How would a Community Balance Patch for Civ VI look?

[rattatatouille]

I know it might be too early to think of one (what with at least one more expansion guaranteed to further overhaul the game mechanics, as well as DLC civs), but what things would you like to see in a rebalancing of the game?

Some thoughts to consider:

1. Pikemen cost 200 Production for a 41 Strength, 2 Move unit while Knights cost 180 Production for a 48 Strength, 4 Move unit (albeit one that requires Iron). This simply doesn't make any sense.
2. Civilizations like Spain have a theoretical niche (combining conventional and religious combat, better loyalty and trade routes on overseas cities) yet have a hard time establishing themselves due to a weak early game.
3. The tech tree isn't designed realistically; it's still very possible to jump three tech eras by researching three techs total (Sailing, Shipbuilding, Cartography). Even with the nerfs to science in R&F like reduced Eurekas and scaling tech costs, you still have Civs like Korea which just bust through the high tech costs anyway.
4. Unit progression still has a fair amount of gaps; ideally you want a gap of one era at most between unit upgrades (Medieval knights waiting two eras to turn into tanks is weird).

So what other things (other than the obvious like the AI) would you like to see in a community patch?

 

[acluewithout]

1. Agreed. Weird. I think lower the cost of Pikes. I also think a good nerf to Heavy Cav would be this: make it so policy cards don't make them cheaper to produce or to upgrade. So, if you want heavy cav, you always have to pay full price.

2. There are some Civs that need some relatively minor tweaks. Specifically:

* England should get +2 Trade Routes when they research Mercantilism - think of it like them getting the bonus you used to get at Mercant Republic.

* Norway should get a Pantheon early - perhaps by giving their capital some inherent faith or giving them +X faith every time they improve a sea resource. Also, Norway's Bezerks shouldn't get such a large negative to defence.

* I think Spain are fine. But, if they were going to be buffed, I'd change the LA "El Escorial" to include an improved holy prayers project or additional faith if your holy site is adjacent to your capital.

3. and 4. I'm okay with the tech tree and unit gaps.

Other tweaks?

5. I'd like Samurai to count as Heavy Cav.

6. If the spearman line was buffed, I'd just make it that they don't get a negative to melee when fortified.

7. I think Walls are still a bit weak (unless you're doing production overflow tricks). I'd make walls always give housing - or maybe give housing after some civic was researched (eg guilds) - not just at Monarchy. Monarchy would instead give loyalty for each wall level, making it perhaps the go to government for dark ages. (But, I can see how that might also be the worst idea ever...)

8. I don't have a problem with Military Tactics being where it is and a leaf tech; but I think it would benefit from having some other value beyond pikemen and a random wonder. Like, maybe you get Support Bonuses at Military Tactics instead of at Military Tradition?

9. Make Rams slightly less effective (although, perhaps not when used by the AI... it already has enough problems).

10. Give Military Engineers one extra charge.

[Edit: my terrible spelling; additional comments; some highlighting for clarity.]

 

[rattatatouille]

Here's what I'd do with Spain: Emphasize the militaristic proselytization bit.

Philip's LA could get an addendum of gaining Great Prophet points from kills, so while you're busting barbarians all around you're getting a head start on founding a religion (Greece has a better chance of founding a religion, frex)

 

[acluewithout]

That's an interesting suggestion, although there are already a few civs that get the 'bonuses from kills' mechanic.

The thing is though, I'm not sure a religious civ like Spain necessarily needs a bonus to getting a great prophet (although I appreciate my 'improved holy prayers' suggestion would help with founding a religion).

There are a lot of civs where the main criticism seems to be 'it's a religious focused civ, but it doesn't get a bonus to earning great prophet points, and so that civ is not great'. But I'm not sure that's right.

1. For some 'religious' civs, I think the point is that you're forced to focus on founding a religion, and the opportunity cost of doing that is baked into that civ's balance.

