The iron bonus is supposed to be reflective of steel in the industrial revolution, so it kind of is English, but the devs missed the boat on making Iron relevant at that point in the game. In a parallel world where the Devs were focused on depth rather than accessibility, we'd have high level resources like steel that require multiple resources to produce and we'd have the early 20th century units all made from steel and consuming oil to maintain and in this context the English iron bonus would make far more sense in context.
[GS] England is horrible now
- Thread starter Pietato
- Start date
The iron bonus is supposed to be reflective of steel in the industrial revolution, so it kind of is English, but the devs missed the boat on making Iron relevant at that point in the game. In a parallel world where the Devs were focused on depth rather than accessibility, we'd have high level resources like steel that require multiple resources to produce and we'd have the early 20th century units all made from steel and consuming oil to maintain and in this context the English iron bonus would make far more sense in context.
acluewithout
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 3,470
England is not really going to get better until the underlying mechanics England is leveraging get better.
England really leverages Colonialism, Coastal Cities (particularly around loyalty), Industrial Zones and IZ buildings, Tier 3 Buildings, Resources and Military Engineers. Thing is, none of these mechanics quite gel yet. So, you can tweak England as much as you want, but so long as these mechanics suck then England will suck.
I’ve posted elsewhere how FXS might better tweak these mechanics (see my signature and next patch suggestions). Fix these mechanics, and my guess England would still maybe need a bit of work, but England would be basically okay and the overall game would be better too.
VermelhoRed
Prince
Just add a bonus production to factories and power plants and you're set
Archon_Wing
Vote for me or die
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,255
Could literally give a production to workshops.
+50% bonus to production of workshops. Workshops give their yields to a 6 tile radius upon researching Mass Production. Districts with a powered building provide a 10% boost to the total yield of the corresponding district. (Eg, a powered research lab provides +10% science)
+50% bonus to production of workshops. Workshops give their yields to a 6 tile radius upon researching Mass Production. Districts with a powered building provide a 10% boost to the total yield of the corresponding district. (Eg, a powered research lab provides +10% science)
One idea for making costal cities better would be to give a amenities adjacency to cities and costal tiles, or 1/2 amenity per costal tile worked. The happyness bonus would put them close to on par with inland cities.
For England specifically maybe just give them the flat +4 bonus like Korea for Rndy. That would allow them more settling options and still take andvantage if there UD
For England specifically maybe just give them the flat +4 bonus like Korea for Rndy. That would allow them more settling options and still take andvantage if there UD
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
why? Not exactly historical, it is as bad as giving them free ships.
Last edited:
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
I don't know how people play, but, England with Victoria is not as bad as people think.
The dockyards are very interesting because you can buy lighthouses pretty cheap, plus the production cost of naval units is pretty hefty anyway.
And herein I think lies the mistake many people do - underappreciate naval power. There are other seafaring civs out there as well, and a good navy can conquer half the world, quite literally, you just need to plan your invasions well. 10 naval dockyards means 10 free heavy, maneuverable ranged units you didn't need to produce, just later upgrade.
Harbors are a powerful district - they provide food, production, unit production and income at the same time. They are not as good as specialized districts in this, obviously, but this doesn't really matter, because the harbor cuts down city investment return time (a new city with a market is not nearly as cost-efficient as a new city with a lighthouse). Also, shipyard production bonuses are way easier to get than industrial zones, and the policy card boosts both income and production.
On a small map (continents etc), you need like 4 redcoats, 2 artillery and naval power, naval power that Vicky gets basically for free.
TLDR: Try playing a continents map with Vicky for domination, focusing on harbors & naval power, and you'll see what I'm talking about
The dockyards are very interesting because you can buy lighthouses pretty cheap, plus the production cost of naval units is pretty hefty anyway.
And herein I think lies the mistake many people do - underappreciate naval power. There are other seafaring civs out there as well, and a good navy can conquer half the world, quite literally, you just need to plan your invasions well. 10 naval dockyards means 10 free heavy, maneuverable ranged units you didn't need to produce, just later upgrade.
Harbors are a powerful district - they provide food, production, unit production and income at the same time. They are not as good as specialized districts in this, obviously, but this doesn't really matter, because the harbor cuts down city investment return time (a new city with a market is not nearly as cost-efficient as a new city with a lighthouse). Also, shipyard production bonuses are way easier to get than industrial zones, and the policy card boosts both income and production.
On a small map (continents etc), you need like 4 redcoats, 2 artillery and naval power, naval power that Vicky gets basically for free.
TLDR: Try playing a continents map with Vicky for domination, focusing on harbors & naval power, and you'll see what I'm talking about
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
The mistake many people do is think it is about how strong or powerful the civ is. It is not. It is about how much fun you have playing it.
