[NFP] Commandante General Soooo Strong...

[Lily_Lancer]

They stack with Great Generals, making the Columbia Civilization totally imbalanced. 51-strength-7-movement horsemans, 63-strength-7-movement-knights, can upgrade and attack in the same turn.

Basically, with Commandante General, you gain

Pitati Archer -strength archer rush
+Roman Legion -strength swordman rush
+Mongol Horde -strength horseman/knight rush
+Janissary -strength musket
+Cossack-strength cavalry

I'd like to put Columbia as the best Civilization for all maps except archeological. The Commandante Generals need nerf, at least they shouldn't stack with Great Generals.

 

[criZp]

Archeological maps?

 

[knighterrant81]

I'd like to put Columbia as the best Civilization for all maps except archeological. The Commandante Generals need nerf, at least they shouldn't stack with Great Generals.

I wonder if they were just a replacement for regular Great Generals. They'd need some rebalancing, (maybe make them take less time to generate, or better retirement bonuses, stuff like that) but at least then you'd still have to invest into Encampments. Getting them for free at the start of each era is still pretty overpowered.

 

[Rajendran_P]

They stack with Great Generals, making the Columbia Civilization totally imbalanced. 51-strength-7-movement horsemans, 63-strength-7-movement-knights, can upgrade and attack in the same turn.

Basically, with Commandante General, you gain

Pitati Archer -strength archer rush
+Roman Legion -strength swordman rush
+Mongol Horde -strength horseman/knight rush
+Janissary -strength musket
+Cossack-strength cavalry

I'd like to put Columbia as the best Civilization for all maps except archeological. The Commandante Generals need nerf, at least they shouldn't stack with Great Generals.

Totally agree. Hope a mod will be generated by a modder to give this ability for any human civilization to generate Great General by ERA, giving the flexibility to customise to his/her preference.

 

[Sostratus]

I wonder if they were just a replacement for regular Great Generals. They'd need some rebalancing, (maybe make them take less time to generate, or better retirement bonuses, stuff like that) but at least then you'd still have to invest into Encampments. Getting them for free at the start of each era is still pretty overpowered.

This seems similar to how Toa (and Varu) ended up losing aura stacking. The fact the CG can boost ancient era units (no GG can do that) already make them very strong even without stack. I think they’ll take it away since it’s an identical effect.

I also think even with no stacking, either lock them out of GG altogether and get free CG each era, or make you earn them somehow (faith buy?)

As is the CG is superior to even the movement ability, because they give move and speed.

 

[The googles do nothing]

It's a civ for the large group of people who would only buy DLC if there is an S-Tier civ. It's a civ for the min-max'ers - the first decision you make is what civ to play pick the best one for domination.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

Yup. They absolutely put all other war-oriented Civs to shame. Cyrus' movement bonus
pales by comparison and pretty much ALL of their units are better than anyone else's unique. Their catapults can move onto a hill and fire in the same turn. Their ranged units can move onto a hill with trees/jungle and fire on the same turn. The movement gives all units the ability to retreat before they're killed. They have the freedom to move their settler and the fact that they get more goodies from exploration seems almost irrelevant even though both are substantial bonuses. This is power-inflation at work.

 

[NukeAJS]

Agreed. They definitely need the nerf stick.

I like that they can give bonuses to ancient era units. That's something unique and cool and they're obviously war-focused.

I'd add in restrictions to what era they can give their passive bonus to. I think the era that spawned them and the era before works well. If you're getting units from the next era, or two eras ahead, generals are most likely over-kill anyways.

Also, don't let their bonuses stack with normal GGs. That's too much. It would also give you a reason to get and use normal GGs if my idea of the current era+passed era CGs passive effect was applied.

More controversially, I think their general movement bonus needs to be applied only to civilization/religious/naval units. That movement bonus+the CGs is way, way too much. You're constantly at +4 movement with your slowest movements. That's as fast as the fastest units in the game until tanks ...

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Why do people always want to nerf Civs and take the fun out of them??

To me every Civ should be powerful in different ways, it's a much more enjoyable game that way.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Except Gran Colombia appear to be powerful in all ways

It would be better if they had to work for their bonus in some way. Add a condition underwhich their +1 movement toggles on or off and you have a much better designed civ.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

Why do people always want to nerf Civs and take the fun out of them??

To me every Civ should be powerful in different ways, it's a much more enjoyable game that way.

Why on earth did they remove the Harvest Pantheon???

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Except Gran Colombia appear to be powerful in all ways

Well their UU and UI come very late so that's not very impactful.

