Civilization Request Thread

I got enough of people referring to specific things. Should I not have those design overflows, what would you say then? I know I asked feedback, but you only talked about overflows. You could have said what you think about the design as a whole...

I presume you are talking about design flaws? I have no idea what overflow could mean here. Regardless, you asked for feedback and I merely pointed out what was wrong. What would I talk about if not that?
 
Your opinion about what's not wrong?
 
Natan it seems that youre not looking for feedback so much as just praise. Constructive criticism is easily the most important part of any feedback process - people will comment that it looks good once you fix the problems they point out.
 
And why would I talk about what is not wrong, if it is not wrong?!?!?

Spoiler :

Because that doesn't necessarily make what's unspoken of right. Perhaps Natan wants to know the kind of direction he should be going in.

Besides, calling everything a "design flaw" is coming off very strongly. What you call a design flaw could very well be an oversight on Natan's part.
 
Besides, calling everything a "design flaw" is coming off very strongly. What you call a design flaw could very well be an oversight on Natan's part.
I intended for it to come strongly since those were indeed very major design flaws in a design, being oversights notwithstanding.
 
Natan fear not I'll post some feedback when I'm back from work.
 
Natan it seems that youre not looking for feedback so much as just praise. Constructive criticism is easily the most important part of any feedback process - people will comment that it looks good once you fix the problems they point out.

no- im not looking for praise. im looking(\would like to know) the opinion of people(other then me)(walrus is still walrus) on my design. calling something "a flaw" isn't very constructive as my lord his modkesty pointed out. I need to thank Tarcisio though, he is the only one who actually looked at it.

for the record: i did intend to change it, but i forgot(i had a diffrent idea at the start). if it looks OP, then its because it represnting an OP leader.

also: work? yay! more civilization splits!
 
calling something "a flaw" isn't very constructive as my lord his modkesty pointed out.

Hey, I've explained why I think those 3 topics were wrong. Not being constructive would be saying that I disliked it and nothing more.
 
no- im not looking for praise. im looking(\would like to know) the opinion of people(other then me)(walrus is still walrus) on my design. calling something "a flaw" isn't very constructive as my lord his modkesty pointed out. I need to thank Tarcisio though, he is the only one who actually looked at it.

I just pointed out that it was a bit pointed (lel), not that it wasn't accurate or constructive.
 
no- im not looking for praise. im looking(\would like to know) the opinion of people(other then me)(walrus is still walrus) on my design. calling something "a flaw" isn't very constructive as my lord his modkesty pointed out. I need to thank Tarcisio though, he is the only one who actually looked at it.

for the record: i did intend to change it, but i forgot(i had a diffrent idea at the start). if it looks OP, then its because it represnting an OP leader.

also: work? yay! more civilization splits!

Not that work, Natan. That doesn't pay the bills.

Osman I - instead of a Ghazi Warrior from captured cities, go with "an era appropriate Infantry Unit", meaning the Warrior upgrade path - this means that the UA never obsoletes. Also, to fit better with the Civ, go with "cities following your religion provide +10 XP to units made in them" or something.

Mehammed II - remove the "can only fire if it hasn't moved", but lower its movement to 1 - and increase the city damage bonus.
 
Not that work, Natan. That doesn't pay the bills.

Osman I - instead of a Ghazi Warrior from captured cities, go with "an era appropriate Infantry Unit", meaning the Warrior upgrade path - this means that the UA never obsoletes. Also, to fit better with the Civ, go with "cities following your religion provide +10 XP to units made in them" or something.

Mehammed II - remove the "can only fire if it hasn't moved", but lower its movement to 1 - and increase the city damage bonus.

i was about to go with receive a free ghazi warrior each time you conquer a city(as long as the unit can be produced\until the industrial era)
 
Emergence of The Ottomans
Conquering a city provides points towards a great general, and grants you a free Ghazi warrior. each city following your religion increases growth and great people genration in conquered cities by 5%.
I quite like the first part of the UA here, it works historically and would definitely incentivise big conquests. Though, like others have pointed out, it should be generalised to an era specific melee unit. The second half is a tad weird if I'm honest, both thematically and historically. Historically, most of the regions which Osman conquered around the Aegean and straight of Marmara would stay Orthodox for quite some time after his conquests and forced conversion isn't really documented in his reign. So if the angle here is 'conquer and convert for bonuses' it doesn't work historically. Equally, if the angle is 'Go wide and religious for max buffs' that also doesn't work, given Osmans little khanate was barely the size of London. The first bit works because it doesn't require you to have a big empire to be a strong warmonger - just like Osman, however the second bit doesn't. Furthermore, additional GP generation and growth is an odd bonus for an obviously war-focussed civ. Surely it should be something like gold, experience or production?

