Changes to returning civilizations

[ehecatzin]

As much as I'd like to see the Aztecs get religious boost (they were extremely zelous folk), I think the sacrifitial captives work just fine, and represents that side of their culture, if anything I'd like to see an Aztec espionage bonus , the Mexica Empire resorted to espionage using their merchant class: The Pochteca, they were merchant, embassadors and spies...all in one, and having so many angry vassals required this kind of control.

I think it would help tons to have a decent Aztec spy network to choose the right moment to go to war for those juicy culture points, or just mess with my neighboors in peace time.

 

[CivilizedPlayer]

Monty is one of the weaker civ's, and I wouldn't mind a buff to their UA. Faith and Culture for each kill makes sense and would be cool. And please, please, please don't change India's UA. It's one of the most unique and fun ones to use, and it's well balanced anyway. Their Mughal Fort might be reworked a tad though.

 

[bcaiko]

Sacrificing is obviously obsolete in the Renaissance era.... at least it should be. More realistic to add the bonus toward faith. Cut the bonus after you hit a certain tech ala France. The UA does not need to be continuous as it obviously isn't with France.

England's UA is a joke. I'd like to see some bonus where it makes sense to spread out the Empire and make it a global power. A Navy buff with extra Great Admirals is too one dimensional. As it is with Germans/Ottomans. Every civ needs more dimensions but those especially.

In both instances above, you're judging the Civ's Unique Ability without viewing the Civ as a whole.

France's ability ends with Steam Power in part because they gain access to the Foreign Legion around that time, which is a vehry strong aggressive unit. The Aztecs have nothing like that. (Though a Jaguar promoted through the ages can make for a darn scary Infantry unit.) There's no reason for the Aztec's ability to come to an superficial end. None.

And while I agree that England is certainly not one of the stronger Civs currently (look up my topic: "England...sucks"), that's largely because of the way naval warfare is implemented in the current game. I'm willing to bet that under the new naval rules, England's super fast melee ships and embarked units will look pretty darn scary to coastal cities. They may take a look at England's UA with the Expansion, but the fact that they haven't already patched England when other UAs got a buff makes me conclude they won't do so with the new release when England's already presupposed to get stronger.

 

[MadDjinn]

Monty is one of the weaker civ's, and I wouldn't mind a buff to their UA. Faith and Culture for each kill makes sense and would be cool. And please, please, please don't change India's UA. It's one of the most unique and fun ones to use, and it's well balanced anyway. Their Mughal Fort might be reworked a tad though.

Gandhi has the most *unbalanced* UA in the game.

an easy 1:1 transfer of local to global happiness is not balanced. Gandhi is the great 'abuser' of the happiness system. I'd be thrilled if they either fixed it or changed it.

 

[fat_tonle]

France's ability ends with Steam Power in part because they gain access to the Foreign Legion around that time, which is a vehry strong aggressive unit. The Aztecs have nothing like that. (Though a Jaguar promoted through the ages can make for a darn scary Infantry unit.) There's no reason for the Aztec's ability to come to an superficial end. None.

And while I agree that England is certainly not one of the stronger Civs currently (look up my topic: "England...sucks"), that's largely because of the way naval warfare is implemented in the current game. I'm willing to bet that under the new naval rules, England's super fast melee ships and embarked units will look pretty darn scary to coastal cities. They may take a look at England's UA with the Expansion, but the fact that they haven't already patched England when other UAs got a buff makes me conclude they won't do so with the new release when England's already presupposed to get stronger

That makes ZERO sense, considering one has nothing to do with the other.

If you want to use that argument, then look at the Aztec UB. 15% growth in the late game as it is now when you get fertilizers and all the food/farming bonuses. That is probably the most imbalanced UB out there if you have the right terrain for it.

What doesn't make sense, for me at least, is a civ getting sacrifice bonuses if they are in the Rationalism or Democracy branch.

But even if we go with Autocracy and the whole Hitleresque campaign in our game, I guess human sacrifice could be relevant for that civilization. I just don't know kills lead to more social policies, since that is what obtaining culture is all about in this game.

I would change the bonus to add Faith, and then add toward research after reaching the Industrial Era. At least get a science bonus for killing off more advanced tech.

And back to England, my only point is that another civ can rush the Great Lighthouse, and if you miss it by a turn, you don't have a UA in your game any longer, since that wonder gives 2+ movement to sea units and it is darn early in the game. Now if you hit it with England, you are pretty much going for an all navy game, but what if it is a Panagea or you can't exploit it enough because of the map? On the other hand, you hit that wonder on an Archipelago map as England and it is basically GG. BAD game play.

 

[bcaiko]

That makes ZERO sense, considering one has nothing to do with the other....

Both France's UA and UUs lend themselves to expansionism. My argument is that - as a whole - the developers decided the limitation on France's UA was apt, given their strong late game UUs. The Aztecs don't have those strong late game UUs; they have a very strong early UU and a UB that, while strong, requires certain land to be built. So their UA can be less restricted. Restricting their UA could cripple them in the late game. Such a move would be both unnecessary and odd. As a whole, the Aztecs are a different situation than, say, France.

IMHO, the Aztecs are just fine. No need to nerf something that doesn't need fixing. I'm hoping most of the UAs stay the way they are, save for a very few necessary tweaks.

 

[fat_tonle]

Who said anything about crippiling their UA? Who says Faith won't be as important if not more important than culture in the early game? You will get bonuses for more Faith obviously.

