[R&F] Civ of the Week: Georgia

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Or if you get stuck between two civs who have founded a religion and are constantly battling to convert your cities. It can be a difficult challenge to permanently sway the balance one way or the other.

I disagree. It's actually easier than if you found a religion and have a neighbour trying to dispute you for control over your cities. If you're helping one of your neighbours spread their religion against another neighbour, you're basically 2 against 1. If you found your own religion, you have nobody else helping you spread it.

I don't think that's the case at all. In my most recent game, it took forever for any religious units on my landmass to come into play; I had to found my own religion. Plus faith was hard to come by without actually devoting yourself to it. It just seems like a pretty big gamble to me. And even at that, the religion at the CS which may not be close to you or the religion founder remains an issue.

Well, yes, you do have to devote yourself to getting Faith if you're going to spread a religion. That's equally true if you found a religion as when you're spreading someone else's.

Similarly, what's the difference between founding your own religion and spreading someone else's when it comes to the religion of the CSs? Other than if you're spreading someone else's religion, it's possible they may convert the CS for you? If you're spreading your own religion it's you and you alone who needs to install that religion in the CS.

I don't know what the perceived issue is if you can found a religion. The whole point of the conversation was that people were arguing that Georgia needs a bonus to found a religion, otherwise it may not get one. And my point is it doesn't need to found a religion to get the benefit of its abilities. If by the time all of the religions are gone none of your neighbours have founded a religion that they've spread to even one of your cities, that strikes me as a fairly odd map. Mind you, I typically play continents, so maybe on smaller land masses the spread of religion may be delayed.

 

[Disgustipated]

I have thought about my game and read the comments and realized I played Tamar wrong.
It would be better to ignore dark ages and heroic times and try to get a golden classical age as @Softly pointed out. Then go with Exodus of the Evangelist the whole way (well as long as it lasts) and try to spam missionaries and apostles constantly.

That's pretty much what I did with my game above. Although I may have waited for medieval to choose Exodus of the Evangelist, for Classical I chose the one that gives you culture for each district you have (and era score for each one you build with Georgia). Once I got Classical golden age it was fairly easy to get golden the rest of the game. I got the golden age by eliminating the Mapuche just in the nick of time before ancient era ended.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well, yes, you do have to devote yourself to getting Faith if you're going to spread a religion. That's equally true if you found a religion as when you're spreading someone else's.

Similarly, what's the difference between founding your own religion and spreading someone else's when it comes to the religion of the CSs? Other than if you're spreading someone else's religion, it's possible they may convert the CS for you? If you're spreading your own religion it's you and you alone who needs to install that religion in the CS.

Because it's basically just rolling dice at this point and has nothing to do with your interaction at that point. You either get it or you don't. And envoys have diminishing returns for the most part. Your 6th envoy matters a lot more than the ones after unless you're competing for suzerain so the later it happens, the less important it is

If by the time all of the religions are gone none of your neighbours have founded a religion that they've spread to even one of your cities, that strikes me as a fairly odd map. Mind you, I typically play continents, so maybe on smaller land masses the spread of religion may be delayed.

It's pretty unreliable on most maps I've seen. Then again, I think this is because on lower difficulties the AI sometimes doesn't have the faith to spread religion.

 

[Eliminator_Sr]

Don't get me started on Georgia - clearly they are the worst civ in the game and by a large margin IMO. All of their bonuses really only delay victory except the golden age bonus which is still just ok. Building Khevsur and renaissance walls are just a waste of hammers and research. Double faith for 10 turns would be decent if you could actually pull it off reliably but it's completely out of your control and I can count on one hand the number of times I have declared a protectorate war. Double envoys? Also sounds good on paper but it's practically worthless since it requires you to first establish and spread a majority religion to a CS which again detracts from the extremely slight edge they may have for RV (assuming you found one). Georgia is the only civ I haven't finished a game with yet, but if I were to play one through I would for the most part completely ignore their bonuses.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Because it's basically just rolling dice at this point and has nothing to do with your interaction at that point.