It is boring, play inland as a vanilla civ or on a wet dangerous coast spamming ships zzzz.
Oh look, I have 10 ships parked up doing nothing
Last edited:
Archon_Wing
Vote for me or die
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,255
The mistake is choosing England.
I mean Vanilla England was by no means a powerhouse, but it was fun. The constant ill will towards it for no real reason has my contempt.
I mean Vanilla England was by no means a powerhouse, but it was fun. The constant ill will towards it for no real reason has my contempt.
The problem here then is twofold:
- You want to play England in a way that it apparently isn't designed.
- You have an attachment to the faction that presumably predates Civ VI.
To take a fun (read as: unpopular) example, I liked exploration in Beyond Earth (specifically with the expansion) because it made sea exploration more worthwhile (and sea civilisations possible). I realise that's hardly the kind of thing Firaxis can do without an expansion, and so that wouldn't solve England for you in the short term (if something like that would even improve England for you at all). But Bibor made a valid counterargument, and your response was just "well i don't want to play England like that". Sure. So play another civ then! The only thing you seem to enjoy about them is that they're English!
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
Or do not play, which is where I am now.
Incorrect. I have said in many threads before I like playing them because they are not easy to play.The only thing you seem to enjoy about them is that they're English!
Pax Brittanica did not make them an OP civ is the standard game but it was a really different and interesting mechanic that sometime worked. They removed it rather that keeping tabs on if you had captured a city before and royally took most of the interest out of the civ.
If they did something like “England always starts on an island but gets ship building” that would make them different and quite challenging.
I like coastal civs and the navy, I used to sail tornadoes, I love the sea. The reason I have stopped playing is in fact hurricanes which royally trash a coastal city.
Dido is OP so I cannot play her sea wise, Gitjara and Kupe are similar. Harald is great to play and played a fair amount until I got trashed by hurricanes.
And yes I like England, so what, the world is full of different tastes, please do not mock mine, I do not mock yours.
... and I am a kiwi living in England so it’s not even like they are my home country.
But what really gets my goat is even when they said they buffed them they were nerfed. GS has really nerfed them and by nerf I mean removed the fun.
They were a crap civ that was fun to play, now they are a vanilla civ that gets free gifts.
Last edited:
Pietato
Platonic Perfection
The problem here then is twofold:
That's the way it looks to me. While I support anything that makes existing Civilisations better and more fun to play, you also have to recognise that if there is a way to play it and you personally don't like that, then some of that is on you. I mean, Firaxis could make the sweeping changes you want, I don't know. But to me, if a Civilisation is meant to play a certain way (and I agree exploring the sea isn't as fun as exploring land), and that way can be improved, then that's the approach to take. Otherwise you end up with five different peoples' suggestions on how to revamp England's bonuses like I've seen on this page of this thread alone.
- You want to play England in a way that it apparently isn't designed.
- You have an attachment to the faction that presumably predates Civ VI.
To take a fun (read as: unpopular) example, I liked exploration in Beyond Earth (specifically with the expansion) because it made sea exploration more worthwhile (and sea civilisations possible). I realise that's hardly the kind of thing Firaxis can do without an expansion, and so that wouldn't solve England for you in the short term (if something like that would even improve England for you at all). But Bibor made a valid counterargument, and your response was just "well i don't want to play England like that". Sure. So play another civ then! The only thing you seem to enjoy about them is that they're English!
All the rhetoric in the world is not going to stop England from sucking. And your 'made to play this way' argument is laughable, considering how often England is revamped.
local_hero
Prince
I think the bad map scripts and map types are a big part of why England and other naval civilisations are boring/have problems. Island plates and archipelago often create island chains and costal water so you can circumnavigate the world and reach all landmasses early. No race to celestial navigation needed to be the first to a new continent. Another problem is that islands in archipelago and island plates are too small and turns the odds heavily in favour to naval civs.
For example, I think naval civs would play a lot better and be more fun if you would reliably get unsettled continents and islands in the Continent map. As of now, getting Shipbuilding with Norway makes it quicker to get where you want to raid. But low to no incentive to build settlers and colonise another land mass. If there is another land mass, it's likely full of city states. If there isn't, you may get to settle the left over spots the AI has left on the other continent. Spain and England can do that more easily with their loyalty bonuses, but it isn't fun. I would play the naval civilisations a lot more often if I knew there were unsettled continents/islands across the sea.