I also don't believe they are going to add Faith but only Expansion civs will receive extra benefits for it. Obviously Spain will be getting the bonus for double faith I would assume, but it really doesn't change the existing UA. We know Celts and Byzantium will receive some Faith bonus in their UA's, but I feel existing civs will also get something in that department.

So Faith may be even more powerful in the early game than culture, and as far as the late game... who knows. Adding culture alone may be weak considering how much the policies cost then. It wouldn't add up unless you are in total war as Aztecs. Not conducive to victory unless you are dominating the globe.

Then again, it may be +3 culture +3 faith for kills, to balance it out. But what happens in the late game when Faith is less relevant? I don't think it would make sense converting kills into pure culture in the late game. I think Faith will allow you to get ahead early. Extra science in the late game for your kills can help you keep up in the late game.

As the game is now, it has to be kills=culture because extra science that early is too valuable and culture is hard to come by if you are going for military builds.

 

[ShahJahanII]

Who said anything about crippiling their UA? Who says Faith won't be as important if not more important than culture in the early game? You will get bonuses for more Faith obviously.

I also don't believe they are going to add Faith but only Expansion civs will receive extra benefits for it. Obviously Spain will be getting the bonus for double faith I would assume, but it really doesn't change the existing UA. We know Celts and Byzantium will receive some Faith bonus in their UA's, but I feel existing civs will also get something in that department.

So Faith may be even more powerful in the early game than culture, and as far as the late game... who knows. Adding culture alone may be weak considering how much the policies cost then. It wouldn't add up unless you are in total war as Aztecs. Not conducive to victory unless you are dominating the globe.

Then again, it may be +3 culture +3 faith for kills, to balance it out. But what happens in the late game when Faith is less relevant? I don't think it would make sense converting kills into pure culture in the late game. I think Faith will allow you to get ahead early. Extra science in the late game for your kills can help you keep up in the late game.

As the game is now, it has to be kills=culture because extra science that early is too valuable and culture is hard to come by if you are going for military builds.

Faith won't be less important, just that religions will play less of a role in diplomacy.

 

[bcaiko]

Who said anything about crippiling their UA? Who says Faith won't be as important if not more important than culture in the early game?

I said your proposed change would cripple the Aztec's late game. We know that Religion becomes less effective/important in the Renaissance. Culture is important throughout the game, and may be more so when it comes time to choose between Freedom, Order and Authoritarianism, which will actually effect diplomacy in the late game.

I think it's fair to say at this point that we can agree to disagree. I really don't think there's merit to altering the Aztec's UA in particular, or the older Civs generally. It's clear from what we already know that several of the new Civs will have faith-focused UAs. Not every Civ "obviously" needs a faith-based update to their UA, as you put it. Most of the UAs are unique enough and work perfectly fine as is.

 

[headcase]

Faith won't be less important, just that religions will play less of a role in diplomacy.

Indeed, you will have more faiths later on, and faiths are probably going to be quite powerful.

Maybe if they did have a religious victory (kinda doubtful if they haven't announced it), it would require:
a) Your religion to be dominant
b) You need all 5 faiths (5 out of 6 for Byzantine) to be a set of faiths that don't do anything (or very little) alone, but together can win the game when combined with a)

Then you would need to forgo actually useful faiths (or spend more faith to replace them later, which I'm guessing is how that system works) in order to have a shot at religious victory.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That would mean, in order to prevent you from winning, one of the 11 other religions would have to steal one of those options. That strikes me as draconian.

 

[MadDjinn]

That would mean, in order to prevent you from winning, one of the 11 other religions would have to steal one of those options. That strikes me as draconian.

and very unlikely.

 

[bonafide11]

Aztecs are fine as is. There's no reason to change their UA now just to change it. Faith points for every killing may be someone else's bonus or may be a religious bonus for all we know, but I don't see why they would change the Aztecs to that.

 

[King William I]

England gets an extra spy

 

[Camikaze]

Well apparently the 'British' (for which I think it's safe to assume we can read 'English') get an extra spy. I assume that's a UA change.

Edit: Moderator Action: Also, merged with existing thread that King William I bumped.

 

[bcaiko]

Aztecs are fine as is. There's no reason to change their UA now just to change it. Faith points for every killing may be someone else's bonus or may be a religious bonus for all we know, but I don't see why they would change the Aztecs to that.

Indeed, it's been revealed that that is the case.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, the Pictish warrior has it now. I would not be surprised if some of the special religious units have it too.

 

[fat_tonle]

So what is England's overall UA now? MI-6 Spy Hunters??? Scotland Yard???

It just doesn't co-exist well with a Naval buff. If anything, I would buff ship of the line, give them an extra movement and take out Sun Never Sets, if they get a spy bonus.

You want the abilities to complement each other. I don't see how more spies and ship/Great Admiral bonuses compliment each other, other than being buffs for the hell of it.

 

[bcaiko]

So what is England's overall UA now? MI-6 Spy Hunters??? Scotland Yard???

It just doesn't co-exist well with a Naval buff. If anything, I would buff ship of the line, give them an extra movement and take out Sun Never Sets, if they get a spy bonus.

You want the abilities to complement each other. I don't see how more spies and ship/Great Admiral bonuses compliment each other, other than being buffs for the hell of it.

IMHO, England could get an extra spy plus the extra naval movement (which in vanilla Civ, most players agreed was a UA in need of improvement), and it could still fit within "The Sun Never Sets". You can't escape the reach of the British Empire kind of thing.

 

[fat_tonle]

IMHO, England could get an extra spy plus the extra naval movement (which in vanilla Civ, most players agreed was a UA in need of improvement), and it could still fit within "The Sun Never Sets". You can't escape the reach of the British Empire kind of thing.