2. Equally, for some 'religious' civs, their religious bonuses are useful enough that founding a religion isn't actually necessary.

3. If every 'religious' civ had a bonus to founding a religion, that would basically exclude non-religious civs getting one.

I think Spain (and Norway for that matter) might fall into either 1 or 2. If those Civs are weak, I don't think it's because they can't found a religion easily, but instead because they are just weak overall.

To my mind, the real problem with Spain is Treasure Fleets. I think the early fleets and armadas thing is tricky to get much benefit from, when really you can smash the AI with just a couple of regular frigates. And settling on a foreign continent always seems like a hassle with little inherent benefit save for access to (maybe) more luxes and strategic resources.

Another suggestion: maybe El Escorial could give both Missionaries and Inquisitors an extra charge?

 

[dunkleosteus]

Personally, I would always try to lean towards ****realism**** (trying to use that word carefully), but not for its own sake. There are things mentioned in the OP that seem pretty bad: pikes are more expensive than knights etc., but for me I notice other things. If you're like me and you find learning about history really interesting, and things like ancient and medieval warfare, politics, blah blah blah, you'll notice that civ contains a lot of interesting references to history. We all know this, right? Pikes aren't a made up thing, they were a real weapon. Knights really existed. So did monarchies, merchant republics, etc. But the way you use these things in the game doesn't really reflect what they were. Some of these things seem to superficially make sense, like that pikes might be effective against cavalry units but there are other things that don't make sense: Rome was an abnormality when they equipped their frontline infantry with swords as their primary weapon. Spears were by far the most popular choice of weapon in the ancient world, and not because they were effective anti-cavalry solutions. Spears were the choice weapons for infantry units throughout most of history. It may make sense that a big pointy stick would be effective against a horse, but not really any more so than a sword would be: mounted units don't wait around for you to walk up and stab their horses. They easily evade you on any advance you make. The only time you can physically stab a horse is when the cavalry charges at you. The problem with that solution though is that a horse is a very large animal. If you're standing at the front of a line of men with a spear and that horse is charging you, then yes, your weapon will kill the horse. Then you only have to worry about 1000 lb of dead horse slamming into you at three times the speed a man can run. Horses were the fastest possible form of transport. They were big. They were scary. Being at the front, with guys on either side and behind you, being charged by a huge animal was enough to make most men run. And they often did. Cavalry charges break up an infantry line. When the formation weakens, they push through and kill anyone they can reach from the saddle. If the line doesn't break, they peel off and come back around. There is no point that a cavalry unit would actually run their horses directly into a wall of spears. You just don't do it. So when I say that swords are just as effective at defending against cavalry, that's because they'll still kill the animal, but the animal will still kill you. You'll just never get close enough to a horse to hit it unless its charging you.

Also, swords are not effective against spears, not in a military setting. In single combat, you could try to evade the spear thrusts and get inside their reach and make quick work of the enemy, but this isn't possible in a battle. The guy in front of you has a spear and so do the people on either side of him and of them. Getting inside the reach of a single spear results in a quick death from his friends. Swords were used as the back up weapon in the middle ages. After your spear, pike or halberd, etc. was lost, you would pull out your sword. (You certainly weren't going to bend down and try to pick up your spear). The idea that anti-cavalry units are weak to sword units is just not true.

So yeah, I understand why these things are set up this way - it's for gameplay purposes. They wanted swords to counter spears and spears to counter horses, but that's just not really how these things worked. Horses pressured the enemy. They broke morale or defensive lines, they were mobile and could control the movement of the enemy but they weren't your primary offense, at least not if they're a melee unit. Mounted archers are viable, but they too would never get close enough to the enemy to get stabbed.

 

[Phrozen]

The usual pre gunpowder battlefield rock paper scissors was this:

Spears (packed infantry) > cavalry
Cavalry > missile troops
Missile troops> spears

Then you had skirmishers who were good against missile troops and could harass spears.
Heavy infantry which could user armor and formation to take on spears and missile troops but were rather weak to cavalry.