I don't see how it has less to do with your interaction when you're spreading someone else's religion than it does when you're spreading your religion. Your ability to act remains the same, which was all I was trying to point out.​

And envoys have diminishing returns for the most part. Your 6th envoy matters a lot more than the ones after unless you're competing for suzerain so the later it happens, the less important it is.

Which is why if you want to make the greatest use of the ability, you bee line for faith/religion. My point was that losing that race doesn't make Tamar's special abilities useless, you just spread one of the other religions instead.

Then again, I think this is because on lower difficulties the AI sometimes doesn't have the faith to spread religion.

That may be true. I haven't played below Deity for a while. That'll change shortly as I'm going to try a few test games on Prince level to assess some aspects of AI behaviour at that level.​

 

[Archon_Wing]

I don't see how it has less to do with your interaction when you're spreading someone else's religion than it does when you're spreading your religion. Your ability to act remains the same, which was all I was trying to point out.​

Well, besides the issue of spreading it to you in the first place, there's also where it gets spread is an issue. If they spread it to a place without a Holy Site, it'd be much slower. And that's also if your units don't die to other religious units.

Which is why if you want to make the greatest use of the ability, you bee line for faith/religion. My point was that losing that race doesn't make Tamar's special abilities useless, you just spread one of the other religions instead.

Because then you're just stuck with an ability that occasionally grants you extra envoys after all that investment and the envoys are not consistently useful (And then AI may just kill them anyways, rendering it all moot) If the CS is 10 moves away, then we're looking at a lot of time before we can actually use it.

That may be true. I haven't played below Deity for a while. That'll change shortly as I'm going to try a few test games on Prince level to assess some aspects of AI behaviour at that level.

On Emperor, I've actually run around with Apostles looking to get relics, and they almost take ages to find someone that will kill them. Usually travels half the world.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Because then you're just stuck with an ability that occasionally grants you extra envoys after all that investment and the envoys are not consistently useful (And then AI may just kill them anyways, rendering it all moot) If the CS is 10 moves away, then we're looking at a lot of time before we can actually use it.

That plus the protectorate war bonus is her ability. Neither better nor worse whether your majority religion is one you founded or one someone else founded and that you spread. Likely less investment on your part if someone else founded it as they help you spread it, but also with less benefit (no founder bonus for having that religion, just the bonuses that apply to all cities following the religion).

 

[Scaramanga]

Tamar probably can't afford to ally with too many civs because they could take out her city-states. Probably why her agenda is focused on other civs keeping to themselves and building defensive structures rather than offensive units.

 

[Archon_Wing]

That plus the protectorate war bonus is her ability. Neither better nor worse whether your majority religion is one you founded or one someone else founded and that you spread. Likely less investment on your part if someone else founded it as they help you spread it, but also with less benefit (no founder bonus for having that religion, just the bonuses that apply to all cities following the religion).

Well I mean sure it works. But none of that seems to be worth building giant white paperweights in your cities.

They don't NEED it yes. But you could also build acropolis and not recruit writers and it would still be good, for example. That game rarely leaves you hanging like that though. This is also why every unique unit is resourceless

I actually do not think there should be weak civs. Yes, there are always going to be meta choices but the game should let every civ shine. England can look amazing even if they fail in the optimization sense. Georgia..... just looks okay sometimes. Most civs are already good in one way or another. I can really only think of 2 civs that actually "suck" and one just sucks because of a technicality.... big one though.

 

[kryat]

I may be in the minority, but I tend to think of the skill of the player determined not only on how well they can play on each “difficulty” setting, but even more so on how well they can make the most of challenging situations. It’s not quite right to call Georgia and Tamar, “weak” when a better term, “challenging” exists. Georgia might not have the obvious strengths that other civs have, but her bonuses, UU, and UI can all be powerful but require unconventional thinking. (France is another great example of a non-obvious strong civ”

As has been mentioned a few times here, the golden age bonus synergizes well with faith play because of the strength of monumentality.

