies, 100 spies and a few mounted units!

Loads more, but I think I'll stop here.

 

[rah]

While I'm sure someone will disagree, I think it's impossible and unreasonable to expect that everything be equal. (but I'll concede for MP games that it be a little more even) And if it was possible, it would be a bland game that we would have stopped playing years ago. I call it flavor.


But for me the biggest issue is the map generator. Great land is more important than any civ.

 

[Jabarto]

While I'm sure someone will disagree, I think it's impossible and unreasonable to expect that everything be equal. (but I'll concede for MP games that it be a little more even) And if it was possible, it would be a bland game that we would have stopped playing years ago. I call it flavor.

Balance doesn't mean that everyone does the same thing, it just means there's more than one right way to play the game. Germany being a crappy civ isn't "flavorful", it just punishes anyone who wants to play Germany.

But for me the biggest issue is the map generator. Great land is more important than any civ.

This is true, though. I sometimes play Civ3 just for random maps that aren't completely uniform and unfun.

 

[nfw]

Modern units losing to ancient ones.

Building wealth/culture/research.

 

[rah]

Balance doesn't mean that everyone does the same thing, it just means there's more than one right way to play the game. Germany being a crappy civ isn't "flavorful", it just punishes anyone who wants to play Germany.

Actually I enjoy playing a civ that is org/phi
Two traits I consider good.

There are many ways to win.

 

[Tatran]

The Inca and China are clearly the top civs. Overpowered? Maybe other civs are underpowered.

I consider AGG and IMP more worse than PRO.

Sid Sushi's Co has one major problem how to protect your sea food.
Fast units (destroyers), invisible units (subs) and unreachable units (airplanes) can easily pillage your sea food.

Playing with 2 or more continents, the AP has almost no impact on the game.

I've to agree that there are balance issues, especially early in the game where one civ starts city spamming and
has doubled or tripled their amount of cities before the medieval era.
Those games are going to the trash bin. Not fun to play.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

While I agree that Civilization IV has many balance issuses, with some some exceptions (Inca), I prefer to play the game as is, ignoring (nearly) all balance issues. If the balance issue is in your favor, don't complaint about it, leverage it to achieve a win.

An unbalanced leader/civilization is only an issue when the player plays it, since the AI never uses unbalanced features enough for it to matter. In competitive playing venues, leaders/civilizations like Huayna Capac/Inca must be banned. In more informal venues like the "Strategy and Tips" forum, players can agree to not play Inca when a specific player leader is not already mandated.

There are also speed related balance issues which can be as serious or more serious than the balance issues the OP mentioned. For example, a peace treaty always lasts exactly 10 turns in quick, normal, epic and marathon game speeds.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There's only one 'balance issue' that matters to me.

The AI can't fight a war. If I don't impose some sort of self-restraint war is the basic 'I win' button.

Take any leader and any difficulty level and if you impose enough limits on warfare you can make the game challenging. Conversely if you use the fact that the AI fights wars so badly with no restrictions at all you can make any leader and any difficulty just an exercise in repetition.

 

[Windsor]

I don't view balance between Civilizations as important at all. Same with traits. I don't think it's a big issue at all that some traits are stronger than others.

- is overpowered and too easily available.
- Tech Trading dominates decisionmaking in tech-choice.
- Founding religions is underpowered.
- Wealth is too easily acquired through building wealth, failgold and selling techs. MGB-buildings, religions and Merchants should account for more of wealth gained.
- Coastal cities are underpowered

And there's obviously a long list of AI-related issues.

 

[elmurcis]

Well.. if there is some wonder that completely change game balance, than its The Great Lighthouse on Archipelago or similar many islands map... It comes very early (my usual finish date is from 1700 BC latest and 2300 BC fastest) but it lasts "forever" until you need Infantries or sushi/mining.. Spend 600 hammers and get 60K commerce in game.. crazy deal....

 

[Kallikrates]

Some civics are OP/UP. Slavery is still the best labor civic by far, Environmentalism is terrible (and why did they nerf something that was already useless?), as is Serfdom, and some have ridiculous synergy, like State Property+Caste+Representation+Statue of Liberty wonder, where every city on your home continent can pay for itself in maintenance. And 3 research.

I agree. I do not understand why (if I remember correctly) State property and caste were actually boosted in BtS (maybe because of Corporations which I have never used so far.
I think the whole civics system, nice as it may be, is problematic. One interesting thing in Civ I and II was that the forms of government that boosted trade/science made fighting wars much harder etc. Now you can often pick very powerful synergies without penalties that really affect the game (and many other civics like serfdom are totally worthless).