Ghazi Warrior
replaces Longswordsman. has lower strength(18 ). has a bonus against cities(33%). per each city following your religion, the Ghazi heals 1 HP per turn (up to 10 HP),and gets 2 faith from pillaging tiles(up to 20).
I love this, though I think its overpowered. I'd get rid of either the bonus against cities or the additional healing. That said its still very nice.

Timariot
replaces knight. the Timariot is weaker then the knight(18 ), but starts with the Shock I promotion. it has a bonus in friendly territory(25%), and is cheaper then the knight. upgrades to the lancer.
Cheaper but weaker is a really odd bonus for a unit which is supposed to represent the political elite of the Ottoman Khanate. Furthermore, the bonus in friendly territory makes no sense given the overall theme of the civ so far has been offensive war.

UA: The Conqueror
Each ranged unit adjacent to a city reduces its yields and its defensive strength by 5%(and siege units by 10%). ranaged Ranged units have a 33% bonus against naval units. after reaserching researching the required technologies, receive gunpowder for free.
This UA is a tad cluttered, though of course thats just my personal vendetta against 3 sentence UAs coming through again. I love the first part - really works in representing Mehmet as a master of siege. If anything I think the bonus could be upped a little bit. Its fairly rare to have siege units adjacent to a city anyway, if it can be helped, so an extra boost wouldn't go amiss. I'm not sure how useful the second bit would be, nor do I think its very thematic given it cuts out the navy, which was historically pretty strong in the Ottoman Empire. Furthermore, though the gunpowder thing might make sense gameplay wise - historically the Ottomans didn't adopt gunpowder any sooner than the Europeans, they just used it a lot better. A bonus to siege units would make more sense than early access.

UU: Great Bombard
replaces cannon. unlike the cannon which it replaces, the great bombard has a smaller bonus vs. cities(150%), and does not need to set up to fire (but may only fire if it hadn't moved in the same turn). has 28 ranged strength, and 11 defensive strength.
Must be harsh here; I don't like this at all. It just doesn't make sense to me - the Great Bombard was famous for being this enormous unwieldy behemoth that took dozens of people to move and could only fire a few times a day lest it overheat, but packed a hell of a punch. So the bonuses you've selected make it weaker against cities, stronger against infantry (These cannons were never used against infantry) and faster? Weird. Furthermore, the extra movement point thing means nothing in real terms, as has been pointed out.

UU: Humbaracı
Replaces crossbowman. unlocked at gunpowder, and has a higher production cost. may only attack adjacent units. however, the Humbaraci is stronger then the crossbowman(15 , 22 ). it also boosts the strength of adjacent gunpowder units by 15%, and has the volley promotion.
I like the idea here, but honestly I can't shake the feeling that this is a huge step down from regular crossbowmen. The reason people spam crossbowmen in civ is because they are ranged, therefore infinitely better, so it seems odd to get rid of this bonus. Other than that I like it.

UA: Community of the Talented
engineer and scientist specialists increase culture and faith by 5%. after the respective guilds have been built, the palace will contain cultural specialist slots. world wonders provide double GP points.
I like it, though I'm not sure how well the flat percentage increase will work, could be overpowered if you snag enough specialist buildings or wonders. A yield from specialists like say +2 faith and +2 culture might be easier. I love the palace thing - really captures the intricacy of the Ottoman court. I don't like the third bit just because it clutters up the UA and seems odd given how few of the actual ingame wonders Suleiman built. (Count: 0)

UB: Medrese
replaces university. Has one extra scientist specialist slots, and increases the yields of all science buildings and specialists by 1 faith.
Love this.

UU: Barbary Corsair
replaces privateer. has a combat bonus in coastal areas(20%), and starts with the Boarding Party I promotion.
I like it, but I'd rather it just get the 'capturing ships' thing from the vanilla UA. Personally I feel that splits should try to take as much from the original civ as possible.