The +3 faith from the walls is maybe not ideal, but that’s 3 faith you can have in every city regardless of terrain that also provides culture later. And walls are relatively cheap, especially with Limes. Over several cities, it adds up, and is ripe for doubling with protectorate wars.

Double envoys is huge. Not only is it a virtual guarantee of suzerainty and CS type bonuses, it also benefits from the policy of gold from envoys. Did you have anything else planned for that diplomacy slot in the mid game?

Lastly, the UU. The Khevsur. Yes, it requires a leaf tech (which you should research anyway, because not all victories are science victories). The hills bonus is easy to overlook. With some planning and the right terrain, they are faster than swords or musketmen, and significantly, are stronger in hills rather than weaker. This means that when capturing cities founded on hills, they are actually stronger than knights. This doesn’t mean that they should be used exclusively instead of knights, but are a welcome addition to any army.

The AI does not play unconventional civs well. But this doesn’t mean that they are weak.

 

[liv]

I am trying a game with unconvtional thinking but it is not going as planned

Double envoys is huge

In theory but the Germans and the Zulus have removed all the city states I met early. there are probably a few left somewhere...maybe
So no protective war either because my first missionary came around turn 50 and by then they were already toast.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

In theory but the Germans and the Zulus have removed all the city states I met early. there are probably a few left somewhere...maybe

So no protective war either because my first missionary came around turn 50 and by then they were already toast.

That's a definite challenge to peaceful play. As if warmongering needed yet another boost, trying to play peacefully on higher levels also means you miss out on most City State bonuses, which is a bigger problem for Tamar than most.

 

[KayAU]

While I appreciate the differing opinions and interesting strategies proposed here, I do still consider Georgia to be weak. Yes, I could make an effort to play to their potential strengths. However, I feel like I could still do better, playing as Georgia, by pretty much ignoring their abilities. In my last game, while I only played on King, I did completely dominate the game by employing standard strategies. I do not think there is much I could have done to improve my game by taking a more Georgia-specific approach.

I have now started a new game, playing as Iceland. That's right, I have had a look at Sukritact's workshop for more content, and left impressed. When we do at one point run out of official civs to put in the spotlight, how about going through the high quality mod civs?

 

[Eliminator_Sr]

Double envoys is huge. Not only is it a virtual guarantee of suzerainty and CS type bonuses, it also benefits from the policy of gold from envoys. Did you have anything else planned for that diplomacy slot in the mid game?

If you got them right off the bat then yes it would be good, but the requirements for getting them with Georgia are arguably more trouble than the benefit is worth.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

While I appreciate the differing opinions and interesting strategies proposed here, I do still consider Georgia to be weak.

I'm not sure anybody's really suggesting Georgia is anything but weak. The strongest argument for them on this thread so far, I think, was Lord Lakely's bold assertion that they're "mediocre".

I'd put them so far down the power chart I'd give them their own tier, as I can't think of any civ that's even comparable to them.

I still think they're a great addition to the game, though, and am glad that they're in Civ 6. I also wouldn't personally mess with their abilities, though I would like to see some underlying Civ 6 mechanics get rebalanced, which if done would help Georgia. And a starting Hill bias wouldn't be too much to ask for.

 

[liv]

I did manage to play Georgia "correctly" with a religious victory
I am not mastering the timing or anything since I usually do not play or religious wins but I won around turn 120 on a small pangea - standard everything else.
So if lucky enough to get to that initial golden age and string them together and using Exodus it kind of rocks! albeit luck has to be on you side.
I did play it peacefully, an attack would have been a bit of a bummer since all I built was holy sites and yes I had the harvest pantheon which obviously made a difference.
Still would not rank them high because there are a few things that has to fall into place for this to work

 

[Disgustipated]

But hey, at least Tamar has lighter skin. That's what's important. Yes, I'm making fun of how the biggest issue people had with the civ pre-release was the color of her skin. I know they did other work as well like make her walls cheaper, but that's pretty lame. And I respect other people's differing opinions on the quality of this civ, but I do consider them the worst by far. I do like that permanent Limes ability mentioned above (up until civil engineering- though they need to change Limes obsolescence to Steel).