Vassal states and colonial maintenance. When your enemy peace-vassals to your friend during a war... you're often screwed. Especially with unit-spammers. Colonial maintenance is stupid.

While I hated peace-vassalling when I first encountered it in warlords, I understand that otherwise wars would be to easy (so in a way it compensates for stupid AI).
I hate colonial maintenance because it makes maps with several islands/continents that I prefer for the Xplore factor) even harder. I think the trade bonus should more than compensate for the "colonial maintenance" (because that is exactly why empires had colonies in real history).

Culture slider. Cultural victory is extremely easy with that.

Espionage-assisted cultural victory - win by culture with three Great Artists, 3 Great Spies, 100 spies and a few mounted units!

Didn't you say two weeks ago you never played cultural victories? How does the espionage/cultural victory work? I have never heard about it...

 

[Kallikrates]

I don't view balance between Civilizations as important at all. Same with traits. I don't think it's a big issue at all that some traits are stronger than others.

- is overpowered and too easily available.

Agreed, but the real reason behind that is that slavery is way overpowered (or put differently, Emperor+ is hardly possible without smart use of slavery). And if one is somewhat lucky with early food/resources one can steamroll the AI with early UUs or HAs even on immortal, otherwise with Cuirassiers, because whipping units is so powerful.

- Tech Trading dominates decisionmaking in tech-choice.
- Founding religions is underpowered.
- Wealth is too easily acquired through building wealth, failgold and selling techs. MGB-buildings, religions and Merchants should account for more of wealth gained.
- Coastal cities are underpowered

Agree with all of those.
There would be ways to boost coastal cities. One could be to abolish building wealth (or having a penalty) and to boost trade routes or coast/ocean tiles tradewise.
I loved to found religions first, because they were a new feature, but soon learned that this was usually not a good strategy. A possibility could be that shrines would always be destroyed when captured (and maybe could be build anew by the new owner) Or diplo penalties for capturing a holy city or whatever.

I have not really thought through the tech system. Certainly, specialization makes some sense and also that certain techs can be reached via different paths. OTOH, especially for some renaissance/modern techs, I feel that there should be more prerequisites. Some stuff is just to easy to get early by beelining. But altogether, the tech system is not the biggest issue I have with the game.

 

[TheSunIsDark]

Didn't you say two weeks ago you never played cultural victories? How does the espionage/cultural victory work? I have never heard about it...

I never try cultural victories, preferring domination, space or diplomatic victories. I might try one sometime. The espionage cultural victory is when you get loads of EP against someone, culture-bomb a city near your capital with your state religion and a massive spy stack in, then gift it and keep using the "spread culture" mission. Then capture it. Without any self-made culture there, you'll need about 55 successful missions to get it to Legendary, so you'll probably need some other culture in there. Repeat with two other cities.

 

[NihilZero]

The only "balance" issue that really bugs me is the fact that some civs are so much weaker than others. Most notably in terms of starting techs. Mysticism and Hunting...yech. This pairing (and some of the other similarly bad starting pairs) can really cripple you sometimes and leave you in a near helpless position from the outset.

And yes, Protective should have got something more, and probably Aggressive too, but I can just about live with that.

 

[Kallikrates]

The only "balance" issue that really bugs me is the fact that some civs are so much weaker than others. Most notably in terms of starting techs. Mysticism and Hunting...yech. This pairing (and some of the other similarly bad starting pairs) can really cripple you sometimes and leave you in a near helpless position from the outset.

The unsolvable balance problem of civ is the huge importance of starting position and early game, because of the snowball effects of the early game. The very uneven starting techs exacerbate this problem.
Because founding an early religion is mostly useless to bad, even on monarch/emperor (and the AI will beat one usually anyway) mysticism does suck as a starting tech. Of course it would have been easy to only pair it with really good starting techs... When playing such a combination I do tend to reroll the map, until there is at least some synergy (deer, ivory etc.)

And yes, Protective should have got something more, and probably Aggressive too, but I can just about live with that.

Because of the importance of siege units, AGG could be boosted by giving siege a free promo in addition to melee/gunpowder combat I. Or even give ALL units a free promo (too powerful, I'd say, especially in combo with some UUs and stuff like the ger)
PRO could be boosted by making the Great wall cheaper (or some boost in espionage or against barbs).

