dylansan
Warlord
I understand that many changes in Communitas are made for balance reasons - to make the game more fun, and to prevent civs from being too good or bad. Synergy is also important, and I can see a lot of work has gone into improving the synergy of each civilization's bonuses.
However, I must say that I'm a bit disappointed with the changes to Sweden and Ethiopia, because, although they may improve both synergy and balance (perhaps, I haven't tried them) and make things more fun, I can't find that the changes make much historical sense.
I thought the "Nobel Prize" ability was very interesting - I just finished a game as Sweden in the base game without mods, and it was in fact very entertaining. I had many friends early in the game, giving me plenty of great artists/writers/musicians, and then once my culture skyrocketed and ideologies got going, nearly everyone turned on me, giving me a use for my new shiny Caroleans.
My main concern is not the removal of this trait from Sweden, as I know there may be other, more interesting bonuses. However, I question the decision to tack on this bonus to Ethiopia's UA and pretend nothing has changed. The bonus is still called "Spirit of Adwa." What exactly does that have to do with great people, besides great generals? It just doesn't jive for me.
I do think Sweden's new UA could be interesting too, but I worry it makes Sweden into too much of a one-note warmonger that so many other civs were in the base game. I'm glad to see the science building replacing the useless Hakkapellitas, but I feel the Nobel Prize is such a Swedish feeling thing, I can't really get over it's loss.
What do you think? Personally, it feels wrong to play Ethiopia now knowing their bonus is really Sweden's Nobel Prize. Perhaps with some brainstorming, we could come up with an idea that is just as balanced and interesting as it currently (hopefully) is, but still feels right for the civilizations in question. Perhaps this kind of "feeling" has been ignored slightly in favor of balancing pure mechanics, but to me it's one of the most important things, and I'd like to see it improved.
However, I must say that I'm a bit disappointed with the changes to Sweden and Ethiopia, because, although they may improve both synergy and balance (perhaps, I haven't tried them) and make things more fun, I can't find that the changes make much historical sense.
I thought the "Nobel Prize" ability was very interesting - I just finished a game as Sweden in the base game without mods, and it was in fact very entertaining. I had many friends early in the game, giving me plenty of great artists/writers/musicians, and then once my culture skyrocketed and ideologies got going, nearly everyone turned on me, giving me a use for my new shiny Caroleans.
My main concern is not the removal of this trait from Sweden, as I know there may be other, more interesting bonuses. However, I question the decision to tack on this bonus to Ethiopia's UA and pretend nothing has changed. The bonus is still called "Spirit of Adwa." What exactly does that have to do with great people, besides great generals? It just doesn't jive for me.
I do think Sweden's new UA could be interesting too, but I worry it makes Sweden into too much of a one-note warmonger that so many other civs were in the base game. I'm glad to see the science building replacing the useless Hakkapellitas, but I feel the Nobel Prize is such a Swedish feeling thing, I can't really get over it's loss.
What do you think? Personally, it feels wrong to play Ethiopia now knowing their bonus is really Sweden's Nobel Prize. Perhaps with some brainstorming, we could come up with an idea that is just as balanced and interesting as it currently (hopefully) is, but still feels right for the civilizations in question. Perhaps this kind of "feeling" has been ignored slightly in favor of balancing pure mechanics, but to me it's one of the most important things, and I'd like to see it improved.