I am 100% opposed to hitting GC with a negative modifier because people are unhappy it is a very strong civ. I never hear calls to nerf the Civs we routinely vote for the best in our forum contests.
It’s less that it’s a strong Civ and more that it’s been given an extremely strong ability that is completely unchecked.
Even Korea, my poster child for two dimensional design, can’t build districts around her Seowons.
It just feels odd to have one of the most powerful abilities in the game without limitations, while other Civs have less impactful abilities with some chains on them (France and era specific wonders etc).
Not that I’m saying they SHOULD add something negative ( I honestly don’t know), but pick a lane and swim in it. Revisit some of the older Civs and given them a pass over and break some of those chains
Yes, it is a good Point that certain civs are given major bonuses without having to do much, if anything, while other civs have to work alot and often just for trinkets.
It is probably the civ ability (Ejército Patriota) that is the most troublesome. Perhaps it should be limited to the home continent. What's so patriotic about the world conquest? And to the land units only. I'm not sure if GC did many swift naval campaigns to justify that, so its naval and embarked units could use normal movement.
Or maybe it is worth to make it even more thematic? Get this movement bonus only during war, more specifically when in Liberation, Reconquest or Protectorate wars, if GC declared? And also when GC itself was attacked? Now they're just the biggest bully in the yard. Brand new light cav can pillage a district twice within a turn. And with only two promotions to Depredation, llaneros can pillage to the ground two adjacent districts with tier 2 buildings within a turn.
It’s less that it’s a strong Civ and more that it’s been given an extremely strong ability that is completely unchecked.
Even Korea, my poster child for two dimensional design, can’t build districts around her Seowons.
It just feels odd to have one of the most powerful abilities in the game without limitations, while other Civs have less impactful abilities with some chains on them (France and era specific wonders etc).
Not that I’m saying they SHOULD add something negative ( I honestly don’t know), but pick a lane and swim in it. Revisit some of the older Civs and given them a pass over and break some of those chains
Yes, it is a good Point that certain civs are given major bonuses without having to do much, if anything, while other civs have to work alot and often just for trinkets.
The reality is that a game like civ probably could never be perfectly balanced while also still being fun. And given that civ is a solo experience for most people and there's no competitive scene, there really isn't as much of a need to balance everything like in more multiplayer experiences.
It may even be that certain dlc/expansion civs are developed not to be balanced, but to offer players additional challenges or handicaps. Civs in V like the Huns and Venice I viewed as "hard mode" challenges for the player. The first NFP DLC seems a really good example of this as well, where one civ is designed to be a sort of "hard mode" civ (the Maya) for players who want a challenge, while the other seems like an "easy mode" civ (Colombia) for players who just want some easy validation.
The reality is that a game like civ probably could never be perfectly balanced while also still being fun. And given that civ is a solo experience for most people and there's no competitive scene, there really isn't as much of a need to balance everything like in more multiplayer experiences.
It may even be that certain dlc/expansion civs are developed not to be balanced, but to offer players additional challenges or handicaps. Civs in V like the Huns and Venice I viewed as "hard mode" challenges for the player. The first NFP DLC seems a really good example of this as well, where one civ is designed to be a sort of "hard mode" civ (the Maya) for players who want a challenge, while the other seems like an "easy mode" civ (Colombia) for players who just want some easy validation.
Yeah, I agree with that. (Though I personally don’t love it as there are certain Civilisations that are flat out weaker than contemporaries even though that Civilisation has contributed to the overall development of humankind)
However, I think the case of Gran Columbia it’s taken slightly too far.
I always remember the Phoenician livestream where the devs said that they considered giving Dido loyalty immunity to all of her coastal Civs, but didn’t like the unchecked nature of it, so they added the continent balance.
That design seems to have disappeared as +1 movement is most definitely stronger than colonial loyalty, and it has no checks or balances.
And that’s fine, if they apply the same philosophy to the current Civs. (Though I feel like it’s a blip, because the Maya are nothing but checks and balances).