 

[dunkleosteus]

The usual pre gunpowder battlefield rock paper scissors was this:

Spears (packed infantry) > cavalry
Cavalry > missile troops
Missile troops> spears

Then you had skirmishers who were good against missile troops and could harass spears.
Heavy infantry which could user armor and formation to take on spears and missile troops but were rather weak to cavalry.

That's not how it works. Spears are not terribly effective against cavalry, as I mentioned. Cavalry never sits around waiting to get stabbed and you wouldn't (and probably couldn't convince your horse to) charge directly into the enemy formation unless they broke ranks. Cavalry is for controlling the enemy and scaring them (at least when your cavalry are armed with melee weapons). Mounted cavalry with ranged weapons have no weakness to spear wielding units: they can constantly out pace and out maneuver the infantry while shooting them down.

Pikemen were actually very weak to siege weapons and arrows as they didn't wear the heavy armor that a knight or man at arms might. Missile attacks were not as effective against dismounted knights or men at arms in heavy suits of armor (which is one of the primary things armor was for). There are recounts from knights in the 15th century: you would be hit with 20 or 30 arrows per minute, each one like a punch in the chest as you pressed forward towards the enemy (I think that particular anecdote was from a Frenchman at Agincourt). Any one of those arrows would have killed a less-armored infantry man.

The other reason why pikes aren't terribly effective against knights is that if a knight dismounts, his armor is still very effective against attacks. Piercing weapons are definitely the weapon you want to use when fighting a man in heavy armor because the few weak points in his armor around the joints will be easiest stabbed, but that doesn't make the job easy. Armor is not nearly as encumbering as some think it is. It allowed for a high degree of freedom of movement and an armored man on foot was not an easy opponent.

One of the reasons that the feudal system ended (although there are many) was the introduction of firearms: early guns were not accurate but required months of training to be effective with rather than the years it would take to build up precision and strength with the powerful warbows used. Guns were extremely dangerous to knights because direct hits were often strong enough to pierce thinner areas of armor (later armors had to come with a proof mark that showed the armor had been tested against a firearm). The ability for a common man to kill a knight turned the social structure on its head. Until this point, knights were given such power and wealth because they would swear fealty to a lord, duke, or other noble. That noble would swear fealty to the King and the knights would fight in battles for the king. This system functioned because knights were incredibly tough opponents. There wasn't a hard counter to them until the musket was invented. Now that a knight could be defeated by a peasant, their value decreased drastically.

 

[Phrozen]

Yes, spears or really pole arms in general prevented cavalry from going somewhere or attacking. Preventing a enemy from attacking or able to take ground is winning as the objective of a battle is not kill as many of the enemy as possible but to rout them. One of the reasons knights were so effective in the middle ages was that for the most part the spear troops were not professional well drilled soldiers but levied peasants. Once you got professional well drilled soldiers the effectiveness of the knight as a mounted fighter waned and you started to see knights go to battle dismounted turning into heavy infantry with polearms as weapons.

Gunpowder was making the knight obsolete but armies professionalizing was also a factor. Since the knight was there due to feudal obligation they were harder to command and control because to make it profitable for them to go to war they needed to capture enemies to ransom leading them to do things that were not tactically sound. Paid mercenaries however were more apt to listen to you and follow orders as they are getting paid anyway. Hence the rise of scutage taxes and fees.

 

[acluewithout]

The more I think about it, I don't think R&F is crying out for massive changes. It feels like it just needs a few tweaks here and there.

In addition to the points above, I have a few other random thoughts:

- Pike & Shot. Should muskets and pike & shot be flipped, so P&S comes at gun powder, and muskets comes at metal casings? That would mean a huge gap until you go a melee upgrade, but I think I kinda like that.

