Boosting the Arabs

[GenjiKhan]

As far as comparing bazar with Dutch UA, bazar is still better in the long run. Let me show u how :-
Both Dutch & Arabs get 3 sugars. Arabs can sell 5 & keep the happiness benefit while Dutch will only be able to sell 3 at max while keeping the happiness benefit. Some may argue that bazar needs hammer investment but the point is that u r going to build this low tier building in almost all cities so that doesn't matter much later on.

So,based on this argument,there's really no need to improve Arabia UA,right?

 

[The_J]

Are they that underpowered? Some of my most successful games have been with the Arabs . . .

They maybe are not, but they will be, in comparison to the dutch (at least the UA).

 

[Babri]

Are they that underpowered? Some of my most successful games have been with the Arabs . . .

Not really but they would need some sort of change to balance them up with the new changes made in the game, religion boost would make a lot of sense as I mentioned in the previous post.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, my biggest concern is that everything is undercut, not that they're weak. I like the idea of faster spread of religion via trade routes or something like that. Seems like something that will help make them unique again without dramatically upsetting the balance in the game. It would also reflect Islam's spread along trade routes to areas not directly touched by the conquest.

 

[Babri]

So,based on this argument,there's really no need to improve Arabia UA,right?

No I did not say that, the point is Arabs UB is different from Dutch UA. Anyway we have to see, but I would prefer if they add some religion boost & maybe remove 1 gold from trade routes to give them some extra flavour overall.

 

[nokmirt]

I don't see why the dutch UA would be better than the bazaar, the former is only better if you only have 1 lux (dutch can trade away both, arabs need to keep one for happiness), but when you have 2 or more lux the bazaar becomes better and better. At 2 of the same lux with the dutch you can only trade away 2 while with the arabs you can trade away 3. At 3 lux it is 5-3 for the arabs. And as others have said: the camel archer is ossum

Exactly, you stockpile so many luxury resources all you need then is someone to buy or exchange them. Then oil to boot in the late game, its simply lifestyles for the rich and famous for us sheiks! Arabia is powerful enough as long as they can be thriving merchants. I was thinking they should have a faith based wonder called "Pilgramage to Mecca". I am thinking about how this could be useful in the game. Maybe buiding up faith leads to it giving some inherent bonus (this could improve happiness empire wide, well thats one option). If you choose Islam as your religion, which will all know does not need to be called Islam, or even resemble that religion. So the wonder would have to be unbiased, yet interesting.

The other thing I was thinking that when you gain faith playing as Arabia, over time it improves the values of trade routes connected to the capital Mecca. Or it could reduce maintenance on roads/railroads over time.

A third option could have faith lead to reducing the cost, or even unlocking certain social policies. For example, Meritocracy, or policies within Piety or Commerce. I don't know just some thoughts.

 

[bhavv]

Are they that underpowered? Some of my most successful games have been with the Arabs . . .

I could get my most successful games with any Civ, that doesn't mean that they are all equal.

I would rate in no particular order Korea, Babylon, Egypt and Inca as my top tier civs, plus china and Aztecs as top tier for military. That doesn't mean I can't be successful with the rest, Its just that all of my preferred civs have strong economic bonuses which allow me to get further ahead. Arabia's uniques are ok, but +1 gold per trade route doesn't really compare to other civs with economic bonuses, and the bazaar is decent, but takes a while to obtain and get built. Just one extra gold per trade route would put the Arabs on par with Inca and China.

 

[nokmirt]

I do have a two questions might as well post it here. How is the value of trade routes determined? Longer trade routes that make us more tiles are worth less correct?

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

In every game I've ever played with Harun al-Rashid in it, the AI Arabs are consistently on top of the board in score, gold, research, etc. I think as they stand now they're a pretty balanced civ with some interesting/unique facets.

For Gods & Kings, however, I would like to see them receive some sort of faith-based UA but still keep the double oil resources.

 

[Alk3Crimson]

I was also thinking they should add a camel resource to the game.

Adding a resource that's used by a single civ's unit is a generally bad idea. It sets up two scenarios. You either a) are forced to track down camels and spread your empire unnaturally just to take advantage of your UU or b) you are scripted to always have some near your starting area which pretty much trivializes it as a resource.

The only way I see it being interesting is if you start with some near you, and have to choose between using them tactically (for units) or economically (as a luxery resource).

 

[nokmirt]

Adding a resource that's used by a single civ's unit is a generally bad idea. It sets up two scenarios. You either a) are forced to track down camels and spread your empire unnaturally just to take advantage of your UU or b) you are scripted to always have some near your starting area which pretty much trivializes it as a resource.