 

[acluewithout]

I agree with @Trav'ling Canuck . Georgia probably don’t need a buff, but they’d benefit from some underlying mechanics getting tweaked or reworked.

Georgia certainly don’t need a buff to getting a religion. This idea comes up a lot for various Civs - eg Spain. The thing is, if you have a buff to using a religion, then you actually already have a buff to getting one. Getting a religion is about opportunity cost - you spend production getting a religion rather than building something else. If you have a bonus to using a religion, then the opportunity cost is lower, because you get more from having a religion.

If you give every Civ with a religious bonus a bonus to actually getting a religion, then it will throw out the game balance. Ever Civ that gets a bonus to getting a religion makes it harder for everyone else to get one. And worse, for someone playing that Civ, it kills one of the fun elements of the game - the race to found a relgion. It would also make Civs with other religious bonuses too powerful - now the opportunity cost is very low, because in addition to getting more from having a religion you also need to invest less to get it in the first place.

Georgia, like Spain, have religious abilities that work fine even if you don’t found your own religion. But I do think there is an issue with having religion based abilities but having not founded a religion. It’s not a balance issue, just a fun issue. The problem is twofold:

- first, it feels a bit random actually getting someone else’s religion. In truth, it’s really not. You can get a relgion spread to you through trade routes, and then use your own Missionaries or Apostles to spread it. But I think it might be better gameplay-wise if you could more overtly adopt a religion - maybe a project you run in one city once, and then that’s it. After that, you need to use trade and units to spread your adopted religion.

- second, you don’t feel like you get much ownership with other people’s religion. Part of the problem is that once all the religions are founded you can’t keep recruiting prophets, so Holy Sites feels a bit useless anyway and then more so when you don’t have your own religion. Holy Sites really need to keep allowing you to recruit great prophets all game, and have them be a bit like great merchants (ie useful non victory focused buffs). But more generally, you need some ability to invest in a foreign religion. Nothing major, but say maybe the ability to pick a belief that works with cities following your majority religion. Or maybe something to do with alliances. Nothing major - just something so you feel more invested.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

But I do think there is an issue with having religion based abilities but having not founded a religion. It’s not a balance issue, just a fun issue.

This is true.

Part of the problem is you don't get any positive feedback from the game when your city adopts a religion. Your city may have just gained a bonus (possibly losing another bonus at the same time, if it had a different majority religion previously). But you don't get any alerts about that bonus, and can't even really easily find out what bonus you're now getting without pulling up the special religion screen and cross referencing your new religion with that religion's beliefs. Finding a good religion that gives your cities a bonus you want and then spreading it would be a lot more fun if this aspect of the game received more visual representation.

The other thing you alluded to, Holy Sites, actually do provide a benefit all game long, regardless of whether you have a religion or not. Faith is, as others on this Board frequently point out, another currency that post R&F especially lets you buy a lot of useful things. It basically functions like Gold.

 

[acluewithout]

...Holy Sites... actually do provide a benefit all game long, regardless of whether you have a religion or not. Faith is, as others on this Board frequently point out, another currency that post R&F especially lets you buy a lot of useful things. It basically functions like Gold.

I agree to some extent. Even without your own relgion, Holy Sites are useful: they provide faith which is a very useful currency, and they are a district meaning they give adjacency bonuses to other districts and provide housing, culture etc based on policy cards. If you have a religion, they are of course even more useful and can even provide other yields such as culture.

The issue is just that all other districts (except aqueducts etc.) provide a yield and great people points all game, whereas Holy Sites really only provide a yield. I think that makes Holy Sites feel underwhelming compared to other districts when you don’t have your own religion. Having Holy Sites provide great people points all game would make them feel more useful in IMO, although I’m not sure they really need that buff from a strictly game balance POV.

I completely agree with your other point about UI. Very true.