In my mind, the Devs feel like domination is a harder victory type than it is because the domination Civs are where, I feel, they tend to overegg the pudding
I understand that, as a domination civ, the devs wouldn't want GC to be "vanilla" until the Industrial Age, when the UU and UI show up. Most of the post-classic era dom civs have a bit of a boost before their units come on line, from Shaka's earlier corps to Genghis getting +3 combat bonus immediately after starting a trade route, even in the ancient era. With GC, it's the Generals and their bonuses before they get to Llaneros.
Still, having an early unique , plus the extra movement for all units all the time, basically makes this an ancient/classical era domination civ in an Industrial Era skin. By the time Llaneros come into play, they're not even useful because they're not needed. GC is that powerful right now.
I disagree. I think stackable CG / Generals are fine.
It's the extra movement that's a bit lame and boring.
I think Gran Colombia desperately needs a negative modifier, but it's got to be something fun and which the player must work around.
E.g. (not for vanilla)
- CG and Generals stackable;
- Promotions do not end the turn;
- 1 CG spawns in Ancient Era when settling first city;
- CGs movement bonus also applies to civilian units;
- CGs and Generals stationed in cities provide +4 loyalty. CGs and Generals loyalty boost is stackable for a max of +8 loyalty.
Then you add a negative modifier, like:
- Governors have a base -2 loyalty instead of +8. (Or zero)
So the Civ's abilities revolve heavily around the Comandante General.
____
This would make it fun and powerful, but with limits on how much the player is able to snowball.
As a military junta, you'll need your Generals to fulfil governor duties along with its military duties. The more you stretch, the harder it will be to maintain several active front lines.
I kind of like that idea for moving the source of Gran Colombia's loyalty around, that seems like a fair nerf that requires you to think differently about how you can create loyalty in newly conquered cities. However, I still firmly stand by that the stackable CG and GG interaction needs to go. Firaxis already decided that sort of interaction shouldn't be in the game, and effectively getting +10 combat strength on a huge swath of units has essentially no counterplay. It's stupidly overpowered, even among how strong Gran Colombia's other bonuses are, and would be the first thing I would tackle in nerfing Gran Colombia.
I am 100% opposed to hitting GC with a negative modifier because people are unhappy it is a very strong civ. I never hear calls to nerf the Civs we routinely vote for the best in our forum contests.
I would say this is because it's probably better to buff weaker Civs than nerfing strong ones. Generally speaking, nerfs feel really bad, and buffs feel good. Nerfing can really kill the interactions between certain aspect of a Civ (or if we extend broadly here, any character in a video game) or just make them unfun to play. Whereas buffs, if done properly, expand the possibilities in a Civs toolkit. There's obviously a good number of Civs in the game that are very powerful, but few are in dire need of a nerf, and those that were in need of one got them (e.g. Scythia, Australia, Germany, Hungary). The Civs that are really good also, in my opinion, tend to be the most fun because they offer you the most gameplay options within Civ VI. We should focus on buffing the lower-tier Civs to make them have more options, thereby making them more fun.
All that said, Gran Colombia are obviously overpowered, which makes nerfing them a priority for the balancing team.
I mean if we were to look at long-standing southeast asian kingdoms, the big four would be Khmer, Vietnam, Siam, and the Burmese empires. Since Siam was more of an offshoot of Khmer and the two have generally been substituted for each other in civ, it seems most likely that we were looking at Vietnam and Burma as new civ candidates. Especially since both are more requested than other civs in the area, and both have appeared in comparable titles like AoE II.
Also, imo Burma just has more things facilitating simple civ design like a clear, unique icon and being renowned for spamming a particular unique building. I do think that there is still a slim chance we could see it if development continues past NFP, since it's less controversial than Tibet and more distinct than the Chola.
I mean if we were to look at long-standing southeast asian kingdoms, the big four would be Khmer, Vietnam, Siam, and the Burmese empires. Since Siam was more of an offshoot of Khmer and the two have generally been substituted for each other in civ, it seems most likely that we were looking at Vietnam and Burma as new civ candidates. Especially since both are more requested than other civs in the area, and both have appeared in comparable titles like AoE II.
Also, imo Burma just has more things facilitating simple civ design like a clear, unique icon and being renowned for spamming a particular unique building. I do think that there is still a slim chance we could see it if development continues past NFP, since it's less controversial than Tibet and more distinct than the Chola.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