The only way I see it being interesting is if you start with some near you, and have to choose between using them tactically (for units) or economically (as a luxery resource).

Yes, thats if you made it so camels are required for camel archers. If I remember correctly ivory is not needed for elephants. Isn't that true? I am sure camels could benefit desert tiles in a big way. Improvement of food or movement, perhaps gold, simulating trade caravans. Something IDK? I was not considering that they had to be there for camel archers though.

Yes, I just looked war elephants need no resource. Then I feel camel archers should not either. But a camel resource IMO is a great idea.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I do have a two questions might as well post it here. How is the value of trade routes determined? Longer trade routes that make us more tiles are worth less correct?

It's a function of population. The bigger the city is, the more gold you'll get.

However, since roads cost money, the more roads you need, the more gold you won't get. Generally, the city has to be at least the size of the number of roads. For example, if it's three tiles away from the capital (or three tiles away from wherever you're adding it to the chain), you need to be at least size 3.

 

[Alk3Crimson]

Yes, thats if you made it so camels are required for camel archers. If I remember correctly ivory is not needed for elephants. Isn't that true? I am sure camels could benefit desert tiles in a big way. Improvement of food or movement, perhaps gold, simulating trade caravans. Something IDK? I was not considering that they had to be there for camel archers though.

Yes, I just looked war elephants need no resource. Then I feel camel archers should not either. But a camel resource IMO is a great idea.

No, this is not true. Elephants don't require a resource to build.

I think a better way around this would be to just give a civ that is intended to be a "desert dweller" get more food from desert tiles. This symbolizes the civs ability to adapt to life in a harsh terrain, and gives them the flavor of a desert civilization without penalizing them for settlnig there. The desert should still be avoided by civs not equipped to live there, not made mroe attractive by extra resources.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I could get my most successful games with any Civ, that doesn't mean that they are all equal.

I would rate in no particular order Korea, Babylon, Egypt and Inca as my top tier civs, plus china and Aztecs as top tier for military. That doesn't mean I can't be successful with the rest, Its just that all of my preferred civs have strong economic bonuses which allow me to get further ahead. Arabia's uniques are ok, but +1 gold per trade route doesn't really compare to other civs with economic bonuses, and the bazaar is decent, but takes a while to obtain and get built. Just one extra gold per trade route would put the Arabs on par with Inca and China.

Well, granted. Maybe the Arabs just suit my playstyle better (though I find myself going back to the Inca again and again). As long as they're not directly WORSE than another option, it's enough for me. They can't all be the best one. I really can't yet see whether they're undercut by the Dutch, though (having not played as the Dutch yet ). Could be.

I always have wondered why you need horses to make camels though.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I suppose that's the other reason I want the Horse requirement removed. It's a strange requirement to begin with.

 

[craig123]

I do have a two questions might as well post it here. How is the value of trade routes determined? Longer trade routes that make us more tiles are worth less correct?

See here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=438745

 

[chazzycat]

the thing that would make the (still unconfirmed in my view) Dutch UA more powerful is the really early game. As soon as mining is researched they would start selling luxes, buying workers, etc. with no happiness downside. This would allow for an explosive early growth advantage, better than any other civ...especially on the higher levels where the AI has gold to give you in the early game. You'd probably be able to get 2 cycles in before markets/bazaars are even built - huge at that point in the game.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Keep in mind they might have a crappy UU to balance things out.

 

[chazzycat]

I don't think it would matter. With a starting advantage like that, any UB or UU would be just be icing on the cake. I'm still not believing that's how the UA works.

 

[nokmirt]

Yes, this is true. Elephants don't require a resource to build.

This is what you meant to say you read my post wrong.

I think a better way around this would be to just give a civ that is intended to be a "desert dweller" get more food from desert tiles. This symbolizes the civs ability to adapt to life in a harsh terrain, and gives them the flavor of a desert civilization without penalizing them for settlnig there. The desert should still be avoided by civs not equipped to live there, not made mroe attractive by extra resources.

I agree this is a very sensible idea.

It's a function of population. The bigger the city is, the more gold you'll get.

However, since roads cost money, the more roads you need, the more gold you won't get. Generally, the city has to be at least the size of the number of roads. For example, if it's three tiles away from the capital (or three tiles away from wherever you're adding it to the chain), you need to be at least size 3.

Thank you Louis XXIV, I was curious about that.

See here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=438745

Thank you craig123, I will read this with great interest.