- Renaissance Upgrade for Knights. I'm really not sure there should be another heavy cav unit... but if there was, perhaps it could be done like this: (i) the 'Cavalry' unit at Military Science becomes a Heavy Cav unit. The resource for this unit is Niter. (ii) A new unit is created called a 'Lancer'. This is also available at Military Science, and is a Light Cav upgrade. It would require horses. (iii) in terms of balance, Cavalry is 1 or 2 points stronger than a Lancer, but is significantly more expensive.

- Colosseum. Perhaps the Colosseum should only give culture and amenities, not loyalty? I get that the real Colosseum was used by the Romans to boost loyalty: but I think that idea is already captured by the bread and circuses project, and the fact the Colosseum gives amenities which in turn do boost loyalty.

- Stonehenge. I think Stonehenge shouldn't give a free great prophet, but instead give some great prophet points, and then additional faith for every monument in your empire. (I started another thread about this elsewhere.)

- Eurekas. Do any eurekas need to be tweaked? I wonder if, even at just higher difficulties, some of the eurekas should be a little tougher to get. Like, maybe you should have to build two quarries to get the Masonry boost?

- Coastal cities. Should coastal cities get a tiny buff? I thought maybe the Lighthouse could give another +2 gold if there is a city center adjacent to your harbor. I think anything more than that would be too strong.

- City states. I think City States should get free walls, and get a +melee attack to all units fighting within their territory. They might also need a small loyalty boost.

- AI and Loyalty. Do the AI need loyalty boosts in their capitals to avoid having their capitals flipped? Should it be a constant bonus, or maybe just after a certain era or tech is reached (e.g. Industrial era, or Nationalism)?

- Other civ changes / buffs.

--> I think Egypt's 'Monumentality' UA should give them +2 culture for having a monument regardless of loyalty (instead of +1, and +2 if loyalty is 100), or a free monument in their capital (sort of like a cut down version of Trajan's Column), in addition to the UA's existing boosts.

--> I'm not sure the Cree need any boosts, but I think I'd like them better if they started with a scout unit (in addition to their starting warrior), and instead of getting a free trader at Pottery, they got a 5% discount to building traders (the Cree would still get +1 trade route at pottery). (I've posted about this in another thread somewhere.)

--> I think the Khmer should get a small discount to building Aqueducts. They could also maybe get a flat +5% boost to growth in all cities.

--> Maybe Norway could get a flat +1 faith for improved sea resources, but only for the Ancient, Classical and Medieval eras (or, after the Medieval era, the bonus turns into +1 gold per improved sea resource).

--> The more I think about it, I think Spain should get +1 charges to Missionaries as well as to Inquisitors (discussed above). Weren't Spanish Missionaries a fairly significant thing historically? This obviously doesn't directly help them found a religion. But it would indirectly, by making it more valuable for them to have their own religion, and so improve the opportunity cost trade-off.

 

[acluewithout]

I also had another idea which I thought warranted a separate post.

Should the game's difficulty increase slightly as eras and your research progress?

Some suggestions:

- Move government costs more money. Maybe City (and District) Maintenance could increase +1 for each city for each government tier you have? This what sort of reflect the increased costs / taxes involved in maintaining more sophisticated government systems.

- Rising standards of living. Maybe cities require +1 amenity from the Industrial era onward, and then maybe an additional +1 from the Modern era onward, representing rising standards of living.

- Self determination. Lastly, maybe all capitals get a loyalty boost after Nationalism, but Colonial Cities get a negative to loyalty from (e.g.) the Industrial era onward (representing post-colonial movements). This would need to be balanced out somehow, e.g. maybe colonial cities provide additional gold or culture; and maybe Governors or some policy cards are buffed a little to allow a player to offset the negative to loyalty in colonial cities. You could also instead have a building (like a Governors House or Court Houses) which could help offset this negative loyalty (and maybe also had some benefit tied to it, like gold), but this might then go beyond a 'tweak' to a real gameplay / design change.