 

[Uberfrog]

Well their UU and UI come very late so that's not very impactful.

Yes, but with the +1 movement and upgrade+attack basically every unit they have is like a UU!

And the commandantes are there from the classical era...

 

[ezzlar]

Why do people always want to nerf Civs and take the fun out of them??

To me every Civ should be powerful in different ways, it's a much more enjoyable game that way.

It depends on how you define fun. I would prefer balanced strong. Overpowered strong just isn´t fun. It´s like playing on settler difficulty.

Let´s say that you get the first one in the industrial era and then onwards. That could be somewhat reasonable. Specially since late game bonuses aren´t worth as much.

 

[Deadly Dog]

Terribly fun to play (pangaea, immortal, epic speed), terribly broken. +1 movement to all melee and anti-cav would be enough. Still might take all the danger out of the ancient era.
Haven't reached haciendas or llaneros, but have the biggest empire I've ever secured in the classical era.

Gran Columbia needs a malus, like serious loyalty issues in cities without a garrison, or massive drains on gold (unit upkeep +1 gold all units), if we're to enjoy this crazy mobility. As for the CG's, well, seems kinda cheap that they just show up every era. There should be a requirement like conquering or liberating a foreign city.

Also noting that the -5 DF penalty for capturing Pasargadae has rightly halted growth of my influence in the WC, but not negated it entirely. Still accruing some favor by being nice and making promises to my neighbours. So very quickly am forced to decide if I want to go for a dom victory I will possibly suffer from some nasty resolutions, or if I want a DV have to make a u-turn on foreign policy. This has nothing to do with Gran Columbia of course but at least they won't suddenly become the best civ for DiploVictory as well as Domination

 

[Victoria]

Played them once getting a 58 strength 6MP swordsman was beyond silly. I felt embarrassed having Kabul but I guess it was not Akkad.

 

[The Highwayman]

Stacking generals was deemed too strong and taken out of the game years ago. Aaaaand now it's back.

 

[knighterrant81]

It's a civ for the large group of people who would only buy DLC if there is an S-Tier civ. It's a civ for the min-max'ers - the first decision you make is what civ to play pick the best one for domination.

As a dyed-in-the-wool min-maxer (well, sorta), I don't think I'll be playing them much or finishing my Gran Columbia playthrough. Sort of why I don't play Korea very often. Its too easy, and I can afford to be sloppy.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

Why do people always want to nerf Civs and take the fun out of them??

To me every Civ should be powerful in different ways, it's a much more enjoyable game that way.

I have wondered about the selective cries for civ nerfing. Why are some civs immune from the cries (Nubia for example) while others are not (Hungary, GC). I am not sure if it is more the multiplayer community calling for the nerfs (ala Souls series) or if some single players actually care about "balance."

You'd think people would want changes to civs because they are boring.

 

[UWHabs]

I have wondered about the selective cries for civ nerfing. Why are some civs immune from the cries (Nubia for example) while others are not (Hungary, GC). I am not sure if it is more the multiplayer community calling for the nerfs (ala Souls series) or if some single players actually care about "balance."

You'd think people would want changes to civs because they are boring.

Nubia being OP I think is mostly because their bonuses are actually fairly narrow in scope. Sure, murder archers make them completely dominate the field because archers are so strong early, but the rest of Nubia's bonuses are fairly minor.

The way I look at it a little bit is if you took away a portion of a civ's bonus, would that ability still be fun and useful. For example, with Hungary, if you removed their movement bonus and combat bonus from levied troops entirely, IMO they would still be a fun civ. I mean, being able to levy troops for half price, upgrade them for a pittance, all while gaining 2 envoys to the city-state in question alone makes them a unique and interesting civ, not to mention they also get 2 UU, a fairly strong bonus to districts and buildings depending on city placement, and a favorable starting bias (if you get lucky with geotherms and mountains, you can get some amazing campus spots).

So, I've just removed a strong part of Hungary's bonus, and sure, they may no longer be a truly top tier civ, but they're certainly still way stronger than an average civ. And I look at it a little bit the same way with GC. Honestly, remove their +1 global movement bonus and they're still one of the strongest war civs with guaranteed stacking GG. Or remove the stacking ability from CG/GG, and again, they're still crazy strong. Heck, you could probably completely disable them from being able to get GG (like the Maori or Kongo) and also remove the CG from giving any movement bonuses to units (just combat bonuses and retirement abilities), and they would *still* probably be one of the best warmonger civs out there.