Brainstorming a better Unique Ability for Brasilia

[DarkestOnion]

That's if it was underpowered.

The issue is not that it is underpowered, it is that it is boring.. ie it doesn't change the way you play the game.


The fact that it only applies to melee units helps that slightly (ie Brasillia's army will be more heavily melee than someone else's)

I also feel that it is a fairly boring UA as I am not overly fond of Warmonger Play. I was extrapolating (by empowering it) along Warmonger Lines because I suspect the Brasilia UA is built for Warmonger Players. I often find that it is more welcomed to recognize where a UA is pointed and then to increase its appeal for that audience as opposed to making a certain audience feel that you are campaigning to alter their preferred UA before playing the game.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I also feel that it is a fairly boring UA as I am not overly fond of Warmonger Play. I was extrapolating (by empowering it) along Warmonger Lines because I suspect the Brasilia UA is built for Warmonger Players. I often find that it is more welcomed to recognize where a UA is pointed and then to increase its appeal for that audience as opposed to making a certain audience feel that you are campaigning to alter their preferred UA before playing the game.

The thing is it is sort of boring for warmonger play as well.

Perhaps if it was +1 move for melee units it would be more interesting than +10% melee strength.

My preference would be something that rewarded Warmonger play other than just making warmonger play better at war.

Hence culture from kills or culture from promotions. (more war makes you better at virtues...pure warmonger gets might, conqueror gets prosperity, hi tech warrior gets knowledge, horde gets industry)

But if you just want better Warmongerplay...

Actually I was noting one problem with the earlier 'rough terrain' idea, naval units wouldn't get it.

But say Japan's ability from civ 5 (units do full damage when damaged) would work at making more interesting warplay (encouraging a rush into battle)

+10% melee is OK, but what would be better is a cross mechanism (like FrancoIberia's culture->tech)

 

[bhavv]

Make it 10% to all combat units, and double movement in rough terrain and done.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Make it 10% to all combat units, and double movement in rough terrain and done.

Probably too powerful *unless you mean +10% to all units in rough terrain

 

[Tempestangel]

From the description of the Brasillia's military forces, it sounds like they are not only a portent, well-trained force but are used extensively as relief forces as well. They were deployed around the world to fight warlords in the new age, and help the people affected directly by the "Great Mistake" so this should be shown in their ability.

Here are some ideas that could work together and be implemented:
-Military Units can repair pillaged or destroyed tiles: Simple, but a relief force would move around and repair damage, its not a great ability but could coincide other benefits.
-Less health lose/damage to cities when conquered, No energy stolen: Brasillia seems like a more moral version of the U.S. in our modern day, a military power that does good for the world, ideally they would probably try to protect infrastructure of a city captured. This goes with the idea of stopping warlords. The remaining infrastructure makes for meaningful captures, but the lack of gold denies large scale conquests. (it also removes razing viable as an option since you gain nothing)

These are some ideas

 

[BrotherAriman]

From the description of the Brasillia's military forces, it sounds like they are not only a portent, well-trained force but are used extensively as relief forces as well. They were deployed around the world to fight warlords in the new age, and help the people affected directly by the "Great Mistake" so this should be shown in their ability.

Here are some ideas that could work together and be implemented:
-Military Units can repair pillaged or destroyed tiles: Simple, but a relief force would move around and repair damage, its not a great ability but could coincide other benefits.
-Less health lose/damage to cities when conquered, No energy stolen: Brasillia seems like a more moral version of the U.S. in our modern day, a military power that does good for the world, ideally they would probably try to protect infrastructure of a city captured. This goes with the idea of stopping warlords. The remaining infrastructure makes for meaningful captures, but the lack of gold denies large scale conquests. (it also removes razing viable as an option since you gain nothing)

These are some ideas

I really like this idea especially since I was going to play them as peacekeepers for my first game maybe the soldiers could even get experience for repairing tiles outside of your territory.

 

[Dargoth]

There's a number of more interesting ways to bolster the effectiveness of a militaristic faction than straight up strength bonuses:

• Garrisoned units provide Culture (?)

Given Brasilias background of being the UNs Peacekeepers how about...

Garrisoned Units provide Health

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, the idea is a military genius as a general, so I do think something combat-related makes sense. Providing health would be about keeping your soldiers at home. Same with culture, really.

 

[Kratok]

The usefulness of the UA depends on whether or not melee units act mostly as blocker/capture units like they do in Civ 5. If so, I think it is also a bit underpowered in addition to boring at the moment, since you don't really need strength for capturing unless they change the mechanics. It would often practically translate to +10% defense bonus only since ranged units do majority of the attacking.

-Military Units can repair pillaged or destroyed tiles: Simple, but a relief force would move around and repair damage, its not a great ability but could coincide other benefits.

I think I like this suggestion the best so far. Would decrease the need for workers and help recovery during peace time (one of the problems with the current bonus is that during peace it's only a minor bonus vs. aliens). It could probably be added on top of the current one without making it overpowered.

But if we were to go with the "bonus from garrisoned units" idea, I think +Production might be more interesting than +Culture or +Health. +1 Production to city with a garrisoned unit, possibly increasing it to +2/+3 at Affinity level X/Y so it stays relevant lategame. It would involve a bit of thinking as to what city needs it the most at the time. There would be a tradeoff between providing some extra production to make more scouts/military, or sending what you currently have to do the scouting or fighting. During peace time it would be a somewhat minor infrastructure production boost.

 

[Zet]

Personally I think +10% melee combat strength is a bit boring. And I suspect ranged units will dominate melee as usual.

What if Brasilia had access to unique promotions? Or their promotions were a little bit stronger? This fits with the highly trained military idea and is a little more interesting.