Further thoughts:

Ottomans without Janissaries is just odd - should really be worked into one of them.

No civ with anything about religious tolerance is very strange - its one of the most important parts of Ottoman history if you ask me. (But then I'd say so, having written like 12,000 words on the subject a month or so ago!)

Hope this is more what you were looking for bro!
 
>Ottoman
>Religious Tolerance
>"Armenian Genocide not real, but we're proud of it"
 
Suleiman the magnificent died in 1566, the Armenian genocide was in 1915. I wasn't asking for a religious-tolerance focussed Young Turks civ was I? Neither Osman, nor Suleiman, nor Mehmet were related to the Armenian Genocide and were famously tolerant of other religions.

Irrelevant point is irrelevant
 
It was a joke. As you can see, I have a screwed up sense of humor (seriously, my favorite joke is: The pessimist sees the last light of his life, the optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel, the realist sees a train speeding in his direction. The machinist sees three morons sitting on the train track.).
 
Mneh I usually have a fairly dry and dark sense of humour (I'm fairly sure thats coded for somewhere in the British genome) its just that spending months slaving away at a dissertation about religious tolerance in the Ottoman Empire kind of sucks the humour out of it forever :lol:
 
I quite like the first part of the UA here, it works historically and would definitely incentivise big conquests. Though, like others have pointed out, it should be generalised to an era specific melee unit. The second half is a tad weird if I'm honest, both thematically and historically. Historically, most of the regions which Osman conquered around the Aegean and straight of Marmara would stay Orthodox for quite some time after his conquests and forced conversion isn't really documented in his reign. So if the angle here is 'conquer and convert for bonuses' it doesn't work historically. Equally, if the angle is 'Go wide and religious for max buffs' that also doesn't work, given Osmans little khanate was barely the size of London. The first bit works because it doesn't require you to have a big empire to be a strong warmonger - just like Osman, however the second bit doesn't. Furthermore, additional GP generation and growth is an odd bonus for an obviously war-focussed civ. Surely it should be something like gold, experience or production?



I love this, though I think its overpowered. I'd get rid of either the bonus against cities or the additional healing. That said its still very nice.


Cheaper but weaker is a really odd bonus for a unit which is supposed to represent the political elite of the Ottoman Khanate. Furthermore, the bonus in friendly territory makes no sense given the overall theme of the civ so far has been offensive war.


This UA is a tad cluttered, though of course thats just my personal vendetta against 3 sentence UAs coming through again. I love the first part - really works in representing Mehmet as a master of siege. If anything I think the bonus could be upped a little bit. Its fairly rare to have siege units adjacent to a city anyway, if it can be helped, so an extra boost wouldn't go amiss. I'm not sure how useful the second bit would be, nor do I think its very thematic given it cuts out the navy, which was historically pretty strong in the Ottoman Empire. Furthermore, though the gunpowder thing might make sense gameplay wise - historically the Ottomans didn't adopt gunpowder any sooner than the Europeans, they just used it a lot better. A bonus to siege units would make more sense than early access.


Must be harsh here; I don't like this at all. It just doesn't make sense to me - the Great Bombard was famous for being this enormous unwieldy behemoth that took dozens of people to move and could only fire a few times a day lest it overheat, but packed a hell of a punch. So the bonuses you've selected make it weaker against cities, stronger against infantry (These cannons were never used against infantry) and faster? Weird. Furthermore, the extra movement point thing means nothing in real terms, as has been pointed out.


I like the idea here, but honestly I can't shake the feeling that this is a huge step down from regular crossbowmen. The reason people spam crossbowmen in civ is because they are ranged, therefore infinitely better, so it seems odd to get rid of this bonus. Other than that I like it.


I like it, though I'm not sure how well the flat percentage increase will work, could be overpowered if you snag enough specialist buildings or wonders. A yield from specialists like say +2 faith and +2 culture might be easier. I love the palace thing - really captures the intricacy of the Ottoman court. I don't like the third bit just because it clutters up the UA and seems odd given how few of the actual ingame wonders Suleiman built. (Count: 0)


Love this.


I like it, but I'd rather it just get the 'capturing ships' thing from the vanilla UA. Personally I feel that splits should try to take as much from the original civ as possible.

Further thoughts:

Ottomans without Janissaries is just odd - should really be worked into one of them.

