India changes?

[Bad Wolf]

So the changes to Arabia naturally flow from the overhaul to trade...

Any guesses on what changes will be made to India? Hopefully something to do with their UA; it's not weak but it is psychologically unsatisfying (starting out with a disincentive to settle early isn't fun). The change is supposed to be minor, but I would hope given the addition of religion last time around and India's place as the home of many of the religions included in the game (Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, as well as a number of other minority faiths including Jainism) that they'd make it something to do with religion.

 

[phaethon16]

I think the Mughal Fort will be the only thing changed. If it's supposed to reflect tourism by gaining a gold boost after flight, then they will just replace that with a tourism boost. Anything more wouldn't be a "small change".

 

[Veras]

I think we can expect a new UA. It would still be a smaller change when compared with France.

 

[Ryoga]

Personally I think India should get religious bonuses not tourism, it should have been tweaked since G&K.

 

[Kennan]

They said it was miner so I think they are removing the per city penalty and reducing the benefit. Something like:
UA: - 25% unhappiness from citizens.

 

[Veras]

They said it was miner so I think they are removing the per city penalty and reducing the benefit. Something like:
UA: - 25% unhappiness from citizens.

That would be a good one, but I really wish they also put something related to religion. The ability to easier found a second religion often comes to my mind.

 

[ShahJahanII]

That would be a good one, but I really wish they also put something related to religion. The ability to easier found a second religion often comes to my mind.

That would be insanely overpowered. The Byzantine UA only gives them an extra belief and it is still one of the most powerful in the game.

 

[Arachnofiend]

I can see a UA change and maybe a modification of how the Mughal Fort works but definitely nothing as drastic as France's overhaul.

I saw an interesting idea for an Indian UA a while back where they get the Follower bonuses for all religions that are in a city, not just the majority one.

 

[Veras]

That would be insanely overpowered. The Byzantine UA only gives them an extra belief and it is still one of the most powerful in the game.

Not so drastically if we cut the Enhancement and/or the number of beliefs of the second religion. Remembering that Byzantium itself can still be changed.

 

[Ajay Sabharwal]

Even though every wants the Indian UA to improve, I don't think it is going to happen.
They talked about subtle changer which possibly cannot change the India UA and game play so drastically.

I think India would get a tourism bonus from the Mughal Fort.

 

[ShahJahanII]

Not so drastically if we cut the Enhancement and/or the number of beliefs of the second religion. Remembering that Byzantium itself can still be changed.

That may be hard to implement, but it is an interesting idea for a mod. However, it does seem very unlikely to happen.

 

[phaethon16]

Just because we have a new expansion doesn't mean we have to change everything. I have heard people talk about changing Germany, Arabia, the Netherlands, America, Austria, India, Byzantium, Carthage, Songhai, Mongolia, and Spain. Do we really need all of that? Can't we just make small adjusts like they did to England in G+K? India doesn't need a real overhaul, and if it did they would have done it in G+K when they first introduced religion. If we see anything more then a small change to the UB, I will be surprised and disappointed.

 

[Veras]

That may be hard to implement, but it is an interesting idea for a mod. However, it does seem very unlikely to happen.

Me too, but a man can dream. Leaving the Bizantine question out of it, I think it could be quite simple system where 'A second religion with less beliefs can be founded without enhancing your first religion. No other religion can be founded upon enhancement'. Or something like that.

 

[Aaron90495]

India doesn't need a real overhaul.

If any civ needs an overhaul, it's India. They are unanimously the worst civ in the game, and their ability is a penalty until late in the game; by that point, you've probably already lost due to the UA's penalty aspect.

 

[Crafty Bison]

Just because we have a new expansion doesn't mean we have to change everything. I have heard people talk about changing Germany, Arabia, the Netherlands, America, Austria, India, Byzantium, Carthage, Songhai, Mongolia, and Spain. Do we really need all of that? Can't we just make small adjusts like they did to England in G+K? India doesn't need a real overhaul, and if it did they would have done it in G+K when they first introduced religion. If we see anything more then a small change to the UB, I will be surprised and disappointed.

Don't forget Japan!