 

[thelaughingman1]

Civilization is about luck and opportunities. The civs that have access to key resources and know how to exploit their advatages to their favor can survive. Attempting to make everything fair in the game would be boring and lose the fun and realism this game is supposed to have.

The Incan aren't overpowered because while they can expand their borders fast, they don't have a powerful UU (unless you are unlucky enough to don't have access to copper and you are forced to use archers). Any warmongering civ can beat them in the beggining. Also some civs are supposed to be a threat at certain periods, like the Americans in Modern Age or the Dutch and Portuguese if you are playing a water map.

 

[TheSunIsDark]

The Incan aren't overpowered because while they can expand their borders fast, they don't have a powerful UU (unless you are unlucky enough to don't have access to copper and you are forced to use archers).

Their UB is completely overpowered, it's basically a Creative trait with the culture doubler. Their UU is good for early rushes or chokes.

 

[Ghpstage]

Their UU is good for early rushes or chokes.

And for dealing with barbs, and for Hereditary Rule by being buildable till maces, and as a superior super medic base unit, and as being disturbingly cost effective as a stack filler for following seige into cities.
Quenchas are awesome, but not only for their situationally epic exploits, but also for being better than most UUs are in their perfect circumstances, on a consistant basis.

Any warmongering civ can beat them in the beggining.

Any civ can beat any other at any point, but some are better at doing it than others.... Inca are just better at it than most civs are during the early game on single player.

Also some civs are supposed to be a threat at certain periods, like the Americans in Modern Age or the Dutch and Portuguese if you are playing a water map.

This argument really doesn't hold water at all, and not only because the American Seal and Mall have a largely insignificant impact on the modern era....

 

[Quintillus]

I think in general, "balance" is overrated and overemphasized, and wish developers would spend less of their patch time fixing "balance" issues and more of it doing things such as improving the AI. Occasionally there are really egregious balance issues (the Cossack in Civ4 Vanilla 1.00 having an attack of 18 as well as all its current bonuses may qualify), but as it is, Civ4 is a fun game no matter who you are playing as. That some civics are more situational than others isn't necessarily a bad thing. A game should focus on being fun, not being perfectly balanced.

The only one of the initial complaints I'd really agree with is vassal states/colonial maintenance. But not so much because of balance, as because they're unfun. Vassal states are fun in Europa Universalis where (IIRC) the vassalized country must be at peace to become the vassal of someone they aren't fighting, and generally must be a very small country. In Civ4, where your somewhat-powerful enemy can decide to become the vassal of the local runaway AI, it's unfun. So I do turn them off in nearly all my games. And colonial maintenance is just way too high. It's not a balance issue because it affects everyone, it's just not fun because it makes it impossible to have significant lands overseas unless you have State Property. Maybe a 25% penalty would be reasonable, but tripling maintenance is way too much.

Protective proved to be a fantastic trait for me in my current game, by the way. Just enough of a boost to let my Riflemen defend my first-line city against a strong enemy invasion, and the drill promotions were just enough to let my other Riflemen, facing a different enemy at the time, take the second enemy's capital and thus end that war so they could move to the new front. Without the Drill 1 bonus, at least one of the latter group likely would have died, and thus the city would not have been taken, and without City Defence 1 (and even with combat 1 from aggressive), the city I was defended would definitely have fallen. It's situational, but in this game, I'm really glad I had the Protective trait.

 

[gps]

I think in general, "balance" is overrated and overemphasized, and wish developers would spend less of their patch time fixing "balance" issues and more of it doing things such as improving the AI.

Completely agree with you here. To have some level of balance is OK, but if overdone it turns into a nuisance. The first Civ releases never tried to be balanced yet they were fun and successful nevertheless. The Civ games try to mimik history an history was never balanced, there were alway stronger and weaker approaches - and I think this is part of the fun of playing a strategy game: try to find out what works and what doesn't. It's also kind of futile with a game as complex and layered as a Civ game to think things can be perfectly balanced, it simply is not possible! When I read posts over in the Civ V forum that Civ V is much more balanced for this and that and yet another reason - and then there's Venice in the game, well . Trying to balance everything perfectly only leads to a situation where everyhing is equal and strategic decisions turn pointless, because by definition no matter what you chose they have to be equally successful. The whole tall vs. wide nonsense is based on that approach (while in earlier Civs it was clear that you had to expand because expansion was the way to win the game) - and I think this urge to balance is not an approach that makes the game better or makes me more interested in playing it.