For example, I think naval civs would play a lot better and be more fun if you would reliably get unsettled continents and islands in the Continent map. As of now, getting Shipbuilding with Norway makes it quicker to get where you want to raid. But low to no incentive to build settlers and colonise another land mass. If there is another land mass, it's likely full of city states. If there isn't, you may get to settle the left over spots the AI has left on the other continent. Spain and England can do that more easily with their loyalty bonuses, but it isn't fun. I would play the naval civilisations a lot more often if I knew there were unsettled continents/islands across the sea.
acluewithout
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 3,470
Completely agree maps are a big part of the problem.
The lack of colonization and naval actually hurts all Civs, by making the game much more boring overall. The game is clearly designed around a lot of colonization, colonial cities and naval play - but it just doesn't work.
The lack of colonization and naval actually hurts all Civs, by making the game much more boring overall. The game is clearly designed around a lot of colonization, colonial cities and naval play - but it just doesn't work.
Sure, don't play as well. Sorry, didn't want to force you into it, just presumed you still have an investment in the game. My bad!
That said, I'm absolutely not mocking anything. I'm trying to make you understand that you can't make a faction fun for everyone while basing analysis of it on what individual people like. You simply can't design games that way. The developers take their ideas, and sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't.
A classic example is removing something that makes a choice unique for the sake of them being better-balanced. It's not like you've stopped complaining about England, right? This is a long-running thing. You didn't like them when they were in your words "crap" (I'm saying that purely because I didn't play them enough to have an opinion compared to some of the others; I've always been a sucker for inland civs in general), and now you don't like them now that they're more balanced, because they're less "fun". That's the trade-off. Getting "fun" and "balanced" is a very tricky problem to solve!
Especially for your specific case, having such an affinity with sea-based civilisations. I sympathise with you, because it's easy for me as someone who likes inland civs, because they're easier to design well. But I also sympathise with Firaxis, because they have to do the civilisation justice at the end of the day.
Dismissing a post as "rhetoric" to avoid engaging in it is a neat tactic, but you managed to make a point regardless so I'll respond to that one
England has been redesigned, tweaked, and so on. Yup. But what you have to play now is what the designers have chosen for this iteration of the civilisation. Trying to play it a different way is never going to help the problem. If they were revamped to be an exact copy of the Shaka (let's say), playing them as a sea civilisation wouldn't work. The amount of iterations made isn't the point. It's trying to play them as something they're not designed to be, and complaining that that design doesn't hold up. Of course it doesn't.
Agreed on this at the very least. I'm not sure how much maps are specifically the problem, but more how it approaches colonisation, separating continents, and so on. Early naval play is pretty restrictive in my opinion, perhaps too restrictive.
I mean, as an ideas guy, this is what I'd want a big revamp to do: open up early naval across the civs. Rebalance naval-focused civs for either better early game advantages or better scaling into the lategame. Sea cities! Give them to me, hah. Iterate on some of the disasters, particularly ones that cross the sea (maybe add some more). Find a way to connect Loyalty (which I do like) with settling on far-off continents (which is the biggest blocker at the moment, even with Governers and ways to prop Loyalty up). Basically, open up a player's options. There's a lot in the game already that can be used (and has started to benefit naval exploration, like canals); the dots just need to be connected.
cvb
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2017
- Messages
- 446
Maybe you want have a look at 'PerfectWorld6' maps ... here is what the author writes about separated landmasses:
Foulweather
Warlord
Bring back British Museum and make it a Leader Ability for Victoria. Make Pax Britannica the Civilization Ability. Drop WotW.
Pietato
Platonic Perfection
They gave a better version to Sweden.
Foulweather
Warlord
Yeah I loved Sweden. Played them with Diplomacy Victory, and want to go back and see how well they do with Culture. Thinking pretty well.
Queen's Bibliotheque doesn't hold Artifacts, so there could be a room for Victoria to have a niche there. Automatic theming is vital in the British Museum because it'd be impossible to theme six slots. With Terracotta Army you could really monopolize the Artifact business globally. Perhaps letting only one Archaeologist collect all six Artifacts could also buff this. I didn't get around to playing Victoria before GS, so I didn't experience how effective British Museum was, and I'm sad it's gone.
As far as Pax Britannica goes, what if in addition to the free melee unit, it also gave 100% Loyalty to the first city on every continent for 30 turns (or so)? Would give England the ability to lay down random isolated cities in far-off lands where it might otherwise be impossible to colonize because of Loyalty problems. You then would have 30 turns to establish a foothold on the new continent or lose it to Loyalty flip/revolution.
Perhaps also change the RND's gold bonus to +1 for every continent England has a city on, to incentivize spreading out as much as possible (like Sweden's Open-Air Museum).
Last edited:
Similar threads