I think it's nice to have an India thread where not every bonus is about bonuses from rivers. Pretty much every single idea I've seen relating to river bonuses would be dull as dish water to play with, no matter how well the idea relates historically. However, he idea about getting multiple follower bonuses sounds really cool, and I'd have to spend as much thought into it as getting the Candi to work (which will be a lot).

If you're asking what I think will actually happen, then I think it may be a boring mughal fort to tourism at flight instead of gold thing, much like other guys.

 

[adwcta]

I don't see why India wasn't always: "Each city founded after the capital causes one additional unhappiness for each Indian city that exists at that time. Half unhappiness from population."

So, 1 city = -3 (as with all civs, not India's current UA of -6)
2 cities = -7 (as opposed to -6 for other civs, and -12 for current India UA)
3 cities = -12 (as opposed to -9 for other civs, and -18 for current India UA)
4 cities = -18 (as opposed to -12 for other civs, and -24 for current India UA)
...
10 cities = -75 (as opposed to -30 for other civs, and -60 for current India UA)

This has the same effect they're trying to go for with India, which is to penalize them for being wide, without destroying their early game expansion abilities. Right now, instead of constraining India's late game wide-ness (India's actually pretty decent for going wide, because it's UA gives them a ton of extra happiness for the mid-late game, once aqueducts kick in), it's penalizing India by making it impossible to expand early/fast to get to its 3-4 total cities. I don't think that was ever the intention with India, so having a rising unhappiness cost per city makes more sense than a flat -3 penalty per city (which hurts early expansion much more than late expansion).

So, this would actually force India to go tall, while not hurting its ability to establish its first couple of cities that much (more like how India developed in history).

 

[arik24]

India UA is fine as is its just that many people don't understand how it works

 

[arik24]

Just because we have a new expansion doesn't mean we have to change everything. I have heard people talk about changing Germany, Arabia, the Netherlands, America, Austria, India, Byzantium, Carthage, Songhai, Mongolia, and Spain. Do we really need all of that? Can't we just make small adjusts like they did to England in G+K? India doesn't need a real overhaul, and if it did they would have done it in G+K when they first introduced religion. If we see anything more then a small change to the UB, I will be surprised and disappointed.

finally someone who realizes we dont need to change the UAs in major way and the UA's might get better with the new BNW stuff.

 

[I_qua_I]

I don't see why India wasn't always: "Each city founded after the capital causes one additional unhappiness for each Indian city that exists at that time. Half unhappiness from population."

So, 1 city = -3 (as with all civs, not India's current UA of -6)
2 cities = -7 (as opposed to -6 for other civs, and -12 for current India UA)
3 cities = -12 (as opposed to -9 for other civs, and -18 for current India UA)
4 cities = -18 (as opposed to -12 for other civs, and -24 for current India UA)
...
10 cities = -75 (as opposed to -30 for other civs, and -60 for current India UA)

This has the same effect they're trying to go for with India, which is to penalize them for being wide, without destroying their early game expansion abilities. Right now, instead of constraining India's late game wide-ness (India's actually pretty decent for going wide, because it's UA gives them a ton of extra happiness for the mid-late game, once aqueducts kick in), it's penalizing India by making it impossible to expand early/fast to get to its 3-4 total cities. I don't think that was ever the intention with India, so having a rising unhappiness cost per city makes more sense than a flat -3 penalty per city (which hurts early expansion much more than late expansion).

So, this would actually force India to go tall, while not hurting its ability to establish its first couple of cities that much (more like how India developed in history).

It's too complicated; not in a conceptual way but rather in what it would require of the player each time a new city is founded. Sure, in the beginning it's not bad, but sometimes when I get pretty big I'm not sure exactly how many cities I have and I don't want to have to check each time. It would also suck on huge maps where the number of cities you might want is pretty big.

 

[Rooftrellen]

I think they'll likely get a small change in that the unhappiness doesn't take effect until the city grows a bit.

If a city has to have, say, 4 pop before you get the doubled unhappiness, it would allow India to expand and avoid growth to found cities, as well as delay unhappiness from unchecked city growth, AND really dampen the penalty.