 

[Oridan]

Given Brasilias background of being the UNs Peacekeepers how about...

Garrisoned Units provide Health

I like this idea.

 

[SupremacyKing]

How about this:
+10% melee combat strength
AND
Garrisonned units add +10% production

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'm not sure they should have bonuses that go in different directions. The PAC is supposed to be the production one, Brasilia is the military one. So I think giving them something related to combat is the best idea. I just think they need something more interesting related to combat.

 

[JokerJace]

I think the problem that surfaces here is another one.

The most important thing about a faction in a Civ game is that it feels uniquely. Having only 8 factions in this game makes it pretty easy to achieve this. So straightforward advantages like more production or higher combat strength can be pretty unique by themselves. It's even better to have a more general bonus because of the small number of factions, so you can apply different strategies and aren't too constricted in how to play efficiently. So if you don't want to eliminate gameplay options, you either need many specialized factions or few factions with very broad abilities. It's an easy rule: The less factions you have, the broader their abilities have to be if you don't want to circumcise your game. Giving Brazilian units something like a movement bonus in rough terrain just feels too specific compared to the other UAs. When you only have 8 factions...... Isn't it more important that there is a faction that is good at warfare rather than having a faction that has units that are moving quickly through the jungle?!

So what I actually read from the criticism is that people want more uniqueness distributed among a higher number of factions. Because the more general ones (which - again - are needed) can feel too bland.

 

[Skorpios]

Looking at the other UAs and you get an instant idea of the faction:

ARC? Spymasters
KP? Settlers
PAC? Infrastructure builders
PAU? Growers
SF? Cosmonauts
PS? Traders
FI? Intellectuals
BR? Guys who punch a little harder than everyone else.

There's bland and then there's just plain boring.

Based on what we know about PAC's UA: 10% build speed for wonders and 25% worker speed - that is equivalent to two virtue choices: Prosperity's Helping hands (15% tile improvement rate) and Industry's Scalable infrastructure (15% production for wonders)

Brasilia's "free" situational promotion seems paltry in comparison and doesn't really suggest a faction that is as better at warfare than PAC is better at building.

Movement bonuses of some kind make Brasilia's soldiers more effective militarily as well as giving them a useful role (scouting) outside of combat.

 

[Liex]

Personally, I'd like my UAs to:

1. Be strong. It's nice to be overpowered. If all the UAs are equally strong, then I'm not really overpowered, but I don't need to know that.
   
2. Be easy to notice. It's nice when you can feel your UA in action, even if it's not particularly strong. So the UA should:
   • Be unique, as in different from other UAs and game mechanics. I like that "only I got this" feeling.
   • Be dynamic, not plain bonuses. It's nice when they're intricate, linking different gameplay elements, requiring and allowing different strategies etc.

I don't know if the Brasilia's UA is weak (it don't look strong, even for Civ BE standards, but we really can't know). But right now, it's looking the opposite of unique and dynamic...

 

[Smith of Lie]

I just want to adress a certain misconception that few people here seem to have. Their UA does not give 10% bonus strenght to melee units. It gives +10% strenght in melee to all units. At least such is the wording in the seeding video.

 

[Liex]

I just want to adress a certain misconception that few people here seem to have. Their UA does not give 10% bonus strenght to melee units. It gives +10% strenght in melee to all units. At least such is the wording in the seeding video.

Yeah, "strength in melee combat". Maybe it applies to ranged unit being attacked by melee units, but then it's bad because doesn't help melee units being attacked by ranged enemies - such as cities.

 

[Lord Shadow]

I think the problem that surfaces here is another one.

The most important thing about a faction in a Civ game is that it feels uniquely. Having only 8 factions in this game makes it pretty easy to achieve this. So straightforward advantages like more production or higher combat strength can be pretty unique by themselves. It's even better to have a more general bonus because of the small number of factions, so you can apply different strategies and aren't too constricted in how to play efficiently. So if you don't want to eliminate gameplay options, you either need many specialized factions or few factions with very broad abilities. It's an easy rule: The less factions you have, the broader their abilities have to be if you don't want to circumcise your game. Giving Brazilian units something like a movement bonus in rough terrain just feels too specific compared to the other UAs. When you only have 8 factions...... Isn't it more important that there is a faction that is good at warfare rather than having a faction that has units that are moving quickly through the jungle?!

So what I actually read from the criticism is that people want more uniqueness distributed among a higher number of factions. Because the more general ones (which - again - are needed) can feel too bland.

Yeah, it's true that it's important to remember Brasilia's a militaristic faction, and that it's unique ability should directly affect their ability to wage war. With that in mind, I think elite soldiers are more inventively represented by a higher starting XP bonus and/or faster XP earnings. Simply higher strength does the trick as well, sure, but it's bland and less creative.

 

[JokerJace]

Yeah, it's true that it's important to remember Brasilia's a militaristic faction, and that it's unique ability should directly affect their ability to wage war. With that in mind, I think elite soldiers are more inventively represented by a higher starting XP bonus and/or faster XP earnings. Simply higher strength does the trick as well, sure, but it's bland and less creative.

This could work. I'm not sure how much it would force you to wage war though. And again, I think forcing a certain playstyle for efficiency is only a good idea if you have enough varying factions. A simple combat bonus helps you right from the start and it's usefulness doesn't grow with the scale of your warmongering. Your army is always 10% stronger, no matter how big you think it needs to be. -> flexibility!!! The usefulness of an XP bonus however DOES grow with the scale of your warmongering (and even exponentially so). So your suggestion would force a certain playstyle if you care for maximal efficiency and I'm not so sure I like that with only 8 factions in the game. With the Zulu for example it is okay, because we have 42 other factions in the same game, so a few extremely one-sided faction aren't a problem.