No civ with anything about religious tolerance is very strange - its one of the most important parts of Ottoman history if you ask me. (But then I'd say so, having written like 12,000 words on the subject a month or so ago!)

Hope this is more what you were looking for bro!

my ottoman split(not turkey, ottoman. :p):

Osman I
Spoiler :
UA: Emergence of The Ottomans
:c5occupied: conquering a city provides points towards a :c5greatperson: great general, and grants you a free Ghazi warrior(if steel has been researched, or more advanced unit with the same attributes). cities that don't follow your :c5faith: religion do not reduce piety nor produce religious pressure.

UU: Ghazi Warrior
replaces Longswordsman. has lower strength(18 :c5strength:). has a bonus against cities(33%). per each city following your religion,the Ghazi gets 2 :c5faith: faith from pillaging tiles(up to 20).

UU: Turkoman Cavalry
replaces knight. the Timariot is weaker then the knight(18 :c5strength:), but starts with the Shock I promotion. it has a bonus in friendly territory(25%), and is cheaper then the knight. upgrades to the lancer.


Mehamed II
Spoiler :
UA: The Conqueror
each ranged unit adjacent to a city reduces its yields and its :c5strength: defensive strength by 5%(and siege units by 10%). :c5rangedstrength: ranaged units have a 33% bonus against naval units. after reaserching the required technologies, receive gunpowder for free.

UU: Great Bombard
replaces cannon. unlike the cannon which it replaces, the great bombard has a larger bonus vs. cities(250%), and does not need to set up to fire(but may only fire if it hadn't moved in the same turn). has 28 :c5rangedstrength: ranged strength, and 10 :c5strength: defensive strength.

UU: Humbaracı
Replaces crossbowman. unlocked at gunpowder, and has a higher production cost. may only attack adjacent units. however, the Humbaraci is stronger then the crossbowman(15 :c5strength:, 22 :c5rangedstrength:). it also boosts the strength of adjacent gunpowder units by 15%, and has the volley promotion. in addition, if attacking a city with garrison, the garrison is damaged as if he was attacked by rthe unit. terrain modifiers aren't effective against the unit.


Suleiman the Magnificent
Spoiler :
UA: Community of the Talented
:c5production: engineer specialists increase :c5culture: culture and :c5science: scientist specialists increase :c5faith: faith by 5%. after the respective guilds have been built, the palace will contain :c5culture: cultural specialist slots. wonders provide double :c5greatperson: GP points.

UB: Medrese
replaces university. has one exra :c5science: scientist specialist slots, and increases the yields of all :c5science: science buildings and specialists by 1 :c5faith: faith.

UU: Barbary Corsair
replaces privateer. has a :c5strength: combat bonus in coastal areas(20%), and starts with the Boarding Party I promotion.


Alternate Elements
Spoiler :
UA: Wars of the Sultantes
Naval units heal each turn in friendly territory(10 HP, even if performing action). if a CS\ a civilization you were allied with are eliminated, you assume control of their remaining units. all naval units start with the prize ships promotion.

UA: Barbary Corasirs
all naval units start with the same promotions as a privateer. Naval units are built 33% faster at the capital, and produce more great admiral points in combat based on their distance from it.

UB: Foundry
replaces forge. unlike the forge, the foundry increases the :c5production: production of siege units(instead of melee units) by 25%. all siege and melee units produced in this city will receive 10 XP.

UU: Siphai
replaces lancer. slightly stronger(28 :c5strength:), and have 1 extra :c5moves: movement and sight. cost more to :c5production: produce.

UU: Janissary
Replaces musketman. slightly stronger(26 :c5strength:), and has a combat bonus based on its distance from the capital.


feedback please! took some time(to type, not to find :lol:).
(dat icon limit again)

works now?
 
I dunno - there are still a few things which I pointed out that you haven't changed at all. Removing the Timariot means the uniques work a bit but it seems odd given the Timariot was so important - and the friendly lands bonus still makes no sense. The second half of Osmans UA doesn't really mean anything unless you're using P&P.

The only thing you changed in Mehmet is the Cannons bonus against cities, but you kept the completely redundant movement cost thing. The UA is still cluttered, the gunpowder thing still doesn't work historically and the second bonus makes no sense.

Suleimans UA is still cluttered.
 
Top Bottom